Another apostolic visitor appointed to Medjugorje
Pope Leo XIV appointed retired Italian Bishop Francesco Cavina as Apostolic Visitor with special status to Medjugorje, the Holy See announced October 31, 2026. Cavina succeeds Bishop Aldo Cavalli, who is retiring; the shrine has had an Apostolic Visitor since Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Henryk Hoser in 2018. Cavina, 71, is a canonist and former official in the Vatican Secretariat of State; he served as Bishop of Carpi from 2011 until resigning in 2019.
3 hours ago
Pope Leo XIV has appointed retired Italian Bishop Francesco Cavina as the Holy See’s Apostolic Visitor to Medjugorje, succeeding Bishop Aldo Cavalli, who is retiring. The appointment continues the Vatican’s pastoral oversight of the Bosnian shrine, a major pilgrimage destination whose reported Marian apparitions remain a subject of controversy. 1
The Holy See announced Cavina’s appointment on October 31, 2026. He is 71, trained as a canonist, and previously worked in the Secretariat of State’s Section for Relations with States. 1
Cavina was appointed bishop of Carpi in 2011 by Pope Benedict XVI and resigned in 2019 amid serious tensions in the diocese. Some accused him of exercising excessive influence over local politics. 1
The Apostolic Visitor post was established in 2018, when Pope Francis appointed retired Archbishop Henryk Hoser to assess the pastoral needs of Medjugorje and its large numbers of pilgrims. Hoser died in 2021; Francis then appointed Cavalli, who had served as a papal nuncio in several countries, to the role. 1
In September 2024, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith authorized worship at Medjugorje, while requiring that any future messages attributed to the apparitions be approved before publication. The decision followed more than four decades of debate over reports that the Virgin Mary began appearing to six children there in 1981. 1
The shrine has drawn conflicting views within the Church. Local bishops and a commission established under Benedict XVI raised concerns, including over the apparitions’ authenticity; meanwhile, the Church authorized pilgrimages in 2019. The alleged visionaries say the apparitions continue, some daily. 1
Ecclesial authority shapes discernment of apparitions and shrine governance
Ecclesial authority shapes both whether an alleged apparition may be promoted as a source of devotion and how a pilgrimage site is formally recognized and cared for. These are related questions, but they are not identical: approving or encouraging devotion does not, by itself, declare an apparition supernatural, and recognizing a shrine is an ecclesial act with its own purpose and criteria.
The Church approaches alleged apparitions with both openness and caution. The Holy Spirit may work through unusual experiences, and such phenomena have sometimes borne spiritual fruit, including growth in faith, devotion, fraternity, service, and the development of shrines. But alleged supernatural events can also be associated with doctrinal error, manipulation, financial exploitation, abuses, or harm to the Church’s unity. Discernment therefore attends not only to claims about what happened, but also to the messages, conduct, and effects connected with the phenomenon.
This is why ecclesial oversight is not properly understood as either automatic endorsement or automatic suppression. Pastors are charged with recognizing good fruits, purifying negative elements where possible, and warning the faithful about dangers. The 2024 norms emphasize that the procedures are not intended to “stifle the Spirit,” while also insisting that the Church respond carefully when people may be misled or harmed.
Under the 2024 norms, the diocesan bishop has the initial responsibility to examine alleged phenomena occurring in his territory, in dialogue with the national Episcopal Conference, and to formulate a judgment that includes whether an associated devotion may be promoted. That judgment is submitted to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith for approval.
The process does not end with a local investigation: the bishop transmits the findings and his votum—his considered recommendation—to the Dicastery, which evaluates how the investigation was conducted and whether to approve the determination proposed. The Dicastery also reserves the right to examine the moral and doctrinal aspects of the experience and how it is being used, especially where there may be manipulation, serious doctrinal error, undue financial gain, or damage to the Church’s unity.
This arrangement reflects two responsibilities at once: the local bishop’s closeness to the people and circumstances involved, and the Church’s concern for the wider People of God. The older 1978 norms likewise identified the local Ordinary as the primary authority for vigilance and intervention, while recognizing a role for the Episcopal Conference and the Apostolic See in appropriate circumstances.
An important distinction in the current norms is between permitting or promoting a devotion and declaring that the event behind it came from God. As a rule, even a favorable Nihil obstat—literally, “nothing stands in the way”—does not mean that the bishop, Episcopal Conference, or Dicastery has declared the phenomenon supernatural. The norms reserve the possibility of a special procedure authorized by the Pope.
The practical effect is that the Church can recognize pastoral value without requiring the faithful to treat the apparition claim as established fact. In especially positive cases, the diocesan bishop is encouraged to appreciate the spiritual proposal’s pastoral value and may promote its spread; that is not the same as making a definitive claim about supernatural origin.
This distinction protects both devotion and freedom of judgment. It allows people to benefit from a prayer practice or spiritual proposal where the Church sees no sufficient obstacle, while avoiding the impression that the Church has certified every alleged message or extraordinary occurrence.
A shrine is defined as a church or other sacred place to which the faithful make pilgrimages for a particular pious reason with the approval of the local Ordinary. The level of recognition depends on the shrine’s scope: diocesan recognition belongs to the diocesan bishop, national recognition to the Episcopal Conference, and international recognition to the Holy See.
Canonical recognition officially identifies a sacred place as one intended to receive pilgrimages. The Directory describes their purposes as worship of God, profession of faith, reconciliation with God, the Church, and neighbour, and seeking the intercession of Mary or the saints. It also cautions against assuming that only officially recognized shrines can serve the faithful: humble local churches may fulfill similar functions without canonical recognition.
Thus, the Church’s assessment of an alleged apparition and its recognition of a shrine should not be collapsed into one decision. A place’s status as a shrine concerns its ecclesial recognition and pilgrimage role; the supernatural origin of an alleged apparition is a distinct question. The supplied norms establish the responsibilities and approval process for discernment and shrine recognition, but do not specify every administrative detail of day-to-day shrine governance.
Ecclesial authority serves discernment by balancing openness to spiritual fruit with responsibility for truth, good order, and the protection of the faithful. It can permit or encourage devotion without requiring belief in a claimed supernatural event; it can recognize a pilgrimage site without thereby certifying every claim associated with it; and it can intervene when serious risks arise. The authority involved is therefore not merely a judgment about extraordinary experiences, but a pastoral responsibility directed toward the faith and well-being of the whole Church.