Prayer and Fasting Needed!
(06-18-2016, 07:47 PM)Clare Brigid Wrote: This organization is selling a pro-Medjugorje book at their Web site. 

That's a deal breaker.
Not so fast!

While I am still 'on the fence' about Medjugorie's works and doubt the messages, not everything associated with Medjugorie is 'condemned', only the apparitions/messages.

Here is a more current summation:



(revised 6 November 2013)
[This answer is not intended as an exhaustive history or an attempt to settle open questions.]

I. History.

On June 24, 1981, six children in the town of Medjugorje, Yugoslavia (today, Bosnia-Herzegovina), began to experience phenomena which they alleged to be apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary. This apparition had a message of peace for the world, as well as a call to conversion, prayer and fasting. It also entrusted to the children secret messages about events to be fulfilled in the future. These "secrets," confided individually to different visionaries, have not been revealed to the public. The apparitions themselves have continued almost daily since 1981, with some of the now young adults continuing to experience them regularly (those who have not yet received all the secrets intended for them) and others not. Originally they occurred on a hilltop near the town where a large Cross commemorating the Redemption exists. They have since occurred in many other places, including the parish church, St. James, and wherever the visionaries happen to be located at the time of the apparition.

The news that Our Lady might be appearing immediately began to attract pilgrims to Medjugorje, first from the surrounding countryside, and then, despite the communist government of that day, from Europe and the whole world. These included clergy and theologians, as well as experts from the physical and medical sciences who testified to some kind of phenomenon taking place when the apparition was said to be occurring. The private judgment of these early visitors did much to bolster people's belief in the events at Medjugorje. In addition, some pilgrims reported seeing the sun spin and being able to look at it without pain or eye damage, others that their rosaries turned gold colored, still others that remarkable physical or spiritual/moral healings had taken place. All of these contributed to the fame of the alleged apparition.

II. Ecclesiastical Evaluation.

The initial, informal, response of the Bishop Zanic of Mostar, in whose diocese Medjugorje is found, is said to have been favorable. However, it is alleged that comments attributed to the vision that was critical of the secular clergy and himself convinced him the visions could not be authentic. He nonetheless established a commission in 1982, comprised of theologians, scientific experts and religious superiors to investigate the Medjugorje events. Its three year study produced a vote from two members of the commission in favor of supernaturality, one that it was authentic initially but no longer so, one abstention and eleven votes that nothing supernatural was occurring there.  Letter of Bishop Zanic

Since the Medjugorje events had exceeded the scope of a local event, Cardinal Kuharic, President of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference, announced in January 1987 that a national commission would be established to continue investigating. This decision had been communicated to the Holy See, which stated that it accepted the judgment of the diocesan commission under the authority of the local bishop but urged, as well, that the work be continued at the national level. The Bishops' Conference's instructions to the faithful were that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the basis of its being supernatural and that the Marian devotion of Catholics should be in accordance with Church teaching.

In April 1991 the following declaration was made by the Bishops' Conference of the former Yugoslavia:

    The bishops, from the very beginning, have been following the events of Medjugorje through the Bishop of the diocese [Mostar], the Bishop's Commission and the Commission of the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia on Medjugorje.

    On the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations. [emphasis added]

    However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church.

    For this purpose the bishops will issue specially suitable liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise, through their Commission they will continue to keep up with and investigate the entire event in Medjugorje.

III. Pastoral Approach of the Church.

From the point of view of an ecclesiastical evaluation the status of Medjugorje has not changed since this 1991 declaration. Consider, however, the following progression of events, which reflects a changing pastoral approach to the question of Medjugorje.

1. April 1991 Decision of the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference.

"[I]t cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations," essentially leaving the question open to new evidence, while allowing suitable pastoral provision for those who may go to Medjugorje.

2. August 1996 letter of Archbishop Tarcissio Bertone.

The Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is understood to suggest that Medjugorje is off-limits to Catholics. The Director of the Holy See's Press Office, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, clarifies, stating,

    You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.

    ...When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] ... nothing has changed, nothing new has been said.

    ...The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession.

    ...Has the church or the Vatican said no [to Catholics visiting Medjugorje]? NO. ... The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true. News Report.

3. May 1998 letter of Archbishop Bertone to Bishop Aubry.

Commenting on a statement by the Bishop of Mostar that the alleged apparitions were not simply lacking evidence of supernaturality but were in fact NOT supernatural (i.e. definitively so), the Archbishop writes,

    The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the "apparitions" in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: "On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations." Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.

