Medjugorje

The Note’s first paragraph calls this a long and complex history, in which bishops, theologians, commissions and analysts expressed divergent opinions. This page keeps to what the Holy See has itself published, above all the Note, and the timeline given at its presentation by Mgr Armando Matteo, Secretary for the Doctrinal Section of the Dicastery. Where other sources are used, it says so.

The place

Medjugorje is a parish of villages among stony hills in Herzegovina, 25 kilometres south-west of Mostar. The name means “between two mountains”. In 1981 it lay in Communist Yugoslavia. The parish, then and now, was served by the Franciscan friars of the Herzegovina Province. Relations between the Franciscans and the Bishop of Mostar over the care of parishes were long strained, and the Holy See refers to those “internal problems of the Church in Yugoslavia” as part of the background. On Mount Križevac, above the parish, the people had built a great concrete cross in 1934 for the 1,900 years since the death of Jesus. The present parish church of St James was consecrated on 19 January 1969.

24 and 25 June 1981

In the late afternoon of 24 June 1981 two girls, Ivanka Ivanković and Mirjana Dragičević, went to Podbrdo, at the foot of the Crnica hill. Ivanka said she saw the Madonna there; Mirjana did not. They walked on through the village. About six o’clock six children reported seeing, at the same place, the figure of Mary holding a child in her arms: Ivanka and Mirjana, with Vicka Ivanković, Ivan Dragičević, Ivan Ivanković and Milka Pavlović. The next day, 25 June, Marija Pavlović and Jakov Čolo joined the group. Those who have been spoken of ever since as the six are Ivanka, Mirjana, Vicka, Ivan Dragičević, Marija and Jakov.

According to the international commission set up later, as reported by Cardinal Fernández, the young people were psychically healthy and were not influenced by anyone in the first seven apparitions, between 24 June and 3 July, and they testified with one voice that they saw Our Lady entrusting them with messages of conversion and penance.

The bishops

Bishop Pavao Žanić of Mostar-Duvno met the six on 21 July 1981 and was convinced that they were not lying. He said so again a few days later when he gave Confirmation in the parish. Then his view changed. On 19 November 1983 he sent a confidential report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, voicing his strongest doubts.

On 12 October 1984 the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia issued a statement forbidding official pilgrimages. On 19 May 1986 the diocesan commission gave its judgment: 11 votes to 4 for non constat de supernaturalitate, meaning that a supernatural origin is not established. That same year the Pro-Nuncio in Belgrade gave a negative opinion of the commission’s work, and the Congregation asked the Bishops’ Conference to examine the case afresh.

The Zadar Declaration, 1991. That new commission worked from 9 April 1987 until April 1991. At their session in Zadar (Zara) the bishops then declared that, on the basis of the investigations so far, it could not be affirmed that these were supernatural apparitions and revelations. But because so many people were coming, they asked for pastoral care, so that a healthy devotion to Mary might be promoted in accordance with Church teaching, and they said they would keep studying the events. The Declaration is dated 10 April 1991.

Bishop Ratko Perić, the next Bishop of Mostar, held a firmly negative view, and said so many times. Cardinal Fernández recognises that he had the right and duty to speak. On 28 October 1994 he asked St John Paul II for a commission to give a definitive verdict. When a papal visit to Medjugorje was announced in July 1995, during the journey to Sarajevo, he asked the Congregation to prevent it, and the visit did not take place. On 2 March 1998, replying to the Bishop of Saint-Denis de La Réunion, the Congregation said that private pilgrimages were permitted, that Medjugorje had not been declared a place of authentic apparitions, and that Bishop Perić’s view was his own and not the Congregation’s.

The Ruini Commission

The Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia and Herzegovina said it could not undertake a new examination. On 14 January 2008, according to Mgr Matteo’s timeline, Benedict XVI decided to set up an international commission under Cardinal Camillo Ruini. (Other timelines date the commission to 2010, when it became public.) It gave its judgment in January 2014, and at the request of the Congregation its conclusions were not published.

What is officially known comes from Pope Francis and from Cardinal Fernández’s press conference, which he said was not itself an official document. The members voted 13 for a supernatural origin of the first seven apparitions, with 1 against and 1 undecided. On the apparitions after that, 12 members said it was not yet possible to decide and 2 voted against, and the report spoke of possible outside influence and of apparitions becoming almost “planned”. On the effects, 5 votes were for positive, 6 for mixed but mostly positive, 3 for mixed. Most members favoured a Church authority dependent on the Holy See and a pontifical shrine.

The Congregation then made further studies, and two experts reached very different results from Ruini’s. In December 2015 Pope Francis took all decisions into his own hands. Flying back from Fatima on 13 May 2017 he praised the Ruini report and said the real core was the spiritual and pastoral fact that people go there, are converted and meet God, and that this cannot be denied. These votes are not the Church’s conclusion. The Note of 2024 does not adopt them.

