Response to Dr. Mark I. Miravalle

Concerning His Reply to Unity Publishing

On “Anne” the “Lay Apostle”

By Kevin J. Symonds

“And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

2 Corinthians 11:12-15

I read in earnest the reply of Dr. Mark Miravalle in response to Mr. Richard Salbato’s exposé on ‘Anne the Lay Apostle.’ [i] To be honest, I was quite disappointed to say nothing of outraged. Not only did the response contain glaring embarrassments, it also indirectly admitted to a scandalous and damnable cover-up. In this response, I would like to discuss what Dr. Miravalle writes and expound further upon it.

Authority:

To begin, I would like to contextualize the document. Dr. Miravalle is a private theologian acting as an advisor and friend to Anne/Kathryn. The document in question appears to be non-binding in nature as the Bishop of Kilmore himself did not write the response. Unless Dr. Miravalle claims and verifies that he was acting as the Bishop’s representative, this response is not official and to be considered a private opinion. Even though it is his private opinion, I have learned from the Direction for Our Times organization that it has adopted the response as theirs. Thus in addressing Dr. Miravalle, I also speak to Direction for Our Times.

Overview of the Text:

Dr. Miravalle’s response is written so as to cut the argument of Unity Publishing off at the start. There is a personal lack of objectivity displayed by Dr. Miravalle that seems to be rooted in his belief in Anne/Kathryn’s claims. The reader is treated to a biting fierceness and giddiness typical of apparition chasers who undyingly believe in questionable ‘seers’ or ‘locutionists.’ [ii] The bark is worse than the bite, however, and my response intends to look at this as well as some of the gaping holes within the text. These points not only embarrass Anne/Kathryn’s ‘inner sanctum’ of confidants, directors and friends but they cast complete doubt upon the authenticity of her claims.

Original Texts:

As stated, Dr. Miravalle’s response is to an exposé of Anne/Kathryn from Unity Publishing. We would do well to start this section by going back and looking at the major points of the exposé. Unity Publishing makes the following points:

1. Anne’s real name is Kathryn Ann Clarke.

2. Anne/Kathryn is a divorced and remarried Catholic (was there an annulment?).

3. Anne/Kathryn was reportedly abused by her first husband and wrote a questionable book about her story (fictionalized for story effects) entitled The Breakable Vow.

4. Anne/Kathryn started and ran an organization for battered women called Domestic Violence Prevention, Inc. (DVP) in Chicago, Illinois.

5. Anne/Kathryn continued to promote Breakable Vow even during the time of receiving her alleged locutions as well as kept involvement with DVP, Inc.

6. As part of this involvement, she dresses differently when she is ‘Anne’ (conservatively and no make-up) and when she’s Kathryn (more modern looking with make-up).

7. Anne/Kathryn counseled a woman who now works with DFOT as its C.E.O.

8. This C.E.O. had her tubes tied at Anne/Kathryn’s counsel. The CEO later divorced and is said to be a result (not directly) of Anne/Kathryn’s counsel.

9. Anne/Kathryn is deliberately defrauding people by using God’s Name to sell her message and reach another audience.

There are more points that could be focused upon but for now we will work with the above.

Unity Publishing’s argument, insofar as the merits of the article were concerned, can be summed up in the following way:

Kathryn Ann Clarke, a Catholic, is a battered woman who divorced her husband at age 20. She studied criminal law and began an organization for battered women, acting as a counselor to fellow abused women. In this position, she has advised at least one thing that contradicts Catholic teaching. The advice has been given during the period of time that Anne/Kathryn claims to be receiving locutions and she continues work with her organization, even changing appearances for both lives as counselor and locutionist. This profile rules out that Anne/Kathryn is a legitimate locutionist.

The argument raises a serious question concerning the legitimacy of Anne/Kathryn’s claim. Dr. Miravalle, however, doesn’t see it that way and in fact attempts to turn the argument on its head. Dr. Miravalle makes no excuses for the alleged revelations of Anne/Kathryn and unabashedly continues forward in them. In fact, he construes his argument from the point of the alleged messages. He addresses the doubtful legitimacy statements of Unity Publishing by creating a dichotomy that separates the actions of Anne/Kathryn as heaven [allegedly] requests privacy. [iii]

Dr. Miravalle does not address some key issues and in fact blindsides them. He treats what he believes is the real fundamental issue—time frames. Miravalle gives a three-point response and fleshes out his argument along these lines:

1. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gives the guideline that—and I quote Dr. Miravalle—“the examination of the reported visionary focuses principally upon their moral life, integrity, and obedience to Church authority principally from the initiation and for the duration of the reported revelation” (emphasis Miravalle’s).

