[Catholic Caucus] Vatican Held Secret Vote on Medjugorje Apparitions: Two-Thirds Rejected it

Last August 6, the Italian journalist David Murgia published an exclusive report concerning the secret votes of 33 theologians and high-ranking ecclesiastics belonging to the international Commission led by Cardinal Camillo Ruini and commissioned by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010 to study in depth and assess the credibility of the alleged Marian apparitions of Međugorje, in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The apparitions of Međugorje began on June 24, 1981, when six young people from the small village of Herzegovina claimed to have seen the Virgin Mary, who was said to have presented herself as the “Queen of Peace.” Since then, the visionaries claim to have received spiritual messages and calls to conversion, prayer, and penance, some of which would still continue today.

Although they have not been officially recognized as supernatural by the Catholic Church, indeed despite the strong reservations of the local ordinaries – I am thinking in particular of the bishops of Mostar-Duvno, Pavao Žanić (1980–1993) and Ratko Perić (1993–2020) – this phenomenon of alleged Marian origin has given rise to an international movement of faith and worldwide pilgrimage, with millions of people visiting Međugorje every year in search of spiritual renewal or reconciliation.

Inevitably, a substantial devotional and spiritual market has also developed around the phenomenon, consisting mainly of activities connected with tourism, which overall, according to the estimates of sociologist Vencel Čuljak, exceeded 11 billion euros from 1981 to 2013. Every year, Međugorje generates a total income of 90 million euros.

Of this business turnover, only about 3 billion remained in the town of Međugorje and even less – 290 million euros, apart from donations – in the local diocese. Although financial management is largely autonomous and local, obviously – also because of the Holy See’s failure to make an official pronouncement on the phenomenon – the enormous economic impact is at the same time poorly regulated, and this entails considerable financial contributions that arrive indirectly but constantly to the Church understood universally.

I did not introduce this economic clarification in order to fuel sterile ideological pseudo-socialist polemics, according to which religious phenomena exist only to generate profit or (worse still) according to which religious phenomena should not generate profit in any way, not even indirectly: a line of reasoning typical of someone who understands very little about economics and, more generally, about how the world works.

It is in fact inevitable, and even legitimate, that a market segment should develop around major spiritual events, as also happens, among other things, with the sanctuaries of Fatima, Guadalupe, or Lourdes. Quite simply: where there is demand, supply is created. However, dwelling on the economic data concerning Međugorje is useful, because their weight may help us understand some of the strategic choices Francis made in recent years: I will return to this shortly.

Nor, for that matter, would it be the first time that the Vatican, under Bergoglio’s pontificate (also marked by a profound financial crisis, as is well known), allowed itself to be influenced by economic considerations, while continuing hypocritically to denounce the market society and private property.

The German case is an emblematic example: an extraordinarily wealthy Church, capable of exercising immense power and acting in open contrast with Catholic doctrine and with acts of papal authority, as demonstrated, for example, by the initiatives of Cardinal Marx and the German Bishops’ Conference concerning homosexual blessings and “queer” pastoral ministry.

Despite the blatant disobedience to Pope Leo and the veto received from Cardinal Fernández, there was no threat of excommunication or other canonical sanctions against them. Indeed, Cardinal Parolin even publicly toned down the rhetoric (incidentally: on the eve of the excommunication against the SSPX), saying: “[I hope] never to have to resort to sanctions, that problems can be resolved peacefully, as they should be in the Church.”

The Ruini Commission and the bishops’ pronouncement

Returning to the news of these days, Murgia’s revelation (note well: a journalist who believes in the authenticity of the Međugorje apparitions, and therefore cannot be accused of being biased) is useful for understanding in depth the program pursued by Francis concerning apparitions and mystical phenomena.

On March 17, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI entrusted Cardinal Ruini with the management of the international commission of inquiry on Medjugorje. At first, the commission appeared favorable – at least toward approving the initial apparitions. In reality, as we shall see, those first episodes are the most problematic. Very soon, several “oddities” began to emerge.

