Quodlibet Regarding the Alleged Apparitions of Medjugorje

Quodlibet Regarding the Alleged Apparitions of Medjugorje

By Matthew Bellisario O.P. 2020

What is a Quodlibet?

Webster's defines quodlibet as "a philosophical or theological point proposed for disputation also: a disputation on such a point." For those of you who have read medieval theologians and the history of the medieval university, you are aware that theologians often debated topics of interest, these are known as quodlibets. They would purpose a question or series of questions and then investigate it putting forth the pros and cons for either upholding or refuting the proposed statement. 

In this post, I will be doing my own quodlibet regarding the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje. It seems that my post 'Are You Following a Popular Narrative!?' in which I used the very brief example of Medjugorje struck a nerve and put me on the outs with the traditionalist narrative. I made the statement that I had withheld my judgment on the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje until I had investigated the issue further. I was subsequently accused of being lukewarm for not making a negative judgment on it. My prudence and integrity were called into question because I have not made a definitive judgment, more specifically a negative judgment. So in response, and for a fun exercise, I compiled the main objections as they were largely presented to me and I have put together this quodlibet based on them. This is my first attempt at this so bear with me.

  

I formatted the question in the same manner as you would find in the Summa Theologica. First I present the question, followed by the negative objection to the question, then followed by a Sed Contra objection. I then present my general response and then my specific refutation of each objection answering the question in the affirmative. Obviously, as of this point in time, I still have withheld my judgment on the issue and so this quodlibet is a follows. Please note, this question does not have anything to do with those who are for or against the apparitions, nor is it in any way a condemnation of their judgment for or against. It deals with only this one specific question which addresses my supposed prudence and integrity in withholding my judgment on the matter or anyone else that has done so.

Quodlibet: Can a Catholic legitimately act in prudential good faith through withholding his or her judgment regarding the legitimacy of the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje? 

Objection 1: The local bishop has made the definitive conclusion of it being nothing of supernatural origin that has never been rescinded, but "YOU" withhold judgment? Prudence is good, but obedience is even better.

Objection 2: You must judge this to be false because many reliable Internet sources have proven that some of the messages are questionable or even heretical. 

Objection 3: You must judge this alleged apparition to be false because the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith formerly Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Mueller expressed his personal doubts about the phenomenon and about the Ruini report which judged the first seven apparitions to be of supernatural origin. Furthermore, Bishop Andrea Gemma was against it and he was an exorcist!

Objection 4: If you can't discern, after all the evidence presented of heretical messages, and scandalous behaviors of the purported visionaries and their defrocked, disobedient initial priests, and insist on remaining neutral with no opinion whatsoever because of a Francis Commission that only considered the first few messages so be it. I find you neither hot nor cold, but rather lukewarm on the subject and have a higher opinion of supporters as at least they can be resolutely engaged for the good; either way.

Sed Contra: The seers have caused division between the Franciscans and the local ordinary, they are only seeking monetary gain, therefore the fruits of the entire event are rotten. The former exorcist Bishop Andrea Gemma said: “At Medjugorje, everything happens for the sake of money: pilgrimages, overnight stays, the sales of trinkets.” It’s “a mixture between personal and diabolical interests: the false seers and their helpers are pocketing the money, and the Devil creates discord between the faithful and the Church.”

Respondeo: Given that there are many new important factors and evidence involved in judging the apparitions to be true or false beyond the local ordinary, beyond the opinions of hierarchical figures and taking into account the conflicting evidence on the messages and credibility of the seers, a Catholic can in a prudential act of good faith withhold his or her judgment on the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. 

Reply to Objection 1: Given that the local ordinary was superseded by the "Ruini Commission" officially appointed by Pope Benedict XVI and that their recommendation to allow official pilgrimages to Medjugorje was approved later by Pope Francis, despite the local ordinary's objection to them, allows a Catholic to prudentially withhold their judgment concerning the authenticity of the apparitions. In addition, this also does not make one guilty of disobedience to the legitimate Church authorities concerning making pilgrimages to Medjugorje. In addition, new information was given by the official investigating Committee that also made it known that the Vatican investigation determined the first seven apparitions to be of supernatural origin.  

The Commission stated that 13 out of 15 delegates voted constat de supernaturalitate (confirmed to be of supernatural origin) regarding the first seven apparitions, therefore, offering a contrary opinion to the local ordinary. The Commission stated, "On the basis of these data, the International Commission considers that it can affirm with reasonable certainty that the first seven apparitions prove to be intrinsically credible, as they were capable of fostering in those who saw them an awakening of faith, a conversion in their way of life, and a renewed sense of belonging to the Church." In lieu of these facts, the prudential withholding of judgment here does not constitute disobedience and thus can be considered to be prudential. 

Reply to Objection 2: Given that this extensive investigation over the period of four years clearly separated the initial apparitions of the first seven to those that followed for a myriad of reasons, only the messages given during this initial period can be evaluated as to the supernatural element in this instance. Internet sources conflict greatly in translation and date of origin as to the questionable content of later messages. The messages of the first seven apparitions have been deemed credible by the Commission which has carried out the most extensive investigation of ecclesiastical authorities thus far. If there are questionable messages after this period this does not constitute a problem with the initial messages of which have been considered in the decision "constat de supernaturalitate." Thus later questionable messages do not necessitate that one judge the approved messages or apparitions as being wholly false and thus a Catholic can consider withholding judgment prudential. 

