Chronology of the Magisterial Apparitions of Medjugorje (1982-2000)

In November 1999, Dom Brincard de Puy-en-Velay, responsible for overseeing the *Association of Marian Works*, answered questions posed by members of the French Episcopal Conference. His responses, as a mariologist attuned to canonical perspective and issues of faith and discernment, are as follows:1. Does the Church have an official position regarding Medjugorje?True devotion to the Virgin Mary does not rest upon the apparitions attributed to her, nor those recognized by the Church as authentic, nor private revelations. These extraordinary interventions may serve as signs that should not be overlooked when the Church, after conducting the necessary discernments, declares them authentic.2. Who has the authority to speak on behalf of the Church?The Magisterium of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, holds the authority to interpret and define matters of faith and morals. The Doctors of the Church, through their writings and teachings, offer valuable insights and contribute to the development of Catholic doctrine. Our Lady, as the Mother of God and the Church’s Mother, also plays a significant role in guiding and inspiring the Church’s teachings.Norms Regarding the Discernment of Private Revelations, published on February 24, 1978, by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the signature of its Prefect, Cardinal Franjo Seper, specify: it is the Ordinary of the place who is competent to conduct an investigation and intervene. Indeed, from 1982 to 1986, an investigation was conducted by Bishop Pavo Zanic of Mostar. Let us briefly recall the stages of this inquiry:– On January 11, 1982, an inquiry commission was established, consisting of four members (two Franciscan priests and two laymen).– In January 1984, this commission was expanded with the appointment of twelve other clerics, chosen from among theological experts from different Croatian and Slovenian theological faculties and some doctors.– The Yugoslav Episcopal Conference is informed of the work of the inquiry commission.– In a statement of October 12, 1984, the same Conference informs that the bishops request not to organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje […], to avoid prejudicing the verdict.– On October 30, 1984, with the prospect of an imminent conclusion of the commission’s work, Bishop Zanic published a report titled: Current and Unofficial Position of the Mostar Bishop’s Curia on the Events in Medjugorje.– On June 2, 1982, Bishop Zanic presented a first report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.– On April 26, 1986, he submitted to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation, a draft of a negative sentence, as the conclusions of the commission of inquiry seem to point in that direction.– Cardinal Ratzinger requests a suspension of the publication of the final sentence.– On May 2, 1986, the inquiry commission voted, by secret ballot, with 11 votes against 4, whose result goes against the recognition of the supernatural character of the events: non constat de supernaturalitate.– The commission, however, having completed its work, agrees to dissolve itself, as the issue now concerns Rome.– On May 15, 1986, Bishop Zanic sent to the Congregation the negative assessment given by the commission. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that Archbishop Zanic was deprived of the file.– The Roman dicastery instructs the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference to reopen the file, with the help of a new commission, created for this purpose.– The work of this second commission led to the declarations of Zara on April 10, 1991.– Bishop Brincard reports the declaration of the Episcopal Conference dated April 10, 1991, which states that the Conference takes care of the pastoral of Medjugorje and guarantees the continuation of the investigation through the commission that has not yet concluded anything about the supernaturality or lack thereof of the events.– Bishop Brincard highlights that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has not taken a position.– In February 1999, Bishop Brincard invited the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia (composed of three dioceses) to express itself on the issue.3. The judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authorities.Only Bishops of Mostar Dom Zanic and later Dom Peric, as well as the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference (which effectively dissolved with the division of the country following the war) expressed opinions on the events in Medjugorje. On the other hand, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has never issued any official judgment. It has only provided pastoral indications.4. The personal judgments of the successive bishops of the Mostar-Duvno diocese.The judgments of the bishops of Mostar are *personal judgments* that became public in their dioceses. They are negative critiques. They were expressed in the Position of Archbishop Zanic (October 30, 1984), later in a notification containing 28 points and dated March 1990. Archbishop Peric confirmed the negative judgments of his predecessor in a work titled *Siège de la sagesse* (1995). A chapter is dedicated to the Medjugorje issue within this work, in the conclusion: *It is forbidden to support and preach in churches and religious communities that Our Lady appeared in Medjugorje*. These episcopal interventions took place at the end of lengthy and meticulous official inquiries, many elements of which remain unknown.The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has never made any reservations regarding these judgments when they were published. Given the authority that this Congregation recognizes *to the local ordinary*, i.e., the Ordinary of the place, in matters of discernment and intervention, it does not seem prudent to disregard what the successive bishops of the Mostar-Duvno diocese have affirmed.5. The declaration of Zara (1991).The judgment of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference was a provisional confidential judgment formulated as follows:Based on the investigations conducted thus far, it has not been possible to establish that these are supernatural revelations. The “non constat de supernaturalitate” (not finding a supernatural cause) conclusion by the Yugoslavian Episcopal Conference did not allow them to continue their investigations. The fact that in 1991 no decisive elements in favor of a possible supernatural origin could be highlighted underscores the complexity of the case.Starting in February 1999, the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia and Herzegovina received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the task of making a definitive statement after a new and final investigation. To this day, this Conference has not issued a statement.The history of the Church shows that Rome has always ultimately referred to the authority and competence of the local Ordinary. This is the case with La Salette, where Bishop De Bruillard of Grenoble was able to issue a statement despite the opposition of his metropolitan, Cardinal Bonald, Archbishop of Lyon. The same occurred with the events of Beauraing (1932-1933) and Banneux (1933) in Belgium. The Bishop of Namur and Liège, temporarily deprived of the power to issue a statement in favor of Cardinal Van Roey, Archbishop of Malines and Primate of Belgium, to whom the dossier concerning all the “Belgian apparitions” from 1932 to 1934 was entrusted, finally could give a positive judgment about the events that took place in his diocese, despite the still very negative opinion of Cardinal Van Roey and the commission he created.Something similar also happened in Japan with the events of Akita (1974-1981), where Bishop Ito of Niigata, the local Ordinary, was able to issue a favorable statement on April 22, 1984, regarding the apparitions, despite the opposition of the Japanese Episcopal Conference.

