It met 17 times in the course of four years and, in January 2014, having concluded its work, dissolved itself, consigning its conclusions in private form to the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Ten years later, on September 19, 2024, the Dicastery in question published “The Queen of Peace”: Note About the Spiritual Experience Connected with Medjugorje.

With this document, countersigned by Pope Francis, the Church has expressed her own nihil obstat in regard to the Medjugorje devotion, without making a pronouncement on its supernatural character:

Through the Nihil obstat about a spiritual event, the faithful “are authorized to give it their adherence in a prudent manner”. [...]

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.

[“The Queen of Peace”: Note About the Spiritual Experience Connected with Medjugorje, Bulletin of the Holy See Press Office, 19 Sep 2024, para. 38]

​

​​​​​

​In the last portion of the press conference presenting the Note, the Prefect of the Dicastery, Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, responding to a question from the journalist Valentina Renzopaoli, added (timestamp: 1:45:31):​​​​​

​

I asked Pope Francis, because there is always the possibility that a pope may say: “Fine, after the nihil obstat let’s go ahead: let’s go further and see if a declaration of supernaturality can be made”.
The pope explicitly said to me – I had asked him in order to know, in case anyone asks me right? – he told me: “No, not at all; I consider the nihil obstat absolutely sufficient and there is no need at all to go further toward a declaration of supernaturality.”
And he shared with me that for him it seems very, very difficult, because it is like having a magic wand, as he puts it.

​

In substance, the Church does not know if the alleged seers are telling the truth or lying, but it isn’t important: the essential thing is that the believer give credence “in a prudent form” to their messages and to the “spiritual proposal” that began thanks to them.

The bishop of Mostar, Monsignor Petar Palić, in his decree following the issuance of the Vatican Note, makes explicit that the priests of the diocese “are free to adhere or not to this spiritual proposal.”

​

​

​

Getting around the problem of the “seers”

The pronouncement comes on the heels of the publication of the new Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena (May 17, 2024), with which the Church substantially declared herself unable to establish (save for exceptional cases directly pertaining to the Pope) the supernatural origin of a phenomenon, but only of being able to potentially furnish the Nihil obstat for a devotion that has arisen around a specific “spiritual proposal” [Section I, 17].

With the new Norms, inasmuch as a proclamation of supernatural origin is normally not expected, a greater weight is allotted to the potential presence of fruits: in other words, the main criterion has now become the success derived from the “spiritual proposal”.

This difference is made clearly evident in the foreword of the Note:

​

The conclusions expressed in this Note are presented in the context of what was established in the new Norms for Proceeding in the Discernment of Alleged Supernatural Phenomena (Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, 17 May 2024; henceforth, “Norms”). Consequently, the perspective of this analysis is quite different from that which was used in earlier studies.
It is important to clarify from the outset that the conclusions of this Note do not imply a judgment about the moral life of the alleged visionaries.
[Note “The Queen of Peace”, 1]

The “earlier studies” to which the Dicastery refers are, in particular, those produced by the Ruini commission, which, while giving a positive judgment (which was not supported with objective reasons) on the origins of the phenomenon, were yet unable to avoid including strong criticisms connected with the alleged seers.
 

A significant part of the acts of the Ruini commission was published in 2021 in the volume Processo a Medjugorje by David Murgia, journalist at TV 2000 (a television station owned by the Italian Bishops Conference) and a supporter of Medjugorje (previously the only final Report of the commission had been published by the vaticanista Saverio Gaeta, also a supporter of Medjugorje, in the book Dossier Medjugorje [San Paolo, 2020] and by the same David Murgia in the little volume Rapporto su Medjugorje [Il Segno di Giona, 2020]).

In a study drafted by two members of the commission (Murgia systematically hides the names of its members with a ‘[redacted]’), dated February 8, 2013 and attached to the transcript of the session of February 22, we read:

​

CDF’s protocol [...] requires us to take  the "evident seeking of profit, closely connected to the event" as a negative element.
In the case of the "seers" of Medjugorje it can certainly be said that this presents itself as the most critical aspect, which imparts a sense of profound unease. [...]
It is impossible to deny [...] that the direct involvement of the "visionaries" in pilgrimage-excursion packages, in high-profile stays in the context of conventions with the attendant exhibition of ecstasies, in the building and ownership of infrastructure intended for hotel hospitality, is very disturbing. The exhibition of the charism appears to be set within an intrusive commercial organization, rather than a sober context of ecclesial life.
The relationship between the unfolding of the event and the seers’ increase in personal household properties and the raising of their standard of living is well established. The gratitude and generosity of the pilgrims, of course, is possible and even likely. But this is precisely the issue: to what other personal or professional resources could the conspicuous achieved benefits of well-being be linked, if not to the usage of the event? In a relatively poor area, the overall level of the housing and goods at the seers’ disposition would be considered upper-middle class even in a rich urban context. The overall picture of the tenor and lifestyle of some members of the group, then, offers an image that is not congruent with the responsibility of guarding and administering such an exceptional charisma as this one, which has been presented as enduring. [...]
Perhaps we do not have all the certainty one could desire regarding an evident seeking of profit closely connected with the event. However, the event is conspicuously connected with elements of profit. The uncertainty on this specific point absolutely must be resolved.
[Appendix II - 22 February 2013 Proceedings - International Commission of Inquiry on Medjugorje, in David Murgia, Processo a Medjugorje, Rubbettino, 2021, pp. 178-179] 
 

In these words we read embarrassment but also, substantially, honesty. The situation is recognized for what it is, but no convincing solution is found. At most, one hopes to find it.

