Note: This Correspondence page will be ongoing, and we encourage others to communicate their experiences.  If you (or someone you know) was banned or reprimanded at Catholic Answers Forums for what you (they) believe are dubious reasons, please contact our editors.  If your account is applicable in this Correspondence, we will be happy to give you a voice here, and we will be careful not divulge your identity.  God love you.

Response from Webmaster: We received correspondence from some alarmed contributors to Catholic Answers Forums (CAF), an online supplementary community dicussion forum to Catholic.com. These communications expressed various criticisms of administrative policy, particularly in respect to private revelations. Unified objections appear focused on one particular rule.  CAF regulations comprise a banned topics list that prohibits certain discussion pertaining to "unapproved" private revelations. The prefix "unapproved" preceding "private revelation" can be quite misleading, as it doesn’t necessarily indicate a condemned revelation. In most instances, the term pertains to a private revelation that has not yet been approved by the Catholic Church. Such private revelations may be on a backlist for consideration or review (1).

An example would be the apparitions of "Our Lady of Fatima" which commenced on May 13, 1917, and culminated with the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917 (2).  It took thirteen long years and a change of Bishops before a Church approval could be realized. Witness interviews, such as those conducted by Fr. John De Marchi, (Italian Catholic priest & researcher) and Author John Haffert (founder of the Blue Army of Fatima) expressed serious reservations by the Local Ordinary. Immediately prior to The Miracle of the Sun, witnesses accounts detailed how Catholic Priests from the local Parish attempted to disperse the crowd, declaring the apparition of Our Lady a hoax. When the crowd refused to leave, a Priest sought to physically pick up the children and carry them away, but the multitude of people prevented him.  As this action by the Local Parish Priests seemed to be an orchestrated effort, some townspeople hypothesized that these Priests may have been under instruction of the Local Ordinary (3, 4).

CAF rule 25 reads as follows: "Promoting unapproved apparitions and revelations (those not approved by the Church for private or public devotion) or alleged private locutions" (5).  This statute may seem simple enough, but closer analysis reveals a fundamental flaw. It would be less reckless if the word "Discussing" was employed in place of "Promoting", as the statute wording unfairly allows for opposition while prohibiting defense.  Often referred to as a "check-valve" policy (only allowing fluid flow one direction, but not the other).  A CAF member clarifies; "Actually, the rule is that we are not allowed to promote these apparitions. We are free to be critical of them (and a number of threads have done so)" (6, 7).  In essence, members are permitted to write adverse posts, but nothing defensive or favorable, even to correct a blatant fabrication or falsehood.   Both the Old and New Testament state that we are not to bear false witness.  There are no examples in the Bible of Jesus condoning libel or slander.  For generations, our mothers have always told us the old adage; "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all".  Notwithstanding, the wording of CAF rule 25 instructs the reverse.  Conscientious evaluation the threads on CAF reveal how this disproportion has proven to be very volatile, as the exploited loop-hole has unleashed various pompous unrelenting CAF members into a feeding-frenzy of inexorable attacks, condemnation and criticism of unapproved private revelations, the associated messengers, as well as CAF members compelled to write corrective posts. Email messages sent to us by banned and reprimanded members claim that some CAF moderators have specifically targeted members writing defensive posts against uncharitable attacks, which sequentially exploded into mass banning. Several claimed that this banning consecutively expanded to encompass those attempting to act as peacemakers, in effort to persuade stalking members and predatory moderators to ease up on members who were being "ganged up" on.  One irritated CAF member expressed that it felt like "being excoriated for playing the role of the good Samarian".

At the time of the Fatima apparitions, local Parishioners described how even after the Miracle, Priests sympathetic to the Fatima children were chastised and sometimes relocated to distant Parishes before the Official Church approval in 1930. Consequently, Our Lady of Fatima was an "unapproved" apparition from 1917 to 1930, when the Church finally recognized the events as "worthy of belief". If you take CAF site administrator's philosophy concerning "unapproved" and apply it to that period of time (1917-1930), every single person who went to the Cova de Iria that day was in violation. Hence, permitting an open-season for derision by self-righteous posters. Witness accounts described their long trek through the town of Alburitel towards Fatima in the drenching rain.  Some townspeople stood by the side of the road laughing, ridiculing and scoffing at the drove of people passing through their village. In a way, these scoffers can likewise represent those ridiculing unapproved private apparitions in posts today.  Hypothetically, if CAF existed during the period of time when Fatima was an "unapproved" apparition, members would likely be permitted to fabricate all kinds of posts condemning the Fatima Apparitions, as well as verbally rotisserating the three visionary children.  Those coming to the aid of the mocked children would represent members being banned and reprimanded on CAF today.

