Why is the Vatican holding a press conference on Medjugorje?
Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández is due to address 'the spiritual experience of Medjugorje' this week
The Vatican sent a frisson through the Catholic world Monday, when it announced a press conference “on the spiritual experience of Medjugorje,” a thriving shrine in Bosnia and Herzegovina associated with alleged Marian apparitions.
In a brief note, the Holy See press office said the press conference would be held Thursday, Sept. 19, and feature Vatican doctrine chief Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, doctrine dicastery secretary Msgr. Armando Matteo, and communication dicastery editorial director Andrea Tornielli. It will be live-streamed on YouTube at 11:30 a.m. local time (5:30 a.m. ET).
Apparitions have been reported at Medjugorje since 1981, so why is the Vatican holding a press conference now? And do we know what Cardinal Fernández is likely to say?
A bit of background
On June 24, 1981, six youngsters reported seeing an apparition of a woman bathed in brilliant light in the village of Medjugorje, then located in communist Yugoslavia. They referred to the figure as the Gospa (“Lady” in Croatian).
The six — Ivan Dragičević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragičević, and Vicka Ivanković — confided in the Franciscan friar Fr. Jozo Zovko, the pastor of St. James Church in Medjugorje, who became their champion. The alleged seers say they continue to receive messages up to the present day..
The Diocese of Mostar-Duvno oversaw two investigations concluding it was not possible to determine the apparitions were of supernatural origin. In 1987, the Vatican’s doctrine office asked the Yugoslav bishops’ conference to take up the matter.
In 1991, the bishops declared that “so far it cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.”
They added that the many Catholics traveling to the site from abroad should be provided with pastoral care, “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.”
In 2010, the Vatican asked a commission led by Italy’s Cardinal Camillo Ruini to investigate the phenomena. The commission concluded its work in 2014, but did not publish its findings.
In 2017, Andrea Tornielli, then a journalist for Italy’s La Stampa newspaper, wrote that the commission’s members took a largely positive view of the first seven reported apparitions in 1987, but were skeptical of the later claims. They also recommended the transformation of the parish of St. James into a pontifical sanctuary.
The report appeared days after Pope Francis spoke about Medjugorje on his return from Fatima, expressing his personal opinion that the present-day purported apparitions “do not have much value.”
The “true core” of the Ruini report, he said, was “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 and pastoral fact cannot be denied,” he said.
In 2018, the pope appointed a “special apostolic visitor” to the parish of Medjugorje, and a year later, he authorized pilgrimages to the shrine.
Medjugorje continues to draw vast numbers of pilgrims. Last month, tens of thousands of people from 80 countries attended the shrine’s annual youth festival.
Why now?
In May, the Vatican’s doctrine office unveiled a new streamlined process for evaluating alleged apparitions, approved by Pope Francis.
According to the new norms, the discernment process following an alleged supernatural event does not end with a declaration of either constat de supernaturalitate (“confirmed to be of supernatural origin”) or non constat de supernaturalitate (“not confirmed to be of supernatural origin”).
Instead, the “doctrinal-pastoral evaluation” may conclude with a “nihil obstat” — a declaration that “nothing hinders” the local bishop from seeking to “draw pastoral benefit from the spiritual phenomenon.”
The declaration of “nihil obstat” can be reached “after assessing the various spiritual and pastoral fruits of the event and finding no substantial negative elements in it.”
What does a “nihil obstat” declaration mean exactly?
The norms say: “Without expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon itself, 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. For this reason, the diocesan bishop is encouraged to appreciate the pastoral value of this spiritual proposal, and even to promote its spread, including possibly through pilgrimages to a sacred site.”
Cardinal Fernández said the new rules were necessary because previously decisions had taken “an excessively long time, sometimes spanning several decades,” with local bishops and the dicastery struggling to apply the old norms.
This was even more problematic in the 21st century, he argued, “since phenomena rarely remain within the boundaries of one city or diocese,” thanks to the internet.
The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) has since issued nine statements on alleged supernatural events in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.
What Cardinal Fernández has said
At a May press conference presenting the new norms, Cardinal Fernández was asked about Medjugorje.
