According to Vittorio Messori,
the Holy See’s “tormenting dilemma” concerning Medjugorje consists in the “unacceptable” choice between two possibilities:
– Commission — the 4th one — ends up ruling against the position of the local Ordinary; the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of pastoral authority while the victims are the humiliated local bishops (Mgrs Pavao Zanic† and Ratko Peric);
– Commission — the 4th one — ends up ruling on the non-authenticity of the apparitions, on deceit, misunderstanding, cheating, fraud or hoax; the result is a pastoral catastrophe and the victims are millions of sincere faithful.
In the next lines, I will try to show that Vittorio Messori’s “diagnosis” of the purported dilemma does not stand up to a rigorous analysis.
A reminder: the negative verdict of the first Commissions (1986-2011)
The Ordinary of Mostar, the competent (mandated) and responsible Pastor for Medjugorje, created a first Commission of inquiry (1982) of 4 members that he extended, in a second Commission (1984), to 15 members coming from different Yugoslavian dioceses. They voted in majority: “non constat de supernaturalitate” in May 1986.
“The Commission prepared a draft ‘Declaration’ in which were listed the ‘unacceptable assertions’ and ‘bizarre declarations’, attributed to the curious phenomenon. The Commission also stated that further investigations were not necessary nor the delaying of the official judgement of the Church. The bishop duly informed the Bishops’ Conference and the Holy See, and he then informed the public during his homily in Medjugorje in 1987.” [underlined by LB]
The meaning of “non constat de supernaturalitate”.
Much has been said about that verdict: “there is no proof of a supernatural intervention.”
First, it is a verdict, a judgement made by a majority of experts, not by the sole Bishop of Mostar.
Second, it is a negative judgement, “non constat”.
What does it mean?
“Constat” and “non constat” are terms used in a juridical context. “Constat” practically means “proved”. Then, the formulation of the verdict could be: “it is not proved that the entity — claimed by the Medjugorje visionaries and Franciscans to be the Virgin Mary — is a supernatural entity and that her apparitions and revelations have a supernatural character.” In other words, the “Lady of Medjugorje” is not considered to be the Virgin Mary.
At the tribunal that we are familiar with, you will hear “proven guilty” or “not proven guilty”. The “candidate” is free to go if not proven guilty.
Let us change the word “guilty” for “worthy” in our ecclesiastical tribunal. The members of the Commission have to consider if the “candidate”, the Lady of Medjugorje, is “worthy” of being a supernatural entity, the Virgin Mary. The “entity” that they have to “examine” is still an unknown. They try to compare her traits described exclusively by the visionaries who claim to see, hear and touch that entity with the ones they already know of the Virgin Mary.
They will use rigorous criteria that have been established by Prospero Lambertini. Before becoming Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), Prospero Lambertini was officially Promotor Fidei (Promotor of the Faith). The people who were craving for a rapid sentimental judgment in the acknowledgment of miracles called him advocatus diaboli: he was a great humanist, he knew much about science and he had a critical mind. He was convinced that science does not threaten faith but rather purifies it. The classical rules of judgment he submitted in his Treatise are still “in force” today.
In 1978, the CDF released sub secreto guidelines or “Norms” of discernment to help the Ordinaries all over the world to reach a better judgement concerning alleged apparitions and revelations. Obviously the members of the second Commission applied the 1978 Norms — the prefect of the CDF who signed that document was former Abp Franjo Seper of Zagreb well known among the members of the Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference. (We have to thank Kevin Symonds, a colleague of his and Richard Chonak for an English translation of the whole document.)
Thus, the second enlarged Commission was of the ecclesiastical doctrinal juridical opinion that the candidate was not “worthy” of being considered a supernatural entity, the Virgin Mary. I repeat: “not”, because some opine, by a kind of magical thinking, that “not” is a “neutral” or even “positive” term… Well, we do not share the same vocabulary and the same logical inferences.
This is why I say that if that entity is not considered to be a supernatural entity, it cannot be the Virgin Mary who is, as far as we know, a supernatural being.
Moreover, attached to the non constat was a precise pastoral directive, co-signed by the Ordinary of Mostar and the President of the Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, in January 1987:
“it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje’s events.” The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 140
I repeat: — “it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations — based on an alleged supernatural character — attributed to Medjugorje’s events.”
