The Zadar Declaration (1991)

Emphasis mine in bold [notes in red and enclosed in brackets]

The Third Commission (1987 - 1990)

In January 1987, upon the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Kuharić, president of the Bishops’ Conference, and bishop Žanić made a joint communiqué in which they announced the formation of the third Commission and in which they asked the faithful not to organize pilgrimages motivated “from above” which would ascribe to the events of Medjugorje (O. P., p. 196). The Commission was comprised of 11 priests (6 religious, 5 diocesan), 4 physicians and psychologists and one religious sister as secretary.

The Commission held 23 meetings in Zagreb at the Secretariat of the Bishops’ Conference. The first meeting was in April 1987 and the twenty-third in September 1990.

A characteristic of the third Commission was to work on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no statements 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 through a vote held in Zadar on 10 April 1991: 19 bishops voted for the Declaration while 1 abstained.

The Declaration states: “During the regular session of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia, held in Zadar from April 9-11, 1991, the following was accepted:


DECLARATION

From the very beginning, the Bishops have been following the events of Medjugorje through the local Bishop, the Bishops’ Commission and the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia for Medjugorje.

On the bas[is] of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed [non constat de supernaturalitate - see footnote²] that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.

Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through the commissions.

Zadar, 10 April 1991
The Bishops of Yugoslavia”

A few notes worth considering:

• The non constat de supernaturalitate status clearly leaves open the room for further data to be considered, while at the same time also making clear, that nothing examined up to the time of this commission indicated anything of supernatural origin.
• Since this did not receive an absolute negative judgment (constat de non supernaturalitate), the declaration comprehends that visitors will need pastoral care.
• The declaration did not give permission for a cult following of "Our Lady of Medjugorje" to develop³, something which by right, belongs to the competent authority, in this case the Bishop's Conference of Yugoslavia. Rather, the pastoral care, in part, was intended to enable a healthy devotion to Our Lady according to the teachings of the Church (Encyclical Marialis Cultis).
  

---

1) Source: Međugorje: Secrets, messages, vocations, prayers, confessions, commissions, Bishop Ratko Peric, Diocese of Mostar-Duvno (address given in Maynooth, Ireland in 2004.

2) See post: Apparitions: Types of Decisions the Church can Hand Down

3) From the post: Who discerns apparitions and private revelations?, we see that the cult following is only permitted after the local Ordinary discerns that there is nothing contrary to established positive and negative criteria. There is plenty of evidence that the cult following was discouraged not only by the local Bishop, but by the Bishops Conference. In 1987, YBC President, Cardinal Kuharic declared, "it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events" In 1990, one year before the Zadar Declaration, Bishop Zanic listed 29 serious problems with Medjugorje. Bishop Zanic worked hard to discourage a cult following which is seen in a series of documented communications compiled by EWTN.

4) Subsequent clarifications on pilgrimages have been made by the Holy See (link forthcoming).

HOME: Medjugorje Documents Online and FAQ's

*

What is Involved in Apparition Discernment?

The CDF released a document in 1978 which had been available only to bishops¹. In that document, criteria was laid out for the discernment of apparitions. It is a process for bishops to follow since they are the first level of ecclesiastical authority with jurisdiction. It has since found it's way into the public domain. Apparitions since 1978 fall under this, as well as those still under investigation prior to 1978.

There is both positive and negative criteria that bishops and other authorities consider with the help of this document. First, the document offers some notes to put it all into context.

Preliminary Note: Origin and character of these norms.

At the time of the Annual Plenary Congregation during November 1974, the Fathers of this Sacred Congregation studied the problems relating to apparitions and supposed revelations, and the consequences which often result from these, and they arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Today more than formerly, the news of these apparitions is spread more quickly among the faithful thanks to the means of information ("mass media"); in addition, the ease of travel supports more frequent pilgrimages. Also, the ecclesiastical authority was itself brought to reconsider this subject.

2. Similarly, because of current instruments of knowledge, the contributions of science, and the requirement of a rigorous criticism, it is more difficult, if not impossible, to arrive as speedily as previously at judgements which conclude, as formerly happened, investigations into this matter (“constate de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate”); and because of that, it is more difficult for the Ordinary to authorize or prohibit public worship or any other form of devotion of the faithful.

For these reasons, so that the devotion stirred up among the faithful by facts of this kind can appear as a disposition in full communion with the Church, and bear fruit, and so that the Church itself is able to ultimately distinguish the true nature of the facts, the Fathers consider that it is necessary to promote the following practice in regard to this matter.

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:


a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.


I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.



