Dr Sivana you are acting as a source of misinformation(as is Richard Salbato of UnityPublishing and many others who prefer to be sloppy with their language).
Medjugorje has not been ‘Condemned’ as you might be fond of saying. A condemnation would align with finding #2 below, Medjugorje has been given #3 by the Bishop of Medjugorje which is a rather tenative finding, open to further proof in either direction.
Types of Decisions.
The decision of the local bishop should be one of the following: 1) constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural), 2) constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural); or 3) non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
1. Constat de supernaturalitate. An apparition judged supernatural (formerly called worthy of belief) has manifested signs or evidence of being an authentic or truly miraculous intervention from heaven. This judgment is possible when there is evidence of supernatural phenomena, sound doctrine, moral probity, mental health and sound piety of the seer(s) and enduring good fruits among the faithful.
The issue of supernaturality is one that deserves to be explored more fully. According to the common teaching of the Church, most extraordinary phenomena in the mystical order (visions, apparitions, locutions, ecstasies, mystical knowledge etc.) are caused by angels acting on God’s behalf. Whether the burning bush which Moses saw, the ecstatic flights of St. Joseph Cupertino, the stigmata of St. Francis or the revelations of St. Catherine, the general rule in the spiritual order is that God does not do immediately and directly what can be done mediately through a lower order nature, in this case the good angels. The presence of such phenomenon is not, therefore, unequivocal evidence of supernaturality. Each of the approved apparitions have had such clear signs, from the instantaneous and inexplicable cures at Lourdes to the natural prodigy of October 13th 1917 in Fátima, but also the other marks of authenticity mentioned above.
2. Constat de non supernaturalitate. The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.
3. Non constat de supernaturalitate. Finally, it may not be evident whether or not the alleged apparition is authentic. This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.