|[This answer is not intended as an
exhaustive history or an attempt to settle open questions.]
On June 24, 1981, six children in the town of Medjugorje, Yugoslavia
(today, Bosnia-Herzegovina), began to experience phenomena which they
alleged to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This apparition
had a message of peace for the world, as well as a call to conversion,
prayer and fasting. It also entrusted to the children secret messages
about events to be fulfilled in the future. These "secrets,"
confided individually to different visionaries, have not been revealed
to the public. The apparitions themselves have continued almost daily
since 1981, with some of the now young adults continuing to experience
them regularly (those who have not yet received all the secrets
intended for them) and others not. Originally they occurred on a
hilltop near the town where a large Cross commemorating the Redemption
exists. They have since occurred in many other places, including the
parish church, St. James, and wherever the visionaries happen to be
located at the time of the apparition.
- The news that Our Lady might be appearing
immediately began to attract pilgrims to Medjugorje, first from
the surrounding countryside, and then, despite the communist
government of that day, from Europe and the whole world. These
included clergy and theologians, as well as experts from the
physical and medical sciences who testified to some kind of
phenomenon taking place when the apparition was said to be
occurring. The private judgment of these early visitors did much
to bolster people's belief in the events at Medjugorje. In
addition, some pilgrims reported seeing the sun spin and being
able to look at it without pain or eye damage, others that their
rosaries turned gold colored, still others that remarkable
physical or spiritual/moral healings had taken place. All of these
contributed to the fame of the alleged apparition.
II. Ecclesiastical Evaluation.
The initial, informal, response of the Bishop Zanic of Mostar, in
whose diocese Medjugorje is found, is said to have been favorable.
However, it is alleged that comments attributed to the vision that was
critical of the secular clergy and himself convinced him the visions
could not be authentic. He nonetheless established a commission in
1982, comprised of theologians, scientific experts and religious
superiors to investigate the Medjugorje events. Its three year study
produced a vote from two members of the commission in favor of
supernaturality, one that it was authentic initially but no longer so,
one abstention and eleven votes that nothing supernatural was
occurring there. Letter
of Bishop Zanic
- Since the Medjugorje events had exceeded the
scope of a local event, Cardinal Kuharic, President of the
Yugoslavian Bishops Conference, announced in January 1987 that a
national commission would be established to continue
investigating. This decision had been communicated to the Holy
See, which stated that it accepted the judgment of the diocesan
commission under the authority of the local bishop but urged, as
well, that the work be continued at the national level. The
Bishops' Conference's instructions to the faithful were that
pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the basis of
its being supernatural and that the Marian devotion of Catholics
should be in accordance with Church teaching.
In April 1991 the following declaration was made by
the Bishops' Conference of the former Yugoslavia:
The bishops, from the very beginning, have been
following the events of Medjugorje through the Bishop of the diocese
[Mostar], the Bishop's Commission and the Commission of the Bishops
Conference of Yugoslavia on Medjugorje.
On the basis of the investigations so far
it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural
apparitions and revelations. [emphasis added]
However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful
from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted
both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the
attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan
bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje
and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the
Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching
of the Church.
For this purpose the bishops will issue specially
suitable liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise, through their
Commission they will continue to keep up with and investigate the
entire event in Medjugorje.
III. Pastoral Approach of the Church.
From the point of view of an ecclesiastical
evaluation the status of Medjugorje has not changed since this 1991
declaration. Consider, however, the following progression of events, which reflects a changing pastoral approach to the question of Medjugorje.
1. April 1991 Decision of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference.
"[I]t cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural
apparitions and revelations," essentially leaving the question open to new evidence, while allowing suitable pastoral provision for those who may go to Medjugorje.
2. August 1996 letter of Archbishop Tarcissio Bertone.
The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is understood to suggest that Medjugorje is off-limits to Catholics. The Director of the Holy See's Press Office,
Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, clarifies, stating,
You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven
false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.
...When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get
the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no
possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] ... nothing has
changed, nothing new has been said.
...The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages,
organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a
canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different
from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order
to go to confession.
...Has the church or the Vatican said no [to Catholics visiting
Medjugorje]? NO. ... The difference, in the terms of canon law, is
that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the
bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you
are saying this is true. News
3. May 1998 letter of Archbishop Bertone to Bishop Aubry.
Commenting on a statement by the Bishop of Mostar that
the alleged apparitions were not simply lacking evidence of
supernaturality but were in fact NOT supernatural (i.e. definitively
so), the Archbishop writes,
The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See
does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed
supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the
credibility of the "apparitions" in question, this
Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former
Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: "On the
basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one
is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations."
Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations
it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of
Bosnia-Herzegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this
case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.
What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of Famille Chretienne,
declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only non
constat de supernaturalitate, but likewise, constat de non
supernaturalitate of the apparitions or revelations in
Medjugorje", should be considered the expression of the
personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right
to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his
Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are
conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are
permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an
authentication of events still taking place and which still call for
an examination by the Church. Letter
to Bishop Aubrey
Thus, since 1991 the Church has not sought to prevent the participation of Catholics in Medjugorje related events (pilgrimages, conferences etc.) based on their private opinion, while restraining the opinion of clergy acting in any ecclesiastical capacity.
4. February and October 2013 letters of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, to the General Secretary of the USCCB.
The context given for the October 2013 letter is the planned appearances of one of the Medjugorje seers at conferences in the United States, at which it is also presumed that "apparitions" will occur. It should be noted that this has happened on previous visits of Medjugorje seers to the U.S...
