Talk:Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions

Quotation from Andrea Gemma
Editor Cresix removed the following sourced material from the article on April 4, 2011, with the comment: "Please explain on talk page why a former ITALIAN bishop has more notability than hundreds of other bishops on this matter. Do not restore without consensus."

Andrea Gemma, the prominent exorcist and former bishop of Isernia-Venafro, called the Medjugorje phenomenon "absolutely diabolical", stating the visionaries were disobedient to the Church and profited economically from pilgrimages, in some cases organizing them.

Can Cresix please explain the notability criterion he is trying to apply? Cresix has twice removed the above quotation without presenting an explanation in the Talk page.

If the article is meant to give the Catholic Church's response to the Medjugorje events, the article should be balanced and give a clear presentation of favorable and unfavorable assessments of the Medjugorje phenomenon. However, the article is currently unbalanced, as it lacks a presentation of the critical arguments.

In contrast, the section on favorable voices now has ten subheadings, and includes mere statements of opinion, as for example, from Cdl. Schoenborn, an Austrian bishop, who speaks of the phenomenon's good influence, but not about the phenomenon itself. In contrast, the comments I cite from Bp. Gemma discuss the alleged seers themselves.

The Wikipedia tutorial on the NPOV principle cites some examples of failing to fully observe NPOV:
 * Entirely omitting significant citable information in support of a minority view, with the argument that it is claimed to be not credible
 * Ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms (this could be done on spurious grounds).

--Chonak (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

No approval until apparitions cease?
The article says no approval can be made until the phenomena are over. What's the basis for this statement? It isn't sourced. I read through Normae S. Congregationis (quickly) and my impression is that the Church can intervene and make a determination whenever it deems necessary. If an apparition was a fraud, wouldn't the "visionary" have an interest in dragging it out forever? My guess is that the Vatican commission won't wait until the messages stop before making a determination.  Kenatipo   speak! 03:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Response: The Catholic Church can and will often rule against an apparition while it is ongoing, but it never declares an apparition as genuine while it is ongoing. This is the history of the discernment process. Most often the alleged visionary will receive a message that indicates that a particular apparition is the final one, and then the Catholic Church begins the process to determine the validity of the claims. Sometimes the apparition will be ruled upon -- either favorably with a declaration that it is "worthy of belief," or it will be ruled against with a statement that indicates that it was not a genuine appearance of Jesus, Mary or a saint. The process can sometimes take hundreds of years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.203.38 (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that this article is clearly skewed toward describing views supportive of the Medjugorje phenomenon, whereas off the top of my head I can think of critics whose views are just as notable as these supporters, for instance Louis Belanger who has written multiple books on this topic. Looking at past edits, I notice that a user Cresix has repeatedly removed good and cited information on the critical view of retired bishop Andrea Gemma, a former Rome exorcist. Gemma's opinion, which was reported in news stories (certainly a sign of notability), is just as notable as the opinion of Rome exorcist Fr Gabriel Amorth, which is described in the article; these views go together in an obvious way, Gemma is not a random "Italian bishop" as Cresix attempts to say, but, like Amorth, a city of Rome exorcist (what Amorth is known for), who comes to a radically different conclusion than Amorth about Medjugorje. Looking further down on the edits, indeed information on Belanger and other critics was also removed in the past. I don't have time right now, but it entirely makes sense to present information on the skeptical views in this article, from others than just the bishops of Mostar. I don't have time to edit the article, nor energy to get into some kind of edit wars with those who want to abuse the article to support Medjugorje, so I simply leave this comment and encourage someone else to restore the information about Bp. Gemmma, Louis Belanger, etc. --Elizdelphi (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The Catholic Church teaches that alleged apparitions can be condemned while ongoing - for example, the Montanist prophecies - but the Church does not teach that alleged apparitions can or cannot be approved while ongoing. The Church further teaches that she can reverse her judgments - for example, the messages to Saint Faustina were first condemned, then approved. Oct13 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

John Paul II
In 1998, when a certain German gathered various statements which were supposedly made by the Pope and the Cardinal Prefect, and then forwarded them to the Vatican in the form of a memorandum, the Cardinal responded in writing on 22 July 1998: “The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention” – Ogledalo Pravde, p. 283

Oct13 (talk) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a PDF copy of a letter Ratzinger wrote about Medjugorje, albeit from a self-publishing website. (So I don't think the letters are reliable) Oct13 (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough is enough!