“Regarding Medjugorje, no conclusion has been reached yet, but with these guidelines, we believe it will be easier to proceed and reach a conclusion,” he said.
The Argentine doctrine czar noted that shrines had flourished in the past independent of any declaration that the associated apparitions were of supernatural origin. He gave the examples of Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe.
Asked for a second time about the shrine in Bosnia and Herzegovina, he said: “Regarding Medjugorje, we’ll see. For example, I haven’t read the material available at the dicastery, I know some details, but we need to study to reach a conclusion with these new norms.”
“Keep in mind that a phenomenon can be considered good, not dangerous at the origin, but it may have some issues in its later development. Therefore, sometimes a declaration needs to clarify these different stages: that’s a distinction we need to consider.”
“And then, suppose there was a green light, a ‘nihil obstat,’ we might also need to clarify that some details should not be taken seriously. If I remember correctly, the Madonna there was giving orders, setting the schedule, the place, what the bishop should do, etc. That needs to be clarified.”
What can we expect?
In truth, we do not know what Cardinal Fernández will say about Medjugorje on Thursday.
Recent rulings could provide a possible template. In July, for example, the DDF issued a letter “on the spiritual experience connected with the Sanctuary of Maccio” in Villa Guardia, northern Italy.
The letter to the local bishop, signed by the cardinal, noted positive elements in the alleged supernatural messages associated with the sanctuary, highlighted “matters to be clarified,” noted the “rich spiritual and pastoral fruits coming from this spiritual experience,” and approved the bishop’s proposal of a “nihil obstat” declaration.
Cardinal Fernández could take a similar approach when he addresses “the spiritual experience of Medjugorje.” But that’s just one possibility.
Medjugorje is arguably far more complicated than the events at Villa Guardia, or any other place addressed by the DDF since May. An estimated 50 million people have visited the shrine in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1981, making Medjugorje one of the biggest phenomena in the Catholic Church in recent decades.
The shrine has polarized Catholic opinion since the first apparitions were reported 43 years ago. Many credit their conversions to Our Lady of Medjugorje, while others dismiss the alleged visions as a hoax.
It seems, therefore, that the new norms are about to face their biggest test. Whatever Cardinal Fernández says, it is likely to be scrutinized intensely — and perhaps for years to come.
In 50 years no one in the pews in my city will remember the synod on synodality (I am not sure how many of them remember it *now*), whereas all of the church ladies that I rub elbows with (normie and trad-adjacent and Latin-Mass-trad; online or cable-tv-only) are aware of Medjugorje and have opinions about it, and have either been there or know many people who have been there and also have opinions about that. My expectation is that the press conference will be a nothingburger partly because no one wants to upset millions of church ladies and *in the mode in which they receive it* it will say something like "continue to believe whatever you want about it" (I think that it will actually say something more nuanced than that), and partly because no one realizes that we do not love nuance and we will project a high-dimensionality object onto a plane.
Phenomena at Ezkioga, Spain in 1931 is another example of "visions" that attracted huge crowds but were firmly suppressed by the Church. (The apparitions at Garabandal, which I personally think false, are almost a re-run of that event's apocalyptic "revelations.") See William Christian's book Visionaries.
There are a number of initial silly claims associated with Medjugorje, like worshippers' hands soiling the Virgin's dress, that ought to figure in the official judgment as well as the repetitive banality of the daily "messages." Something else I think is a serious blot on supernatural claims is the way Medjugorje served as a conduit for the dissemination of Maria Valtorta's vile work of "revelations," The Poem of the Man-God. Not only did one of the seers praise it, she said the Gospa authorized its reading by the faithful. (The Poem of the Man-God was the second to last work put on the old Index of Forbidden Books.) Perhaps when all the seers are dead and no "secrets" have come true, enthusiasm will fade. But I doubt it.
But as for the "good fruit" argument, demonstrably false relics supposedly worked miracles in the Middle Ages and the same was claimed for modern apparitions that the Church later found "not supernatural" or even fraudulent. I developed an intense distaste for apparitionism in the '90s. It looked like an attempt to find alternate ways to contact God, sought because of failures and corruption in the institutional Church.