 |
| Part of a series on the |
| Catholic Church in Bosnia and Herzegovina |
|---|
 |
Medjugorje (Croatian: Međugorje) has been the site of reported apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje since June 24, 1981. This article describes the Catholic Church's discernment of the Marian apparitions.
When Herzegovina became part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, Pope Leo XIII took steps to establish dioceses (1881) and appoint local bishops. As part of re-establishing normal church structures, the bishops worked to transfer parishes administered by the Franciscans to diocesan clergy. The friars resisted, and in the 1940s, the two Franciscan provinces still held 63 of 79 parishes in the dioceses of Vrhbosna and Mostar. Resistance continued and in the 1970s, friars in Herzegovina formed an association of priests, which encouraged popular opposition to diocesan parish takeovers. A 1975 decree by Pope Paul VI, Romanis Pontificibus, ordered that Franciscans withdraw from a majority of the parishes in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, retaining 30 and leaving 52 to the diocesan clergy. Resistance continued, and in the 1980s the Franciscan Province still held 40 parishes under the direction of 80 friars.[1]
In June 24, 1981, six children in the town of Medjugorje, Yugoslavia (today, Bosnia-Herzegovina), said they had seen an to be apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As the alleged visions were said to be continuing, word spread and the village began to attract people making pilgrimages.
On January 11, 1982, Pavao Žanić, Bishop of Mostar, within whose jurisdiction Medjugorje lay, established a commission to look into the matter.[2] When three days later, on January 14, 1982, three of the seers advised him that the "Madonna" supported the Franciscans, Bishop Zanic began to be concerned that they were being guided more by their Franciscan advisors than by the Blessed Virgin.[3]
In November 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked the bishop if the Commission has come to some conclusions. Bishop Žanić sent a study in which he said the apparition could not be from God because of the "disorder and disarray" it caused, and that it was probably a hoax because "from the outset one can notice that the children have sometimes lied".[3]
In 1984 Bishop Žanić decided to extend the first Commission and expanded its membership to fifteen: 12 priests and 3 medical experts. They held seven meetings in all. This second commission completed its work in May 1986. Eleven members determined that the events at Medjugorje were Non constat de supernaturalitate (i.e., It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin), 1 abstained, 1 accepted ‘in nucleo’) and 2 voted against the finding.) The Commission prepared a draft “Declaration” in which were listed the “unacceptable assertions” and “bizarre declarations”, attributed to the curious phenomenon. The Commission also stated that further investigations were not necessary nor the delaying of the official judgement of the Church. The bishop duly informed the Bishops’ Conference and the Holy See.[3]
With the possible breakup of Yugoslavia, many Croat church leaders saw the new Marian cult in Herzegovina as both an aid to anti-communist efforts and a potential focus for Croat nationalism in both Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.[1] As the Medjugorje events had exceeded the scope of a local event, in January 1987, upon the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Kuharić and Bishop Žanić made a joint communiqué in which they announced the formation of a third Commission under the direction of the Bishops Conference. The bishops would both review the work of the previous commissions and conduct its own inquiry. The Conference instructed that pilgrimages should not be organized to Medjugorje on the basis of its being supernatural.[2]
On 10 April 1991, the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference issued at Zadar its own Non constat de supernaturalitate declaration stating that: "On the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations."[2] Recognizing that people travelled to medjugorje, the bishops made provision for appropriate pastoral care.
The Norms regarding the manner of proceeding in the discernment of presumed apparitions or revelations issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1978 speaks of two alternative judgments that may be passed on claims of private revelation: constat de supernaturalitate ("It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin"), or non constat de supernaturalitate ("It is undetermined at this time if it is of supernatural origin").[4] The possible third judgement, constat de non supernaturalitate ("It is confirmed not to be of supernatural origin"), is not mentioned in this document.
While the view of the local bishop the Medjurgorje events is that constat de non supernaturalitate,[5] the judgment of the competent episcopal conference is: non constat de supernaturalitate ("It is undetermined at this time if it is of supernatural origin"), and the Holy See considers this judgement still operative.[6][7][8]
Of the view of the events expressed by Bishop Perić, namely, that "constat de non supernaturalitate", the Congregation of the Faith has stated that this "should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion".[9]
The same website reports that Bishop Ratko Perić, the successor of Žanić, stated in Međugorje: Secrets, messages, vocations, prayers, confessions, commissions that he came to definitively disbelieve in the Medjugorje apparitions when the alleged visionaries claimed Our Lady was against the papal decree Romanis Pontificibus.[10]
Again, the same website says that in 1998, Cardinal Ratzinger said, "The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father [i.e., the Pope] and myself is that they are complete invention" – frei erfunden.[10]
This is still the only official declaration of the Catholic Church on the events of Medjurgorje,[11] for even the 2013 prohibition of meetings and public celebrations taking the credibility of the events for granted was presented as a consequence of the Zadar Declaration.
