Medjugorje -What is the Catholic Churches official position? Is it ok to believe in it?

Many Catholics today have heard of the proposed "good fruits" coming from Medjugorje, such as spiritual conversions and physical healings, but then there is also heard the bad fruit also, such as the disobedience of some of the visionaries to the local Bishop's request to no longer publicise the alleged messages from the Lady, or "Gospa" as she is known. Several of the visionaries continue to promote and proclaim the alleged messages in strict defiance of the authority of the local Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno, in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Many of those who follow Medjugorje erroneously say that it is up to Rome or the Pope to judge the authenticity of Medjugorje. This is false. The Catholic Church has always taught that it is up to the local Bishop to decide the authenticity of revelations occurring within his diocese, because by the unbroken Aposolic succession since the time of Christ, he is in fact the legitamate successor to the apostles, and therefore therefore he has the God given authority to do so.

It is not for the Vatican or the Pope to judge revelations that are occuring in some distant Diocese. And, neither Rome or the Pope would never intervene in the rightful juristiction of a Bishop within his own appointed Diocese. Likewise, neither Rome nor the Pope approve or disapprove of any apparitions or private revelations. The Vatican simply "recognizes" the local Bishops decision of approval or disapproval, such as in Fatima or Lourdes. With this in mind, we can see that it is not valid to suppose that Rome or the Pope would intervene in the matter of Medjugorje, because of the Churches teaching concerning the Bishops authority as a successor to the apostles. For the Pope or the Vatican to somehow "override" a local Bishops decision would in effect run contrary to the Churches teachings concerning the authority of a Bishop in light of his being a successor to the Apostles, and his authority concerning matters of judgement within his own Diocese.

There has however been a few occasions were a local Bishop asked for the advice of the countries Bishops conference or commission to help him discern a specific apparition or private revelation, and in fact this happened in Medjugorje. The result of the appointed Commission concerning Medjugorje decided after careful consideration and study that the Medjugorje apparitions were not of supernatural origins. However, their judgment bears no authority and is only an advisement for the local Bishop. As stated earlier, the only one with the authority to judge a to the authenticity of the alleged apparitions and messages is the local Bishop.

However, the possibility remains that the local Bishop may in some point in the future change his judgment, given some new facts, or a later local Bishop may change the current Bishops negative ruling, and judge in favor of the supernatural origins of the apparitions. However, it should be noted that very rarely does a local Bishop change the decision of a predecessor Bishop, although this has happened to some extent for example with the "Lady of all Nations" apparitions in Amsterdam. So we can see that while such a change in judgement is indeed possible, it is not very likely, unless some extraordinary facts or events would require the Bishop to judge otherwise.

And so we are left with the local Bishops judgment and decision, of whose authority God expects us to obey, as the Saints tell us and the Church teaches us. We know however that God is the supreme Judge, and obviously He can arrange all things, and if it really is the Blessed Mother appearing in Medjugorje, then He certainly can bring forth the light and truth, if He so wills it.

Concerning Medjugorje, faithful Catholics should endeavor always and everywhere to be obedient to the Catholic Church, that is, to the Pope and the Bishops in Communion with him. The local Bishops of Mostar, bothj the former one and the current one have one after the other decided against Medjugorje (non constat de supernaturalitate). So, at this point faithful Catholics should obey their judgement and refrain from speaking in favor of it or promoting it in any way, as the Bishop has formally requested. If it is from God, then He will bring out the truth someday, in His own good time, but for now, it is the Bishops decision that we are to obey and respect, as it is not a matter of our own opinions, but a matter of obedience to the Church.

All Marian apparition sites, if they are approved, are a matter of PRIVATE revelation rather than PUBLIC revelation.

The last PUBLIC revelation was of course St. John of Patmos and the book of Revelation.

If its a Private revelation, one can believe or not believe.
Disbelief of a private revelation is not subject to any penalties of the Church and is not a sin.

Also, the Church is not supposed to render a verdict on the veracity of the alleged apparition site until the appearances have ceased. The Church is also supposed to interview the ‘seer’.