It is not possible to gather into one article all the theological errors, the contradictions hidden in the thousands of messages that the Gospa allegedly continually delivered to the visionaries, the numerous seriously problematic implications for spiritual and ecclesial life that emerge from a possible acceptance of what was “communicated” to the six Bosnian visionaries, or the cultural-spiritual context in which the Međugorje phenomenon was born and developed. Here I will limit myself to presenting only three of the aspects, which – in my opinion – are the most problematic of the entire affair.

An aspect often ignored in Međugorje circles concerns the anomalous nature of the first manifestations. The cycle of the alleged apparitions did not in fact originate in an atmosphere of spiritual tranquility, as happened at Lourdes or Fatima, but in a context of genuine terror.

According to the mariologist René Laurentin, favorable to the authenticity of the phenomenon (cf. La Vierge Apparait-Elle A Međugorje?, 1984), the first vision – June 24, 1981 – was that of a black creature that terrified the visionaries, forcing them to flee. Only later, when the visionaries returned to the Hill, did the figure that subsequently identified itself as Our Lady appear.

Other accounts, such as that of Donal Foley (cf. Međugorje Revisited: 30 years of Visions or Religious Fraud?, 2011), describe the Gospa (“Our Lady”) with anomalous and even disturbing features.

“In the initial appearances, the Gospa appears out of a cloud of light which gradually takes on the image of a young woman in her late teens. She has blue eyes and is wearing a gray dress. She looks like she is holding ‘something like a baby’ in her arms, but none of the features of the baby can be seen. Her hands are shaking. She laughs. The visionaries are able to touch and kiss her, but her vestments are ‘steel to the touch.’ When a lady doctor asked if she could touch her also, the Gospa agreed, but complained about ‘unbelieving Judases.’”

On June 26, 1981, while Marija was coming down the mountain after the apparition, she was mysteriously pushed to the edge of the path by an invisible force.

On August 2, 1981, the Apparition allegedly allowed the people present to touch her. However, while people were “touching” her (whatever this means), the Virgin took on an increasingly dark appearance. The visionary Marija explained that this was caused by the sins of those who touched her.

On another occasion, December 25, 1982, the visionary Mirjana said that, instead of Our Lady, she had received the apparition of a monstrous creature that promised her success and wealth. Suddenly, this apparition “transformed” into the image of the Virgin, who apologized (sic) to the visionary and explained to her that they had seen the devil and that it had been a test.

The presence of fear, metamorphosis, laughter, and darkness certainly contrasts with the Catholic mystical tradition, which associates authentic Marian manifestations with signs of grace and supernatural serenity, not with phenomena of ambiguity or terror.

Another interesting element concerns the medical examinations to which the visionaries were regularly subjected. Here too, the narrative proposed by Međugorje circles presents the visionaries as completely disconnected from their surroundings, to the point of no longer perceiving the people around them. Indeed, many of the medical tests seem to confirm this altered state of consciousness.

However, there are other tests that instead contradict this finding, and which are regularly not mentioned. In 1988, independent scientific investigations conducted during the alleged ecstasies of the visionaries demonstrated that, contrary to what had been claimed in 1985 by the doctors of the “Regina della Pace” Association, Marija Pavlović had perfectly normal corneal sensitivity and blinking, physiological signs of an unaltered state of consciousness: this means that she reacted like a fully alert person, thus disproving the hypothesis of a supernatural phenomenon.

Indeed, on January 14, 1985, during an apparition, Jean-Louis Martin – one of the faithful – decided to “test” the alleged ecstasy himself and suddenly made a karate gesture, pointing two fingers toward the eyes of the visionary Vicka Ivanković. Instead of remaining unfazed, she closed her eyes and quickly moved her head. The episode was filmed and subsequently analyzed.

It therefore seems that we are dealing with a complex phenomenon, in which altered states of consciousness alternate with moments of full ordinary consciousness. This oscillation, rather than suggesting deliberate fraud, points to a deception of a preternatural nature, that is, a diabolical action permitted by God.

