Magisterial chronology of Medjugorje (1982-2000)

In November 1999, Bishop Brincard of Puy-en-Velay, charged with accompanying the Association of Marian Works, answered the questions put by the members of the French Episcopal Conference. His interventions have the precision of a Mariologist, attentive to the canonical point of view, to the problems of faith and of discernment: 

1. Is there an authorized and official position of the Church with regard to Medjugorje? 

True devotion to the Virgin Mary is not based on the apparitions attributed to her, nor on those that the Church recognizes as authentic, much less on private revelations. These extraordinary interventions can constitute signs that should not pass unnoticed once the Church, after having made the necessary discernments, has declared them authentic.

2. Who has authority to speak in the name of the Church?

The norms concerning 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 belongs to the local Ordinary to conduct an investigation and to intervene. In fact, from 1982 to 1986, there was an investigation conducted by Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar. Let us briefly recall the stages of this inquiry: 

• On January 11, 1982, a commission of inquiry was constituted, composed of four members (two Franciscan priests and two secular ones). 
• In January 1984, this commission was enlarged with the appointment of twelve more clerics, chosen from among the specialists in theological matters of the different theological faculties of Croatia and Slovenia, and of some physicians. 
• The Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia is informed of the work of the commission of inquiry. 
• In a declaration of October 12, 1984, this same Conference makes it known that the bishops ask that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje not be organized […], so as not to prejudice the sentence. 
• On October 30, 1984, with the prospect of an imminent conclusion of the work of the commission of inquiry, Archbishop Zanic published a report entitled: Current and unofficial position of the curia of the bishops of Mostar 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 delivered to Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation, a draft of a negative sentence, since the conclusions of the commission of inquiry seem to move in that direction. 
• Cardinal Ratzinger asks for the suspension of the publication of the definitive sentence. 
• On May 2, 1986, the commission of inquiry voted, by secret ballot, with 11 votes against 4, the result of which goes against the recognition of the supernatural character of the facts: non constat de supernaturalitate. 
• The commission, meanwhile, having concluded its work, agrees to dissolve itself, above all because the question now concerns Rome. 
• On May 15, 1986, Bishop Zanic sent to the Congregation the negative evaluation given by the commission. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that Archbishop Zanic was deprived of the dossier.
• The Roman dicastery instructs the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia to reopen the dossier, with the help of a new commission, created for that purpose. 
• The work of this second commission led to the declarations of Zara of 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 ministry of Medjugorje and guarantees the continuation of the investigation thanks to the commission, which has not yet concluded anything about the supernaturality or otherwise of the events. 
• Bishop Brincard points out 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 pronounce on the question.

3. The judgment of the competent ecclesiastical authorities.

Only the bishops of Mostar, Bishop Zanic and then Bishop Peric, as well as the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference (which in fact dissolved with the division of the country that occurred after the war), have expressed an opinion 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 given only indications of a pastoral nature.

4. The personal judgments of the successive bishops of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno.

The judgments of the bishops of Mostar are personal judgments that became public in their dioceses. They are negative criticisms. They were set out in the Position of Archbishop Zanic (October 30, 1984), then in a notification containing 28 points and dated March 1990. Archbishop Peric confirmed the negative judgments of his predecessor in a work entitled ‘Siège de la sagesse’ of 1995. One chapter is devoted to the question of Medjugorje within this work, in the conclusion: It is forbidden to affirm and to preach in churches and religious communities that Our Lady appeared in Medjugorje. These episcopal interventions took place at the end of long and laborious official inquiries, of which many elements are unknown to us.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith never made the slightest reservation regarding these judgments when they were published. Taking into account the authority that this Congregation recognizes in the head of the office, that is, in the local Ordinary, in matters of discernment and intervention, it does not seem prudent to disregard what the bishops who have succeeded one another in the diocese of Mostar-Duvno have affirmed.

5. The declaration of Zara (1991).

The judgment of the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia was a provisional confidential judgment, formulated as follows: 

On the basis of the investigations carried out so far, it has not been possible to establish that supernatural revelations are involved. What is defined as non constat de supernaturalitate by the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia did not permit it to continue its investigations. But the fact that in 1991 it was not possible to single out any decisive element in favor of a possible supernatural origin underlines the complexity of the dossier.

Beginning in February 1999, the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina received from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the task of making a definitive pronouncement after a new and final investigation. So far, this Conference has still not pronounced. 

