Vatican “Sort Of” Approves Medjugorje

Mother Mary does not encourage opposition to your Bishop. Satan does! Commie regimes don't encourage Marian apparitions. Tito's regime supported Medjufraud.

From One Peter Five

By Timothy Flanders, MA

I don’t know much about Medjugorje.

What I do know is that Dr. E. Michael Jones and Mr. Michael Davies never agreed on much during the latter’s lifetime. Davies and Jones had a famous debate over the SSPX “back in the day” as we say in the States:

Davies was a longtime leader in the traditionalist movement, whereas Dr. Jones has been (and still is) a stalwart critic of the same movement.

But they agree on one thing: Medjugorje looks like a false apparition. What is worse, they both claim that the apparition and the visionaries manifested serious “red flags” in the spiritual and preternatural world. Take a look at their research for yourself here:

In any case, I have never delved deep into Medjugorje, but the research of these two opposing Catholics gave me pause. I know that some Catholics whom I respect believe in Medjugorje, like Mr. Robert Nugent, whose comments on the recent ruling can be found here:

(Robert and I had an edifying and fraternal conversation about the Latin Mass and the SSPX on the OnePeterFive podcast last year:)

I’m sure that promoters of Medjugorje have some answers and explanations to the critiques of Davies, Jones, and others. I have not studied this alleged apparition deep enough to have a strong opinion either way about it. But the least that I can say for sure is that I had unanswered questions after I saw what Davies and Jones had to say. I suspended any judgement further and simply disregarded the apparition since I was not particularly drawn to it anyhow.

The New Vatican Apparition Guidelines

Before we look at what the Vatican just did, let’s remember the context: the new Cardinal prefect of the “Office Formerly Known as Holy,” His Eminence Tucho Fernández, just published new guidelines for the Vatican’s judging of apparitions back in May.

The main difference with the new guidelines was that the Vatican was going to 1.) remove the right of local bishops to judge these matters and 2.) remove the procedure to judge an apparition to be “of supernatural origin.” At that time some commentators, including myself, wondered if these new norms were about Medjugorje because 1.) the local bishops, it is said, have judged Medjugorje negatively and 2.) the supernatural origin of the alleged apparition can be seriously questioned:

I thought this [new norms[ document was going to allow Medjugorje so that the Vatican Bank would get bailed out by all the Medjugorje money. Maybe the Chinese Communists already did this.

But it seems to be much worse than that. At least Medjugorje seems to have real conversions. Now the document seems to silence God Himself, so that no bishop or Pope can approve the supernatural origin of Our Lord or Our Lady or some saint coming to encourage us through this chastisement.

(Again, I’m not trying to make a judgement myself on the matter, merely stating one reasonable opinion among several pious and reasonable views here.)

So Catholic Sat, one reliable commentator who is critical of Medjugorje, said this back in May:

The issue is that God can always bring good out of evil. So a false apparition may have an evil intent, but God can certainly bring good out of it nonetheless. So even if we assume that Medjugorje is false, it can still be true that there are authentic conversions and graces which are occasioned but not caused by the alleged apparition. For that, we should thank the mercy of God.

We do need to judge a tree by its fruit, as the Lord said, there is also a more stringent requirement given in the Law of Moses:

But the prophet, who being corrupted with pride, shall speak in my name things that I did not command him to say, or in the name of strange gods, shall be slain. And if in silent thought thou answer: How shall I know the word that the Lord hath not spoken? Thou shalt have this sign: Whatsoever that same prophet foretelleth in the name of the Lord, and it cometh not to pass: that thing the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath forged it by the pride of his mind: and therefore thou shalt not fear him (Dt. xviii. 20-22).

So the law of Moses also gives a very reasonable criteria for judgment: there are certain things that can indeed be judged “of supernatural origin.” This is one of the reasons why people followed Christ – He worked miracles! This is one of the reasons Muhammad is a false prophet – he worked no miracles!

Obviously Fatima checks out on this – the Miracle of the Sun is the big one, and also the prediction of World War II (with the 1938 geomagnetic storm). Certainly not every apparition need have such astounding miracles, but it does not seem unreasonable (or contrary to revelation, quite the opposite) to demand some miraculous evidence.

Moreover, the spiritual writers warn us to be critical of visions and apparitions for the danger they pose:

CONCERNING THE VARIOUS ILLUSIONS EMPLOYED BY THE DEVIL AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH

IF OUR PERSISTENT FOE, who never ceases to persecute us, should assail us disguised as an angel of light, stand firm and steadfast even though cognizant of your own nothingness, and say to him boldly: “Return, miserable one into your realms of darkness; for I am unworthy of visions, nor do I need anything but the mercy of my Saviour, and the prayers of Mary, Joseph and all the Saints.”

And though these visions seem to bear many evidences of having been born in Heaven, still reject them as far as it is within your power to do so. And have no fear that this resistance, founded as it is on your own worthiness, will be displeasing to God. For if the vision be from Him, He has the power to make the same known to you, and you will suffer no detriment; for He Who gives grace to the humble does not withdraw it because of acts which spring from humility.

