Official and unofficial position of the Church: Part I

The official position of the Church on Medjugorje is one of the most relevant questions 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 unofficial position of the Church

In the course of the narration of the events we were able to see how Bishop Zanic, a man of good heart and very open, humanly and spiritually, despite his impulsive and at times aggressive and authoritarian temperament, was initially favorable to the apparitions and how he courageously defended them against the communist government. Later, caught up in the determinism of the struggle between the Franciscans and the secular clergy, this man slid into an opposite position that he defended with equal enthusiasm and vigor.

This led him to give a negative judgment, while the pilgrims of Medjugorje were preparing a line of defense similar to the one with which Joan of Arc had been defended when she was sentenced by the regular tribunal of Bishop Cauchon. When Bishop Zanic presented his negative judgment to Cardinal Ratzinger, it seems that the latter acted as spokesman for the Pope, who always consulted him in the most important cases, and that he essentially replied:

“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 whom he met on the ship crossing the Adriatic on the way back. Cardinal Kuharic, president of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, took care to give him first place in the debates that followed on the basis of 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 a successor of the apostles. Under these conditions, the positive interest of Cardinal Kuharic in taking pastoral charge of this important event could not move forward.

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 vigor. Only Archbishop Franic dared to speak in another sense, with his authority as the one responsible for doctrinal questions. But when he reached the prescribed age limit, Archbishop Zanic became the one principally responsible, after which no one dared to speak.

After five years, the diplomacy of Cardinal Kuharic, president of the Episcopal Conference of Yugoslavia, was failing. The question became quite complicated because Archbishop Zanic, who spoke first, maintained his negative opinion and the bishops of the other dioceses did not dare to intervene in the sphere of his competence. In the end, they arrived at a positive text, but into it Bishop Zanic had inserted so many of those negative engravings that the text did not even seem publishable. They decided to keep this secret, at least at the beginning. But Bishop Zanic published it on January 2, 1991 through the Italian agency ASCA together with a negative commentary:

“Without supernatural character”.

Father Michel de la Trinité, a well-informed adversary, attributes to him the “honor” of this “courageous” “initiative”. But Archbishop Frane Perko of Belgrade corrected everything in the magazine 30 Days in the issue published on February 2, 1992:

“I deny this interpretation”.

And Archbishop Franic of Split explained to the 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 begins to weep and shout”.

The bishops gave up insisting. From that moment on, the commentaries ran their course in both directions.

The bishops, embarrassed by this unauthorized publication, drew up a text in a rather confused manner and published it four months later, on April 10, 1991, by way of clarification:

“The members of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, meeting in ordinary session on April 9 and 10, 1991 in Zadar, agreed on the following declaration: ‘From the beginning, the bishops have followed the events in Medjugorje through the diocesan bishop and the commission created for this purpose by the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference. On the basis of the investigations carried out so far, it cannot be said that what occurs at the site are supernatural apparitions or revelations. Nevertheless, the massive gathering of the faithful who, motivated by reasons inherent to their faith, or by other reasons, come to Medjugorje from all over the world, requires the attention and pastoral concern of the bishop of the diocese, in the first place and, at the same time, of the other bishops, so that in Medjugorje, for those who have recourse to it, a sound devotion to the Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church. To this end, the bishops will give the appropriate liturgical and pastoral guidelines. At the same time, they continue, through their commission, to follow and examine the fruits of Medjugorje as a whole’”.

The conclusions are these: 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 that doubt. Cardinal Kuharic, president of the Conference, states:

“As for the supernatural nature of the apparitions, we declare the following: so far, we cannot affirm it, but we leave the judgment to further studies. The Church is in no hurry”.

The dissolution of the Episcopal Conference after the disappearance of the former Yugoslavia left the situation in the same state. The bishops take charge of the pilgrimage. They do not forbid and do not dissuade the pilgrims, but they guide them. Cardinal Kuharic acknowledged that the church of Medjugorje had in effect become “a Marian shrine” (a formula rejected by Bishop Peric, successor of Bishop Zanic). News spread of the prolonged conflict that arose later from an ambiguous reply of the Congregation for the Faith given to Archbishop Taverdet and other bishops. Dr. Navarro Valls, spokesman of the Holy See, in direct contact with the Pope and his secretary, opposed the interpretation according to which the pilgrimages were disapproved or forbidden:

“The Vatican never said: You cannot go to Medjugorje”.