A few months later, in the final Report, the problem is still there. Contrary to the wishes of the two members, the uncertainty on this specific point was not in fact resolved.

Instead, there appear abstract and paradoxical attempts at justification, based on psychologisms, that really serve to demonstrate the lack of success at finding any better and objective argumentation.

In the Report’s paragraph (I, 2.4) titled Credibilità attuale dei presunti veggenti [“current credibility of the alleged seers”], one reads:

What the International Commission has been able to ascertain, in regard to the accusation of a possible seeking of profit, is that the witnesses of the supernatural sign originally addressed to them now effectively have a relation, ambiguous in certain aspects, with money (and with what in general can be called a preoccupation with their own “wellbeing”). This ambiguity, however, rather than being located as  on the side of immorality, is located as on the side of the structure of the person, who is often lacking a solid discernment and a coherent orientation, and also because an available and steady spiritual guide has been lacking to them in the course of these thirty years. If anything, there have been many signs exhibited of spiritual self-promotion and of a lack of pastoral relationships. [...]
This lack of spiritual and human accompaniment is surely among the causes of certain ambivalences and ambiguities that have appeared among the protagonists of the ongoing phenomenon.
[Final Report: Gaeta, pp. 81-83; Murgia, pp. 57-58]

In substance, this admits that the relationship of the “seers” with money and profit-seeking is ambiguous, but it manages to say that this would not be something to attribute to their own fault, but to the lack of a spiritual guide.

​

​

​So, according to this idea, people who say they are being guided spiritually by the Madonna (with alleged “encounters” still going on daily for three of them) need an earthly spiritual guide to teach them what evidently the Madonna has not succeeded in teaching them (for example, concepts such as: you don’t play a trick on the faithful by asking them for money to build a “spirituality center” when instead a private 120-bed hotel called “Magnificat” is being built [see: Did the Medjugorje Seers Get Rich With the Apparitions?].

​

The commission also identified other reasons for concern in what it considered outright inventions on
the part of the alleged seers [italics in the original]:

From the original documents made available to the International Commission, it appears that the then adolescents had declared that the phenomenon would end. But as we know, this has not happened.

[Final Report: Gaeta, pp. 83-84; Murgia, p. 58]

​

​

In addition [parentheses and exclamation marks in the original]:

​​

The International Commission has had to consider the repetitive banality of some of the communications which the witnesses declare they received from the Gospa [...]. Above all, however, this sector concerns:

• the alleged Life of Mary, of which Vicka Ivanković claims to be the custodian, because it was dictated by the Gospa herself (!);

• the “great sign” (not yet realized!);

• the so-called ten “secrets” (with the question of the “trusted friar”).

[Final Report: Gaeta, pp. 77-78; Murgia, p. 54]

​

​

Further on [italics in the original]:

​​

Among the many problematic and ambiguous elements, the one that undoubtedly assumes a greater weight, in the light of past events, is the typical form of the “secret”; the alleged visionaries not having developed particular intellectual qualities and introspection, and having likewise remained without accompaniment and a human and spiritual education worthy of what was happening, the need to refer to behavior patterns that could allow them to integrate the particular experiences that they claimed they were living may have oriented them to take up forms and roles already present in ecclesial life (to be similar to) [...];

[Final Report: Gaeta, pp. 79-80; Murgia, pp. 55-56]

​

​In practice, the Report is telling us this: the commission considers it probable that the ten secrets, like the Life of the Madonna and the continuation of the apparitions after the first days, are an invention of the “seers”, who are thought to have been inspired by accounts of other alleged seers of the past. But this time too, according to the pontifical commission, the fault for this deception is not theirs but due to the lack of a spiritual education.

In any case, changing the Norms has made it acceptable to avoid all of these problems. There is no mention of them in the Note.

Instead it is said that the alleged seers “are no longer seen as the central mediators of the ‘Medjugorje phenomenon.’” [Note, 5]

This is difficult to reconcile with the belief that the Madonna is using them as her intermediaries.​

​

​

​

A complete collection?

There is an admission in the Note:

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.
[Note “The Queen of Peace”, 30]

The Prefect says that “The Dicastery has had to analyze the messages, because this is a task directed by the Dicastery. […] We now welcome these messages, those published in the volume cited in the Note, not as private revelations, because we have no certainty that they are messages from Our Lady, but we welcome them only as edifying texts that can stimulate a true and beautiful spiritual experience” [Press Conference to present the Note “The Queen of Peace” about the spiritual experience connected to Medjugorje, of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bulletin of the Holy See Press Office, September 19, 2024].

From what source has the Dicastery drawn to find the messages to evaluate?

From a volume entitled: Raccolta completa dei messaggi della Regina della Pace. «Vi supplico: convertitevi!», issued by the Shalom publishing house in Camerata Picena in 2024 [Note “The Queen of Peace”, 2]. The meaning of the title is “Complete collection of the messages of the Queen of Peace. «I beg you: convert!»”.

​

​