From this perspective, the apparent “deficiencies” or inconsistencies of the phenomenon – the loss and recovery of sensitivity, normal physical reactions, the metamorphoses of the figure that appeared – would not be accidental, but revealing signs of its non-supernatural origin, a means through which Providence would allow the true nature of the apparition to be revealed “to those who have eyes to see,” as the Gospel would say.

The most serious element of the Međugorje phenomenon concerns the content of the messages attributed to the Gospa. Very many of these are repetitive and even banal. However, hidden within this veritable logorrhea, there are also several theologically erroneous or openly heretical statements, contrary to the deposit of the Catholic faith. I only report some of them.

On July 2, 2017, the Gospa allegedly said to Mirjana: “[Jesus] was man and He is God, one and threefold.” Obviously, this confusion of the divine Persons and of Christ’s identity cannot come from the Virgin and is an error too gross to be justified as a “typing” error by the visionary or a translation error.

But even assuming that it was an error, there are other problematic moments. For example, as Bishop Perić pointed out, the visionary Vicka initially said that she had been called by the Virgin to religious life, but then decided to marry. Vicka explained it this way: “Our Lady gave free will to each one of us. Each person can respond to the call he or she wants. Although I got married, I will continue to spread Our Lady’s messages, because the Christian faith can also be witnessed in marriage.”

Such a conception of the Christian vocation is at the very least singular, if by it one means that man can autonomously determine which divine calling to follow, as if vocation were simply one possibility among others, left entirely to his choice. Christian freedom, in fact, does not consist in being able arbitrarily to contradict God’s will, but in being able to recognize it and freely adhere to it. Certainly man can reject a call from God and live differently from what he is called to; but that does not make his choice conform to the divine will.

On October 1, 1981, the Gospa allegedly said: “Members of all faiths are equal before God. God rules over every faith just as a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not equal because not all people have respected God’s commandments. They reject and denigrate them.”

Curiously, one could say that the Gospa surprisingly anticipated the Abu Dhabi Document, where it is stated that God would have “willed” (sic) the plurality of religions, and more generally the indifferentist attitude of Pope Bergoglio: “Religions are different languages for reaching God, but God is God for everyone, and we are all children of God.”

But the Gospa also anticipated Bergoglio and his protégé Fernández in another case, namely the denial of the Marian title of Mediatrix of all graces. Indeed, in the message of August 31, 1982, the Gospa allegedly said: “I do not dispose of all graces. I receive from God only what I obtain through prayer.” A few days later, on September 4, 1982, the Gospa returned to the subject: “Jesus prefers that you turn directly to Him rather than through an intermediary.”

Another particularly significant message concerns one of the most singular statements attributed to the Gospa: that August 5 is the day of the Virgin Mary’s birth.

On August 1, 1984, the alleged Madonna reportedly communicated to the visionaries: “This August 5 will celebrate the second millennium of my birth,” also requesting a particularly intense spiritual preparation during the preceding three days and inviting people not to work on those days.

This is therefore not simply a popular devotion that spontaneously arose in Međugorje: the date would have been explicitly indicated by the alleged apparition as her own birthday.

The difficulty, however, concerns not only the uncertain origin of this information. Above all, it concerns the fact that August 5 is not a neutral date in the Marian Tradition of the Church. The Church in fact celebrates the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary on September 8. It is one of the oldest Marian feasts. It is at the very least singular that an alleged Marian apparition should intervene to replace this Tradition with a completely different date, moreover accompanied by the claim to reveal information that had remained unknown for almost two thousand years.

But there is an even more interesting detail. August 5 is already a Marian feast: it is the Dedication of the Basilica of Saint Mary Major, the oldest and most important Marian basilica in the West. Tradition connects it with the miracle of snow falling on the Esquiline in the summer of 352, following which Pope Liberius is said to have identified the site intended for the construction of the basilica.

