Magisterial Timeline of Medjugorje (1982-2000)

In November 1999, Bishop 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 reflect the precision of a mariologist attuned to canonical perspective, faith issues, and discernment:

1. Does the Church have an official position on 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 necessary discernments, declares them authentic.

2. Who has the authority to speak on behalf of the Church?

The 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 conducts an investigation and takes action. From 1982 to 1986, a probe was conducted by Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar. Let us briefly recap the stages of this inquiry:

• January 11, 1982: A commission of inquiry composed of four members (two Franciscan priests and two laymen) is established.
• January 1984: This commission is expanded with the addition of twelve other clerics, selected from among experts in theological matters from various Croatian and Slovenian theological faculties, along with several doctors.
• The Croatian Episcopal Conference is informed about the work of the inquiry commission.
• October 12, 1984: The same Episcopal Conference communicates that the bishops request not to organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje in order not to prejudice the final decision.
• October 30, 1984: Archbishop Zanic publishes a report titled: Current and Unofficial Position of the Mostar Bishops’ Conference on Events in Medjugorje.
• June 2, 1985: Bishop Zanic submits his first report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
• April 26, 1986: He presents a draft negative sentence to Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation, as the commission’s conclusions seem to point in that direction.
• Cardinal Ratzinger requests a suspension of the publication of the final decision.

• Onze membros da comissão de inquérito votaram contra o reconhecimento do caráter sobrenatural dos eventos, enquanto quatro eram a favor. (1986)
• A comissão concluiu seus trabalhos e decidiu se dissolver, já que a questão agora estava nas mãos de Roma.
• Em 15 de maio de 1986, Dom Zanic enviou à Congregação uma avaliação negativa da comissão.
• A Congregação Romana instruiu a Conferência Episcopal da Jugoslávia a reabrir o caso com a ajuda de uma nova comissão.
• O trabalho desta segunda comissão resultou nas declarações de Zara em 10 de abril de 1991.
• Dom Brincard refere-se à declaração da Conferência Episcopal de 10 de abril de 1991, afirmando que a Conferência é responsável pela pastoral de Medjugorje e garante a continuação das investigações através de uma comissão que ainda não chegou a conclusões sobre a sobrenaturalidade dos eventos.
• Dom Brincard destaca que a Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé não emitiu um posicionamento oficial.
• Em fevereiro de 1999, Dom Brincard convidou a Conferência Episcopal da Bósnia (composta por três dioceses) a se manifestar sobre a questão.

3. O julgamento das autoridades eclesiásticas competentes.

Apenas os bispos de Mostar, Dom Zanic e depois Dom Peric, bem como a Conferência Episcopal Jugoslava (que se dissolveu com a divisão do país após a guerra) expressaram opiniões sobre os eventos em Medjugorje. A Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé nunca emitiu um julgamento oficial; forneceu apenas orientações de natureza pastoral.

4. Os juízos pessoais dos sucessivos bispos da diocese de Mostar-Duvno.

Os julgamentos dos bispos de Mostar são juízos pessoais que se tornaram públicos em suas dioceses. São críticas negativas expressas na Posição do Arcebispo Zanic (30 de outubro de 1984), numa notificação com 28 pontos datada de março de 1990, e confirmadas pelo Arcebispo Peric em sua obra ‘Siège de la sagesse’ de 1995. Um capítulo deste livro é dedicado à questão de Medjugorje, concluindo que é proibido apoiar e pregar sobre as aparições de Nossa Senhora em Medjugorje. Estas intervenções episcopais ocorreram após longos e minuciosos inquéritos oficiais, muitos detalhes dos quais permanecem desconhecidos.

A Congregação para a Doutrina da Fé nunca manifestou reservas em relação a esses julgamentos quando foram publicados. Considerando a autoridade reconhecida pela Congregação ao Ordinário local em matéria de discernimento e intervenção, não parece prudente desconsiderar o que os bispos sucessivos na diocese de Mostar-Duvno afirmaram.