These, then, are the weapons which the enemy most commonly employs against us at the hour of our death. Each individual is tempted according to the particular inclination to which he is most subject. Therefore, before the zero hour of the great conflict, we should arm ourselves securely, and struggle manfully against our most violent passions, that the victory may be easier in that hour which leaves no future time for preparation or resistance.[1]

These are some of the concerns which arise for me with an alleged apparition like Medjugorje.

What do you mean by “Sort Of”?

So now let’s take a brief look at the main point of the new Medjugorje ruling from the Vatican. We’re not going to go in depth into the document, which goes to great lengths to come to this basic conclusion:

Quoting now from the document:

Through the Nihil obstat about a spiritual event, the faithful “are authorized to give it their adherence in a prudent manner” (Norms, art. 22, §1; cf. Benedict XVI, Verbum Domini, par. 14). While this does not imply a declaration of the supernatural character of the phenomenon in question (cf. Norms, art. 22, §2)—and recalling that the faithful are not obliged to believe in it—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.

Evaluating the abundant and widespread fruits, which are so beautiful and positive, does not imply that the alleged supernatural events are declared authentic. Instead, it only highlights that the Holy Spirit is acting fruitfully for the good of the faithful “in the midst” of this spiritual phenomenon of Medjugorje. For this reason, all are invited to appreciate and share the pastoral value of this spiritual proposal (cf. Norms, par. 17).

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. Consequently, when referring to “messages” from Our Lady, one should always bear in mind that they are “alleged messages.” (38).

It is interesting to note how the document takes a very nuanced approach to the message and the fruits, calling the latter “beautiful and positive,” but for the former, there is a more critical attitude:

Beyond the frequent exhortations to the faithful of the parish, in general, Our Lady seems to promote listening to her messages so insistently that sometimes this call stands out more than the content of the messages themselves: “Dear children, you are not aware of the messages that God is sending you through me. He is giving you graces, but you do not understand” (8 November 1984). “You are not aware of all the messages I am giving you” (15 November 1984). This risks creating a dependence and an excessive expectation on the part of the faithful, which could ultimately obscure the central importance of the Revealed Word.

The insistence appears constantly. For example, “Live my messages” (18 June 2010). “Spread my messages” (25 June 2010). “Live the messages I am giving you so that I can give you new messages” (27 May 2011). “Follow my messages […] renew my messages” (17 June 2011). “Embrace my messages and live my messages” (24 June 2011)

… This often-repeated appeal probably comes from the love and generous fervor of the alleged visionaries who, with goodwill, feared that the Blessed Mother’s calls for conversion and peace would be ignored. This insistence becomes even more problematic when the messages refer to requests that are unlikely to be of supernatural origin, such as when Our Lady gives orders about specific dates, places, and practicalities and when she makes decisions about ordinary matters. Although messages of this type are infrequent in Medjugorje, we can find some of them that are explained solely from the personal desires of the alleged visionaries. The following is a clear example of these misleading messages:

“This August 5th will mark the celebration of the second millennium of my birth […]. I ask you to prepare yourselves intensively over three days […]. Do not work on these days” (1 August 1984).

It is reasonable for the faithful, using prudence and common sense, not to take these details seriously nor heed them. One must always recall that in this spiritual experience (as in other spiritual experiences and alleged supernatural phenomena), positive and edifying elements are mixed with other elements that are to be ignored. But this fact should not lead one to spurn the richness and the good of the Medjugorje proposal as a whole (30).

These criticisms seem to cast doubt on the supernatural origin of the apparition, even while there is an official Nihil Obstat. We’ve got “positive and edifying elements …mixed with other elements that are to be ignored.” This seems like a strange judgement, since it does not seem like a judgement at all. As I discussed briefly last week, the Qur’an also includes “positive and edifying elements” (for example, the natural beauty of the chanted Qur’an) but it also has “elements that are to be ignored” – obvious heretical poison and blasphemy against Christ. Obviously the message of Medjugorje is Christian, not Arian (like the Qur’an), but I’m concerned there might be more subtle things going on, which are more difficult to judge, like what Msgr. Ronald Knox called Enthusiasm.

Given all the other strange things going in the Vatican, the fact that the new norms and this new ruling came out in the same year suggests that the two things were indeed connected. If that is the case, is there more to the story of this new ruling than merely pious sentiments? Is Vatican corruption involved? What about the money? Cui bono?

I simply don’t know, and we don’t want to judge anything without evidence, but I have to ask the question.

In any event, the net result of this “sort of approval” seems to create the impression that, whatever the technical details, the Vatican has indeed “approved” the apparition, and the faithful will think the apparition is to be followed as if it has been confirmed to be supernatural.

Having said that, even though I’m generally critical of this alleged apparition based on my limited research, of course I could be wrong. And I’m not trying to harshly judge any faithful Catholic who has experienced some positive spiritual fruit through Medjugorje. Private revelation is a perfect example of applying the adage: In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas [“in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity”].[2]

So here I’d like to yield the floor to submissions who would have greater expertise on Medjugorje from a traditionalist perspective. I would welcome any scholarly submissions on this matter for or against the new ruling. Are there any Trad voices out there which defend the apparition in writing?

[1] Lorenzo Scupoli, Spiritual Combat, ch. 66.

[2] Pope St. John XXIII, Ad Petri Cathedram, III.