We therefore find ourselves faced with a coincidence that is difficult to overlook: an alleged Marian revelation introduces August 5 as the “true” birthday of Our Lady precisely on the day on which the Church has celebrated one of its most important Marian feasts for centuries. The practical result is evident. If the faithful accept the Međugorje revelation, August 5 acquires a new and extraordinary significance. The liturgical feast of Tradition is thus inevitably overshadowed by a new celebration founded upon a private revelation.

And it is precisely here that one understands why, if one were to hypothesize a preternatural and deceptive origin of the phenomenon, this choice could have a coherent explanation. Satan, from the Christian perspective, is interested not only in leading man toward an openly pagan cult or toward an explicit denial of the faith. A much subtler form of deception would be to counterfeit what is authentically Catholic, preserving an appearance of Christian devotion while progressively introducing elements foreign to Tradition. From this perspective, the choice of August 5 would be particularly intelligent from the standpoint of deception. A random date would not be chosen, but rather a date already consecrated to Our Lady, upon which a new observance would be superimposed.

All this reaches its culmination in the well-known promise of the “last apparitions of Mary and Jesus on earth” and in the ten secrets, a scheme that clearly seeks to reproduce that of Fatima, but distorts its meaning: whereas Fatima presented a single mystery of eschatological-ecclesiological scope, Međugorje – as does Garabandal, another disturbing and problematic series of alleged Marian apparitions – offers a caricatured apocalyptic version of it, more spectacular than spiritual, a sign of a phenomenon that progressively moves away from Catholic theology to take on the features of a mystification.

Francis’s reform of the discernment of apparitions

The apparitions of Međugorje caused, at least indirectly, Francis’s grave decision to modify the process of discernment of apparitions and, more generally, of so-called private revelations.

In 2016, as reported by David Murgia, 33 members of the Ruini Commission – among theologians and bishops – secretly voted on the authenticity of the apparitions. Two-thirds of the bishops were opposed: constat de non supernaturalitate, “they are found to be non-supernatural.” In the technical language of theology, this can mean that the phenomenon is actually a human fraud or a diabolical manipulation (in this regard one speaks of a preternatural rather than supernatural phenomenon), or both. The devil often plays with the evil intentions of those whom he manipulates.

It should be noted that the group of 33 theologians was quite varied; one might say that it adequately reflected the spectrum of “theological sensibilities” unfortunately present in the Church today: among them were ultra-progressives, moderates, conservatives, and even sympathizers of Tradition. Despite this contrary judgment by the Commission, Francis decided to act differently.

On January 17, 2014, Bergoglio dissolved the Commission, as it had completed its analytical work. Despite the negative opinion, the Pope sent the Polish archbishop and nuncio Henryk Hoser to Međugorje, in order to analyze the phenomenon not from a doctrinal point of view, but from a “pastoral” point of view. Translated: to understand whether the phenomenon produced positive fruits such as conversions, prayer, devotion, fidelity to the Magisterium, etc.

Then, on May 12, 2019, after Hoser’s positive opinion, Francis decided officially to authorize pilgrimages to Međugorje. This, however, would not have meant approval of the authenticity of the phenomena that had been occurring there since 1981. Thus began to emerge the separation between doctrinal judgment and “pastoral” judgment, which shortly thereafter would be elevated by Pope Bergoglio to an official criterion of discernment.

Indeed, on May 17, 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated the new “Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena.” The novelty of these is not marginal, because they significantly modify the way in which ecclesiastical authority is called upon to relate to alleged apparitions, locutions, visions, and other mystical phenomena.

The new Norms establish that discernment must ascertain, among other things, whether there are signs of divine action in the phenomena, whether the messages are consistent with the faith and good morals, whether the spiritual fruits can be appreciated, and whether it is appropriate to promote them pastorally. But immediately afterward they introduce a decisive clarification: “as a general rule, it is not foreseen in these Norms that ecclesiastical authority would give a positive recognition of the divine origin of alleged supernatural phenomena.” In other words: the Church must no longer approve private revelations.

