Former prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, José Cardinal Saraiva Martins has doubts about the reality of the apparitions of Mary in Medjugorje. He said, "It could be a trick of the devil".  One thing he could have drawn on for evidence is the tendency of Medjugorje believers to endorse and participate in unauthorised and ad hoc exorcisms.  Medjugorje is top on the world scene for exorcisms that are not valid for they do not seek the bishops permission.

Believers in Medjugorje slander Bishop Zanic.  Marija said, “The communist police called the then Bishop Msgr. Pavao Žanić to the Commissariat of Mostar and ordered him: ‘You must deny everything and nothing will happen to you’ and so Žanić denied everything”.  There is not a shred of evidence for this allegation.  It is immoral to take it seriously.  It looks like somebody trying to make the bishop look like a believer in the apparitions who will not admit it.

Question: Eminence, in some of the apparitions, the Virgin is said to have asked the six "seers" of Medjugorje not to obey the prohibitions of their diocesan Bishop, such as, for example, to not speak publicly any more of the alleged "visions".

He replied, "The Madonna could not, in any case at all, be anti-hierarchical and incite disobedience, even if the Bishop of Mostar were wrong. This is another element on which to reflect."

Notably the bishop removed Fr Slavko but the Virgin told him to stay on - see the message of Sunday, February 3, 1985: "I wish for Father Slavko to stay here, for him to guide life, and to assemble all the news, so that when I leave there will be a complete image of everything that has happened here. I am also praying now for Slavko and for all those who work in this parish."  Slavko is dead and note how the message states that he is the one who will record all her doings in Medjugorje.  If you want to believe in the visions then you cannot believe in any that follow Slavko's cessation of recording keeping never mind his death.

Believers in Medjugorje lie that the bishop, Bishop Peric, was put out of the picture by Rome for his negative judgment of the visions. In fact, he gladly invited and asked for the current Commission to take away the pressure from him. He stated that. It is not true that there is a case of the Bishop versus Rome. The believers never try to back up their slanderous allegation with evidence or document it.


This excellent site points out that when Satan speaks, in the experience of the Church, he states 99% of the truth that God has revealed and 1 % untruth because every little error helps his cause. In the Church’s experience, that is the way it seems to be which means nobody should be accepting the visions of Medjugorje for they tell some lies.

It says that by Church law that published details of the teaching of apparitions have to get an imprimatur from the Church. An imprimatur is a permission to publish a document on the grounds that nothing that scandalises faith or morals is in it. The Medjugorje Virgin has never worried about that. She has even recommended books of supposedly supernatural origin that the official Church did not like to be promoted. And books which had no imprimatur. So to authenticate Medjugorje would be to authenticate these supernatural claims too though there is no reason to take them seriously.

Any apparition or spirit that gets published without the green light from the Church is definitely not Catholic though it may say it is which only compounds its dishonesty.

Apparitions in Church dogma are only for creating fervour and not for teaching new dogma. That would eliminate the authenticity of Fatima as well as Medjugorje for they make predictions that are not in the Bible and predictions have nothing to do with fervour especially when they are frightening for the Bible says that perfect love casts out all fear. An apparition that was into increasing devotion would just give out spiritual advice.

The Church has always taught that apparitions have to be approached with extreme caution for the risk of illusion is great. And there is a risk of people preferring the apparition to the authority of the Church for faith is hard at the best of times. Leaving aside the fact that the apostles gave no evidence that they checked their own visions of Jesus with complete circumspection, it is clear that the Church is right that caution is an essential. The site states that the visionaries said that Mary told them that a baby does not receive a human soul until it is half-term and that Hitler and Pope Paul VI were good men and kidnapped and replaced by evil doubles. This false pope idea is definitely schismatic and denies the Catholic doctrine that the Church would not be built on a false rock.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, November 1996

Regarding the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation states:

The Interpretation given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14 October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision actually referred to the "abolition of the Index of Forbidden Books" and determined that --- after the relevant censures were lifted --- the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals. It should be recalled however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, canon 623 #1 of the current Code remains in force: "the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or morals be submitted to their judgment".

Alleged supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in first instance to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop, and, in particular cases, to the judgment of the Episcopal Conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Any apparition that breaks this rule, and the Medjugorje Virgin commands that her messages be distributed as they are received, is not a Catholic apparition or concerned about Catholic orthodoxy. The bishops are the official Catholic teachers not apparitions. The vast majority of modern visions break the rule and so are themselves disobedient apparitions.

The Vatican has not clamped down hard on Medjugorje. This clearly implies tacit approval for the idea that as long as the Church gets publicity and converts and money thanks to an apparition it doesn't matter if the apparition is genuine or not. The false Knock visionaries such as Joe Coleman are allowed into the basilica despite turning it into a circus by pretending to have visions over the altar. It is no wonder that it is in fashion for a Catholic to claim an apparition today!

