SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON MEDJUGORJE AND THE VATICAN VOTA

On August 6, I published on my blog part of the documentation in my possession concerning the vota on Medjugorje.

As could be expected, the news did not go unnoticed — curiously, except in Italy — and was picked up by media around the world.

I have since received several reports and comments that make it necessary to clarify a number of points.

To understand more clearly the origin of the vota I published, we need to go back to June 6, 2015, when Pope Francis, during his customary in-flight press conference while returning from Sarajevo, addressed the Medjugorje case for the first time.

“On the problem of Medjugorje, Pope Benedict XVI, at the time, set up a commission chaired by Cardinal Camillo Ruini; there were also other cardinals, theologians and specialists. They carried out the study and Cardinal Ruini came to me and delivered the study after many years — I don’t know, three or four years more or less. They did a good job, a good job. Cardinal Müller [Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] told me that he would hold a ‘feria quarta’ [a special meeting] around this time; I think it was held on the last Wednesday of the month. But I am not sure… [Note by Father Lombardi: in fact, there had not yet been a feria quarta devoted to this subject.] We are close to making decisions. They will then be announced. For the moment, only some guidelines are being given to the bishops, but along the lines that will be adopted.”

Pope Francis returned to the subject almost two years later, on May 13, 2017, again during an in-flight press conference, this time on his return from Fatima.

“All apparitions or alleged apparitions belong to the private sphere; they are not part of the ordinary public Magisterium of the Church. Medjugorje: a commission chaired by Cardinal Ruini was established. Benedict XVI created it. At the end of 2013 or the beginning of 2014, I received the result from Cardinal Ruini. A commission of good theologians, bishops, cardinals. Good, good, good. The Ruini Report is very, very good.

Then there were some doubts in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Congregation considered it appropriate to send to each member of the congress, of this ‘feria quarta,’ all the documentation, including material that seemed to go against the Ruini Report. I received the notification: I remember it was late on a Saturday evening. It did not seem right to me: it was as though the Ruini Report, which had been very well prepared, were being put up for auction — forgive the expression. On Sunday morning, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith received a letter from me asking him to say that, instead of sending the material to the ‘feria quarta,’ the opinions should be sent to me personally.

These opinions were studied, and all of them underline the substance of the Ruini Report. Yes, mainly three things must be distinguished. As for the first apparitions, when [the ‘visionaries’] were young, the report more or less says that investigation should continue. Regarding the alleged current apparitions, the report has its doubts. Personally, I am more ‘severe’: I prefer Our Lady as Mother, our Mother, and not Our Lady as head of a telegraph office who sends a message every day at a certain time… that is not the Mother of Jesus. And these alleged apparitions do not have much value. This I say as my personal opinion. But anyone who thinks that Our Lady says, ‘Come, because tomorrow at such-and-such a time I will give a message to that visionary’ — no.

[The Ruini Report] distinguishes between the apparitions. And third, the real core of the Ruini Report: the spiritual fact, the pastoral fact — people go there and convert, people encounter God, change their lives… There is no magic wand for this, and this spiritual-pastoral reality cannot be denied. Now, to look at matters with all these data, with the replies that the theologians sent me, this bishop has been appointed — a good bishop, good because he has experience — to see how the pastoral side is going. And in the end, something will be said.”

So, to be clear: the documents concerning Medjugorje that came into my possession confidentially were opinions requested personally by Pope Francis from members of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other experts. They never reached a formal Feria IV meeting of the Congregation. Consequently, these documents have the value of an informal consultation. The Pope later requested further studies.

In substance, then, these were opinions requested personally by Pope Francis from 33 members of the then Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other experts. They were not the subject of a specific assembly of the Congregation because they were sent directly to Francis.

Is that clear?

If you want to read the vota I published, see the related English articles on this site concerning the overall result of the 33 opinions and the six opinions that regarded the phenomenon as diabolical.

---

Originally published in Italian on Il Segno di Giona on August 27, 2026.

Read the full background on the Vatican investigation into Medjugorje