In the letter, the Nuncio, writing on behalf of Gerhard Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states,
“no cleric or faithful may participate in any meetings, conferences, or public celebrations in which the authenticity of the apparitions are taken for granted.”
In this October letter he also alludes to the existence of a similar letter from February 2013, with presumably similar content. This is especially interesting, given that the first would have been issued at the end of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and the second during the pontificate of Pope Francis.
These 2013 letters clearly represent a change of pastoral attitude on the part of the Holy See, one which began before the end of the pontificate of Pope Benedict and which has now been affirmed by Pope Francis. An attitude of seeming tolerance has been replaced with a firm call for acceptance of the ecclesiastical judgments made to date, or at least publicly acting in accordance with them. Whether this is simply to dispose all parties (pro and con) to accept the final judgment of the Church when the Pope issues it, whatever that judgment may be, or, in view of a decision of the same character as the previous ones, remains to be seen.
The presence of
remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity
of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church
authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site
suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her
part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain
supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena, as the Roman
statements given above show. There are likewise few examples of
outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis
of doctrine which is contrary to the faith.
The reasons for such caution are rooted in the Church's common
teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross both assert
that as a general rule mystical phenomena (whether in the lives of
saints or in apparitions) are the work of the angels. Unless God
Himself needs to act to immediately produce an effect (such as to
create out of nothing or to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul),
He works through creaturely instruments. Thus the intellectual lights
granted in contemplative prayer, the visions and locutions of private
revelations, the levitations of the saints, the ecstasies of mystics
and visionaries, and most external phenomena associated with
mysticism, are produced by the angelic nature. Since both good and
evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena
alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great
deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively
that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other
things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the
ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.
Theologians remain divided in judging which phenomena fall clearly
into the category of strict supernaturality. However, the practice of
the Church in the canonization process of recognizing as miraculous
those cures which meet certain strict criteria is a standard that has
been applied in approving apparitions, as well (e.g. Lourdes,
Beauraing, Banneux). At Fátima the Miracle of Sun likewise fell into
the category of a natural prodigy. It is clear, however, that the
phenomena which many laity have experienced in connection with alleged
apparitions in our days, and which they consider to be proof that they
are authentic, do not in fact rise to the level of evident
supernaturality. Angelic or demonic activity would be sufficient
to explain them. Without a proof of the supernatural order there is
little likelihood of the Church affirming an apparition as authentic.
In the case of Medjugorje the commissions found that nothing
directly connected with the apparition met this strict standard.
What the Church has forbidden.
the most recent statements of ecclesiastical authority it is
clear that no Catholic may participate in events which presume the authenticity of Medjugorje. The older statements emphasized only the prohibition of those holding an office in the Church (bishop, pastor,
rector, chaplain or other) who would, by virtue of that office, tend to lend
official sanction to Medjugorje, and thus contradict the
decisions of the competent local authorities. Those earlier statements
proscribed pilgrimages organized under official auspices;
however, common sense suggests that a conference or other activity
sponsored by a diocese, parish or other Catholic institution was
Likewise, there could not be, then or now, public
veneration (cultus) of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our
Lady of Medjugorje, since this would suggest the certainty of
her appearing there. The title Queen of Peace, it should be noted, is already part of the patrimony of the Church.
The Yugoslavian statement spoke of liturgical-pastoral directives
which may be developed. Catholics are obliged to obey whatever
positive or negative directives a local bishop, or a Bishops' Conference, issues regarding the celebration of the sacraments, pastoral activity generally, or the use of Church property.
This remains the case.
Faith and Reason.
Do the decisions of the Church amount to an obligation to accept that Medjugorje is not supernatural? The answer
is no. First, even private revelations approved by Rome bind the
faithful to accept them only based upon reasonableness, not faith.
Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) stated,
Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to
revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made
according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to
these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious
credence. [Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei Beatif.]
This means that once a private revelation has achieved Papal
approbation it is unreasonable, i.e. imprudent but not against the
faith, to not accept it as authentic. Similarly, if the Pope judged a private revelation to not be supernatural, the
reasonable person would be satisfied with that conclusion. Would they
sin if they did not accept it? They might sin by their intellectual imprudence, rash
judgment or the like, but not against the obedience they
owed the Holy Father or against the faith.
As far as theological judgments made at the local level, the standard could not be any higher, and is certainly
lower. However, that does not mean that one reasonably ignores lesser decisions until the Pope decides. The more a decision perseveres and is repeated, the more information becomes public which supports that decision, the more reasonable it becomes. Prudence takes account of all these factors and decides according to reason not whim.
What the Church permits.
While the earlier statements permitted Catholics to go to Medjugorje, and even include priests acting as chaplains, the 2013 statements raise serious questions about the possibility of doing so. It was already inherent in the earlier statements that the valid basis for a pilgrimage must be a balanced Marian devotion. Practically speaking, how does one go on a pilgrimage to a destination whose fame depends on an alleged apparition and not presume it to be authentic? It seems unlikely that such pilgrimages are simply a matter of tourism and not organized with encounters, conferences and other activities to satisfy a presumption of authenticity.
Finally, while the Church has not suppressed
discussion of Medjugorje, Catholics on both sides of the issue
should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of it. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though
every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgment of
Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict XIV explained, when it is rendered.
St. Augustine probably gave the simplest and most helpful rule for
all matters of the Church's life when he said (in my paraphrase):
In necessary things unity,
in undecided things freedom,
and in all things charity.