Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two French children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat, to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.
On 19 September 1851, the local bishop formally approved the public devotion and prayers to Our Lady of La Salette. On 21 August 1879, Pope Leo XIII granted a canonical coronation to the image now located within the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette. A Russian-style tiara was granted to the image, instead of the solar-type tiara used in the traditional depictions of Our Lady during her apparitions.
Places dedicated to Our Lady of La Salette outside of France include a sanctuary in Oliveira de Azeméis, Portugal; a sanctuary in Gdańsk, Poland; a chapel in San Miguel de Allende, Guanajuato, Mexico; a shrine in Kodaikanal, Tamilnadu, India; as well as a national shrine in Attleboro, Massachusetts, and a shrine in Enfield, New Hampshire, in the United States, known for their displays of Christmas lights. There is a national shrine of Our Lady of La Salette at Kayakunnu, Nadavayal, in Wayanad, Kerala, India run by Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette.
Background
In 1846, the village of La Salette consisted of eight or nine scattered hamlets. The population was about 800, principally small farmers with their families and dependents.
The apparition
On Saturday 19 September 1846, around 3 p.m., two young shepherds, Mélanie Calvat (or Mélanie Mathieu), aged just under 15, and Maximin Giraud (sometimes called Mémin, and, by mistake, Germain), 11 years old, guarded their herds on a mountain near the village of La Salette-Fallavaux (department of Isère). On the evening, they said to their masters that they had seen a lady in tears who had spoken to them. Widow Pra (also known as widow Caron), mistress of Mélanie, believed that they had seen the Blessed Virgin and the children were urged to report everything to the priest of La Salette. They did so the next day. The priest wept with emotion, took notes and, again in tears, described what had been told to him, in his sermon.
The Pra report
On Sunday evening, in the presence of Mélanie but in the absence of Maximin, whom his master had taken back to his family in Corps, Baptiste Pra (Mélanie's master), Pierre Selme (Maximin's master) and a certain Jean Moussier collaborated to put in writing the words addressed by the Virgin to the children. The resulting document, which is called the "Pra report", is now only known from a copy made by an investigator, Abbé Lagier, in February 1847. Nevertheless, this copy agrees with earlier documents which surely derive from the original Pra report.
According to later reports, the words "I will tell you otherwise" mean that the Virgin, who had first spoken in French, began to speak in the patois of Corps. From 12 October 1846 the documents mention that during the apparition, the lady confided a personal secret to each of the two children.
For Father Stern, the Pra report is of prime importance among the documents on the apparition.
Process of harmonization between the testimonies of the two children
The Pra report was written in the presence of Mélanie and in the absence of Maximin. Father Stern, however, considers it possible that the writers of the report added to Mélanie's statements things that had been said by Maximin.
Each of the two seers had, in the first weeks, a part of the lady's message of which they were more sure than the other seer. The parish priest of La Salette noted on 16 October 1846: "All this story" (that is to say, essentially, what concerns the complaints, threats and promises of the Virgin) "is faithfully given by little Mélanie and although little Germain could not in principle give it with the same order, he always said, however, when hearing his little companion tell it, that it was indeed that. What follows" (that is to say, essentially, the account of the Coin incident, which features Maximin and his father) "was more particularly understood and remembered by little Germain, Mélanie admitting that it is certain that the lady spoke to the little boy without Mélanie being able to understand the lady."
However, in the words of Father Stern, a "process of harmonization" between the statements of the two children resulted in the fixation of the "Salettine vulgate": "The way he (Maximin) presents the words of the Lady [...] in February–March 1847 certainly owes something to the stories he heard from Mélanie in the meantime. But an influence in the opposite direction, from Maximin to Mélanie, must also have existed."
Episcopal inquiries
The story of Mélanie and Maximin was very well received by the population and, at least from November 1846, the bishop of Grenoble, Philibert de Bruillard, was convinced of the reality of the apparition, but, wishing to be able to support his judgment on indisputable evidence, he requested several reports from various commissions.
The Ars incident
In September 1850, Maximin, who was advised by some to become a Marist, wanted to consult Father and future Saint John Vianney, known as the Curé of Ars, about his vocation. Brayer, benefactor of the two seers, and Verrier, one of the partisans of the "Baron de Richemont" who hoped that the secret of La Salette related to the destinies of this alleged Louis XVII, undertook to take Maximin to the famous priest. Maximin's guardian officially gave his consent, but the bishop of Grenoble opposed the trip. Maximin, stamping with vexation, refused to submit to this prohibition. Brayer and Verrier disregarded the will of the bishop and took Maximin to Ars accompanied by his sister Angélique, who was an adult.
