Kennedy Hall: A good day. Ladies and gentlemen, do you have opinions about Medjugorje? Does it get you upset? Do you think it’s true, false, or somewhere in between? It’s pretty confusing. Personally, it’s not something I buy into, and this was something I decided long before I was a traditional Catholic. In fact, I heard one of the most scathing critiques from Catholic Answers. It wasn’t actually from some traditional Catholic YouTuber or anything like that, but nonetheless, it’s something a lot of people adhere to, look to, and follow the daily messages and so on.
So I guess the real question is, is it a real apparition? Is it something Catholics should be believing in? Is it something we should be adhering to as Catholics? Well, Bishop Schneider has an opinion on it, and I think he is a pretty good source of wisdom on Catholicism. If I’m being honest, I appreciate his measured critique, and I think you will as well. So, whether you adhere to it or not, perhaps this might be useful in trying to figure out this whole paradigm. Let’s take a listen.
Bishop Schneider: Medjugorje is still officially not recognized by the church as apparitions. It is recognized as a place of pilgrimage and prayer, and we have to distinguish that. There are cases in the history of the church where there were alleged apparitions, but the church did not make any judgment on them. In some historical cases, the church abstained from pronouncing herself and simply allowed people to pray there without approving an apparition.
There are two cases in Germany, for example, from the 20th century. One is Wigratzbad, now the seminary of the Fraternity of St. Peter, and another is Marienfried, both in the Diocese of Augsburg in Bavaria. After the Second World War, there were two alleged apparitions of Our Lady in these different places. Books and prayer books were written, people came to pray, and believed that Our Lady appeared and gave messages. The bishops at that time simply tolerated this for several decades without pronouncing themselves on the apparitions. They only allowed people to pray, and these were very beneficial places with many graces.
I personally visited these places in my youth. In the 1980s, forty years after the apparitions, another bishop from the Diocese of Augsburg made an official inquiry committee. They examined both apparitions carefully and concluded that in both cases, the apparitions were not confirmed as supernatural. However, the bishop established both places as diocesan shrines of Our Lady, even with the invocation names from the apparitions. In Wigratzbad, it remains Our Lady of Victory, and in Marienfried, another name. The bishop stated that these places should not be preached as having a supernatural origin.
Now, regarding Medjugorje, it seems to be a similar situation. The Holy See has not yet published an official report on the alleged supernatural character of the apparitions. The pope has named an apostolic administrator, a bishop, to care for the pilgrims. This is good because it provides pastoral care for those who come to pray and do penance. This could allow a shrine for prayer to exist independently of whether the apparitions in Medjugorje are determined to be supernatural or simply expressions of the devotion of the visionaries. The final judgment of the Holy See has not yet been published.
Kennedy Hall: Okay, that’s interesting. I tend to agree with Bishop Schneider. The whole Medjugorje situation is very complicated. On one hand, there seem to be some red flags in the lives of the seers and in some of the messages attributed to Our Lady. On the other hand, people do go there and have legitimate conversions, and I’ve seen that happen.
There are also people who seem to go there chasing apparitions or miracles. Some expect extraordinary things, like turning their rosary to gold. That seems strange, but through all of that, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of Catholics, go there with the intention of strengthening their faith and love for the Virgin Mary.
I think the examples Bishop Schneider gave about places that became shrines without approval of the apparition make sense. Those places were set up as diocesan devotions. One difference, though, is that in those cases, the name of Our Lady, like Our Lady of Victory, was already well known. I don’t know if the name used in Medjugorje is traditionally recognized. For example, if someone says they saw the Virgin Mary in Southwestern Minnesota and called her Our Lady of the Rosary, that devotion is very old, so a shrine would make sense.
Bishop Schneider seems to think that having an apostolic delegate or overseer in Medjugorje is prudent. I agree with the Pope that having someone from Rome overseeing things is wise. There are many strange stories from Medjugorje, so oversight can prevent some of the complications. Apostolic oversight does not mean approval of the apparitions. It is simply an acknowledgment that something happens there, and the church has authority over how affairs are governed.
I guess I don’t know if you are a Medjugorje supporter or not, but as always, let me know in the comments. This has been the Kennedy Report. Until next time, God bless.