Reply to Objection 3: Cardinal Muller's personal opinion does not hold any authority over the faithful to adopt his personal opinion. There are other Cardinals, bishops, reputable theologians, or figures of authority who hold the opposite view. As far as the former exorcist Bishop Andrea Gemma's negative response I can offer the response of the former exorcist of the Vatican Father Gabriel Amorth who said, "Surely. Medjugorje is a fortress against Satan. Satan hates Medjugorje because it is a place of conversion, of prayer, of transformation of life." His statement follows closely with the Commission's later official statement quoted in the reply to objection 1 as well as the following comment, "The hypothesis of a demonic origin from the beginnings of the phenomenon appears gratuitous and unfounded, being in contrast with what was observed on the initial profile of the phenomenon, as well as with the positive fruits derived from the phenomenon itself." Taken at face value it appears that Father Amorth's view coincides closely with the later decision by the official Vatican Commission. 

Thus pitting these "authorities" against one another is an argumentum ab auctoritate meaning that because one holds an opinion while being an authoritative figure in the Church does not mean they are right or that the faithful have to prudentially follow their judgment. Given that many of them hold opposing opinions means that they themselves being figures of authority disagree with one another and therefore a lay Catholic withholding their own judgment on the matter can be viewed as all the more prudential. Thus a Catholic who takes these contrary opinions into account can in good faith withhold his or her judgment. 

Reply to Objection 4: Given that a Catholic is actively pursuing an investigation into this specific question they cannot be guilty of being lukewarm. The very fact that they are pursuing the truth by gathering essential information that will allow them to eventually make a prudential judgment for or against is the very act and nature of the virtue of prudence. Father Garrigou Lagrange in his work on Our Lady, 'The Mother of the Saviour' spoke of how Our Lady never erred in her judgment. He also pointed out the fact that if she did not have sufficient intellectual knowledge or light to determine something, she withheld her judgment or agreed only on a probability. He wrote, "She was never precipitate (prematurely) in judging; if she had not sufficient light she suspended her judgment; if she was not sure about a thing she was satisfied to affirm that it was likely or probable." If this can possibly in any sense apply to Our Immaculate Lady while she was on earth, why must a Catholic today who is totally subject to the defects of Original Sin, feel the need to pronounce an immediate judgment concerning this matter if they do not feel they have sufficient knowledge, evidence, or light to make one? 

Finally, the ad-hominem attacks on the priests and the purported behaviors of the seers have been investigated regarding the initial apparitions and were deemed not to be an issue. In fact, they were judged to be positive. Even the questionable actions of the seers as a whole years later were deemed not to be of an immoral nature but only manifestations of weakness and the lack of spiritual direction. The Commission said regarding these accusations, "...ambiguous in certain aspects, with money (and with that in general can be called a preoccupation with their own “wellbeing”). Yet this ambiguity, rather than being located on the side of immorality, is found on the side of the structure of the person, often lacking a solid discernment and a coherent orientation, and also because an available and steady spiritual guide has been lacking to them in the course of these thirty years."  Thus the negative behaviors that allegedly happened after the fact, are also amply noted by the Commission and are considered not to be a factor in upholding the declaration of constat de supernaturalitate.

The only negative issue regarding immoral behavior concerned one seer, "This negative dynamic reaches its apex in the case of Ivan Dragičević, whose continuing meetings and conferences on the Medjugorje phenomenon seem to constitute his only work and support. He has also lied multiple times and is also less credible in the way he speaks of experiences with the Gospa." This critical judgment although calling into question his later credibility in no way forces one to make a negative judgment on the initial apparitions nor do they apply to the other seers. Does one seer who has lost his way prove the others have also? In fact, the report explicitly speaks of this, "It is not said that the witnesses are totally and forever faithful to what they received as a gift or supernatural sign:..."  Therefore one does not act in any way against prudence by withholding judgment because of these alleged character flaws or purported behavioral issues with the seers. 

In regard to the conflict between the Franciscans and the local ordinary, this conflict preceded the alleged apparitions by many decades. Furthermore, any immoral actions of priests associated with the events although may cause scandal do not absolutely prove a negative judgment on the apparitions any more than immoral priests absolutely prove a negative judgment the Church herself, the foundation of the religious order they belong to or the truth of other prudential things that they should uphold. This is a non-sequitur. Shall we dismiss everything that one holds to be true if we find them guilty of mortal sin? These "questionable" instances in no way force a Catholic to make a judgment on the apparitions. Thus, in summary, based on this information, a Catholic can legitimately act in prudential good faith through withholding his or her judgment regarding the legitimacy of the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje. 

In Closing

Notice again here that I am in no way arguing for or against the alleged apparitions. They may be true, they may be false, or they may be true in part. I merely stated the fact that with the evidence that I have available to me I can prudentially withhold my judgment until I acquire more knowledge on the subject. I also refuted the claims which were presented to me that I was acting imprudently or lacking in my integrity by doing so. Although I am no Aquinas I hope to have presented my small quodlibet case with honesty and integrity based on what I understand to be true. For those interested in learning how the Vatican Commission came to their conclusions. I have included a link to the translated document which to my knowledge was never published on the Vatican website, but was quoted extensively by many Catholic press organizations such as the National Catholic Register, Aleteia, and other reporters. 

Anyone wanting to weigh in on this quodlibet, feel free to post a comment on one condition. That your response is in the form of an objection or a response to an objection. In other words, no cut and paste drive-by posts, please.