In other words, and to be clear — the propagandists never warn their “victims” about the real meaning of that directive — when the Medjugorje Franciscans and visionaries or tour operators organize religious manifestations based on the allegation that the Virgin Mary has appeared, is appearing or will appear before, during or after the said religious manifestations, they do not respect that pastoral directive.
In 1991, the third Commission confirmed the non constat verdict of the second Commission, adding the expertise of 15 members who held 23 meetings in Zagreb, from 1987 to 1990.
“A characteristic of the third Commission was that its work was to be done based on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no communiqués for the public were made. The results of their four-year long efforts were presented to the members of the Bishops’ Conference in Zagreb in 1990. Discussions at the Bishops’ Conference on the “apparitions” were held on four occasions: 25 April, 9 October and 27 November 1990, and the Declaration on Medjugorje was accepted by a vote held in Zadar on 10 April 1991: 19 bishops voted for the Declaration while 1 abstained.”
In October 1997, Mgr Ratko Peric, the Bishop of Mostar, expressed his personal position of “constat de non supernaturalitate” [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje. And he added:
“Nevertheless I am open to a study that the Holy See would undertake, as the supreme court of the Catholic Church, to speak the supreme and definitive judgment on the case, and that as soon as possible, for the good of souls and for the honor of the Church and of Our Lady.”
In May 1998, Abp. Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the CDF, acknowledged the personal opinion of Mgr Peric, “which he has the right to express as the Ordinary of the place”, and reiterated the pastoral directive:
“Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.”
That pastoral directive is still in force in 2011 and logically follows the repeated negative verdict since 1986: non constat de supernaturalitate.
At this point, it seems to me important to confirm my own interpretation of the “non constat” with the expertise of a Doctor in Canon Law, Fr. Andrew Kingham, who has written his dissertation on “The Norms for judging alleged apparitions and private revelations”
Here is an excerpt of his “general conclusions”:
The verdict of “non constat de supernaturalitate” can be manipulated by supporters of alleged apparitions, especially in protracted occurrences, to suggest that the diocesan bishop is unable to give an affirmative judgement until the phenomena cease or when a prophecy is fulfilled. Therefore, in order to give greater clarity, the meaning of “non constat de supernaturalitate” should be understood to mean a negative decision. That is, the phenomenon is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case. Given the facts of the case brought before the commission of investigation, if it is impossible to give an affirmative judgement, then the case should be closed with a verdict of “non constat de supernaturalitate”. [Kingham, p. 213-214 – underlined by LB]
The negative verdict of the first Commissions originates from the 8-year work of more than three dozens of experts and the endorsement of 19 out of the 20 members of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference and Secretaries and Prefect of the CDF
Now that we have shown that the negative verdict of the first Commissions — non constat de supernaturalitate — originates from the 8-year work of more than three dozens of experts and the endorsement of 19 out of the 20 members of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, let us project that fact on the first “unacceptable choice” of the so-called “tormenting dilemma” evoked by the Italian journalist/writer:
Commission — the 4th one — ends up ruling against the position of the local Ordinary; the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of pastoral authority while the victims are the humiliated local bishops (Mgrs Pavao Zanic† and Ratko Peric)
Has Vittorio Messori fallen under the spell of the Medjugorje sirens who try to persuade us that the one and only “bad guy” in authority who has brought the negative verdict to the CDF is the Bishop of Mostar, a “renegade”?
If the Commission ends up ruling for a constat de supernaturalitate against the actual non constat…, the “humiliated victims” would be 19 out of the 20 bishops, archbishops, cardinals of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, three dozens of experts and the CDF itself which has endorsed the non constat until today and the pastoral directive attached to it.
Moreover, last but not least, we would have a “humiliated” Pope Benedict XVI who praised the work of the Third Commission and endorsed its verdict as he was the Prefect of the CDF. On August 28th, 1991, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed some commentaries on the work of the third Commission at a Congress in Linz (Austria) after having specified that he had read all the protocols, or their Italian abstracts for the Croatian ones, and that he got a good idea of the whole work:
„Die Untersuchung war, wie gesagt, sehr gründlich, sehr vielseitig und sehr objektiv. Und als Folge davon musste man sagen: Es steht nicht fest, dass dies ein übernatürliches Phänomen ist.“ Gebetsaktion, Nr. 22, 1991, p. 15
[“The investigation was, as I said, very thorough, very broad and very objective. And, consequently, one had to say: the supernatural character of the phenomenon is not established.” Translation by LB]
Therefore, according to our analysis and understanding of an awkward situation, to say the least, Vittorio Messori would have to reformulate the first “unacceptable choice” of the so-called dilemma:
Commission — the 4th one — ends up ruling for supernaturality — constat de supernaturalitate — against the position of
– the local Ordinary,
– three dozens of experts of three Commissions who worked 8 years to reach a sustained negative verdict,
– all the members — except one — of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference,
– the former Secretary of the CDF, Mgr Alberto Bovone†,
– the former Secretary of the CDF, Abp Tarcisio Bertone,
– the former Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI;
the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of theological “incompetence” — the numerous mandated experts and theologians/pastors/bishops would have failed to identify “properly” the Virgin Mary — and of authority while the victims would be all those “humiliated” authorities and unfit institutions, and the betrayed faithful who are waiting so long to be pastorally enlightened and guided.
