A few years back I did an article on an alleged private revelation going on in Southeast Michigan, in a place called Pinckney, at St. Mary's Catholic Church (here). The seer, Carolyn Belprez-Kwiecinski, contacted me and asked that I post some clarifications. While I still am skeptical about these revelations, I am happily obliging her by correcting some factual information from the first post. Below is her statement.
Boniface, I came across your website and was skimming your posts when, to my surprise, I found myself the subject of one of them. I read your post with great interest. Unfortunately, I discovered some factual errors that I would like to correct and some points I would like to clarify. I hope you will consider posting my response along with your original article so others can have the most accurate information.
After quoting from the book, “Heavenly Grace”, you wrote:“Two things are interesting about the so-called messages to Carolyn: first, as with the Medjugorje seers, Mary (and sometimes the saints) speak through her in the first person, as if Carolyn in "possessed" by the one speaking.”
This is not quite the case. At the time during which I received the words from the Lord or Our Lady, I heard them interiorly and was then able to repeat them to the group who had gathered in prayer nearly simultaneously. This is a small point, but a crucial one, because it is distinctly different than the medium-like experience that the words “speak through her” imply. That phrase has appeared even on my own website. Until I read your post, I did not realize how that might be interpreted and will make the necessary changes. It was explained that way only to highlight the fact that the messages were not given for me alone, but to me for others as well.
You are correct that I, “never actually see(s) any apparitions; …. only hear(s) voices interiorly which I (she) believes is the Blessed Mother.” At times, I have experienced, what has been explained to me as an, “interior vision”. What this says about the authenticity of my claims I leave to my Bishop to decide. Later, you wrote, “…the sheer volume of messages received through Carolyn renders authenticity improbable: approximately 2,944 messages over seven years.” [This original miscalculation was arrived at by the assumption, taken from the "Heavely Grace" books, that she was receiving daily messages, which is not the case] The actual number is 247, spanning eight years. Of those, 156 are “daily messages”, received over five months.
After quoting from the book, “Heavenly Grace”, you wrote:“Two things are interesting about the so-called messages to Carolyn: first, as with the Medjugorje seers, Mary (and sometimes the saints) speak through her in the first person, as if Carolyn in "possessed" by the one speaking.”
This is not quite the case. At the time during which I received the words from the Lord or Our Lady, I heard them interiorly and was then able to repeat them to the group who had gathered in prayer nearly simultaneously. This is a small point, but a crucial one, because it is distinctly different than the medium-like experience that the words “speak through her” imply. That phrase has appeared even on my own website. Until I read your post, I did not realize how that might be interpreted and will make the necessary changes. It was explained that way only to highlight the fact that the messages were not given for me alone, but to me for others as well.
You are correct that I, “never actually see(s) any apparitions; …. only hear(s) voices interiorly which I (she) believes is the Blessed Mother.” At times, I have experienced, what has been explained to me as an, “interior vision”. What this says about the authenticity of my claims I leave to my Bishop to decide. Later, you wrote, “…the sheer volume of messages received through Carolyn renders authenticity improbable: approximately 2,944 messages over seven years.” [This original miscalculation was arrived at by the assumption, taken from the "Heavely Grace" books, that she was receiving daily messages, which is not the case] The actual number is 247, spanning eight years. Of those, 156 are “daily messages”, received over five months.
Carolyn was also concerned that I had stated the messages were "trite" and "generic"; she responds:
The purpose of these was not to reveal new truths, as private revelation never can, but to encourage us to live more fully the Tradition and Apostolic Teaching that we are given by Christ through the Catholic Church. Personally, I would be suspect of new and sensational teachings.
I respond to this that of course all new and sensational teachings would be suspect, but there is also a sense in which private revelations are suspect for saying just the same old stuff - but I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that private revelations are suspect if the content of their messages is "woefully commonplace", and states quite plainly that "a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading."
I stated that the revelations in Pinckney were suspect precisely because they were so commonplace, not because they were teaching things new and sensational. Carolyn was a little imprecise in her language that could lead one towards ambiguous interpretations, but overall my problem with these revelations was not that they said too much but that they were so hum-drum.
I respond to this that of course all new and sensational teachings would be suspect, but there is also a sense in which private revelations are suspect for saying just the same old stuff - but I will quote the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that private revelations are suspect if the content of their messages is "woefully commonplace", and states quite plainly that "a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading."
I stated that the revelations in Pinckney were suspect precisely because they were so commonplace, not because they were teaching things new and sensational. Carolyn was a little imprecise in her language that could lead one towards ambiguous interpretations, but overall my problem with these revelations was not that they said too much but that they were so hum-drum.
I may be skeptical of these apparitions, but I am thankful to Carolyn for coming here to clear up some factual errors and pray that she may be blessed in the Lord.
Dear Boniface,
ReplyDeleteI would like to thank you for your courteous and respectful reply to my post. May the Lord bless you as well.