Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
The Virgin of Medjugorje

The DDF on Spiritual Experience Connected with Medjugorje

October 15, 2024

Share

On September 19, 2024, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF) issued a document, “‘The Queen of Peace’”: Note About the Spiritual Experience Connected with Medjugorje.” Therein, it renders its judgment on the long-contested supposed apparitions of Mary and accompanying messages as well as the spiritual practices (such as pilgrimages) that they have inspired. In coming to its conclusion, it followed the new procedures promulgated on May 19, 2024, which I summarized in an article on May 22. In the present article, I would like to summarize the decision as explained in this most recent document.

The opening line of the text acknowledges that Medjugorje has a “long and complex history,” and that the “time has come” to conclude the matter, noting that there have been “divergent opinions” among those involved in investigating the phenomenon (§1). It does not render any judgment regarding the supposed visionaries’ moral character, but instead examines—in three successive sections—the fruits of Medjugorje, the central aspects of the alleged messages, and necessary clarifications. Overall, the evaluation is fairly positive. However, there are points of criticism. Throughout, the document supplies multiple quotes from “messages” along with their dates that substantiate the DDF’s points, both positive and negative.

“The positive fruits are most evident in the promotion of healthy practice of a life of faith, in accordance with the tradition of the Church” (§3). It notes “abundant conversions,” “a frequent return to the sacraments,” “more intense practice of prayer,” “many reconciliations between spouses,” and “the renewal of marriage and family life” (§3) as well as people discovering their vocations to the priesthood or religious life and the promotion of charitable works (§5). However, the DDF found it important to note that such fruits are mostly associated with pilgrimages rather than with gatherings with the “visionaries” (§3) and apparitions themselves.

Regarding the overarching themes found in the alleged messages, the DDF points to several good and proper elements. The titles for Mary (“Mother” and “Queen of Peace”) and for Jesus (“King of Peace”) are appropriate as is the meaning attributed to the term “peace” (§6 and §8). Appropriately, charity is portrayed as “the greatest and most beautiful virtue,” even more preeminent than peace itself (§7). While the messages point to love for non-Catholics and non-Christians, they do not promote syncretism or religious indifferentism. In fact, one message explicitly states: “‘This does not mean that all religions are equal before God,’” and another message exhorts to “‘preserve the Catholic faith at all costs’” (§7).

The overall spiritual fruits have been positive without a significant propagation of dangerous effects.

Perhaps most importantly, the Dicastery lauds the general theocentric (§9–11) and Christocentric (§12–13) character of the messages, which clearly show that Mary points us to God and that her role is subordinate to Christ. Similarly, some messages laudably exhort the faithful to invoke the Holy Spirit (§14). Additionally, a central theme is the call to conversion, including a “constant call to abandon a worldly lifestyle and excessive attachment to worldly goods” (§15). Relatedly, “there is an insistent exhortation not to underestimate the gravity of evil and sin” (§16). These are accompanied by a “constant and insistent” “exhortation to pray” (§18) and to fast (§19). There are even recommendations to sacrifice enjoyment of food but also other pleasures such as television or alcohol (§19).

Another praiseworthy aspect to the messages is the centrality of the Mass. One of the messages plainly states: “‘The Mass is the highest form of prayer’” (§20). The DDF also seems pleased with the fact that some messages underscore “the minor value of the apparitions themselves when compared with the immense spiritual treasure that is the Eucharist” (§21). Fraternal communion is another common theme. The Dicastery notes favorably that “the spirituality of Medjugorje is not individualistic,” calling instead for fraternal love and service (§22). Similarly, there is a persistent recognition of the importance of family (§22) and the communal life of the Church (§23).

Additionally, the DDF approves of the messages’ calls to be joyful and to express gratitude (§24) as well as the need for personal witness to faith and love (§25). “Particularly beautiful is a message that exhorts people to give less importance to spectacular signs and, rather, manifest what they believe with their lives” (§25). Also noteworthy “is a strong call to awaken the desire for heaven” (§26).

