Vatican: “Apparitions” of Christ in Normandy are not authentic

The name Dozulé became famous at the end of the 20th century. Madeleine Aumont (1924-2016), a mother living in this village in Normandy, testified that she had seen apparitions of Christ between 1972 and 1978. The Church had never recognized this phenomenon as authentic.

Cardinal Fernandez's letter, dated November 3 and made public after an audience granted by Leo XIV to the prefect of the DDF, is titled “The Only Cross of Salvation.” In this nine-page text, Cardinal Fernández invites Bishop Habert to confirm the Church's opposition to any devotion related to these phenomena.

This is in accordance with an ordinance signed in 1985 by his predecessor, Bishop Jean Badré, and confirmed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The current prefect of the DDF notes that these events “have elicited spiritual interest, but also not a few controversies and difficulties of a doctrinal and pastoral nature.” He intends to respond to them following “various requests for clarification” addressed to his dicastery.

He also wishes to clarify “certain theological and symbolic interpretations that have derived from those alleged events,” particularly on the question of the veneration of the cross.

Some Catholics had formed an association to erect a gigantic 738-meter cross, allegedly in response to a request from Christ who was said to have appeared some 50 times to Madeleine Aumont. However, the cardinal reiterated the position taken by Bishop Jean Badré, then bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux, in the early 1980s. “In no case can the construction of a monumental cross undertaken in Dozulé by an association based in Paris be an authentic sign of the manifestation of the Spirit of God,” Bishop Badré stated in a communiqué dated April 10, 1983.

In another statement published on December 8, 1985, Bishop Badré raised his voice, denouncing the “fanatical propaganda” of people spreading the “message” of Dozulé “without respect for the authority of the Bishop.”

He received support from Rome, as Cardinal Fernández mentions. The dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith “supported the efforts of the Bishops of Bayeux-Lisieux in the difficult task of addressing the issues that have continued to generate confusion," he wrote in his letter.

Forty years after its first statement, the DDF is responding to the request of the current bishop, Bishop Habert, to “proceed with further discernment of the events connected with the Haute-Butte of Dozulé, to bring the entire matter to a conclusive resolution.” This is in accordance with the Norms Regarding the Manner of Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions or Revelations published by the dicastery in May 2024.

The DDF has consequently authorized the local bishop to declare that “the phenomenon of the alleged apparitions of Dozulé is not of supernatural origin: that is, that it does not have an authentic divine source.”

One of the main points of contention concerns the request to build a huge “Glorious Cross.” The request to build a cross in this village “comparable to Jerusalem” is incompatible with the tradition of the Church, which emphasizes the “unique value” of Golgotha, the site of Christ's crucifixion, it is recalled.

“To compare the cross requested at Dozulé with the Cross of Jerusalem risks confusing the sign with the mystery, and risks giving the impression that what Christ has accomplished once and for all could be ‘reproduced’ or ‘renewed’ in a physical sense,” Fernández explains.

Indeed, “the Catholic Faith teaches that the power of the Cross does not need to be replicated, for it is already present in every Eucharist, in every church, in every believer who lives united to the sacrifice of Christ,” insists the prefect of the DDF.

“This novel symbol would risk shifting attention from the Faith to a visible sign, absolutizing it and fostering a kind of ‘material sacrality’ that does not belong to the heart of Christianity,” he explains.

“The Cross does not need 738 meters of steel or concrete to be recognized: it is raised every time a heart, moved by grace, opens itself to forgiveness; every time a soul converts; every time hope is rekindled where the situation seemed impossible; and even when, by kissing a small cross, believers entrust themselves to Christ,” he said.

The Church encourages expressions of faith that lead to conversion and charity. However, it warns against any form of “sacralization of the sign” that would lead to considering a material object as an absolute guarantee of salvation.

Rome also sees a “theological error” in the invitation to believers to go to the foot of this cross to obtain forgiveness for their sins. The Catholic Church “teaches that forgiveness does not proceed from a physical location, but from Christ himself; the remission of sins is received through the sacraments—in particular, the Sacrament of Penance—and no material object can replace sacramental grace,” warns the Argentine prefect.

“The Cross is indeed a sign of salvation, but a cross that we construct is not, of itself, a place of automatic forgiveness, since forgiveness comes from Christ,” he firmly reminds us.

The same mistrust applies to the theme of the “imminent return of Christ,” which is very present in this account of the alleged apparitions in Dozulé. Thus, in the account of the apparition of May 31, 1974, it is written that Christ “asks that ‘the Glorious Cross’ and the Shrine be built before the end of the Holy Year [1975], for it will be the last Holy Year.” As the Jubilee Year 2025 draws to a close, this sentence leads the Prefect of the DDF to soberly note that “clearly, this purported prophecy was not fulfilled.”

“Although the theme of the Lord’s return is an integral part of the Christian Faith,” the Argentine cardinal reminds us that the Church “remains alert against millenarian or chronological interpretations, which risk setting the time or determining the modalities for the Final Judgment.”

In this perspective, “the Church’s discernment requires that there be no sensationalist or apocalyptic elements that could generate confusion. Therefore, messages that speak of an ‘imminent end’ or a ‘proximate date’ can fuel unfounded expectations or visions that deviate from Christian hope,” points out the Prefect of the DDF.