Vatican: Holy Spirit working ‘in the midst’ of Medjugorje ‘spiritual phenomenon’

The ruling does not approve the alleged messages or visions as being authentic, but states the Holy Spirit is acting 'for the good of the faithful,' hence has given a Nihil Obstat ruling.

VATICAN CITY (PerMariam) — Handing down a “Nihil Obstat” decision, the Vatican has today issued a much anticipated ruling on Medjugorje, but expressly ruled out affirming if the alleged messages or visions are “authentic.”

Publishing a Note via press conference, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández presented the Vatican’s ruling on “spiritual experience” of Medjugorje, the alleged visions of which have been a source of much controversy in the 43 years they have been in continuous existence.

He expressly ruled out making a judgement on the authenticity of the alleged visions, the messages and the moral life of the alleged seers. 

Cdl. Fernández expressly ruled out making a judgement on the authenticity of the alleged visions, the messages and the moral life of the alleged seers. 

Instead, Cdl. Fernández stated that “the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal {Editor: through the “spiritual experience” of Medjugorje}, and it authorizes public acts of devotion.” With these words Fernández pronounced the Nihil Obstat, which is now the highest form of Vatican approval of an alleged supernatural event under the new Norms he issued in May.

He further wrote in the summative conclusion that the ruling should not be interpreted as approving the authenticity of Medjugorje’s events: 

Evaluating the abundant and widespread fruits, which are so beautiful and positive, does not imply that the alleged supernatural events are declared authentic.

Instead, it only highlights that the Holy Spirit is acting fruitfully for the good of the faithful “in the midst” of this spiritual phenomenon of Medjugorje. For this reason, all are invited to appreciate and share the pastoral value of this spiritual proposal.

Furthermore, the cardinal implicitly highlighted the bizarre nature of his new Norms when he noted that, despite giving the highest form of approval to Medjugorje, the alleged visions and messages must still be referred to as “alleged,” since the Vatican is no longer ruling on the supernatural origin of such things: 

Moreover, the positive assessment that most of the messages of Medjugorje are edifying does not imply a declaration that they have a direct supernatural origin. Consequently, when referring to “messages” from Our Lady, one should always bear in mind that they are “alleged messages.” 

Under Fernández’s new Norms, a Nihil Obstat judgement is the highest of six possible decisions the Holy See will make on an alleged apparition. It means that “many signs of the action of the Holy Spirit are acknowledged ‘in the midst’ of a given spiritual experience, and no aspects that are particularly critical or risky have been detected, at least so far.”

But as already highlighted by this correspondent, by giving a green light to the “spiritual experience” of an event, but refusing to say if the event is divine in origin, mass confusion is allowed to spread. The majority of faithful will simply take away the erroneous message that the Vatican has approved an apparition and likely proceed accordingly as if the event is divine, when in fact this has not happened. 

Indeed, this confusion is present in Fernández’s own Note, of which more below. Presenting it to the Vatican press corps, Fernández highlighted contradictions between the alleged messages, yet explained them away by calling readers to read the messages as “a whole” rather than attending to the contradictions between individual messages.

Creating numerous straw-man arguments, Fernández’s defended the “alleged messages” from the legitimate criticisms which have been made by arguing that any problematic messages should essentially be ignored as many other messages were not problematic.

First, though, a summary of the events themselves.

Phenomenon is born

In June 1981, six young children from Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina, attested that they were seeing visions of Our Lady on a nearby hill. These four girls and two boys were: Ivan Dragičević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragičević, Vicka Ivanković. 

The children swiftly gained the key support of the local Franciscans, as word of the alleged visions spread and pilgrims began to congregate at Medjugorje. 

The seers referenced the alleged apparition as the “Gospa” using a Croatian word for “lady.”

Alleged seers. Credit: Medjugorje Now.

The local bishop – Bishop Pavao Zanic – while initially open to the possibility of a vision, became swiftly suspicious and doubtful of the affair. 

Medjugorje’s popularity grew but so also did the alleged seers’ links with the Franciscans, whose disobedience to the local bishop is a key factor – and a notable element raised by many of the numerous critics of Medjugorje since the alleged vision encouraged disobedience to the local church authorities.

Early Church response

A first diocesan commission in 1984 gave a ruling of “non constat de supernaturalitate,” namely that it was unable to determine if the events were of supernatural origin. 