When browsing CAF threads, the overwhelming number of banned members is a real eye-opener. These remnant posts are often referred to by CAF contributors as the "dead bodies", and they are all over the place. Most striking is that the bulk of remaining posts are very cogent articulations espoused by particularly Conservative devout Catholics. Reading through various back posts of these banned folks can be somewhat distressing, as they are an unmistakable tell-tale that that something very ominous is occurring.  Distressing because it appears to be another "Catholic" enterprise in the process of being subdued by the evil one.  Those who vented their frustrations in correspondence conveyed that the alarming number of banned members is the predominant topic of internal communications among CAF members. These wounded ex-members described how it began with handful of self-righteous predatory members with accumulated seniority.  These members took to stalking contributors who previously exhibited interest in proscribed topics, attempting to "push their buttons". One of these prowlers with "Forum Master" status is sometimes referred to as "the kiss of death".  It was explained that "if he addresses you in a thread, just log off and wait a few days", as any debate would eventually lead to a permanent ban.  One banned member wrote that when this fellow engaged her in a thread, she started "getting bombarded with instant messages warning her to keep away from this person, but it was too late".  One would expect a "Catholic" forum to be Charitable, but quick surface skimming tends to indicate; apparently not this one. These bans are unlike most forums, which merely prevent a login. CAF bans are thorough, preventing the excoriated victim from viewing the site or reading past friend's comments and posts as a non-member could.  Loading  the CAF site in the browser displays "You are banned forever".  Apparently the CAF site administrators eventually became concerned themselves by the heaps of remaining posts by banned members, and started mass deletions to clean house, and bury the skeletons. Several banned members conveyed that many months of posts disappeared, and in some cases leaving no trace of their previous CAF forum participation.

Rather than reiterating all the criteria supporting Maria Valtorta that can be found on this site, it may be more effective to expand the discussion to other relevant apparitions.  On July 13, 2011, ABC's Nightline Prime featured the Medjugorje Apparitions on a Documentary entitled "The Miracle Mysteries".  ABC reported that as of the filming, 40 million people made pilgrimages to Medjugorje.  Nearly all of these pilgrims are Catholics (as Buddhists, Jews, Muslims and Protestants, etc. have big issues with Mary).  And this just represents the Catholics who believed in Medjugorje so strongly that they flew halfway around the world to actually be there.  It would be impossible for CAF site administrators to expect that members could make posts criticizing or condemning Our Holy Mother of Medjugorje and the visionaries without others taking offence.  Particularly when the Vatican website compares the Medjugorje Apparitions to Lourdes (8). Ridiculing unapproved and even banned visionaries can be an injustice, as St. Mary Faustina Kowalska's Divine Mercy was banned by the Catholic Church for dozens of years (9).  People wrote many articles and editorials that surface to this day condemning Saint Faustina and asserting that her visions were from the devil (10).  "In the period from 1924 to 1931 the Holy See made various statements denying the happenings in the life of Padre Pio were due to any divine cause.  At one point, he was prevented from publicly performing his priestly duties, such as hearing confessions and saying Mass" (11).  Yet on CAF, apparitions such as Bayside, Garabandal, Fr. Stefano Gobbi, Medjugorje, Vassula Ryden and Maria Valtorta are subjected routine criticism, while severely limiting effective recourse.  An example would be how a member judgmental of Medjugorje touted audio tapes that proved the visionaries were lying (12).  A former CAF member wrote in that he was banned for correcting this assertion with links illustrating that when the Vatican examined these thirty year old tape recordings (made when the visionaries were children), they contained cuts, deleted segments, doctoring, spliced conversations, as well as being undecipherable in at least 148 instances (13).  He claims his post was quickly deleted.  When attempting another post with additional links, he was banned.  "The forum administers do sometimes allow posts supporting apparitions such as Medjugorje, as long as the members in opposition have a clear upper edge.  But when the tides change, the thread is closed or deleted, and typically several members supporting the apparition end up banned".

When reviewing threads on CAF, we were surprised that some of the biggest fireworks were over an approved apparition, "Our Lady of Akita" (14, 15). According to very reliable Catholic sites such as EWTN, Akita was not only approved by the Local Bishop John Shojiro Ito, but also authenticated by Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict) (17, 16).  "People on this forum (CAF) fight very hard against the Akita Apparitions, which is difficult to comprehend, it was approved by Cardinal Razinger Himself.  However, the Cardinal's approval was verbal to the Local Bishop Ito, who recorded this in His Public articles of the events, and in a Japanese book.  Notwithstanding, it's highly problematic to contend that a Catholic Bishop could write something untrue that was permanently municipal, and could easily get back to the Prime Cardinal.  Bishop Ito's personal and public records of the events was never challenged by the Vatican.  However these people (CAF) have allowed members to contest the local Bishop and His account of the events.  Something that is in complete opposition to every rule and regulation they have.  They (CAF) ban people all the time for defending accusations against Medjugorje, because the forum administrators claim they are in contempt of the local Bishop Ratko Peric's judgment.  They are so twofaced, you can't have it both ways.  I partly believe this apparition is so hotly contested because Akita reveals that the 'devil has entered the Church', and predominantly because they (CAF) reject anything and everything pertaining to the Great Chastisement; which is described in the Akita revelations as: 'fire will fall down from the sky and wipe out a great part of humanity'.  One of the pack hostile to these Marian visitations wrote that the 'fire' proclamation proved that it was a crackpot apparition.  I reasoned to myself, how did Jesus fight off the devil in the desert?  He quoted scripture.  Well, that's what got me booted.  I was actually banned for quoting the Bible, I responded with: 'Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them On the day of the Lord’s wrath; And all the Earth will be devoured in fire' (Zepheniah 1 - 2).  Once you back these people in the corner, you never have the opportunity to declare checkmate.  That whole portion of the thread was pruned off."