2. Examination of reported messages in three areas of criticisms:

· Content of messages (doctrinal content).

· Any concurrent phenomena.

· Spiritual fruits.

3. Local Bishop is the authority to judge any claims to private revelations.

These are all standard procedures that Rome has given. Dr. Miravalle teaches them in his Mariology courses (save the first one, which is unique to my ears as a former student of his twice over). There are a number of remaining questions that, unfortunately, Dr. Miravalle doesn’t address. To set about asking and answering them as well as demonstrating my claims to how he construes his argument, I will go by the three-point format given by Dr. Miravalle.

Point One:

Dr. Miravalle’s argument in point one can be summarized as follows: Anne/Kathryn’s past life before the locutions [allegedly] began is irrelevant according to the criterion set by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for judging private revelations. What Dr. Miravalle doesn’t give is a citation from the C.D.F. document. Without one, the reader is at a loss to know the precise wording of the text and is at the mercy of ignorance. Either Dr. Miravalle’s word is to be trusted or it isn’t. That he doesn’t even name the document creates a researching problem. The reader could find a flurry of documents pertinent to the subject. The question is, which one is Dr. Miravalle’s reference?

If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Miravalle is referring to a 1978 document that the CDF wrote and which gives criteria for Catholic Bishops to use in judging/discerning claims to private revelations. This document was given in secretum to the Bishops by Rome but was leaked to the general public. It can be found in Un Signe dans le Ciel (A Sign in Heaven) by Joachim Bouflet and Philippe Boutry, 1997, pages 396-99. It is also available online in an unofficial English translation.[iv] It should also be known that the Vatican is updating this document.[v]

Going through the document, the reader finds one line and one line only that Dr. Miravalle seems to be drawing upon—section I:B:d. Section I is entitled “Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.” This section speaks of two ways of judging the character of supposed revelations—a positive and negative way. Part d reads as follows under the negative criterion:

“Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.”

Dr. Miravalle, and again this is at the mercy of ignorance, interprets this guideline as excluding a purported visionary or locutionist’s life before the alleged phenomena began. Is this the case and is what Rome intended?

Needless to say, there are some questions about Dr. Miravalle’s interpretation of this document (again, begging ignorance). Is the ‘past life’ of an alleged visionary or locutionist not known by a Diocese (or Rome) in an investigation? Is there truly a ‘gaping hole’ to be left in an investigation of these claims? Should the so-called ‘past life’ be left out in such an investigation? To answer that last question in the negative would be so preposterous that no self-respecting Mariologist or researcher of alleged apparitions would dare to attempt such.

The entire life of alleged visionaries or locutionists is questioned, recorded and examined by Church officials and I challenge Dr. Miravalle to demonstrate otherwise beyond doubt or question from any of the approved apparitions. Witnesses, friends, associates, etc., are all ways of helping to discern the person in question. Why? They provide a valuable insight into the character and make up of alleged visionaries and locutionists. We need to have an idea of the person’s past to help explain their psychological make up. Psychology is a point, it should be noted, that is given a nod in the following line of the CDF document (I:E) immediately after the above citation.

It is plainly evident that the above things are not forgotten about or made irrelevant, as Dr. Miravalle seems to think and intimates to us. Never in the history of the approved and major apparitions has the Blessed Virgin appeared to someone who is psychologically unfit or who has come from a bad upbringing. It is uncharacteristic of heaven precisely because it casts doubt and suspicion upon the authenticity of the message heaven itself is trying to communicate! The old adage, “shooting yourself in the foot” comes to mind here.

Dr. Miravalle then proceeds to advance his argument in this section by calling to mind three Saints—St. Matthew, St. Mary Magdalen and St. Paul. All were sinners before coming to Christ. Thus, intimates Dr. Miravalle, it is not a question for Anne/Kathryn to have led a questionable life before receiving her [alleged] locutions. In short, all is well now that she has [supposedly] converted. While there are a few things that could be pointed out, I shall restrict myself to pointing out one.

There is a key difference between Anne/Kathryn and the above named Saints. We know these Saints’ past lives, their sins even. St. Matthew was a tax collector, a traitor to his own people. St. Mary Magdalen had seven demons (also long reputed to have been a prostitute). St. Paul persecuted Christ and His Church. Anne/Kathryn hides her past life, claiming a heavenly gag order. Not only she, but her inner sanctum of advisors hides her life as well. They say it is because her past is irrelevant but the evidence points, rather, to their belief in Anne’s claims, particularly the alleged gag order. In short, they are putting the cart before the horse by starting from the claim and working from there. They believe Anne/Kathryn first and foremost instead of acting from the tradition of discerning alleged heavenly messages.