A second from 1984 – 1986 also found inaccuracies with the diaries of the alleged visionaries –  and ruled similarly it could not determine if the events were supernatural nature.

In 1986, Bishop Žanić sent a report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stating that the events were false. He went further than saying they were “non constat de supernaturalitate,” and added that the alleged visions were “constat de non supernaturalitate” – namely definitively not of supernatural origin. However, he did not receive sufficient support from the Vatican for his judgement to be affirmed in a more public manner. 

Writing to Father Hugh Thwaites in 1987, Zanic was scathing in his condemnation of the events: “They are the fruit of a fabrication, fraud, and disobedience to the Church. It is about big money and personal interest too.” {Medjugorje: A Warning. Michael Davis}

---

Some have argued that Pope John Paul II was loath to publicly condemn the phenomenon due in large part to Medjugorje being helpful for his plans for the Holy See’s role in international diplomacy at the time. Regrettably, it appears that the Polish Pope allowed his global political designs to outweigh the doctrinal concerns of the local bishops. This policy of inaction on the part of John Paul II was of course by no means limited to Medjugorje but extended to a number of other crises in the Church.

---

Next, the Yugoslav National Conference of Bishops ruled in 1991 that “it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.” 

Instruction was thus given that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje if they were predicated on it being supernatural in nature. At the same time the Vatican also forbade bishops from organizing pilgrimages, but permitted them to join pilgrimages. 

When Žanić retired in 1993 his successor Bishop Ratko Peric continued in line with the former ordinary – namely, opposing the alleged visions and arguing they were not supernatural. 

In 1996, then-CDF secretary Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone sent a letter to Bishop Gilbert Aubry of St. Denis in which he outlined the Vatican’s ruling that pilgrimages to Medjugorje were only permitted “on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.”

Runi report

CDF Prefect Cardinal Gerhard Müller instructed the U.S. Nuncio in 2013 – Archbishop Viganò – that “clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.” Müller’s letter came as alleged seer Ivan Dragičević was making a tour of the U.S. promoting Medjugorje.

Despite the consistently negative judgement – or at least the non-supportive view of the supernatural nature of the events – of the local bishops and bishops conference, the Vatican then established a commission to investigate the matter. Such a decision was out of the ordinary since normally it would only take place if specifically requested by the local bishops. 

In part, this was due to the continued promotion Medjugorje was receiving as growing numbers of pilgrims flocked to it, accompanied by clerics. Though the official ban on pilgrimages which assumed the authentic nature of the alleged visions remained in place, in practice it was widely ignored.

The “Ruini Commission” was thus formed in 2010 at the request of Benedict XVI, led by Cardinal Camillo Ruini and concluded in January 2014. 

Though it was presented to Pope Francis the report was never published. 

Maria Pavlovic in 2007.

In February 2017 Francis sent Archbishop Henryk Hoser as a papal delegate to Medjugorje, giving him an “exclusively pastoral” mission, and with a view to understand the pastoral nature and needs of the site.

Some months later, Francis did reveal some of the Ruini Report’s details whilst on the return flight from Fatima in May 2017.

He stated: 

Regarding the first apparitions, when [the ‘visionaries’] were children, the report more or less says that further investigation is needed. About the presumed current apparitions, the report has its doubts. 

Thirdly, the core of the Ruini report: the spiritual fact, the pastoral fact, people who go there and convert, people who encounter God, who change their lives. For this, there is no magic wand, and this spiritual-pastoral fact cannot be denied.

Francis added that the report was “very good” but further stated it had “doubts” about the visions after July 3, 1981. “I prefer Our Lady to be a Mother, our Mother, and not a telegraph operator who sends out a message every day at a certain time… this is not the mother of Jesus,” he said on a personal note.

Andrea Tornielli – now editorial director for the Vatican’s in-house Dicastery for Communication – wrote in 2017 that the Ruini Commission was reportedly favorable to the first seven alleged visions, through June 24 and July 3, 1981. Tornielli wrote that the Commission treated everything that happened after as a separate phase, with much divided opinion in the Commission over what decisions could actually be made on the period.

The Ruini Commission also reportedly found that no miraculous healings had taken place in Medjugorje.

In May 2019, Francis authorized pilgrimages to be made to Medjugorje, citing the large numbers of pilgrimages being made and the “greater ease” such an arrangement would give for priests to accompany pilgrimages. He noted that it was not an approval of the alleged visions.

Following the death of Archbishop Hoser in 2021, Archbishop Aldo Cavalli was appointed as the next papal delegate to Medjugorje. 

Pope Francis has also sent a number of messages to the annual, charismatic, summer youth festival which takes place in Medjugorje – thus being characteristically confusing to analysts given his personal doubt about the alleged visions, yet encouraging the young people gathering at the site.

Criticism

Critics warn that the alleged visions bear no resemblance to true Marian apparitions and are serving to mislead the faithful. 

Professor William Thomas – a former advisor of Pope John Paul II and member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy – wrote a foreword to Donal Foley’s book Medjugorje Complete. Praising Foley’s in-depth analysis, research and debunking of the alleged visions, Thomas stated the author “indicates that there is almost a parallel church being born in Medjugorje which is favorable to the charismatics and to those who seek to put emotion before devotion on a wave of Medjugorje emotionalism.” 

Thomas wrote of Foley’s tome:

“The reader may feel that the Catholic Church at the highest level has failed to accept the findings of the previous Commissions because it has allowed itself to be swayed by the millions who visit there every year looking for signs and wonders.” 

Foley himself attests that the little-known tapes of the alleged visionaries suggest “that there is a very high probability that what the visionaries saw during the first week or so of visions was not the Blessed Mother, but actually a diabolical counterfeit.”

Indeed a number of the messages from the “Gospa” have been the source of much controversy in that they appear to contradict elements of the Catholic faith. As an example, responding to a question in 1981 about whether all religions are good, the “Gospa” replied: 

All religions are similar before God. God rules over them just like a sovereign over his kingdom. In the world, all religions are not the same because people have not complied with the commandments of God. They reject and disparage them. {Cardinal Fernández himself highlighted the question in his press conference, noting its authenticity though explaining it away by saying that it did not mean what it appears to mean.}

A statement from Bishop Zanic in 1990 re-iterated his strong condemnation – a ntoable element given his close knowledge of the case as the local ordinary. He wrote:

With this statement I wish to awaken the consciences of those who defend Medjugorje. Their path is simple, wide and downhill all the way, while mine is difficult, thorny and uphill…For a short description of the falsehoods about Medjugorje we would need 200 pages..

Zanic pointed to numerous problems with the alleged messages, to empty promises by the “Gospa” and to “fabricated messages” by the alleged seers. “Unfortunately this false sensation will bring great disgrace and scandal upon the Church,” he closed.

“Unfortunately this false sensation will bring great disgrace and scandal upon the Church,” the local Bishop Zanic wrote in 1990.

Respected Mariologists have also argued that the alleged apparitions – nearly daily for over 40 years – do not bear resemblance to the manner of all previous approved Marian apparitions. 

Alongside this have been growing scandals pertaining to the alleged visionaries in terms of their lifestyle and the crucial support they received from Franciscan clerics disobedient to the ecclesial hierarchy – the latter being an issue highlighted today by Cdl. Fernández as one of the most problematic of the Medjugorje issue.

Indeed, in October 2020 the former spiritual director of the alleged seers was excommunicated. He had previously been laicized in 2009 for “teaching false doctrine, manipulating consciences, disobeying ecclesiastical authority, and of committing acts of sexual misconduct.” Instances of such scandal have not occurred in previously approved Marian apparitions, thus causing concerns for analysts.

Despite the numerous issues present in the Medjugorje phenomenon – as extensively documented by a number of researchers, including Foley and Michael Davis – adherence to the presumed authenticity of the events has grown exponentially. So much so that an op-ed in Crisis Magazine from 2020 read: 

“Good-hearted Catholics may have been made victims of an ingenious fraud, or worse, of an ongoing diabolic manifestation. If either ends up being the case, Our Lady will not have been honored in Medjugorje, but mocked—by both devils and men.”

“It is worrying to note that many of its devotees are either unaware of or unwilling to face up to the serious problems associated with believing in the claims of the visionaries,” wrote Foley.

In addition, critics warn that promotion of Medjugorje is having a directly negative impact on devotion to Our Lady of Fatima and the crucially important messages which were given there.

