Good question: What Happened at Medjugorje?

I have closely watched the developments of the “alleged” apparitions at Medjugorje since my conversion to the Faith in the late 80’s. What disturbs me most is that a whole industry has arisen that seems intent on making people believe that Our Lady is “absolutely” appearing and that the alleged messages are in fact authentic. This is deceptive and divisive because it is only the Church that has the authority to declare if this alleged private revelation is true or false (see paragraph #67 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Why? Because Christ Himself arranged it to be so. But this FACT seems to be overlooked or downplayed in much (not all) of the rhetoric about Medjugorje.

Considering the dismal state of catechesis in the Body of Christ today, I advise all I know to focus on teaching people about the beauty and Truth of the authentic teachings of Christ as mediated to us through His Bride, the Church. All else, including authentic and “alleged” private revelation, should be, in my opinion, secondary.

One of the confusing things for many people is the silence of the magisterium on the Medjugorje apparitions: either it is true or it is not...letting the events unfold as though it was "OK" is crazy. Plus, the ambivalence of the late Pope John Paul II on speaking directly to the issues which surfaced among the Franciscans and then with the bishops.

Right, the deposit of faith and all else handed down to us in Tradition is primary; everything else pales.

It's not that surprising that Medjugorje is getting into the news. Cdl. Ratzinger used to indicate consistently, according to writers on the subject, that he didn't believe the claimed apparition was real.

In contrast, in the early years Medjugorje meshed with Pope John Paul II's Marian devotion and his desire to see Christianity resurge in Communist countries. Under Pope John Paul, messages from Rome were inconsistent: at one point the papal spokesman Navarro-Valls seemed to have a more permissive position than CDF"s.

For a while the Medjugorje case had the potential of launching into a real local schism. The Herzegovina Franciscan province was refusing to turn over parishes to diocesan clergy in accord with a 1975 decree by Pope Paul VI, and although the church at Medjugorje was not one of the parishes involved, the alleged Madonna of Medjugorje praised various of the rebellious priests. Lay sympathizers of the OFMs took over church buildings and manhandled diocesan clergy, even the bishop. Some OFM priests conducted illicit ministry, and the "Lady" said they could go on doing so. In that volatile situation, it's understandable that officials in Rome might not take decisive action.

The arrival of Pope Benedict XVI has, however, brought action on some long-neglected cases. First there was the Maciel misconduct case; now there's the laicization of the former Medjugorje spiritual director Tomislav Vlasic for his misconduct, a list of wrongdoing including sixth-commandment violations and "false mysticism". Whether more action is coming on the Medjugorje case remains to be seen.

Just a little info about the Franciscans in Medjugorje, and indeed in Bosnia-Herzegovenia:

I went to Medjugorje in the Fall of '05. I asked why there are no diocesan priests in Medjugorje and hardly not a whole lot in the country.

During Communist occupation, the great majority of diocesan priests left the people and were often told to do so by their Bishops. The only priests who really stayed were the Franciscans. When Communism fell and diocesan priests began to return, the people had a very strong distrust (as one might imagine) of them because these kinds of priests abandoned them in the past. Now as the local Bishops try to regain "control" of their dioceses, they are are often not sensitive to the aforementioned distrust of the people. This is one of the big reasons the Franciscans are in Medjugorje.

Ben, thanks for writing. If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt your point, then I can understand the friction. I, too, would be skeptical of those who abandoned me and then tried to return to exercise pastoral authority. The OFMs were pastorally sensitive in this regard. Being with the flock is what being a shepherd of souls means. You might say that the people encountered Christ in the OFMs more than in the secular priests. How sad that it came to this.... PAX!