CDF directs clerics, faithful not to attend conferences favorable to Medjugorje

I don’t generally post much about Medjugorje, but this I must share.

The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has directed that bishops be advised that

“clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such ‘apparitions’ would be taken for granted.”

The combox moderation queue is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Our Catholic Identity, The Drill and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. pseudomodo says:

    “That the Bishops of the United States be advised, ONCE AGAIN…”

    Yes…. Once again they are being advised once again….

    I see a pattern here, once again…

  2. dans0622 says:

    I don’t recall hearing of the referenced February 2013 letter. What did that one say? I guess it was basically the same message, based on what is said about it here.

  3. frahobbit says:

    It makes me happy to see the local Bishops publicly upheld, instead of the usual criticisms I have heard. There once were very critical attitudes after a certain Queens housewife and her followers refused the direction of the Bishop of the Brooklyn diocese on the excuse that he was obstructing God’s grace.

  4. TraditionalCatholicGirl says:

    I think that they made the proper move. Medjugorje, no matter how many supporters and believers it has around the globe, is still not approved, so to ask those involved to refrain from scheduling any events promoting the apparitions is no surprise. While I myself do believe the apparitions to be authentic, I will obey and accept any ruling that the Vatican Commission declares as to its authenticity. As Catholics, we must obey our bishops, wether we agree with the decision or not.

    This is a test of obedience to those who beleve in the apparitions. True apparitions do not incite behavior contrary to the teachings of the church. “By your fruits, you shall know them.” However, it will be interesting how a certain (unamed for privacy’s sake) organization here in the USA that is closely tied to the Medjugorje apparitions reacts. I’ll be keeping my eye on them as the days roll on, to see if they will obey this directive from the Apolistic Nuncio, as well as the individual visionaries themselves.

  5. Ben Yanke says:

    Interesting. I’m open to it if the church ever approves, but that being said, I’m not a supporter of it.

    My gut just says it doesn’t seem right. Every other apparition I know of lasted a short period of time, and the visionaries stayed together. Obviously, it’s still happening, and from what I underatand, there’s been disputes between the various visionaries. Just doesn’t ring true to my ears.

  6. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    “I don’t generally post much about Medjugorje, but this I must share.” Ditto. And did (on my Canon Law facebook page).

    I think this all but closes the books on M: Non constat.

  7. Lucas Whittaker says:

    Thank you, Father, for posting this letter.

  8. Deirdre Mundy says:

    I think a lot of people are drawn to Medjugorje because they’re looking for something new and exciting. But… approved apparitions tend to reiterate Church teachings, because the Truth doesn’t change.

    I’ve been hoping the Green Bay apparition will draw off some of the support for the…less normal…ones. After all, it’s bishop-approved, and it’s close by! No luck so far, though. Apparently the message of catechizing the children in this wild land only appeals to DREs. Even though, frankly, the Wisconsin apparition, old as it is, is more relevant to current problems in the US Catholic Church than Medjugorje is. But “Mary wants kids to learn their prayers and receive the sacraments” is apparently just… not cool enough.

  9. PadreOP says:

    I find the wording of the last line interesting. It doesn’t forbid gatherings or celebrations outright; it forbids them when the credibility of the apparitions is taken for granted. Which makes me ask: isn’t this exactly what the Church says about ANY private revelation that has not yet received formal approval? I am pretty sure we would never be permitted to “take for granted” the authenticity of an apparition (locution, revelation, etc, etc, etc.) that has not yet received formal approval. So unless I am wrong on this, the letter really isn’t saying anything new, nor is it saying anything about Medjugorje that it wouldn’t say about other, similar apparitions (whether other contemporary ones, or even ones that occurred centuries ago upon which the Church has never rendered a formal judgment.) At least that’s how I read it. It just strikes me as odd that if the intention was to say, “any gatherings related to Medjugorje are from this moment onwards completely and totally banned without exception” it could have easily said that. In fact, it SHOULD have said that. But it didn’t. It said no participation where the authenticity is “taken for granted.” So is that because the nuncio is just poor at wording his letters, and intended to ban all gatherings and just worded his letter in a particularly indirect and overly-wordy fashion? Or is it because a total and complete ban on any gatherings related to Medjugorje is not what the letter was intending to do?

  10. Diane at Te Deum Laudamus says:

    Dans0622 said he doesn’t recall seeing the February 27 letter.

    That is probably because that one was not leaked and this one, I’m presuming has been, since it is not found on the USCCB website. If it was leaked, I’m glad it was because it will be a little more difficult to avoid the message now that it is public.

    Also, note that the first letter was sent on February 27, just one day before Pope Benedict XVI ended his pontificate, which he announced on February 11. Anyone who thought that Medjugorje was going to get a free ride under Pope Francis is mistaken.

    It certainly doesn’t answer the question of Medjugorje, but does not bode well that the Holy See decided specifically not to turn a blind eye to promotion of this poster child for unapproved “apparitions”.

    Among the many takea aways from Medjugorje, once the question has been formally answered (and I believe it will soon enough), is that damage is done to the unity of the Church when other bishops allow visionaries of the unapproved to have manifestations of “apparitions” in their dioceses (and Cathedrals!!!) It is like mother and father disagreeing before children.

    One of the things that has offended me most in this case is that the Bishop of Mostar has been castigated, and even treated with disrespect from his brother bishops. No bishop of the former Yugoslavia has permitted any of these visionaries a promotional stage as they have been given in the US, in Italy, and in a few other countries.

    That is why this one, in my humble opinion, got away from the Church in the first place. There is an unwritten protocol to not allow visionaries from another diocese a platform when their own bishop doesn’t grant it.

  11. Diane at Te Deum Laudamus says:

    Clarification – when I said the Bishop of Mostar has been castigated, I did not mean by other bishops. I did mean that he has been treated with disrespect by other bishops who permitted the pilgrims to bring the forbidden pilgrimage to their dioceses and Cathedrals.

  12. Tom Ryan says:

    I’ve seen a few different spellings for Medjugorje but not this one.
    How long before the letter is dismissed for that reason?

  13. pelerin says:

    I do wish that the Church authorities would hurry up and pronounce on these so called apparitions one way or another.

    Over the last few months I have come across several people who became all starry eyed when they mentioned that they were regular pilgrims to Medjugorje. Only last weekend a lady told me about her visits there and how every day over a loudspeaker the daily message supposedly from Our Lady is relayed to the faithful. If and when this is finally pronounced a hoax there are going to be many disappointed people whose Faith will be sorely tested.

  14. I am closing the combox. Discussion isn’t really needed.

  15. frjim4321 says:

    Thanks for this post, I appreciate it.

  16. Pingback: Newspaper Clippings | Family in Feast and Feria

  17. Pingback: Arranger: Restrictions only seemingly bad | Our Lady Prays

  18. Pingback: CU Weekly 247: Call Me Captain Justice | The Catholic UndergroundThe Catholic Underground

Comments are closed.