    What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of Famille Chretienne, declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate, but likewise, constat de non supernaturalitate of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje", should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

    Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentication of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.  Letter to Bishop Aubrey

Thus, since 1991 the Church has not sought to prevent the participation of Catholics in Medjugorje related events (pilgrimages, conferences etc.) based on their private opinion, while restraining the opinion of clergy acting in any ecclesiastical capacity.

4. February and October 2013 letters of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, to the General Secretary of the USCCB.

The context given for the October 2013 letter is the planned appearances of one of the Medjugorje seers at conferences in the United States, at which it is also presumed that "apparitions" will occur. It should be noted that this has happened on previous visits of Medjugorje seers to the U.S...

In the letter, the Nuncio, writing on behalf of Gerhard Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, states,

    “no cleric or faithful may participate in any meetings, conferences, or public celebrations in which the authenticity of the apparitions are taken for granted.”

In this October letter he also alludes to the existence of a similar letter from February 2013, with presumably similar content. This is especially interesting, given that the first would have been issued at the end of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, and the second during the pontificate of Pope Francis.

5. Conclusion.

These 2013 letters clearly represent a change of pastoral attitude on the part of the Holy See, one which began before the end of the pontificate of Pope Benedict and which has now been affirmed by Pope Francis. An attitude of seeming tolerance has been replaced with a firm call for acceptance of the ecclesiastical judgments made to date, or at least publicly acting in accordance with them. Whether this is simply to dispose all parties (pro and con) to accept the final judgment of the Church when the Pope issues it, whatever that judgment may be, or, in view of a decision of the same character as the previous ones, remains to be seen.

Mystical Phenomena.

The presence of remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena, as the Roman statements given above show. There are likewise few examples of outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis of doctrine which is contrary to the faith.

The reasons for such caution are rooted in the Church's common teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross both assert that as a general rule mystical phenomena (whether in the lives of saints or in apparitions) are the work of the angels. Unless God Himself needs to act to immediately produce an effect (such as to create out of nothing or to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul), He works through creaturely instruments. Thus the intellectual lights granted in contemplative prayer, the visions and locutions of private revelations, the levitations of the saints, the ecstasies of mystics and visionaries, and most external phenomena associated with mysticism, are produced by the angelic nature. Since both good and evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.

Theologians remain divided in judging which phenomena fall clearly into the category of strict supernaturality. However, the practice of the Church in the canonization process of recognizing as miraculous those cures which meet certain strict criteria is a standard that has been applied in approving apparitions, as well (e.g. Lourdes, Beauraing, Banneux). At Fátima the Miracle of Sun likewise fell into the category of a natural prodigy. It is clear, however, that the phenomena which many laity have experienced in connection with alleged apparitions in our days, and which they consider to be proof that they are authentic, do not in fact rise to the level of evident supernaturality. Angelic or demonic activity  would be sufficient to explain them. Without a proof of the supernatural order there is little likelihood of the Church affirming an apparition as authentic.

In the case of Medjugorje the commissions found that nothing directly connected with the apparition met this strict standard.

What the Church has forbidden.

From the most recent statements of ecclesiastical authority it is clear that no Catholic may participate in events which presume the authenticity of Medjugorje. The older statements emphasized only the prohibition of those holding an office in the Church (bishop, pastor, rector, chaplain or other) who would, by virtue of that office, tend to lend official sanction to Medjugorje, and thus contradict the decisions of the competent local authorities. Those earlier statements proscribed pilgrimages organized under official auspices; however, common sense suggests that a conference or other activity sponsored by a diocese, parish or other Catholic institution was also prohibited.

Likewise,  there could not be, then or now, public veneration (cultus) of the Blessed Virgin under the title of Our Lady of Medjugorje, since this would suggest the certainty of her appearing there. The title Queen of Peace, it should be noted, is already part of the patrimony of the Church.

The Yugoslavian statement spoke of liturgical-pastoral directives which may be developed. Catholics are obliged to obey whatever positive or negative directives a local bishop, or a Bishops' Conference, issues regarding the celebration of the sacraments, pastoral activity generally, or the use of Church property. This remains the case.

Faith and Reason.