Despite the foregoing laudable aspects of the alleged messages, the DDF found it necessary to provide certain clarifications and cautionary observations. The second main section thus opens with the following comment: “The messages overall possess great value and express the constant teachings of the Gospel in different words. However, a few messages stray from these positive and edifying contents and even seem to go so far as to contradict them. As a result, one should be attentive lest these few confused elements overshadow the beauty of the whole” (§27).

An Introduction to Prayer - Bishop Barron
Get This $2 Book!

The DDF is reticent about the fact that she “warns about threatening signs and the possibility of no longer appearing (although, afterward, the messages continue unabated)” (§28). For example, in a message from May 2, 1982, Mary is purported to have said: “‘I have come to call the world to conversion for the last time. Later, I will no longer appear on earth. These are my final appearances.’” Similarly, on February 21, 1982, she is reported to have said, “Today, I am calling upon you for the last time.” Yet, apparitions to the visionaries are claimed to be continuing—for some, daily—to this day. The DDF recommends, then, that “these messages should only be received as a call not to postpone or delay conversion” (§28).

The Dicastery is also leery of the fact that “Our Lady seems to want to exercise control over the details of the parish’s spiritual and pastoral journey. . . . to the point of recrimination that her pastoral directions are not being obeyed” (§29). The Dicastery insists that such “messages cannot replace the ordinary role of the parish priest, the pastoral council, and the synodal work of the community regarding decisions that are the subject of communal discernment” (§29). In similar fashion, the DDF expresses caution regarding the constant and fervent exhortations to listen to the messages. The document remarks that “sometimes this call stands out more than the content of the messages themselves” and that “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” (§30). Furthermore, it is “even more problematic when the messages refer to requests that are unlikely to be of a supernatural origin,” including “when she makes decisions about ordinary matters” (§30).

Furthermore, the DDF resists the manner in which Mary is referred to as “mediatrix.” Such unqualified statements, such as “‘I am the mediatrix between you and God’” and “‘I desire to be the link between you and the Heavenly Father, your mediatrix’” (§36), do not adequately express the manner in which Mary can be properly understood as a “mediatrix.” As used, the expressions “could erroneously lead one to attribute to Mary a place that belongs uniquely and exclusively to the Son of God made man” (§36). Similarly, one subsection, “The ‘Self-Exaltation’ of Our Lady,” finds it problematic that there are a number of messages in which the lady speaks of “my plan of salvation” and similar expressions. As the Dicastery insists: “In reality, everything Mary accomplishes is always at the service of the Lord’s plan. . . . Mary does not have her own plan” (§35). The only way to properly understand these messages is that “Our Lady fully assumes God’s plans to the point of expressing them as her own” (§35).

Aquinas Bundle
38% Off & Free Shipping

Within this generally critical section of the document, the DDF nonetheless inserts a couple of additional positive notes. One subsection title expresses an example that counters the above negative examples: “Our Lady Gives the Right Value to Her Messages” (§31–34). The call to listen to the Gospel more than to “‘extraordinary things’” (§31) and to read Sacred Scripture daily (§32) are concrete examples. Additionally, in the subsection “With Us, Toward Christ,” the document cites messages “in which Mary emphasizes that she cannot and will not replace Jesus Christ” (§37).

Finally, there is the Conclusion. Therein, the DDF gives the judgment of Nihil obstat, which means that “the faithful ‘are authorized to give their adherence in a prudent manner’” (§38). However, it is clear that this decision neither affirms nor declares the supernatural nature of the Medjugorje apparitions and messages. It therefore does not rise to the level of approbation given to other Marian apparitions, such as at Fatima and Lourdes, among others. The judgment is that “the faithful can receive a positive encouragement for their Christian life through this spiritual proposal, and it authorizes public acts of devotion,” noting that “negative and dangerous effects have not spread” (§38). It reiterates that the messages are only “alleged” (§38), and that diocesan bishops retain their right and authority to make their own decisions with respect to practices occurring within their jurisdictions (§40). Furthermore, the Dicastery strongly advises “that pilgrimages are not made to meet with alleged visionaries” (§41).

In short, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that, while it cannot validate the supernatural character of the messages and apparitions, the overall spiritual fruits have been positive without a significant propagation of dangerous effects. In general, the messages are praiseworthy, with a few notable exceptions that ought to be borne in mind for the sake of prudent caution.