5. A declaração de Zara (1991).

O julgamento da Conferência Episcopal da Jugoslávia foi um parecer confidencial provisório e formulado da seguinte maneira:

Based on the investigations carried out so far, it has not been possible to establish that these are supernatural revelations. The “non constat de supernaturalitate” (not finding of supernaturality) by the Yugoslavian Episcopal Conference did not allow them to continue their investigations. However, 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 Bosnian-Herzegovinian Episcopal Conference received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the task of making a definitive statement after a new and final investigation. So far, this Conference has not made any declaration.The history of the Church shows that Rome always ultimately refers 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 make 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 make a statement, in favor of Cardinal Van Roey, Archbishop of Malines and Primate of Belgium, to whom the file relating to 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 make a favorable statement on April 22, 1984, about 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 rare:On May 23, 1985, Bishop Bovone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent a warning to Bishop Caporello, Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference. Here is the content of the letter:## Quote Translation:> From various perspectives, it is noted and regretted, particularly regarding the competent Ordinary (the Bishop of Mostar), a true promotion of the *facts* related to the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. A special organization for pilgrimages and other initiatives are taken which contribute to confusing the faithful and hindering the delicate examination being conducted by the special commission studying the *facts* in question. To prevent the spread of such promotion 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 this location of the alleged 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 for that purpose.## Responses from Cardinal Bertone:On March 23, 1996 and again in June 1996, Cardinal Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for Doctrine of 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 reminded, in particular, that worship is not authorized.On May 26, 1998, Cardinal 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 role of the Holy See to take a position, first and foremost, regarding alleged supernatural phenomena.” He specified further: “Finally, with regard to pilgrimages to Medjugorje that occur in particular, the Congregation believes they are permitted under the condition that they are not considered as authenticating ongoing events requiring examination by the Church.”## Question on Private Pilgrimages:How can a private pilgrimage be organized without being motivated by the belief that the events in Medjugorje are of supernatural origin? In an authentication of an ongoing event? This is the difficulty Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic see looming in their joint declaration of January 9, 1987.## The Criterion of Fruits:On this point, we make a preliminary observation. From the document published in 1978 by the Congregation for Doctrine of Faith, it emerges that a fact must first be judged according to positive and negative criteria, and therefore if this examination proves favorable, some public manifestations of cult and devotion may be permitted while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence. This corresponds to the formula: “For now, there is no objection.” When this order is not respected, errors in evaluation can occur.If we examine the events of Medjugorje in light of their fruits, what can we observe?It is undeniable that in Medjugorje there have been returns to God and healings. It is equally clear that sacramental life is regular and prayer is fervent. These good fruits cannot be denied.But can we say they continue in parishes? Unfortunately, it has been observed that the receptivity, even aggression, of some Medjugorje supporters towards those who do not share their enthusiasm creates serious tensions here and there, affecting the unity of God’s people, undoubtedly witnessed in Medjugorje.A statement by Bishop Peric that can enrich our reflection on this point:> «The fruits do not bring with them proof that they derive from the apparitions. But, as they are authentically Christian, they can be interpreted as the product of the normal operation of divine grace, through faith in God, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Christ, and through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Finally, we should 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.»Following this, a crucial question arises: Did the visionaries obey the Bishop of Mostar? Did they respect him? Some would like to sweep under the carpet the fruits that are questionable or bad. However, truth compels us to say they exist. We cite, for example:– The questioning, even defamation, of the local Ordinary, as well as disobedience to his legitimate authority. – The exacerbation of the “issue” 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 John Paul II’s encyclical *Redemptoris Mater*, which places Mary at the center of the Church’s faith and offers theological criteria for receiving her manifestations.Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian Theology, Marian Apparitions, and the Graduate School in Mariology.

View the complete list of Marian apparitions recognized by the Church.