Jesus, in the Holy Scriptures says, “So have no fear of them; for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops” (Matthew 10:26-7). When people go public, especially with such claims as those of private revelations, they are vulnerable to open criticism. It would appear, however, that Anne/Kathryn thinks herself bulletproof with an alleged heavenly gag order. It can be easily stated that the character of Anne/Kathryn and her claims looks more and more like a woman paranoid of her past and trying to find a way to stop people from finding it out. What better way to do it than to claim “heaven said so”?

It further appears that Anne/Kathryn used a lot of people in the process—including a Bishop—to achieve the above effect. This is an outrageous abuse to and of authority, not to mention a damnable predatory act against the simple faith of thousands of people. Those who have paid money to buy her books or traveled to hear her speak should rise up in righteous anger and demand an explanation.

Dr. Miravalle neglects to address the claim of Unity Publishing that ‘Anne’ still continues to do work with DVP, Inc. It isn’t that she simply dropped the organization like a bag of hot potatoes upon the start of these alleged ‘locutions.’ Matter of fact, Direction For Our Times makes it known on their web site that Anne/Kathryn has been receiving these ‘locutions’ since she was in her 20’s! That tells me she is living a double life and a questionable one at that. There is not a discontinuance of Anne/Kathryn’s past life and this alone would call Dr. Miravalle’s claim of irrelevance into severe question.[vi]

Another point I wish to address in this section of Dr. Miravalle’s points is what he doesn’t say. After laying out his first argument, there is a noticeable silence on one of Unity Publishing’s explosive claims—the real name of ‘Anne.’ Dr. Miravalle does not deny in any way, shape or form that ‘Anne’ is really Kathryn Ann Clarke, to say nothing of Kathryn’s activities as an abused women counselor. Matter of fact, the way his argument goes, Dr. Miravalle would seem to confirm it by saying Anne’s past life is irrelevant and dropping it there! A look at the rest of the document outside of this first point doesn’t tell of a denial either.

This is strange. Why doesn’t Dr. Miravalle address this particular claim of Unity Publishing? The apparent conclusion is that he believes in the alleged heavenly gag order and will not give any more credence to Unity Publishing’s claims than is absolutely necessary. In short—he is still protecting Anne/Kathryn. What he forgot was a principle attested to by Robert Bolt in his play A Man for All Seasons, “He who is silent gives consent.” Dr. Miravalle banked us, his readers, to go simply by his words and parroting of [what he thinks is] Rome in the process to dodge the issue.

Scrutinizing his words, however, is what reveals an even greater scandal. Dr. Miravalle and others in Anne/Kathryn’s inner sanctum knew not only of Anne’s real name but they also knew her past and tried to keep it away from the public! Granted, it was because they believe Anne/Kathryn’s alleged gag order directive but that does not excuse them from one fact in the form of a question—is ‘Anne’ making this gag order claim up to protect her past?

Apparently, it is then that the inner sanctum looked at the C.D.F. document and took it literally on the point quoted above to the neglect of the larger tradition it was written in. Again, it is the cart before the horse. In the meantime, the rest of us are all left out of the loop so how do we know that ‘Anne’ even repudiated her ‘former’ life? The public didn’t even know of it in the first place because the image it was being given was of, to use Dr. Miravalle’s words later in the document, “an outstanding wife and mother.” Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest there was no repudiation.

Essentially, what Dr. Miravalle is basically saying to us here is ‘trust us, we’re the authorities.’ We know from experience that authority without some measure of accountability never works. This is not to infringe upon right and lawful authority as laid down by the divine and Catholic faith, especially as it is recorded in the sacred canons. It is, however, a reminder to that authority to not be blind in its investigations of private revelations.

The last part in Dr. Miravalle’s first point that I’d like to address is his response to the surgical sterilization claim of Unity Publishing. Out of this entire first point of Dr. Miravalle, this is the only very damning claim of Unity Publishing that is directly addressed. Thinking of the divorce between the past and the start of the alleged revelations, Dr. Miravalle goes to attack the claim by stating, “Anne has never in her life advised anyone to have a surgical procedure of sterilization or to divorce a spouse.” He says that Unity Publishing’s claim is “unfortunately filled with factual errors which have been identified and confirmed as erroneous by primary sources.”