Cardinal Kuharic, Archbishop of Zagreb, said in 1984 that the Medjugorje apparition was not the real Mary because the real Mary would not have spoken about Bishop Zanic the way the apparition did. Zanic gave out several commands in 1986 none of which were obeyed including forbidding apparitions to be held in the Church and requesting the removal of an unauthorised statue of Mary in the apparition Church. The contempt for the bishop’s authority is clear from the fact that the Franciscans and the visionaries would do nothing he asked.

Romans 13 is the word of God according to infallible Catholic doctrine. It says that leaders must be obeyed for God allows them to have power even if they are bad. Fallible Medjugorje apparition comes along and encourages disobedience to the bishop. I need write no more!


Bishop Peric preached at St James Church, Medjugorje in 2006. He said,

“Therefore I responsibly call upon those who claim themselves to be “seers”, as well as those persons behind the “messages”, to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish. In this fashion they shall show their necessary adherence to the Church, by neither placing private “apparitions” nor private sayings before the official position of the Church. Our faith is a serious and responsible matter. The Church is also a serious and responsible institution!”

The visionaries have continued to defy this request. They engage in acts of publicity for the visions.  He was not telling them not to have visions - but to be discrete and keep it private.  That is a reasonable request.  There is a danger of fanaticism or the apparition being false or even if the apparition is real the visionary might lie about what she sees or what it says.

He wrote to Sister Elvira in December 2008 for the Cenacolo community for which she was responsible and the founder not to host visions but it kept doing so. Mirjana had her visions there in spite of the bishop.

Dear Sr. Elvira,

Following your visit to this Chancery Office on 9 July 2001, during which you verbally sought authorization to establish a chapel in the premises of your activities, you did not receive a positive reply. The former Nuncio to the Republic of Croatia, Archbishop Giulio Einaudi was informed of this decision in writing, as was Msgr. Diego Natale Bona, the Bishop of Saluzzo, in your home diocese. Hence, you are well aware that you have not received from this Chancery Office, neither orally nor in writing, any authorization to reside or to work in any fashion as a Catholic religious sister in Medjugorje, outside of your own community which is in Italy.

For some time now, you have made possible to some of the “seers” of Medjugorje to present their private “apparitions” before the faithful in the premises where you are working, and this usually on the 2nd day of each month (enclosed is an illustrated detail of the 2nd of October of this year). Due to the fact that you do not have any competent ecclesiastical approval to work as a religious sister in Medjugorje separated from your religious community of origin, in the same way and even more so, you have no permission to bring any private “seer” to your premises in order to organize her “apparition” performance before curious onlookers.

Hoping that you will not only immediately put an end to such practices regarding your favors to the private “seers”, but that you will also resolve your status as a religious sister according to Church norms, I wish you the assistance and enlightenment of the Child-God of Bethlehem.

Ratko Perić, bishop

The bishops of Mostar did command the priests facilitating the visions to stop doing so.  They did not.  The visionaries and their vision tacitly approved their arrogance by saying nothing and going on as if the bishop was fine with it all.  This only encouraged the disobedience of the priests.


There is no evidence at all and no Vatican confirmation that the Vatican's Commission of Investigation of the Medjugorje claims was established due to a lack of faith in the bishop and his disapproval of the visionaries claims. The Vatican's reasons are unknown - and the commission has to be objective meaning it is open to agreeing with the bishop.

Medjugorje promoters claim that we should not say the apparitions are false or inauthentic until after the Vatican makes up its mind and pronounces on the matter. That is a tactic to try and silence critics. If they care about the Vatican they will say, "We hope the apparitions are authentic. We wish to present the case for authenticity. People may say the apparitions are true or false - debate is good." They however do speak of the apparitions as authentic.

Another lie told by supporters of Medjugorje is that the Church cannot decide if the visions are from God or not until the visions end. Many feel that the visionaries are dragging the whole thing out to stave off a final decision for they fear it will be a negative decision. It is claimed that the Church cannot proclaim apparitions authentic until it has seen all the evidence which means it has to wait until the visions end. But the Church can condemn ongoing apparitions. If apparitions show no sign of doctrinal or moral error, the Church cannot judge definitively unless the visions are over. That is in case the apparition is approved and it then starts making errors after approval. The Church can declare that ongoing visions show no sign yet of the supernatural. Or if the visions make doctrinal or moral errors, the Church does not need to wait until they end before condemning them.

The Church's approach makes sense. The Vatican Commission on Medjugorje while the apparitions are ongoing surely suggests the Commission is trying to be open-minded but does not expect this open-mindedness to lead to a positive decision. The apparitions if good and orthodox, cannot be approved until the end. So the Church making a decision now means a negative decision or a declaration that the visions are not supernatural.

The fruits of Medjugorje are really founded on lies. So how good are the fruits? How can they be lasting? The devil would love to get loads of converts for God if he can disappoint them and put them off religion.

Believers lie that the right to discern the visions was taken from the bishop.  It was not.  To make sure the right decision on authenticity would be made he requested that the Vatican set up an investigation.  The bishop is confident the Church will see any evidence of the supernatural as inconclusive which is why he has no problem with Medjugorje believers and sceptics comprising the investigation.  He needs and wants it to be neutral.


No Copyright