Envoys and pilgrimages

On 11 February 2017 Pope Francis sent Archbishop Henryk Hoser of Warsaw-Prague to Medjugorje as special envoy, with a purely pastoral mission, leaving the apparitions aside. On 31 May 2018 he was made Apostolic Visitor to the parish. A disposition of the Pope, made public on 14 January 2019 according to Mgr Matteo, allowed pilgrimages to be organised, with care that they not be read as an authentication. On 12 May 2019 this was announced in the parish itself, and the Holy See Press Office explained that dioceses and parishes could now officially organise them. Archbishop Hoser died on 13 August 2021. On 27 December 2021 Archbishop Aldo Cavalli was named Apostolic Visitor in his place.

The alleged visionaries since

The Note clearly states that it makes no judgment on their moral lives. It adds that gifts of this kind do not require moral perfection in those involved. It also notes that the fruits have become distinct from them, and that they are no longer seen as the central mediators. Several of them have married and raised families. Reports of daily or yearly apparitions to them, and of “secrets” entrusted to them, are widely told by them and their followers. The Note does not rule on these things, and it does not mention the secrets. It does direct that any future messages, and past unpublished ones, be discerned and authorised by the Apostolic Visitor before they are published.

Under the Norms of 17 May 2024, a nihil obstat means that the faithful “are authorized to give it their adherence in a prudent manner”. It does not imply that the phenomenon is supernatural, and the faithful are not obliged to believe in it (Note 38). It says they may find real encouragement for Christian life here, and it allows public acts of devotion. It rests on two supports: clearly verified fruits, and a study of the messages.

The Note says that the time has come to end the long history. It says expressly that seeing the abundant fruits does not mean the alleged events are authentic. Nor does finding most of the messages edifying mean they have a direct supernatural origin.

The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno issues the decree. The Apostolic Visitor stays in post, must see that the Note is printed as an introduction to any collection of the messages, and must approve new or unpublished ones (39). Each diocesan bishop keeps full authority to judge prudently what happens in his own territory, and may act against groups or persons who misuse the phenomenon (40). In their presentation the Dicastery’s officers spoke of a few dioceses, five or six among very many, where serious problems had arisen.

• Many conversions, among people far from the faith and those who had kept it only on the surface (3 to 5).
• A frequent return to the sacraments, above all the Eucharist and Reconciliation.
• Vocations to the priesthood, consecrated life and marriage; reconciled spouses and renewed families.
• A strong pastoral life in the parish: Rosary, Mass, adoration, confessions, Stations of the Cross, seminars, retreats and the Youth Festival.
• Works of charity for orphans, those with addictions, children in difficulty, and people with disabilities.
• Prayer groups in many countries; many young people; visits by Orthodox Christians and Muslims.
• A spirit of peace and recollection. People seem to come mainly to renew their faith, the Note says, more than to ask for particular favours.
• Reports of numerous healings, which the Note mentions without judging.
• In the messages: peace as the fruit of love, a God-centred and Christ-centred life, the Holy Spirit, conversion, prayer and fasting, the Mass as the summit of prayer, love of the poor, communion with the pastors, joy, and the hope of heaven.

The Note says that a few messages stray from the good content, and some even seem to contradict it. So the faithful must be careful in reading and spreading them. Recognising the Spirit’s action does not mean that everything connected with the experience is without error. It may be that some messages grew out of the desires or interests of the alleged visionaries or others (2).

• Wrong wording about God. One message of 2 November 2017 calls the Son “one and triune”. The Note calls this theologically incorrect. In the Son made man, the love of the Triune God is shown.
• Threats and last warnings. Some messages warn of signs or of a final appearance, yet messages went on. They should be taken only as a call not to delay conversion (2 Cor 6:2), read in the light of the message against those who foretell catastrophes (28).
• Control of the parish. Some messages seem to direct parish life in detail. They cannot replace the parish priest, the pastoral council, or the community’s common discernment (29).
• Insistence on the messages. Calls to listen to the messages can stand out more than what they say. This risks dependence, and could obscure the Word of God (30). The true spirit of Medjugorje, the Note says, is not to dwell on extraordinary events but to pray with Scripture, worship Christ, serve others and build peace (34).
• Orders on small matters. Messages that set dates, places and practical details are unlikely to be supernatural. A clear example the Note gives is a message of 1 August 1984 about a second millennium of Mary’s birth, with a request not to work on those days. The faithful may reasonably ignore such details (30).
• “My plan”. Phrases that speak of Our Lady’s own plan could confuse. Mary has no plan of her own for the world and the Church. She serves God’s plan (35).
• “Mediatrix”. Used as some messages use it, the word could wrongly give Mary a place that belongs only to Christ, the one Mediator (1 Tim 2:5 to 6). Her part is a maternal intercession, wholly subordinate to him (36).
• Why people go. Pilgrimages are not made to meet alleged visionaries. They are made to meet Mary, Queen of Peace, and, as she herself would wish, to meet Christ: in the Word, in the Eucharist, and in adoration (41). The good fruits come above all on pilgrimage to the places, not at meetings to be present at alleged apparitions (3).