I have some questions concerning these statements. First of all, if Dr. Miravalle believes himself to be correct with that distinction of past and present, why even bother to mention if Anne/Kathryn never advised anyone to be sterilized “in her life”? Does he now wish to include in the criteria of judging Anne/Kathryn her past before these alleged revelations began or does he mean ‘life’ to mean from that moment of ‘messages’ inception onward? Was he simply adding the past for emphasis? However one looks at it, the Doctor can’t have it both ways. Either you include the past or you do not.

My next major question is who are the sources of this response? Anne/Kathryn? The CEO of Direction for Our Times herself or perhaps the others in the inner sanctum? Who else could serve as “primary sources” except these people? Again, all we have to go by is Dr. Miravalle’s words. He does not cite himself except to say “primary sources.” This does not bode well for Dr. Miravalle’s argument because it is precisely these people who are in question as regards being truthful. If he takes their word for it without any concurrent evidence, he has created a sort of vicious circularity and damage is done to an objective look at the situation. This is to say nothing of further suspicion being cast upon Anne/Kathryn’s claims. In short: Dr. Miravalle is doing more harm to her cause than good.

Though it is also a minor point, I would also like to point out a wrongful statement. Dr. Miravalle claims that “Anne has never in her life [given advice] to divorce a spouse.” That, in fact, is not what was in the article by Unity Publishing. The original article read as follows, “Within 8 months of the operation, Clarke’s advice led to filing [for] divorce….” What was meant by that, I understand from my reading of the text, was that Kathryn Clarke’s advice for sterilization ultimately led to filing for divorce. The grammar is ambiguous but if Mr. Salbato meant to say that Kathryn directly advised a divorce, he would have written it that way.[vii]

Furthermore, since Dr. Miravalle believes in a dichotomy between ‘Anne’ and ‘Kathryn’ as he seems to suggest later in his letter, could he mean ‘Anne’ here to mean as concerns her work as an alleged locutionist?[viii] If that’s the case, then what we have is a tongue-in-cheek reference for later exploitation if someone were to fall into this verbal trap.

Point Two:

Dr. Miravalle’s shorter argument here in point two can be summarized as follows: We must look at the content of the [alleged] messages for doctrinal content as well as any concurring phenomena and spiritual fruits of the messages before they can be judged as false or true. Again, this is standard procedure but the fact of Dr. Miravalle’s distinction between past and present (which he opens up point two with) continues to harass and harangue his own argument.

Dr. Miravalle does not discuss any concurring phenomena or spiritual fruits. What he does here is address the claim of Unity Publishing that “there is no real Catholic virtues like forgiveness, love, kindness, sacrifice, patience or any kind of love for the sinner. There is certainly no love for the Sacrament of Marriage or care and love of children, viewed as a burden, rather than precious gifts from God.”

Being familiar with Unity Publishing’s style of writing, I will concede to Dr. Miravalle that there was error in the claim, but not in its entirety. Where there was error, in my humble opinion, was in a literal reading of the texts at hand. The alleged messages to Anne/Kathryn speak of those things listed by Unity Publishing and responded to by Dr. Miravalle. Where Dr. Miravalle falls short on, however, is style of the words and that, I believe, was the real point that Mr. Salbato was trying to make. Allow me to explain.

Though Dr. Miravalle leaves this criterion out in his response, one of the criteria of judging alleged messages from heaven is personality. What personality comes forth in these alleged messages? This question is asked because it is relatively easy to be versed in legitimate spiritual writings and then rehash them in one’s own words, claiming they are from heaven. When one reads approved accounts of private revelations, however, they always and continuously see a simplicity and directness that is characteristic of heaven.

The wise man says little, or so the proverb goes. This is applicable no less to Our Lady, the Seat of Wisdom (Maria Sedes Sapientiae). If someone is rehashing spiritual texts, the result is a difference in the tone, style and tenor of the new text(s) and the person is hard pressed to reproduce the heavenly simplicity, as it were. Thus it is a part of the larger discernment tradition to question and probe the personality that comes forth in alleged heavenly messages.

To further clarify, when discerning alleged messages, we always look for what I call “The Three H’s”—Heaven, Hell or Human. If alleged messages are repetitive, droning and seem to go on and on (in both time duration—i.e. for years as well as the text of an individual message itself), then it is most likely that there is a strong human element at work. Severe doubt is cast upon the authenticity of the claim in such an event.[ix] However one slices the cake on the issue, personality is a legitimate criterion for discernment of alleged private revelations and is a part of the discernment tradition. In the case of Anne/Kathryn, I believe that is what Mr. Salbato was intending to get at in the above text in question.