Church historian Michael Davis wrote:

“Medjugorje weakens the message of Fatima, with its cardinal insistence on the conversion of Russia and of Communists as the prerequisite for any peace and progress. Medjugorje talks airily of peace, but ignores the very precise recommendations of Our Lady of Fatima and the disastrous consequences that will follow if these are not complied with.

Echoing him, Foley comments:

“Medjugorje is much more than a passing difficulty which can be shrugged off with little in the way of ill effects. The truth is that it has played a very damaging role in diverting Catholics from Fatima.”

However supporters of Medjugorje often point to the large numbers of pilgrims, Masses and reported conversions at the site, attesting that such aspects are positive signs of the veracity of the alleged visions. Indeed, the Vatican today used the millions of numbers of Communions received at the site as an argument in favor of the positive fruits of the site, though did so without admitting the possibility of numerous poorly received Communions, due to the wide-nature of a lack of catechesis and sacrilegious Communions in the Church as a whole.

Cdl. Fernández referenced “the positive fruits linked to this spiritual experience” which have “become distinct from the experience of the alleged visionaries, who are no longer seen as the central mediators of the ‘Medjugorje phenomenon.’” 

“In the midst of this phenomenon, the Holy Spirit is carrying out many beautiful and positive things,” Fernández attested.

Yet as the Church teaches, the Holy Spirit can work in any setting: He converted St. Paul at the roadside. Outlining the authentic Catholic standards of judging “good fruit,” Foley welcomes the conversions and Confessions at Medjugorje, but nevertheless argues that “by the standards of Christ’s teaching on good fruits it is hard to avoid the conclusion that both the visionaries and their Franciscan associates cannot be said to have lived up to its spirit or its letter.”

Even Fernández’s approving Note outlined a number of “problematic” alleged messages and issues stemming from the phenomenon: “a few messages stray from these positive and edifying contents and even seem to go so far as to contradict them.” {Emphasis non-original}

Highlighting the bizarre and contradictory judgement style of his new supernatural Norms, Fernández wrote that “one must always recall that in this spiritual experience (as in other spiritual experiences and alleged supernatural phenomena), positive and edifying elements are mixed with other elements that are to be ignored.” He also noted:

Although we find many positive elements that help to heed the call of the Gospel when we consider the overall set of messages tied to this spiritual experience, some people believe that certain messages contain contradictions or are connected with the desires or interests of the alleged visionaries or others. It cannot be ruled out that this may have happened in the case of a few messages. 

He thus argues essentially that a spiritual experience which has elements both positive and harmful to the faithful is nevertheless to be recommended to the faithful, since by simply avoiding the “problematic” aspects the positives can be found.

How is to be logically understood or even accepted that – as even Fernández notes – messages which contain “contradictions” to themselves and to the Gospel can form the basis of a spiritual experience which is now being recommended to the faithful?

How is to be understood or even accepted that – as even Fernández notes – messages which contain “contradictions” to themselves and to the Gospel can form the basis of a spiritual experience which is now being recommended to the faithful?

Indeed, outlining a number of the issues raised by critics, Fernández rejected all of these in his press conference by simply waving them aside, and pointing to the “positive” aspects of Medjugorje. It thus appears that verifiable and demonstrable issues are no longer of concern provided there is something more shiny and appealing to direct people’s attention to. The only problem with this is that God does not require people’s attention to be diverted from “problematic” aspects of true Divine teaching, since He cannot err.

What now?

Though today’s ruling authorizes “public acts of devotion” little else will change on paper given the already very public practice of the ardent devotees of Medjugorje and the de facto implicit practice of the alleged visions being authentic. Such devotees will be undoubtedly buoyed by today’s decision. 

In practice, the Medjugorje devotees have already begun acclaiming that the Vatican has approved Medjugorje, that is has been given the ‘green light’ – meaning that the precise points the Vatican has made are already being predictably lost.

Pope Francis told Cdl. Fernández that there will be no further decision after the Nihil Obstat. This will now be the status quo.

On the contrary, informed critics will likely be dismayed by the ruling for the amount of confusion it will allow to spread through the Church, damaging the true cult of Mary. Summarizing the thought of such critics, Foley wrote:

“Medjugorje is a spiritual malaise which is damaging the Church; and at the same time Catholics must be strongly encouraged to support Fatima, Lourdes and other approved apparitions, while being actively discouraged from supporting Medjugorje.”