The history of the Church shows that Rome always refers, in the end, to the authority and competence of the local Ordinary. This is the case of La Salette, in which the bishop of Grenoble, Bishop De Bruillard, was able to pronounce despite the opposition of his metropolitan, Cardinal de 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 pronounce, in favor of Cardinal Van Roey, archbishop of Malines and primate of Belgium, to whom was entrusted the dossier concerning all the “Belgian apparitions” from 1932 to 1934, was finally able to give a positive judgment on the events that occurred in his diocese, despite the still very negative opinion of Cardinal Van Roey and of the commission he had created. 

Something similar also occurred in Japan with the events of Akita (1974-1981), in which Bishop Ito of Niigata, the local Ordinary, was able to pronounce favorably, on April 22, 1984, on the apparitions, despite the opposition of the Japanese Episcopal Conference.

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

With regard to Medjugorje, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith intervened only on the pastoral level. The official documents on this event are truly 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 writing: 

“From various points of view there is noted and lamented, and in particular with regard to the competent Ordinary (the bishop of Mostar), a real propaganda of the facts related to the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. A special organization for the pilgrimages is being created and other initiatives are being taken that help to confuse the faithful and hinder the work of the delicate examination that the special commission for the study of the facts in question is carrying out. In order to avoid the extension of the said propaganda and the speculation that it provokes in Italy, despite the warnings and recommendations of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, the presidency [of the Italian Episcopal Conference] carefully considers the opportuneness of advising the Italian Episcopate publicly to discourage the organization of pilgrimages to the said place of the apparitions, as well as any other form of publicity, particularly editorial, considered prejudicial to the peaceful study of the facts at issue by the special commission canonically constituted for that purpose”.

On March 23, 1996 and then in June 1996, Bishop Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, replied to the requests that had been sent to the Congregation by Bishop Taverdet of Langres and by Archbishop Daloz of Besançon. Referring to the declaration of Zara, Bishop Bertone recalls in particular that the cult is not authorized. 

On May 26, 1998, Bishop Bertone replies, this time to Bishop Aubry of Saint-Denis de la Réunion. After recalling the declaration of Zara, he added: “I would like to clarify that it is not the function of the Holy See to take, in the first place, its own position with regard to alleged supernatural phenomena” and he specifies: “Finally, with regard to the pilgrimages to Medjugorje that take place privately, the Congregation believes that they are permitted on the condition that they not be considered as authenticating current events that require examination by the Church”. 

Question: how can a private pilgrimage be organized without this being motivated by the belief that the events in Medjugorje are of supernatural origin? In an authentication of an event in progress? It is this difficulty that Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic see on the horizon in their joint declaration of January 9, 1987. 

7. The criterion of the fruits.

In this regard, we make a preliminary observation. From the document published in 1978 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith it follows that it is necessary, in the first place, to judge a fact according to positive and negative criteria and then, if this examination has proved favorable, to permit certain manifestations of public worship and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence. This amounts to the formula: For the time being, there is no objection. When this order is not respected, errors of assessment can occur. 

If we look at the events of Medjugorje in the light of the fruits, what can we observe? 

It is undeniable that in Medjugorje there have been returns to God and healings. It is equally clear that the sacramental life is regular and that prayer is fervent. These good fruits cannot be denied. 

But can we say that they continue in the parishes?

Unfortunately, it turns out that the touchiness, even the aggressiveness, of some supporters of Medjugorje toward those who do not share their enthusiasm is such that it raises, here and there, serious tensions that affect the unity of the people of God unquestionably observed in Medjugorje. 

A declaration of Bishop Peric that can enrich our reflection on this point: 

“The fruits do not carry with them the proofs that they derive from the apparitions. But, insofar as 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 through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. Finally, it is fitting to ask ourselves whether the fruits of Medjugorje have produced good fruits in the visionaries who, at least during the apparitions, ought to be in their lives the first witnesses of the grace from which they say they benefit.” 

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 that are doubtful or that are bad. But the truth obliges us to say that they exist. We cite for example: 

• The questioning, going as far as defamation, of the local Ordinary, as well as the disobedience to his legitimate authority. 
• The exasperation of the “question” of Herzegovina as a result of the words attributed to the Gospa, words in favor of the Franciscans against the bishop. 

In conclusion: we have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgment on the events of Medjugorje. We must respect the pastoral decisions of the Bishop of Mostar. 

The chronology of the magisterial positions on Medjugorje is part of the process of ecclesial discernment guided by the principles of the encyclical Redemptoris Mater of John Paul II, which places Mary at the center of the faith of the Church and offers theological criteria for receiving her manifestations.

Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian Theology, Marian apparitions and the Postgraduate Program in Mariology.

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