Though I will not speak for Mr. Salbato, I believe from my reading of Anne/Kathryn’s writings that it is valid to say there are a lot of human elements in these alleged messages from heaven. While I accept the limitations of my knowledge, I have personally found the messages to be droning, not to mention boring and I know that I am not alone in this thought. The ultimate blow, however, will come when a comprehensive study is done between Anne/Kathryn’s The Breakable Vow and the Volumes (et al). To date, this has not been done and I earnestly look forward to a comprehensive study done on the subject. I would suggest that people find the first edition, first print of Breakable to accomplish such a task.

I have spoken of the larger discernment tradition and I’d like to highlight one point of it to contrast with what Dr. Miravalle is doing in his response. He makes of the CDF document an end unto itself and that is not Catholic but rather a pseudo-Protestant ‘Sola Scriptura’ method of reading the document. It is a text written in a larger tradition, as I have said, and the document in no way was intended to be exhaustive. I challenge Dr. Miravalle to prove otherwise.

Allow me to demonstrate one reason why the document in question isn’t exhaustive. In the larger tradition that I’ve spoken of, there is a teaching of St. Bernardine of Siena readily available in the Roman Breviary on the Feast of St. Joseph. St. Bernardine teaches:

“There is a general rule concerning all special graces granted to any human being. Whenever the divine favor chooses someone to receive a special grace, or to accept a lofty vocation, God adorns the person chosen with all the gifts of the Spirit needed to fulfill the task at hand.” [x]

Certainly someone seeing or hearing Jesus, Mary or the Saints is receiving special graces just as St. Joseph was blessed to see Jesus and be his foster father. Do we find this criterion of preparation in the CDF document in question? No, we do not. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that the document in question was not exhaustive. To put it even more simply, if it was exhaustive, why is Rome looking to update the document?[xi]

Point Three:

Dr. Miravalle’s argument in point three can be summarized as follows: The local Bishop is the final authority on matters concerning the discernment of [alleged] private revelations. ‘Anne’ works with her bishop and his representatives as well as submits herself to Rome and her virtues of humility and obedience should be lauded.

While we must in the discernment of such matters look towards the local Bishop, Dr. Miravalle’s hyping up the issue is actually not very relevant to the point of Unity Publishing’s article. Dr. Miravalle is rehashing the ‘trust us, we’re the authority’ argument and it just doesn’t work. I need not repeat myself on the subject of the inner sanctum and the exclusivity of discernment on Anne/Kathryn. What I will say is that hyping up purported humility and obedience will not advance Dr. Miravalle’s argument when the truthfulness of these claims, not to mention of Anne/Kathryn’s person, is in question. I ask only one question in response to this hype—would you not obey and be suppliant to those who are protecting you against possible exposure?

Dr. Miravalle uses, in his justification for all of this, the alleged messages given to Anne/Kathryn, especially the alleged gag order. This is again, a sort of vicious circularity. Despite that, I’ll take the bull by the horns. While it may explain (I’m not convinced of this, but it is a valid point) why certain people around Anne/Kathryn are acting the way they do, it does not entirely explain Anne/Kathryn’s actions. Doubt remains on this very point and until it is resolved, it is not prudent to say that what we are dealing with is true humility and obedience. This, I believe, is where Dr. Miravalle jumps the gun in declaring humility and obedience to be where it is in fact questionable.

I would also like to make a minor point in response to Dr. Miravalle’s claim towards the end of this section. He says, “Anne, in fact, happens to be an outstanding wife and mother, and her exceptional concern and love for each of her six precious children have been witnessed and testified to by scores of internationally known priests, religious, and laity who have been privileged to visit their home.” I have one question in response to this. Who can verify what happens in this home when such celebrated and non-celebrated persons are not around? The responses would be very revealing.

Conclusion:

When all is said and done, a lot of doubt exists concerning the claims of ‘Anne the Lay Apostle’ and/or Kathryn Ann Clarke. Her believers and apologists such as Dr. Mark Miravalle do not do an adequate job in defending her claims because they are so titillated by and ensconced with the messages that they lose objectivity. This, in fact, only does more damage to Anne/Kathryn’s claims. What we have seen here in this response of the Doctor is blatant scandal, cover-ups and an embarrassing disregard for prudence and discretion in the assessment and evaluation of a claim to private revelation.

The final judgment of the matter is to be left to the Holy Church and that only after a fair investigation. In the meantime, people should also educate themselves in the principles of discerning heavenly claims and make a judgment whether or not to allow entrance of Anne/Kathryn’s writings into their spiritual life. I can say with certitude that there is more to be written and so everyone will have a lot to think about.

Kevin J. Symonds

B.A., M.A.

Theology

16 March 2007 A.D.