6. Intervention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Regarding Medjugorje, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervened only at a pastoral level. The official documents on this event are indeed scarce:On May 23, 1985, Dom Bovone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a warning to Dom Caporello, Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference. Here is the content of the letter:“From various perspectives, it is noted and regretted, particularly regarding the competent Ordinary (the Bishop of Mostar), a true propaganda of the facts related to the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. A special organization is created for pilgrimages and other initiatives are taken that contribute to confusing the faithful and hindering the delicate examination being conducted by the special commission studying the facts in question. In order to prevent the spread of such propaganda and the speculation it generates in Italy, despite the warnings and recommendations of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, the Presidency [of the Italian Episcopal Conference] carefully considers the opportunity to advise the Italian Episcopate to publicly discourage the organization of pilgrimages to the site of the apparitions, as well as any other form of publicity, especially editorial, deemed harmful to the peaceful study of the facts by the specially constituted canonical commission.”On March 23, 1996, and then in June 1996, Bishop Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith, responded to requests sent to the Congregation by Bishop Taverdet of Langres and Archbishop Daloz of Besançon. Referring to the Zara declaration, Bishop Bertone reminds, in particular, that worship is not authorized.On May 26, 1998, Bishop Bertone responded, this time to Bishop Aubry of Saint-Denis de la Réunion. After recalling the Zara declaration, he added: “I would like to clarify that it is not the primary function of the Holy See to take a position on supposed supernatural phenomena” and specifies: “Finally, regarding pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which occur in particular, the Congregation believes they are permitted provided they are not considered as authenticating current events that require examination by the Church.”Question: How can a private pilgrimage be organized without being motivated by the belief that the events in Medjugorje are of supernatural origin? In the authentication of an ongoing event? This is the difficulty that Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic see in their joint declaration of January 9, 1987.**7. The criterion of fruits.Regarding this matter, we make a preliminary observation. From the document published in 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, it is deduced that, first and foremost, a fact must be judged according to positive and negative criteria, and if this examination proves favorable, certain public manifestations of cult and devotion may be permitted while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence. Which equates to the formula: “For the moment, there is no objection.” When this order is not respected, errors in evaluation may occur.If we examine the events of Medjugorje in the light of its fruits, what can we observe? It is undeniable that there have been returns to God and healings in Medjugorje. It is also clear that the sacramental life is regular and that prayer is fervent. These good fruits cannot be denied.But can we say that these fruits continue in the parishes? Unfortunately, it is discovered that the susceptibility, even the aggressiveness, of some supporters of Medjugorje towards those who do not share their enthusiasm, creates serious tensions here and there, affecting the unity of the people of God, inquestionably observed in Medjugorje.A statement by Bishop Peric that can enrich our reflection on this point:> “The fruits do not bring with them the proofs that they derive from the apparitions. But, to the extent that they are authentically Christian, they can be interpreted as the product of the normal operation of divine grace, through faith in God, through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and by the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Finally, we must ask ourselves if the fruits of Medjugorje have borne good fruit in the visionaries, who, at least during the ‘apparitions’, should be the first witnesses of the grace they claim to benefit from.”It follows that the following question must be asked:Did they obey the Bishop of Mostar?Did they respect him?Some would like to pass over in silence the fruits of which doubt is cast or which are evil. But truth obliges us to say that they exist. We cite, for example:– The questioning, even to the point of defamation, of the local Ordinary, as well as disobedience to his legitimate authority. – The exacerbation of the “question” of Herzegovina as a result of words attributed to Gospa, words in favor of the Franciscans against the bishop.Concluding: we have no authority to pass any ecclesiastical judgment on the events of Medjugorje. We must respect the pastoral decisions of the Bishop of Mostar.The chronology of magisterial positions on Medjugorje is part of the process of ecclesial discernment guided by the principles of the encyclical Redemptoris Mater by John Paul II, which places Mary at the center of the Church’s faith and provides theological criteria for receiving her manifestations.Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian Theology, Marian Apparitions, and the Graduate Program in Mariology.See the complete list of Mary’s recognized Marian apparitions.