The official position of the Church on Medjugorje is one of the most significant issues of contemporary ecclesial discernment. Understanding the official position of the Church requires distinguishing between local episcopal declarations and the definitive Vatican Magisterium on the alleged apparitions.Official and Non-Official Church PositionsDuring the narration of the events, we saw how Bishop Zanic, a man of good heart and very open, both human and spiritually, despite his impulsive temperament and sometimes aggressive and authoritarian demeanor, was initially favorable towards the apparitions and courageously defended them against the communist government. Later, caught in the determinism of the struggle between the Franciscans and the secular clergy, this man shifted to an opposite position that he defended with equal enthusiasm and vigor.This led him to pass a negative judgment, while the pilgrims of Medjugorje were preparing a line of defense similar to that with which Joan of Arc had been defended when she was sentenced by Bishop Cauchon’s regular tribunal. When Bishop Zanic presented his negative judgment to Cardinal Ratzinger, it seems that the latter acted as a spokesperson for the Pope, who always consulted him on the most important cases, and essentially responded:”We do not accept this judgment. Dissolve the shared commission that constituted the inquiry on which your ‘non patet supernaturalitas’ (the supernatural is not established) was based, and we will transfer the judgment to the Episcopal Conference.”Spontaneously, Archbishop Zanic revealed the content of his meeting to a priest he met on a ship crossing the Adriatic on his return journey. Cardinal Kuharic, President of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, took care to give him the first place in the subsequent debates based on the work of a new and larger commission. He remained the local bishop, responsible for that parish and for this event, entrusted to his care as successor of the apostles. Under these conditions, Cardinal Kuharic’s positive interest in taking pastoral charge of this important event could not progress.For many years, every time the debate reached the Episcopal Conference, Archbishop Zanic, who was the first to speak, reiterated his accusation with all his strength. Only Archbishop Franic dared to speak in another sense, with his authority as responsible for doctrinal matters. But when he reached the prescribed age limit, Archbishop Zanic became the main responsible party, after which no one dared to speak.After five years, Cardinal Kuharic’s diplomacy, President of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, was failing. The issue became very complicated because Archbishop Zanic, who spoke first, maintained his negative opinion, and the bishops from the other dioceses did not dare to intervene in his area of competence. In the end, they reached a positive text, but in it, Bishop Dom Zanic had placed so many of these negative markings that the text barely seemed publishable. They decided to keep this secret, at least initially. But Dom Zanic published it on January 2, 1991, through the Italian agency ASCA, along with a negative comment:«I deny this interpretation.»Archbishop Frane Perko of Belgrade corrected everything in the magazine *30 Days* in the issue published on February 2, 1992:“I deny this interpretation.”Archbishop Franic of Split explained to *Corriere della Sera* on January 15, 1991:“The bishops do not want to humiliate Bishop Zanic: when they tell him that his position has no foundation, he starts to cry and scream.”The bishops gave up pressing the matter. From that moment on, comments flowed in both directions.The bishops, embarrassed by this wild publication, drafted a rather confusing text and published it four months later, on April 10, 1991, as a clarification:“The members of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, meeting in ordinary session on April 9 and 10, 1991 in Zadar, agreed on the following statement: ‘Since the beginning, the bishops have followed the events in Medjugorje through the diocesan bishop and the commission established for this purpose by the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference. Based on the investigations carried out so far, one cannot say that what occurs at the site are supernatural apparitions or revelations. However, the massive gathering of faithful who, motivated by reasons inherent to their faith or other reasons, come to Medjugorje from all over the world, requires the attention and pastoral concern of the bishop of the diocese, first and foremost, and at the same time of the other bishops, so that in Medjugorje, for those who refer to it, a healthy devotion to the Virgin Mary is promoted in accordance with the Church’s teaching. To this end, the bishops will provide appropriate liturgical and pastoral guidelines. At the same time, they will continue, through their commission, to follow and examine the fruits of Medjugorje as a whole.'”The conclusions are as follows: *the supernatural is neither established nor excluded*. The bishops intend to “continue to follow and examine the fruits of Medjugorje through their commission” with the aim of dispelling this doubt. Cardinal Kuharic, president of the Conference, states:«Regarding the supernatural nature of the apparitions, we declare the following: so far, we cannot affirm it, but leave judgment to future studies. The Church is not in a hurry.»The dissolution of the Conference of Bishops after the disappearance of the former Yugoslavia left the situation unchanged. The bishops take charge of the pilgrimage. They do not prohibit or discourage pilgrims, but guide them. Bishop Kuharic acknowledged that the Medjugorje church had become effectively “a Marian sanctuary” (a formula rejected by Bishop Peric, his successor). News of the prolonged conflict that arose later stemmed from an ambiguous response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to Archbishop Taverdet and other bishops. Dr. Navarro Valls, the spokesperson for the Holy See, in direct contact with the Pope and his secretary, opposed the interpretation that pilgrimages were disapproved or prohibited:«The Vatican never said: You cannot go to Medjugorje.»On the contrary, he tells the bishops:«Your parishes and dioceses cannot yet organize official pilgrimages, but you cannot tell people: do not go there.»Some claimed that the pilgrimage was at least prohibited to priests, and on this point, the spokesperson for the Holy See specified:”A