At most it can grant a Nihil obstat, as happened precisely in the case of Međugorje. The formula does not indicate that the phenomenon has been recognized as supernatural. Rather, it means that, without expressing certainty about its authenticity, many signs of an action of the Holy Spirit are recognized. For this reason, the bishop is encouraged to promote the experience pastorally and even to promote pilgrimages.

And it is precisely here that the problem arises. No Catholic can deny that spiritual fruits are important. Our Lord Himself said: “By their fruits then you will recognize them” (Matthew 7:20). However, this evangelical principle does not mean that every phenomenon producing some good fruits must necessarily come from a good tree. This is also because the goodness of certain fruits may only be perceived, not real.

Scripture also says: “Do not put your faith in every spirit, but test the spirits, to see whether they really come from God” (1 John 4:1). Christian discernment, therefore, does not consist merely in counting conversions and returns to the sacraments. Assuming that whatever produces spiritually positive fruits automatically comes from God – a narrative very common in Medjugorje – then the presence of conversions, vocations, prayers, and works of charity becomes a sort of implicit certification of divine origin.

And yet the traditional wisdom of the Church has always held an entirely different view. A person can convert in circumstances that, considered in themselves, do not come from God. God can providentially use a human event, an error, even a bad situation, to lead a soul to Himself. The fact that God brings good out of evil does not make the evil from which that good was drawn good.

The history of Christian mysticism offers an impressive case showing how dangerous it is to identify a reputation for holiness and extraordinary phenomena with divine origin. The case is that of Magdalene of the Cross, a Spanish Franciscan who lived between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. For more than twenty years she was considered a living saint. From childhood, extraordinary phenomena were attributed to her, and over the course of her religious life her fame grew enormously. She was regarded as possessing prophetic gifts and extraordinary mystical phenomena. Her reputation reached important circles of Spanish society and the Church, driving entire crowds to recite the rosary and take part in penitential processions, and even attracting the attention of cardinals. In 1543, when she became seriously ill, the situation began to collapse. Magdalena confessed that behind many of the phenomena attributed to her there had been deception, simulation, and, according to her own confessions, continual relations with Satan.

The main criterion of discernment: Obedience

It is by no means sufficient to stop at the “pastoral” judgment in order to at least indirectly approve an alleged private revelation; indeed, it can be very deceptive. It is therefore necessary to recover a traditional criterion of Catholic discernment that risks being obscured by the contemporary emphasis on “pastoral fruits.”

This criterion is obedience. Now, ecclesial obedience must be distinguished on two levels. First of all, there is obedience to the faith of the Church, that is, to the deposit of faith: to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium – all Catholics, including the Pope (and including the Virgin Mary!), must obey it.

Secondly, derived from the first level, there is concrete obedience to the legitimate dispositions of ecclesiastical authority, when it acts within the limits of its competence. The Church has always taught that, if a bishop were to order a faithful person to do something that he considers unpleasant, inappropriate, imprudent, or even pastorally wrong, but which does not contradict Catholic faith and morals, the faithful person cannot simply substitute his own judgment for that of the bishop. He may ask for explanations, express his disagreement, even seek help from higher authority, but he cannot disobey.

All the more so, this cannot be done by appealing to an alleged and unrecognized private revelation. This is why, if an alleged apparition commands what the bishop forbids, the problem is no longer merely pastoral.

Now, if we really have to describe the fruits of Međugorje, alongside all those that the Međugorje narrative presents to us every day, we certainly find the fruit of disobedience. Indeed, we might say that the case of Međugorje was conceived in this sin.

When the apparitions began on June 24, 1981, the six visionaries were spiritually directed by two Franciscan friars, Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina, who had just been admonished by Bishop Žanić precisely for disobedience: the bishop ordered them to leave the place where they exercised their ministry, but the two friars – relying on the power that the Franciscan order historically exercised in Bosnia-Herzegovina – resisted. And precisely while this controversy was underway, the alleged apparition began to intervene in the matter, obviously in favor of the Franciscans.