On 2 October 1997, Perić wrote: "On the basis of the serious study of the case by 30 of our 'studiosi', on my episcopal experience of five years in the Diocese, on the scandalous disobedience that surrounds the phenomenon, on the lies that are at times put into the mouth of the 'Madonna', on the unusual repetition of "messages" of over 16 years, on the strange way that the 'spiritual directors' of the so-called 'visionaries' accompany them through the world making propaganda of them, on the practice that the 'Madonna' appears at the 'fiat' of the 'visionaries', my conviction and position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate [the supernaturality is not proven] but also the other formula constat de non supernaturalitate [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje."[12]
In response to inquiries about Perić's non constat de supernaturalitate comment, then-Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, as Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, wrote that the comment of Bishop Perić "should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion."[13]
In the same letter, Archbishop Bertone stressed that "it is not the practice of the Holy See to assume, in the first instance, a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena". Accordingly the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith limited itself to what the Yugoslav bishops had stated in their 1991 Zadar declaration: "On the basis of the investigations conducted to this point, it is not possible to affirm that it is a case of apparitions or of supernatural revelations".
The same letter and similar statements of various dates reiterated what the Zadar declaration laid down regarding pilgrimages to Medjugorje: they are permitted conditionally, but are not to be "organized by any bishop, diocese, parish, or other group and on condition they do not give authentication to the events at Medjugorje".[14]
In July 1998, regarding favorable quotes about Medjugorje attributed to John Paul II and himself,[15] Cardinal Ratzinger stated in a letter, "I can only say that the statements attributed to the Holy Father and me are freely invented."[16] Archbishop Pio Laghi, Apostolic Pro Nuncio, confirmed what Ratzinger said in a letter: "The statement you cite as a quotation from the Holy Father has never been published or officially verified. Although there have been made observations about Medjugorje attributed to the Holy Father or other officials of the Holy See, none of these have been acknowledged as authentic."[17]
Perić says that on his 2006 ad limina visit to Rome, Pope Benedict XVI (formerly Cardinal Ratzinger) said regarding Medjugorje: "We at the Congregation always asked ourselves how a believer could possibly accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day for so many years?"[10]
In February 2008, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith informed Tomislav Vlašić, the spiritual director and pastor of Medjugorje, that he was under investigation "for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspect mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders, and charges contra sextum" (i.e., of sexual misconduct), and ordered him to stay at a Franciscan convent in Lombardy, take a course of theological and spiritual formation, not have contact with the "Queen of Peace..." association, not get involved in juridical contracts or acts of administration, and not engage in preaching, spiritual direction, public statements. His faculties to hear sacramental confession were withdrawn, and breach of these instructions would involve automatic interdict.[18][19] In May 2008, the Congregation informed Bishop Perić that Vlašić had in fact incurred the penalty of automatic interdict. In July 2009, Vlašić, who was unwilling to accept the sanctions imposed on him, was laicized at his own request.[20]
In 2009, Perić stated the alleged visionaries not only lied about when the Great Sign was going to be given, but were now downplaying its importance to Medjugorje, even lying about having received messages of a Great Sign.[21]
On 17 March 2010, the Holy See announced that, at the request of the bishops of Bosnia Herzegovina, it had established a commission, headed by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, to examine the Medjugorje phenomenon.[22]
On 21 October 2013, the Apostolic Nunciature to the United States communicated, on behalf of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that, in the light of the 1991 Zadar declaration about the Medjugorje events, Catholics, whether clergy or laypeople, "are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such 'apparitions' would be taken for granted".[23]
On 18 January 2014, the Vatican commission set up in 2010 to study the Medjugorje question was reported to have completed its work, the results of which it would communicate to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.[24]
On 6 June 2015, Pope Francis, referring to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told reporters "we’ve reached the point of making a decision and then they will say.” [25]
On 12 July 2015, Marija (one of the visionaries) claimed the Vatican sent her a letter ordering her to cease taking part in public meetings.[26]
On 21 August 1996 Holy See Press Office spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, commenting on press interpretations of a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a French bishop, declared that Catholic parishes and dioceses may not organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, but that, as long as the supposed apparitions have not been shown to be false, Catholics may go there and, since they are entitled there, as anywhere else, to spiritual care, priests may accompany them.[27][28] Navarro-Valls declared:
You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want.
...When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility [for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje] ... nothing has changed, nothing new has been said.
...The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje. This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession.
...The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true.[29]
On the basis of the letter of 21 October 2013, which refers to the letter of February 2013, Colin B. Donovan of EWTN remarked: "These 2013 letters clearly represent a change of pastoral attitude on the part of the Holy See, one which began before the end of the pontificate of Pope Benedict and which has now been affirmed by Pope Francis. An attitude of seeming tolerance has been replaced with a firm call for acceptance of the ecclesiastical judgments made to date, or at least publicly acting in accordance with them." He added: "Catholics on both sides of the issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of it. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgment of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict XVI explained, when it is rendered."[30]
Also regarding the October 2013 letter, Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers, when asked "what does this tell us about how the Church is likely to rule on Medjugorje?" replied, "Not a great deal. It certainly is not an encouraging sign for those who would want to see Medjugorje approved. On the other hand, sticking with the existing policy and applying its logic more rigorously is not a change of substance and does not tell us anything in particular about what the ultimate ruling is likely to be. The current Medjugorje commission is expected to deliver its findings to the CDF for evaluation, and, after the CDF has had a chance to study them, the results will be presented to the pope. It will be the pope who makes the final decision. Sticking with the current policy at the present time does not tell us anything, one way or another, about what that decision will be." [31]
.jpg)