Do the decisions of the Church amount to an obligation to accept that Medjugorje is not supernatural? The answer is no. First, even private revelations approved by Rome bind the faithful to accept them only based upon reasonableness, not faith. Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) stated,

    Although an assent of Catholic faith may not be given to revelations thus approved, still, an assent of human faith, made according to the rules of prudence, is due them; for according to these rules such revelations are probable and worthy of pious credence. [Benedict XIV, De Serv. Dei Beatif.]

This means that once a private revelation has achieved Papal approbation it is unreasonable, i.e. imprudent but not against the faith, to not accept it as authentic. Similarly, if the Pope judged a private revelation to not be supernatural, the reasonable person would be satisfied with that conclusion. Would they sin if they did not accept it? They might sin by their intellectual imprudence, rash judgment or the like, but not against the obedience they owed the Holy Father or against the faith.

As far as theological judgments made at the local level, the standard could not be any higher, and is certainly lower. However, that does not mean that one reasonably ignores lesser decisions until the Pope decides. The more a decision perseveres and is repeated, the more information becomes public which supports that decision, the more reasonable it becomes. Prudence takes account of all these factors and decides according to reason not whim.

What the Church permits.

While the earlier statements permitted Catholics to go to Medjugorje, and even include priests acting as chaplains, the 2013 statements raise serious questions about the possibility of doing so. It was already inherent in the earlier statements that the valid basis for a pilgrimage must be a balanced Marian devotion. Practically speaking, how does one go on a pilgrimage to a destination whose fame depends on an alleged apparition and not presume it to be authentic? It seems unlikely that such pilgrimages are simply a matter of tourism and not organized with encounters, conferences and other activities to satisfy a presumption of authenticity.

Finally, while the Church has not suppressed discussion of Medjugorje, Catholics on both sides of the issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of it. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgment of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict XIV explained, when it is rendered.

St. Augustine probably gave the simplest and most helpful rule for all matters of the Church's life when he said (in my paraphrase):

    In necessary things unity,
    in undecided things freedom,
    and in all things charity.

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
(06-21-2016, 09:28 AM)Zedta Wrote: ... not everything associated with Medjugorie is 'condemned', only the apparitions/messages.

Exactly what, pray tell, is "associated with Mejugorje" that is not based on the apparitions/messages?

While, indeed, the Holy See has not taken a definitive position on the matter through the CDF, it is quite clear that the local Ordinaries have, and this is a decidedly negative attitude.

The bishop at the time of the apparition, despite being initially favorable to the apparent apparitions, after assigning a commission to study the matter decided that the apparitions/messages were not able to be shown to be of a supernatural origin (non constat de supernaturalitater). In 1986 he forbade pilgrimages that were not officially approved by the local pastor. The pilgrimages continued, despite this.

As the article cited indicates, a later commission of 20 bishops also came to the same conclusion that the apparitions could not be said to be authentic or of a supernatural origin.

The next bishop in Medjugorje, went so far as to say he was of the opinion that the apparitions were certainly not of a supernatural origin (constat de non supernaturalitater).

The Holy See, through the U.S. Nunciature has officially prohibited the alleged seers from promoting their messages or having "apparitions" throughout the world, as they often did when on tour. The result was that the Holy See prohibits any clergy or faithful from taking part in meetings, conferences, or any other type of gathering in which the authenticity of the alleged apparitions are assumed.

The reaction of the promoters: the same as those promoting female ordinations -- "just try to stop us". [link]

While, indeed, there has been no official CDF or Papal decree, any good Catholic with the sensus Ecclesiæ should see that the attitude of the seers, promoters and devotees of this devotion are contrary to what any previous seer has been.

Consider Lourdes and Fatima. In both cases the seers were hardly proud folks who went on tour. Their initial claims were questioned by the local ordinaries, and Our Lady's approach was to obey the ecclesiastical authorities, and instruct the seers to do the same. That was one of the most convincing elements of these, as regards the proof of their supernatural origin. Miracles and prodigies may be fantastic, but can be deceptive. Obedience is a virtue, and the devil certainly does not have this virtue.

The very fact that the seers and promoters are proudly disobedient to Church authority on maters these authorities have the legitimate authority to command, is a quite solid proof that there is something rotten in the state of Bosnia.

Add to this that apparently these apparitions follow the seers wherever they go ... Marija, for instance has toured the world, and everywhere she goes she has "apparitions" that form the basis of her show.

All of this weighs very heavily in favor of proof that these apparitions are of preternatural origin, or just made up.

It does not take a decree from the Holy See to look at a tree, see the rot issuing forth, and decide that it's probably not a good tree.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)