 * John Paul II, the Pope at the time the apparitions began, also began making comments about Međugorje. The Slovak-born bishop Pavol Hnilica claimed that in March 1984, John Paul told him, "Međugorje is the fulfillment and continuation of Fatima." Later, on August 1, 1989, the Holy Father stated to Bishop Hnilica: "Today the world has lost the supernatural. Many people sought it and found it in Međugorje through prayer, fasting and through confession." Then the following year the Korean Catholic (Nov. 11, 1990) reported the following conversation between Archbishop Angelo Kim and John Paul:  "Thanks to you, Poland has now been freed from Communism", the archbishop said.  "No, not me", replied the Holy Father, "but by the works of the Blessed Virgin according to her affirmations at Fatima and Međugorje."


 * In 1994, during an address by Bishop Hnilica at a National Conference at Notre Dame, the bishop stated that the Holy Father had said to a group of Americans on their way to Međugorje, "Our Lady of Međugorje will save America." The bishop did not elaborate further.


 * Pope John Paul II also sent a "Thank You" note in August 2002 to Fr. Jozo Zovko, the former parish priest of Međugorje, for his charitable activities. The headline from the August 24, 2002 Zagreb daily newspaper declared, "A surprising gesture from the Vatican. The Pope thanks Father Jozo for Međugorje!"  The article reported that a handwritten note by the Holy Father was delivered to Fr. Zovko invoking "a new outpouring of graces and heavenly favors, and the continuous protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary."

Queenship Publishing, at least as regards private revelations, since its biased, and unsourced quotes, by nature, are not acceptable! Oct13 (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No Sainthood
Visionaries can't be saints until the Church says so, and the Church says sainthood is impossible until after death. So this article doesn't belong in Portal:Saints. Oct13 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Related move discussion
Note a related (and relisted) move discussion at Talk:Međugorje In ictu oculi (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now closed. Moonraker12 (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Our Lady of Međugorje which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Also closed (in March!) Moonraker12 (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved to Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Status of Medjugorje → Status of Our Lady of Medjugorje – The current name is inaccurate; it doesn't describe the status of Medjugorje, a village, but Our Lady of Medjugorje, a religious apparition. I'm open to alternatives, but I don't think the current name is appropriate. My proposal matches the parent article Our Lady of Medjugorje. BDD (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - this suggestion would be an improvement in clarity, though "status" is still an odd word to use. An alternative would be Commission of Investigation on Medjugorje which is the official title of the 17 expert group, something purely descriptive Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is not a contentious move, you should have just done it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is more that I didn't know the best place to move it (just that it should be moved). I like IIO's descriptive title. The scope of the article is probably a bit beyond the official expert group, though. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Support In ictu's second alternative. Specifically, Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions. That is a pretty accurate description of the contents of the article. If someone can make it pithier, fine. If not, that's my !vote. Dohn joe (talk) 17:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New move
This page was moved to the title "Catholic Church response to the Medjugorje apparitions" in March this year as the result of the RM discussion (above); the spelling used, “Medjugorje” was in use here as the result of a previous RM decision, which was in turn based on a looong discussion here. A week after the move it was moved again, without discusson, or explanation, or any justification given whatsoever. So what the fuck is the point of spending time discussing matters, trying to reach collaborative decisions, trying to determine consensus, or paying heed to policies and guidelines if the moment a conclusion is reached any Tom Dick or Harry feels free to parachute in and undo the whole process? I notice that it has just been moved back (which saves me a job); can I suggest if anyone is unhappy with the current title and spelling they open a Request Move discussion, like we are supposed to? Moonraker12 (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Re-write
This article has been substantially re-written over the past couple of last months, with a multitude of changes; not least by the loss of more than 26Kb of content. This is not to say there’s anything wrong with the current version (it is significantly easier to read, for one thing) but it is radically different from the version we’ve been used to for the last 4 years. If anyone hankers after that version, it can still be accessed via the edit history; for example, here, or even here (view only!). Moonraker12 (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Current Edits Unsatisfactory
There are too many factual errors in the current version of this article. Also, Oct13 decided to turn the article from a balanced overview of the alleged apparitions to only negative information. Some of the original content needs to be added back in because it was valuable. In addition, facts need to be corrected. For example, the following information is incorrect:

There are two possible judgments: constat de supernaturalitate ("It is confirmed to be of supernatural origin") and non constat de supernaturalitate ("It is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin").[1]

This is incorrect. There are three possible judgments, not two:

•	constat de supernaturalitate: the event is confirmed to be of supernatural origin •	constat de non supernaturalitate: the event is confirmed to be of non-supernatural origin (what most people might call a "condemned" apparition) According to EWTN: "The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous." •	non constat de supernaturalitate: the judgments are not yet conclusive and more study is required. (In the words of EWTN: "This judgment would seem to be completely open to further evidence or development.")