Catholic who goes to such a place […] is entitled to spiritual assistance. The Church therefore does not prohibit priests from accompanying people on trips to Medjugorje […] organized by laics.”Archbishop Peric followed this interpretation.Indeed, Archbishop Zanic, nearing the end of his term and in the midst of the most intense phase of the war in Bosnia, had his successor appointed in the person of Bishop Peric, who was the superior of the Croatian seminary in Rome and who had constantly aided him in his struggle against the Franciscans, and who therefore seemed the most suitable successor. His appointment was signed while the Pope was ill and thus unaware of the consequences of the situation, which were not revealed to him. Archbishop Peric was a younger, more effective, more coherent, but also less open individual than Archbishop Zanic. Bishop Peric was also a man of government, skilled in the use of canonical law and Roman relations. He stated with deference that he would leave it to the Holy See to decide on the matter, but in the meantime he was waging a more effective struggle than Archbishop Zanic against the Franciscans and Medjugorje. He refused to grant institutional and canonical powers to the last priests ordained and appointed to parishes by the Franciscan provincial, as was his duty. Thus he managed to maintain a completely irregular situation, reinforcing his thesis: with the Franciscans everything was irregular. However, Rome eventually sought a conciliation favorable to the pressing request of the Franciscans who had generally obeyed and desired regularization in good and proper form.Meetings took place in Rome under the direction of the Congregation for Evangelization, to which this region of the Balkans belongs. The Franciscans and the bishop agreed to cede the eight parishes already foreseen in the document of Paul VI, but which could never be transferred due to the radical resistance of the parishioners. The agreement was concluded. The Franciscans celebrated a mass together with the bishop, and their joint decision was proclaimed during the Office.However, in many parishes the faithful maintained their radical opposition, even building walls around the parish house to prevent the arrival of the secular priest, and also fervently praying to some known Franciscan priests for their good hearts not to abandon them without the sacraments. The Franciscans were strictly expelled from the Order, dispensed from their vows, and suspended, prohibiting them from exercising the priesthood, even though they continued to do so under the pretext that they did not have the right to refuse the sacraments of Christ to Catholics. The canonical unity of the Church and obedience were a priority.Once again, what the Franciscans had previously agreed upon was fully reaffirmed.What they asked for in return, however, was much less. Bishop Peric did not grant canonical institution (i.e., an official position) nor pastoral powers, including confession, except under the condition that they swore total obedience to the bishop. Even those who made this oath did not always receive canonical powers, and especially, they did not receive the power to confess. As in the case of a young Franciscan priest appointed in Medjugorje, where there is a lack of confessors. It is very difficult to untangle this tangled knot. The Franciscans, who had hoped to obtain these official agreements, continue living in Medjugorje in a difficult situation, because faith continues to produce admirable conversions and movements of priestly formation.Young people flock to the Youth Festival, demanding that it be opened to them from August 1st to 6th. This event is extraordinarily fruitful. Bishop Peric wrote two books, one after the other, about the Holy Virgin, which are accusations against the apparitions and the pilgrimage to Medjugorje. This creates a difficult situation, even though the Franciscans avoid talking about the apparitions for which so many people gather. They cling to the Gospel and the sacraments. Therefore, their pastoral work always ends up in a precarious situation. The dialogue they maintain organically every month with the bishop allows nothing more than maintaining peace, but does not lead to a normal pastoral situation in that place of grace.In addition to the above-mentioned reason, the frequency of Western pilgrimages decreased at the same time: Italy, France, and especially the United States, because pilgrims are afraid of the return trip due to terrorism threats. Their attendance at this place fell even further with the decline, starting from 1986, the year in which the negative position regarding the apparitions was published, which was cordially adopted by the responsible for North American pilgrimages. Medjugorje, which was forbidden for a long time, became a major hub for all peoples from the East, from whom a large number, if not the majority, flock during the Youth Festival.The distinction between official and non-official positions of the Church on Marian apparitions is illuminated by the theological framework of the encyclicalRedemptoris Mater by John Paul II, which guides on the role of the Magisterium in discerning Marian manifestations.Deepen your studies: explore Mariology, Marian theology, Marian apparitions, and Post-Graduate Studies in Mariology.In summary, the Church’s official position on Medjugorje continues to evolve and requires pastoral prudence. The Church’s official stance, expressed through successive Vatican statements, encourages the faithful to exercise serene discernment grounded in the Magisterium.
Graduate Studies in Mariology
Do you want to deepen your formation in Mariology? Get to know the Graduate Program in Mariology from Locus Mariologicus, an academic formation that combines theological rigor, spiritual life, and the living tradition of the Church.
A Magisterial Timeline of Medjugorje from 2001 to 2022: Vatican Declarations, Episcopal Statements, and the Evolution of Ecclesial Discernment. Delve into this historical journey…
Chronological magisterial record of Medjugorje from 1982 to 2000: episcopal and Vatican statements on the apparitions. Delve into this fundamental historical period.
Mary, Servant of the Lord, illuminates the meaning of life, faith, and Christian mission in the world. She deepens the beauty of the Marian vocation to serve the baptized.
In Mary’s face, we contemplate Christ’s face. A mariological meditation on the relationship between Mother and Son in Christian faith. Deepen this reflection.
Responses