The group arrived in Ars on 24 September in the evening. They were received by the Abbé Raymond, vicar of Ars, who expressed to Maximin a total incredulity with regard to the apparition of La Salette. The next morning, Maximin had a one-on-one interview with the Curé of Ars. After this interview, the priest, who until then had great confidence in the apparition of La Salette, declared to several people, in particular to ecclesiastics, that Maximin retracted his testimony. One of these ecclesiastics informed the episcopal commission in charge of investigating the apparition and Abbé Gerin, a member of the commission, came at the end of October to hear the Curé of Ars.
Maximin was questioned about the Ars incident at the minor seminary of Grenoble and at the bishopric. On 2 November, he attested in writing, at the minor seminary, that the Curé of Ars had not questioned him either about the apparition of La Salette or about his secret and that, for his part, in his answers to the parish priest and the vicar of Ars, he said nothing that was contrary to what he had said to thousands of others since the apparition. The same day, he declared before a special commission meeting at the bishopric that he had not retracted his testimony in Ars, but that, not hearing the priest distinctly, he sometimes said 'yes' and 'no' at random. "This is at least how Rousselot presents his explanations", adds Father Stern. (Canon Rousselot considered himself the postulator of the cause of La Salette.) On 8 November, Father Mélin, parish priest of Corps, and Canon Rousselot went to Ars. The Curé of Ars told them that Maximin confessed to him "that he had seen nothing and had lied when making his known story and had persisted in this lie for three years as he saw the good effects of it". On 21 November, Maximin wrote ("one made him write", says Father Stern) a letter to the Curé of Ars in which he gave the following explanation: "Allow me to tell you in all sincerity, that there has been a complete misunderstanding on your part. I did not want to tell you, Father, and I never said seriously to anyone, that I had seen nothing and had lied by making my known story and had persisted in this lie for three years, as I saw the good effects of it. I only told you, Father, when I left the sacristy and on the door, that I saw something and that I didn't know if it was the Blessed Virgin or another lady. At this moment you were advancing through the crowd and our conversation ceased." According to Father Stern, the least that can be said of Maximin's various explanations is that they lack coherence. (Later, in 1865, Maximin would give yet another explanation: the lie he had confessed to the Curé of Ars did not concern the apparition, but a theft of cherries he had committed in road to Ars. "As if", remarks Father Stern, "cherries grew in September!")
Bishop de Bruillard, however, tended to believe in the sincerity of Maximin's explanation by the misunderstanding. He supported this explanation in a letter he wrote to the Curé of Ars, as he forwarded to him that of Maximin: "During the recent visit to you by Canon Rousselot and M. Mélin, Pastor-Archpriest of Corps, you told these Gentlemen that Maximin had confessed to you 'that he had seen nothing and had lied in making his known story and had persisted in this lie for three years as he saw the good effects of it'. [...] Finally, you said to MM. Rousselot and Mélin that as a result of this interview with Maximin, you could no longer believe in the apparition of La Salette as before, and that you no longer believed in it. MM. Mélin and Rousselot told me all these things with a common voice. Now, such a change of opinion on your part, M. le Curé, which is more and more known, (for the very sake of the salvation of souls,) would be a very serious fact if the apparition is real, as believed nine bishops whom I consulted. If you misheard Maximin, as he affirms with all appearances of sincerity, in the judgment of several people who have my confidence, affirmation written in the attached document that the child addresses you very resolutely, you cannot exempt you from examining again, and you will not refuse to inform me of the result of this examination and of the opinion to which it may lead you. You understand, M. le Curé, that having encouraged the belief of the people in the apparition of La Salette, by the approval I gave to the publication of the reports drawn up by my order on this affair, you cannot put yourself in a kind of public opposition with me, without having the kindness to inform me of your reasons, since I have the honor to request them from you insistently."
In his answer, the Curé of Ars did not adopt the explanation based on the misunderstanding that the Bishop of Grenoble suggested to him. On the question of fact, he stood by his statements to the parish priest of Corps and to Canon Rousselot, but he did not exclude that the apparition could be authentic despite Maximin's categorical retraction: "It is not necessary to repeat to Your Highness what I said to these Gentlemen. The boy having told me that he had not seen the Blessed Virgin, I was tired of it for a couple of days. After all, Monseigneur, the wound is not so great, and if this fact is the work of God, man will not destroy it." This response of the Curé of Ars did not trouble Bishop de Bruillard. For him, it was not possible that the children invented all the circumstances of the apparition, so either there was a misunderstanding between the Curé of Ars and Maximin, or it was not seriously that Maximin said he had seen nothing.
The Curé of Ars continued to maintain that Maximin had in fact retracted his testimony. Abbé Alfred Monnin, who entered the entourage of the Curé of Ars as a missionary, reported as follows an interview he had with him in the presence of a few people: