On September 19, 2024, after four decades of inquiry, controversy, and delay, the newly formed Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith approved the alleged apparitions of Our Lady of Medjugorje for “public acts of devotion” with a nihil obstat (“nothing prevents”), but it stopped short of declaring its “of supernatural origin.”
Given the confusion and disappointment, and even consternation, with which the Dicastery’s restrictive decision has been received by many devotees of the alleged apparition, much in order is a close look at recent changes in the premises and norms by which Medjugorje and all such private revelations are now judged by the Church.
Let us begin with a very brief review of the story, message, and effects of the Medjugorje event.
In Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, six young persons attested that on June 24, 1981, they began to experience apparitions of the Blessed Mother, which, they avow, have continued since. They say that Mary has promised to tell each of them ten secrets, some the same for all and others different for each. When all ten secrets have been conveyed, they expect the Virgin to cease communicating and that a series of dire warnings and events will be set in motion.
Here is a typical message from among thousands allegedly spoken by Medjugorje’s “Queen of Peace”:
Dear children, this is the reason for my presence among you for such a long time: to lead you on the path of Jesus. I want to save you and, through you, to save the whole world. Many people now live without faith; some don’t even want to hear about Jesus, but they still want peace and satisfaction! Children … Prayer is the only way to save the human race. (July 30, 1987)
More than an estimated forty million pilgrims have visited Medjugorje since 1981, and very many say they have been brought to repentance and conversion, healed in body and spirit, and witnessed miracles and supernatural prodigies in abundance.
Our Lady of Medjugorje is said to have offered five sure means for the defeat of Satan and the deliverance of humanity: prayer, especially the Rosary; fasting; reading the Bible daily; monthly Confession; and frequent attendance of Mass.
Let us now consider the specific language of the reformed Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in its approval of the “alleged apparitions” of Medjugorje:
The Nihil obstat indicates that the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal, and it authorizes public acts of devotion. Such a determination is possible insofar as many positive fruits have been noted in the midst of a spiritual experience, while negative and dangerous effects have not spread among the People of God. … [This] does not imply that the alleged supernatural events are declared authentic. … 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.
How, then, did a new set of principles and procedures by which Medjugorje has been judged come about?
On June 5, 2022, the Vatican renamed the long-established Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) as the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). On May 17, 2024, the DDF instituted major changes in the “Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena,” which replaced the “Norms Regarding the Manner of Proceeding in the Discernment of Presumed Apparitions or Revelations,” issued on February 24, 1978, by the CDF.
The criteria guiding the investigation of possible supernatural phenomena, including proposed apparitions, are essentially consistent between the old and the new Norms: the truth of the event; unimpeachable visionaries; doctrinally sound messages; absence of profiteering, coercion, and other misbehavior; and evidence of genuine spiritual fruit. Procedurally, both Norms designate the bishop (or other ordinary) within whose jurisdiction an alleged apparition occurs as the primary investigator of its authenticity and require him to follow similarly specific guidelines in his investigations, such as the formation of a properly staffed committee of inquiry.
There are, however, critical differences between the two Norms in both their procedures and categories of judgment.
The older (CDF) Norms consider the bishop’s discernment and decision to be definitive and conclusive, subject to an optional approval or disapproval by the Vatican should it choose to intervene with sovereign authority. The ruling bishop might also voluntarily seek the advice and approbation of the Vatican, or of his conference of bishops, but such is not required.
The newer (DDF) Norms, in contradistinction, require that the bishop conduct his inquiries formally under the close direction, not just by the guidelines, of the Vatican, that he consult with his conference of bishops, and submit his finding as a recommendation, not a conclusion, to the Vatican for its definitive ruling.
Another crucial change from the older to the newer Norms is in the terms of a decision rendered.
The older CDF Norms not only allow but require the bishop, independently, to conclude that an apparition is or is not “of supernatural origin,” as indicated in its three prescribed categories of discernment:
- Constat de supernaturalitate, certainly of supernatural origin
- Constat de non supernaturalitate, not certainly of supernatural origin
- Non constat de supernaturalitate, certainly not of supernatural origin
If an apparition is deemed under the CDF Norms as “not certainly of supernatural origin,” the bishop might still recommend it to the faithful for devotion, within defined limits. If, however, an apparition is judged “certainly not of supernatural origin,” devotion to it is forbidden.
In the newer DDF Norms, reported apparitions are no longer judged by whether or not they are “supernatural in origin,” but by whether they are authentic inducements to proper devotion and holiness, with no “potential risks,” according to the following categories of discernment:
- Nihil obstat – 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. … The diocesan bishop is encouraged to appreciate the pastoral value of this spiritual proposal, and even to promote its spread.
- Prae oculis habeatur – Although important positive signs are recognized, some aspects of confusion or potential risks are also perceived that require the diocesan bishop to engage in a careful discernment.
- Curatur – While various or significant critical elements are noted, at the same time, the phenomenon has already spread widely, and there are verifiable spiritual fruits. … A ban that could upset the People of God is not recommended. Nevertheless, the diocesan bishop is asked not to encourage this phenomenon.
- Sub mandato – In this category, the critical issues are not connected to the phenomenon itself, which is rich in positive elements, but to [persons] who are misusing it. … Pastoral leadership . . . is entrusted to the diocesan bishop.
- Prohibetur et obstruatur – While there are legitimate requests and some positive elements, the critical issues and risks associated with this phenomenon appear to be very serious. … The Dicastery asks the diocesan bishop to declare publicly that adherence to this phenomenon is not allowed.
- Declaratio de non supernaturalitate – In this situation, the Dicastery authorizes the diocesan bishop to declare that the phenomenon is found to be not supernatural.
And the Dicastery adds this crucial imperative: “In light of the aforementioned points, it is reaffirmed that, as a rule, neither the diocesan bishop, nor the Episcopal Conferences, nor the Dicastery will declare that these phenomena are of supernatural origin, even if a Nihil obstat is granted.”
This prohibition, strict as it is, does not, however, absolutely deny the possibility of a private revelation’s supernaturality; for the Dicastery does implicitly acknowledge that possibility in its authorization of bishops to declare some phenomena as “found to be not supernatural,” and by its stipulation that a Nihil obstat is granted “without expressing any certainty about the supernatural authenticity of the phenomenon.”
It is not, therefore, that the Church would not deem the Medjugorje apparitions supernatural but that, under its newly imposed Norms, it could not.
While disappointments may naturally linger over the Vatican’s ruling not to declare Medjugorje—or any other alleged private revelation—supernatural, let its votaries none-the-less embrace the supernatural virtue of holy obedience to ecclesiastical authority as they continue to be confident “that the Holy Spirit is acting fruitfully for the good of the faithful ‘in the midst’ of this spiritual phenomenon of Medjugorje,” as the Church assures us.
Author’s Note: The facts and much of the language about Medjugorje in this article are taken from my book, Fatima: God’s Mother’s Landmark Prophecy—Forespoken at Quito, Spoken Again in Mary’s Last Five Apparitions at Akita, Betania, Cuapa, Kibeho, San Nicolas, 2024.
Photo from Catholic Standard