Under those conditions, the first “unacceptable choice” becomes highly improbable, let’s say a practical impossibility.
The “dilemma” consequently disappears and only one possibility remains: tell the truth!
How did Vittorio Messori formulate the second “unacceptable choice” of the so-called “tormenting dilemma”?
– Commission — the 4th one — ends up ruling on the non-authenticity of the apparitions, on deceit, misunderstanding, cheating, fraud or hoax; the result is a pastoral catastrophe and the victims are millions of sincere faithful.
Didn’t the second Commission decide in 1986 that there existed no proof of the authenticity of the apparitions? Didn’t the competent (mandated) authorities publish a pastoral directive in 1987 forbidding the organization of “either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje’s events.”? Didn’t the third Commission, the Bishops of former Yugoslavia and the CDF authorities endorse the negative verdict and the pastoral directive until today?
Where could the new “pastoral catastrophe” be if the 4th Commission would confirm the preceding verdicts, this time definitively?
The “pastoral catastrophe” has already happened! Millions of sincere faithful are already victims!
As far as we know, the “signal” of non-authenticity coming from the Ordinary of Mostar has been constant since his first Posizione in 1984.
According to Mgr. Pavao Zanic, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic was fabricating the “Lady of Medjugorje“’s so-called messages.
Without the collaboration of the parochial pastoral personnel, the Bishop of Mostar could not implement the pastoral care of intelligence. The responsible institution for the acknowledgement of the negative verdicts, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has given and maintained its approval to the proceedings and the results of the non constat: the “phenomenon” is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case.
On the other side of that “signal”, the “rebellious noise” coming from Medjugorje has been powerful, with amplifiers — Medjugorje Franciscans, ambulatory visionaries, informers, propagandists, travel agencies — paid with big money and the spending of pilgrims intrigued by that noise.
The religious manifestations organized with or without the visionaries in Medjugorje with the Lady of Medjugorje presented as the supernatural character “Gospa” have constituted a mighty coup de force [takeover by force] against the competent authority that formulated the pastoral directive.
It seems clear to me that the Diocesan authorities have made all in their power to broadcast the truthful signal that the “phenomenon” is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case. Despite that competent (mandated) signal, thousands of priests and hundreds of bishops — Abp of Vienna being one of them — have come to Medjugorje, without consulting the local Ordinary, to “pay” homage to the Lady of Medjugorje which appears to be undoubtedly for them the Virgin Mary.
The wait-and-Holy-See policy (until 2010) concerning that catastrophic pastoral situation has always perplexed me, even though the President of the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina had already complained in 2004 that “the reported apparitions of Medjugorje were becoming a source of division in the Church” and declared later on that “the doctrinal issue of the Medjugorje phenomenon [was] resolved”.
Now that the Holy See has decided for an efficient action in the establishment of the 4th Commission, let us hope that the pastoral care of intelligence will be put on the agenda as Benedict XVI sees it:
“It is up to us to seek to respond to the question of truth, fearlessly juxtaposing the proposal of faith with the reason of our time. […] Thus, it is very important to develop what last year we called “the pastoral care of intelligence“. […] In a society and in a culture which all too often make relativism their creed – relativism has become a kind of dogma – the light of truth is lacking. Indeed, it is considered dangerous even to speak about truth…”
In short, there is no “tormenting dilemma”: It is up to us to seek to respond to the question of truth, fearlessly juxtaposing the proposal of faith with the reason of our time.
And it is up to us, especially on the Assumption Day, as the sensus fidelium permits, to repeat the wish of the Ordinary of Mostar that a definitive judgment on the case will be made “for the good of souls and for the honor of the Church and of Our Lady.”
Cordially,
Louis Bélanger