On December 19, 1981, barely six months after the beginning of the apparitions, Vicka Ivanković recorded in her diary a response attributed to the Gospa concerning the controversy. According to that record, the alleged Virgin Mary stated that Bishop Žanić was “responsible for the disorder” and that Ivica Vego “was not guilty,” even ordering him to remain in Mostar and not to leave. If it were really the Madonna, this would require an extremely serious theological explanation.

What I have reported here is only a small part of the many anomalies that characterize the story of Međugorje and which, for reasons of space, it has not been possible to report. And perhaps it is precisely this boundless ambiguity that makes the case of Međugorje so emblematic of the contemporary Church.

The situation appears even more paradoxical when compared with the attitude that this same Church reserves for Tradition: when there are no major economic interests to protect, but only doctrine, morality, liturgy, and the continuity of the Church of all time, then suddenly the suspension disappears and authority once again becomes surprisingly eager to prohibit, restrict, and condemn.

In this sense, Međugorje seems almost to be a “support” of the synodal Church: both represent a Church indulgent toward what is ambiguous, provided that it produces broad consensus, participation, and “pastoral” results in which personal experience comes before the infallibility of the Dogma.

And perhaps this is the true anomaly that the case of Međugorje leaves us with: not merely that of an apparition that has been awaiting a definitive judgment for forty-five years, but that of a Church that seems to have lost the courage, and even the interest, to pronounce it.

A Church that, when it should exercise its task of discernment, prefers to suspend judgment, take refuge in indeterminacy, and let time – in plain language: the “pastoral” success of personal experiences and the economic machinery – decide in its place.
The situation appears even more paradoxical when compared with the attitude that this same Church reserves for Tradition: when there are no major economic interests to protect, but only doctrine, morality, liturgy, and the continuity of the Church of all time, then suddenly the suspension disappears and authority once again becomes surprisingly eager to prohibit, restrict, and condemn.

Ping

And perhaps this is the true anomaly that the case of Međugorje leaves us with: not merely that of an apparition that has been awaiting a definitive judgment for forty-five years, but that of a Church that seems to have lost the courage, and even the interest, to pronounce it.

The local bishop has authority on these things, and when Bishop Zanic declared very early on that there was nothing supernatural, those pious seers and supporters described him as “an ignorant pig farmer”. Bishop Zanic was more orthodox in his manner of running the diocese than most bishops in the 1980s.

I don't know much about this apparition, but it ought to appeal to Protestants...

That's okay, Vicka (he is male), when caught in a contradiction stated "What I said did not necessarily fully correspond to the truth."

I am not saying that purported visionaries have to be saints, but if they can lie about the purported apparitions themselves, they are worthless.

Ivan did very well, for himself, marrying Miss Massachusetts.

Care to cite that quote?

Why would you go to an intermediary if you can go directly to him?

The only reason i can think of is because you don’t have a relationship with Jesus or his Father.

The curtain was torn from top to bottom.

In the bible, Jesus did say whatever we ask the Father and in Jesus’ name....

If He wanted us to ask someone else, or through someone else, don’t you think He would have mentioned that instead?

“Jesus prefers that you turn directly to Him rather than through an intermediary.”

Care to cite that quote?

Nicolle needs 4 people responding to a question. Not even him. Why?

And not even an answer

“ It’s from the article. Go read it.”

It’s a 70 paragraph article. I’m supposed to review it to find one Protestant argument you made for what reason?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

[Catholic Caucus] Vatican Held Secret Vote on Medjugorje Apparitions: Two-Thirds Rejected it

The Synodal Church and Međugorje: A History of an Eloquent Relationship

The Ruini Commission and the bishops’ pronouncement

Francis’s reform of the discernment of apparitions

The main criterion of discernment: Obedience

Ping

And perhaps this is the true anomaly that the case of Međugorje leaves us with: not merely that of an apparition that has been awaiting a definitive judgment for forty-five years, but that of a Church that seems to have lost the courage, and even the interest, to pronounce it.