The reason that Oct13 changed the list from three to two is because it makes the apparitions seem to be condemned, when in fact they have not been.

Facts in the current article need to be checked and verified and a more balanced approach to the phenomenon needs to be taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theanswerman109 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Minor changes made to reflect more balanced view
I agree with AnswerMan109 that the current edits are unsatisfactory. I have added a couple of paragraphs to clarify the fact that the apparitions have indeed not been condemned at present and the faithful can still go to Medjugorje if they wish, as long as their visit is not in an official, church-sponsored capacity. Bobness52.

I think a visual image of Pope Francis blessing a marian statue fits the context of the article and should be added to the article. Feel free to comment on this idea.Theanswerman109 (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dubious?
I find that I have to question the reliability of the source providing hearsay quotes allegedly attributed to JPII by one Bishop Hnilica. (See above comment by Oct 13) It beggars credulity that someone as politically adept as Karol Wojtyła would repeatedly disrespect and seek to undercut the local ordinary as well as, the Yugoslav Bishops Conference, while making statements bound to cause confusion among the European Bishops Conference and the Italian Bishops Conference. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * in March 1984, John Paul told him, "Međugorje is the fulfillment and continuation of Fatima." -This is the same month that the local ordinary is warning against officially sponsored pilgrimages, and while the work of the first, later extended, commission was still on-going.
 * on August 1, 1989, the Pope stated to Bishop Hnilica: "Today the world has lost the supernatural. Many people sought it and found it in Međugorje through prayer, fasting and through confession." - This is after the same Bishop's letter to the European Bishops' conference discouraging official pilgrimages, a separate "Declaration of the Bishop of Mostar on Medjugorge", a letter to the Italian Bishops' Conference, again re pilgrimages; and before the completion of the YBC commission's report as requested by the CDF.
 * Nov. 11, 1990: reported a conversation between Archbishop Angelo Kim and John Paul: "Thanks to you, Poland has now been freed from Communism", the archbishop said. "No, not me", replied the Pope, "but by the works of the Blessed Virgin according to her affirmations at Fatima and Međugorje." - also before the completion of the pending YBC commission's report.

To add to the above notations of the dubious quality of some of the quotes, I think it should be pointed out that there are questions regarding the article's footnotes 22 and 23, and the claims they supposedly support. According to the article as written, supported by those footnotes, there was a vote in which the commission studying the apparitions reportedly voted in favor of approving the first seven apparitions, but not the rest. However, according to Patrick Coffin,this report is a rumor stemming from "information leaked to a pro-Medjugorje Italian journalist" (to clarify: "leaked information" cannot be taken at face value as accurate without further investigation, yet at least two seemingly reputable news sources failed to investigate the rumors OR to add the caveat that the "leaked information" was, indeed, leaked and not verified). As such, the claims are dubious. As Donal Foley is quoted as saying in the next paragraph of the article, "That would mean that Our Lady appeared to the seven children knowing that they would go on to falsely report that the visions were continuing," which is inconsistent with the circumstances of approved Marian apparitions. This article needs to be balanced in its presentation, and that's not the case as it stands.2601:409:400:9548:786A:DA8B:48F0:C94C (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Final section of article has a few issues
This section has a few issues, one of which is the final sentence. The sources don't back up the claim in the sentence. The following is a sentence from the interview that is cited as footnote 23 but claims that church dignitaries hold the apparitions of Medjugorje as questionable: “Out of prudence, the Holy Father [JP II] thought it was the right thing to do [not receive the visionaries personally at the Vatican]. But, believe me, he had nothing against them personally. In fact, I never heard, even in private, a single word of condemnation about the event or the people involved." (Interview with Cardinal Stanislao Dziwisz, personal secretary to JPII, quoted in Aleteia) I think the final sentence should reflect a more accurate stance. Thoughts? Thespringfieldfive (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thespringfieldfive (talk • contribs)
 * I read each reference and removed words that were not in the references. Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Reference Issues
Governor Sheng after the issues with the cites missing I checked every page associated with OLM page. Here are the problems. Please fix them: Almost all the references are link without the basic reference links Red Rose 13 (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) 5 dead link
 * 2) 4 dead link
 * 3) 8 dead link
 * 4) 9 is only a link which most of them are on this page. The reference information needs to be filled out which can include a link
 * 5) 11 – reference information missing
 * 6) 19 – the second link is a dead link


 * Fix it. Governor Sheng (talk) 00:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I fixed what I could.Red Rose 13 (talk) 07:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)