A) Positive criteria:

a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.

b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:


1. Personal qualities of the subject—in particular mental balance, honesty and rectitude of moral life, habitual sincerity and docility towards ecclesiastical authority, ability to return to the normal manner of a life of faith, etc.

2. With regard to the revelations, their conformity with theological doctrines and their spiritual veracity, their exemption from all error.

3. A healthy devotion and spiritual fruits which endure (in particular, the spirit of prayer, conversions, signs of charity, etc).




B) Negative criteria:


a) A glaring error as to the facts.

b) Doctrinal errors that one would attribute to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit in their manifestations (taking into account, however, the possibility that the subject may add something by their own activity—even if this is done unconsciously—of some purely human elements to an authentic supernatural revelation, these having nevertheless to remain free from any error in the natural order. Cf. St Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, n. 336).

c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.

d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.

e) Psychic disorders or psychopathic tendencies concerning the subject, which would exert an unquestionable influence on the allegedly supernatural facts, or indeed psychosis, mass hysteria, or other factors of the same kind.


It is important to consider these criteria, whether they are positive or negative, as indicative standards and not as final arguments, and to study them in their plurality and in relation with the other criteria.





---


Footnotes:



1)1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (unoffical English translation)

Who discerns apparitions and private revelations?

From the 1978 document(unofficial english translation) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on discernment of apparitions¹.

II. Intervention of the competent local Authority


1. As, at the time of a presumed supernatural fact, worship or an ordinary form of devotion is born in a quasi spontaneous way among the faithful, the competent ecclesiastical Authority has the serious obligation to inform itself without delay and to carry out a diligent investigation.

2. At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question (cf. above, Preliminary Note, c).

3. By virtue of his doctrinal and pastoral duty, the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene immediately of his own authority, and he must do so in serious circumstances, for example, when it is a question of correcting or of preventing abuses in the exercise of worship or devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrines, to avoid the dangers of a false mysticism etc.

4. In doubtful cases, which do not involve the welfare of the Church, the competent ecclesiastical Authority may refrain from any judgement and any direct action (more especially as it can happen that, at the end of a certain time, the supposedly supernatural event can lapse from memory); but he should not remain less vigilant about the event, in such a way as to be in a position to intervene with swiftness and prudence, if that is necessary.



III. Other Authorities entitled to intervene


1. The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary.

2. But the regional or national episcopal Conference may intervene:

a) If the local Ordinary, after having fulfilled the obligations which fall to him, resorts to them for a study of the event in its entirety.

b) If the event assumes national or regional importance.

3. The Apostolic See can intervene, either at the request of Ordinary himself, or at the request of a qualified group of the faithful, or directly by virtue of the immediate right of universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. above, IV).

---

(1) 1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (unoffical English translation)

Apparitions: Types of Decisions the Church can Hand Down

To fully comprehend the status of an appartion in the eyes of the Church, an understanding of decisions is needed. Links with cited source info can be found at the bottom.

What kind of decisions can be handed down by the Church? There are three:

• Constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural).
• Non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
• Constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural).

The first decision at the top of the list, Constat de supernaturalitate, is clearly favorable. There are clear signs of something supernatural, and nothing is found to contradict doctrine¹. Also, those receiving the private revelations have been cleared of mental illness or physical conditions which could explain the phenomena. In addition, there is honesty and upright behavior (immorality in the form of lies, deceit, promiscuity, etc., are absent).

What distinguishes the last two classifications?

Constat de non supernaturalitate is a negative judgment. Examples of private revelations which have received such a judgment include Bayside and Necedeh. Colin Donovan explains²:

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. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.

Non constat de supernaturalitate is not necessarily a neutral judgment. Nor is it likely a final judgment. Rather, nothing has been found which would be considered supernatural. It also seems to leave itself open for further discernment. People need to be careful with claims by promoters and supporters of any private revelation of things like, "healings" and "cures". Before such a proclamation can be made and associated with a person or place, it needs to be studied and verified. Anyone can make such claims, but will it stand up to the level of medical scrutiny worhty of the title, "miraculous"? Similarly, mystical phenomena (dancing sun, things changing in appearance, strange lights, visions, etc.,) must be examined for natural explanations first. If such explanations are ruled out, then there are two others possible sources: Divine and diabolic. Hence, even the presence of mystical phenomena is not proof of divine involvement.

---

Footnotes:

1) See Catechism of the Catholic Church #65-67
2) Apparitions/Private Revelations written by theologian Colin Donovan, STL, April 2001 Revision accessed on Sept 10, 2008