There are 33 vota — that is, written opinions — on the Medjugorje phenomenon that reached the Holy See on September 17, 2016. The date, significantly, coincides with the liturgical memorial of one of the great mystics and visionaries in the history of the Church, Hildegard of Bingen, proclaimed a Doctor of the Church.
Pope Francis was the reigning Pontiff at the time.
After receiving and reading the well-known Ruini Report — the final document of the International Commission established by Benedict XVI to investigate and evaluate the Medjugorje phenomenon — Francis decided to submit the matter to the so-called Feria Quarta, or Feria IV, of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Together with the Ruini Report, a critical document challenging the Commission’s conclusions and a further counter-response were also examined.
The Feria Quarta is the ordinary session in which cardinals, archbishops, bishops, scholars and experts who are members of the Dicastery meet to discuss and deliberate on the matters submitted to them.
On the agenda was precisely the “Medjugorje case.”
The 33 churchmen involved were asked to express, in writing and with reasons, their judgment on the nature of the phenomenon.
The central question was this: can what happened at Medjugorje be considered supernatural in origin, should it be judged not supernatural, or are there still insufficient elements to reach a definitive judgment?
The participants were asked to answer — again, after setting out their reasons in writing — using one of the traditional Latin formulas:
Medjugorje, constat de supernaturalitate — Medjugorje is of supernatural origin.
Medjugorje, constat de non supernaturalitate — Medjugorje is not of supernatural origin.
Medjugorje, non constat de supernaturalitate — the supernatural origin of Medjugorje has not been established.
Below, FOR THE FIRST TIME, after careful checks and verification, I publish the overall result of the 33 vota received by the Holy See on September 17, 2016.
TOTAL: 33 VOTA
21: Medjugorje, constat de non supernaturalitate — Medjugorje is not of supernatural origin.
9: Medjugorje, constat de supernaturalitate — Medjugorje is of supernatural origin.
3: Medjugorje, non constat de supernaturalitate — the supernatural origin of Medjugorje has not been established.
The political and ecclesial significance is clear: almost two-thirds of the opinions expressed were opposed to recognizing Medjugorje as supernatural.
This is particularly significant because the Ruini Report, especially with regard to the very first alleged apparitions of 1981, had adopted a considerably more open assessment, tending toward the supernatural character of those early events.
This document therefore helps explain just how deeply the Medjugorje dossier was — and to some extent still is — divisive within the Church.
I have said it many times and I continue to maintain it: over Medjugorje, the Church risked a very deep fracture. Almost a schism.
On one side were those who considered the phenomenon devoid of supernatural origin and called for a clear intervention; on the other were those who believed that at least part of the events that began in June 1981 deserved a different and more open evaluation.
It is also in light of such a complex situation that one can read the new Vatican Norms for proceeding in the discernment of alleged supernatural phenomena, promulgated by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on May 17, 2024.
With those Norms, the Church radically changed its approach: the pastoral discernment of a phenomenon no longer necessarily has to end with a declaration about its supernatural origin.
This made it possible to address the Medjugorje case through a different path: separating judgment on the alleged supernatural events from the spiritual and pastoral fruits that developed there.
In substance, it was a solution capable of avoiding a frontal clash between different sensitivities within the Church.
Personally, despite everything, I continue to believe that what has happened and continues to happen at Medjugorje — without necessarily considering every single phenomenon attributed to it authentic — may represent an authentic sign of the Mystery.
Below I publish the list of the 33 churchmen and experts involved in the consultation, indicating the office they held at the time.
To avoid pointless controversy, instrumentalization or outright witch hunts, for the moment I will not associate each name with the corresponding vote.
Later, I will publish those as well. Without omissions. I promised I would.
And above all, I owe it to someone very dear to me who recently passed away and to whom I made this promise.
PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONSULTATION
Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig MÜLLER, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Vatican City)
Cardinal Christoph SCHÖNBORN, Archbishop of Vienna (Austria)
Cardinal Jean-Pierre RICARD, Archbishop of Bordeaux (France)
Cardinal Antonio CAÑIZARES LLOVERA, Archbishop of Valencia (Spain)
Cardinal Peter K. TURKSON, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (Vatican City)
Cardinal Francesco COCCOPALMERIO, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (Vatican City)
Cardinal Ricardo BLÁZQUEZ PÉREZ, Archbishop of Valladolid (Spain)
Cardinal Angelo SCOLA, Archbishop of Milan (Italy)
Cardinal Kurt KOCH, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (Vatican City)
Cardinal John ONAIYEKAN, Archbishop of Abuja (Nigeria)
Cardinal Zenon GROCHOLEWSKI, former Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education
Cardinal Donald WUERL, Archbishop of Washington (USA)
Cardinal Crescenzio SEPE, Archbishop of Naples (Italy)
Cardinal George ALENCHERRY, Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Church
Archbishop Roland MINNERATH, Archbishop of Dijon (France)
Cardinal Fernando FILONI, Prefect of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples (Vatican City)
Cardinal Marc OUELLET, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops (Vatican City)
Cardinal Camillo RUINI, former President of the International Commission
Cardinal Julián HERRANZ CASADO, former member of the International Commission
Cardinal Jozef TOMKO, former member of the International Commission
Cardinal Vinko PULJIĆ, Metropolitan Archbishop of Vrhbosna-Sarajevo, former member of the International Commission
Cardinal Josip BOZANIĆ, Archbishop of Zagreb, former member of the International Commission
Cardinal Angelo AMATO, Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (Vatican City)
Archbishop Rino FISICHELLA, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization (Vatican City)
Archbishop Luis F. LADARIA, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Vatican City)
Archbishop Joseph Augustine DI NOIA, Adjunct Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Archbishop Charles J. SCICLUNA, Archbishop of Malta
Monsignor Peter SMUTELOVIČ, former Adjunct Secretary of the International Commission
Professor Achim SCHÜTZ, former Secretary of the International Commission
Professor David-Maria JAEGER, former member of the International Commission
Professor Tony ANATRELLA, former member of the International Commission
Professor Zdzisław Józef KIJAS, former member of the International Commission
Professor Salvatore M. PERRELLA, former member of the International Commission
Originally published in Italian on Il Segno di Giona on August 6, 2026.
Read the background: the Vatican investigation into Medjugorje
READ THE FULL VATICAN DOSSIER
David Murgia’s investigation into the confidential Vatican documentation on Medjugorje is available in three editions on Amazon.com.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Murgia is an Italian journalist, author and member of the Pontifical International Marian Academy. His investigations have brought to light the world of self-styled holy men and false healers. The New York Times described him as a “formidable investigator of the sacred.” A commentator for Rai and Mediaset, he was the first journalist in the world to publish in full the secret Vatican dossier on Medjugorje. He lives and works in Rome.
MEDJUGORJE VATICAN REPORT 