So when the Bishop of Brooklyn CONDEMNED the Marian apparitions at Bayside New York in 1986 WHILE THEY WERE STILL OCCURING, he was not acting according to the instructions of the Church. Also, there was no interview of Veronica Leuken.

But then again, the Bayside apparitions were condemning peodeophilia by the clergy in the 1970’s so its understandable that the ‘powers that be’ would be nervous about it.

Marian apparition sites are nice, but it in no way substitutes for the saving efficacy of the Mass.

Thanks; this article seems quite informative.

However, I think some distinction needs to made between temporal (worldly) and eternal (heavenly) authority. When a bishop rules on something within his authority, it is establishes obligations of obedience, not truth. This is why, although rare, a successor can overturn a predecessor’s decision, or, as is more often the case, a bishop can reverse himself. It doesn’t matter if the bishop’s assertions are based on truth or not; it only matters that he is the competent authority to discern the evidence. He is not infallible, but he doesn’t require infallibility to have the authority to command obedience.

That’s what is disturbing about many of the actions of priests surrounding Medjorgorje; even if their fervent belief in the apparitions is sincere, they must be faithful that the truth will win out, as it has in other cases that have been initially suppressed (the apparitions of Fatima, the writings of St. Faustina, etc.). They seem patently disobedient in a manner which could not please Christ or the Blessed Virgin Mary, through whom these events, they allege, have occurred.

This, in turn, is what is confusing about Medjugorje: the bishop has local authority, but the events surrounding Mejugorje are globalized in an unprecedented way. While the bishop’s actions would have been sufficient to control the situation prior to this century, the absence of further action allows many to read into the silence. The “suppression” allows for the spiritual care of pilgrims who have traveled there, even while it forbids other diocese from contradicting the local bishop by organizing diocesan pilgrimages, or permitting parochial pilgrimages. This “pastoral care” seems to be an affirmation that such pilgrimages are consistent with obedience (since they are not forbidden, and, in fact, are aided), yet to deny pastoral care would be unprecedented. But the situation is unprecedented, so that doesn’t mean it would be wrong to do.

So the question is: is it sinful to go to pilgrimage to Medjugorje, or to promote others to do so? The silence is confusing.

THE MOSTAR DECLARATION:

The bishops, from the very beginning, have been following the events of Medjugorje through the Bishop of the diocese (Mostar), the Bishop's Commission and the Commission of the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia on Medjugorje.
On the basis of the investigations, so far it cannot be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.
However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, 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.
For this purpose, the bishops will issue especially suitable liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise, through their Commission they will continue to keep up with and investigate the entire event in Medjugorje.

FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE CONGREGATION FOR DOCTRINE:

Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio Pr. No 154/81-06419 May 26, 1998 To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry, Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion Excellency, In your letter of January 1, 1998, you submitted to this Dicastery several questions about the position of the Holy See and of the Bishop of Mostar in regard to the so-called apparitions of Medjugorje, private pilgrimages and the pastoral care of the faithful who go there. In regard to this matter, I think it is impossible to reply to each of the questions posed by Your Excellency. The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the "apparitions" in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: "On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations." Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations, it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for. What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of "Famille Chretienne", declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' but likewise, 'constat de non supernaturalitate' of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje", 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. Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are 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. I hope that I have replied satisfactorily at least to the principal questions that you have presented to this Dicastery and I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my devoted sentiments. Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (Secretary to the "Congregation for the Doctrine", presided over by Cardinal Ratzinger)

I don't read this at all as a dispute over authority; the local bishop's ruling that other bishops may organize pilgrimages, or permit parishes to do so is unchallenged and binding, even though Cdl. Bertone emphasizes that the ruling is based on an understanding of events which is merely the local bishop's opinion.

But I'm not answering my own previous question. These two sources do not supply the only information out there. It is clear that there has been disobedience (one local priest and formerly fervent apologist for Medjugorje even fathered a child and left the Church!). Is promotion of Medjugorje merely the exploitation of a loophole created by the church's prudent caution?

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.