Many readers have asked me for further information about the Medjugorje case and, in particular, about the so-called vota — the written opinions — concerning this phenomenon that reached the Holy See on September 17, 2016 and which I have already discussed. There would be much more to report. But, as I have said, I will soon publish everything in a book.
There is, however, one thing I want to say. As already reported, in connection with the so-called Feria Quarta of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith — the ordinary session in which cardinals, archbishops, bishops, scholars and experts who were members of the Dicastery met to discuss and deliberate on matters submitted to them — of the 33 opinions received, 21 were opposed to the supernatural origin of Medjugorje, 9 favored its supernatural origin, and 3 were uncertain and did not wish to take a position either way.
It is therefore extremely interesting to examine the reasons given in the 21 opinions opposed to the Medjugorje phenomenon.
As I have already written, every participant was asked to explain in writing the vote and the reasoning behind it.
And this is where, reading the individual explanations of those opposed to Medjugorje, I was genuinely astonished.
Because among the 21 negative vota, as many as six stated that they opposed Medjugorje because they considered the phenomenon DIABOLICAL. The formula they proposed for the case was CONSTAT DE PRATERNATURALITATE MALIGNA.
For these six voters — three of whom were cardinals, and I want to stress that point — what happened and continues to happen in the small Bosnian-Herzegovinian village “cannot be explained without the original, direct and foundational intervention of the Evil One.” In other words, they did not see a Marian apparition but a “satanophany.”
According to the reasoning contained in these six vota, such a severe judgment rested essentially on two convictions. The first was that “the Church, in its official teaching, had already ruled negatively on the supernatural character of the phenomenon through the well-known Zadar Declaration.” In reality, the declaration of the then Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference did not declare the Medjugorje phenomenon non-supernatural; it suspended judgment.
The second conviction was that “the work and conclusions of the International Commission led by Cardinal Ruini were invalid because the Commission had not examined all the documentation held by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Here too, however, as I have already documented, the Ruini Commission considered that material inadmissible.
As a solution, the six voters asked that the doctrinal and pastoral actions of the bishops of Mostar-Duvno, Žanić and Perić — bishops consistently hostile to Medjugorje — be “fully rehabilitated”; that “the good faith, even if abused, of pilgrims should not be offended”; that “the good of the alleged visionaries should be safeguarded”; and that the alleged visionaries should be punished through their damnatio memoriae.
I ask myself: is it really possible that the Devil is behind the Medjugorje phenomenon?
Frankly, it seems absurd to me.
Originally published in Italian on Il Segno di Giona on August 17, 2026.
Background: the Vatican investigation and the Ruini Commission
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 