On the contrary, he says to the bishops:

“Your parishes and dioceses cannot [yet] organize official pilgrimages, but one cannot tell people: do not go there”.

Some said that the pilgrimage was at least forbidden to priests, and in this regard the spokesman of the Holy See specified:

“A Catholic who goes to such a place […] has the right to spiritual assistance. The Church, therefore, does not forbid priests to accompany people on trips to Medjugorje […] organized by the laity”.

Archbishop Peric followed this interpretation.

Indeed, Archbishop Zanic, close to the age limit for becoming emeritus, at the most intense moment of the war in Bosnia, had his successor appointed in the person of Bishop Peric, who was superior of the Croatian seminary in Rome and who had constantly assisted him in his struggle against the Franciscans, and who therefore seemed to him the most suitable successor. His appointment was signed while the Pope was ill and therefore he did not know the consequences of the situation, which were not revealed to him. Archbishop Peric was a young man who was more effective, more consistent, but also less open than Archbishop Zanic. Bishop Peric was also a man of government, skilled in the use of canon law and of Roman relations. He declared with deference that he would leave it to the Holy See to decide on the matter, but meanwhile he was waging a struggle more effective than that of Archbishop Zanic against the Franciscans and Medjugorje. He refused to grant institution and canonical faculties to the latest priests ordained and appointed to the parishes by the Franciscan provincial, as was his duty. In this way he managed to maintain a completely irregular situation, reinforcing his thesis: with the Franciscans everything was irregular. Nevertheless, Rome ended up seeking a conciliation favorable to the pressing request of the Franciscans, who had always obeyed, in general, and who desired regularization in good and due form.

The 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 hand over the eight parishes already provided for in the document of Paul VI, but which could never be transferred, given 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.

In many parishes, however, the faithful maintained their radical opposition, even going so far as to wall up the parish house to prevent the arrival of the secular priest, and they also pleaded fervently with some Franciscans known for their good heart, that they not abandon them without the sacrament. The Franciscans were strictly expelled from the Order, dispensed from their vows and suspended, being forbidden to exercise the priesthood, even though they continued to do so under the pretext that they had no 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 to was fully reaffirmed. What they asked for in return, however, was much less. Bishop Peric granted neither canonical institution (that is, an official post) nor pastoral faculties, including that of confession, except on the condition that they swear total obedience to the bishop. And even those who took this oath did not always receive the canonical faculties and, above all, did not receive the faculty to hear confessions. As in the case of a young Franciscan priest appointed in Medjugorje, where confessors are lacking. It is very difficult to disentangle this tangled knot. The Franciscans, who expected so much from those official agreements, continue to live in Medjugorje in a difficult situation, because the faith continues to bring about admirable conversions and movements of priestly formation.

Young people flock to the youth festival, demanding that it be open to them from August 1 to 6. This event is extraordinarily fruitful. Bishop Peric wrote two books, one after the other, on the Holy Virgin, which are accusations against the apparitions and the pilgrimage to Medjugorje. This creates a difficult situation, even though the Franciscans avoid speaking about the apparitions for which so many people gather. They hold fast to the Gospel and to the sacraments. For this reason, their pastoral work always ends up finding itself in a precarious situation. The dialogue they maintain organically every month with the bishop allows for nothing more than keeping the peace, but it does not lead to a normal pastoral situation in that place of grace.

Besides the reason indicated above, the frequency of Western pilgrimages decreased in the same period: Italy, France and especially the United States, because the pilgrims are afraid of the return journey on account of the threats of terrorism. Their attendance at this place fell still further with the decline, from 1986 onward, the year in which the negative position regarding the apparitions was published, a position that was cordially adopted by the person in charge of North American pilgrimages. Medjugorje, forbidden for a long time, has become a great hub for all the peoples of the East, from which the faithful flow in great numbers, if not in the majority, during the youth festival.

The distinction between official and unofficial positions of the Church on Marian apparitions is illuminated by the theological framework of the encyclical Redemptoris Mater of John Paul II, which provides guidance on the role of the Magisterium in the discernment of Marian manifestations.

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

In summary, the official position of the Church on Medjugorje continues to evolve and requires pastoral prudence. The official position of the Church, expressed in successive Vatican pronouncements, invites the faithful to a serene discernment grounded in the Magisterium.