John Paul II and Medjugorje

As many of you may or may not know, on this blog I have frequently challenged the claims of the proponents of the Medjugorje apparitions and have maintained the position that the so-called Medjugorje phenomenon is nothing but a sham. I believe that the alleged-Seers have not on any occasion been privy to a single apparition or vision of the Blessed Mother and that the whole Medjugorje mania is hostile to the true spirit of Catholicism. People often claim that there are so many good fruits that come out of Medjugorje that I am being a fuddy-duddy for questioning it, and I have taken up and thoroughly dealt with this lame "fruits" argument elsewhere.

But one other assertion of the Medjugorje crowd that I have been wanting to debunk for a long time is the oft-repeated claim that John Paul II privately approved of the apparitions and encouraged the faithful in their devotion at Medjugorje. This is manifestly false, and whatever else one may think of John Paul II, one thing we can definitely clear him of is promoting Medjugorje. Therefore, I want to clear up with this post once and for all the confusion and untruths promoted by those who assert that the Pope, either JPII of BXVI, has ever approved Medjugorje, even implicitly.

First, if you browse around on Medjugorje websites, you will quickly come across several sayings attributed to John Paul II apparently approving of the phenomenon at Medjugorje. Here's a few examples of what the Medjugorje proponents are attributing to John Paul II:

In 1992 John Paul II told Fr. Jozo Zovko (curate in Medjugorje when the apparitions started and long-time Medjugorje proponent), "Busy yourself with Medjugorje. Look after Medjugorje. Don't tire. Persevere, be strong, I am with you. Watch over, follow, Medjugorje."

An Italian priest, Father Gianna Sgreva, reports that at an undisclosed time, in a private audience, John Paul II drew him close and whispered in his ear, "Don't you be concerned about Medjugorje, because I am thinking about Medjugorje and I pray for its success every day.You be concerned with the vocations and pray for me everyday."

In 1988, JPII allegedly told Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, "Medjugorje, Medjugorje, it's the spiritual heart of the world."

Perhaps most absurd of all the alleged statements of JPII comes from a 1987 "private conversation" with Seer Mirjana Soldo, the Pope said, "If I were not Pope I would already be in Medjugorje confessing.

These comments are absurd and outlandish - the Pope calling Medjugorje the spiritual heart of the world and all that nonsense. But is there any corroboration to these statements? First, we must simply point out that even had the Pope said these remarks and others attributed to him, they all seem to have been done in the context of private conversations, which would have no bearing whatsoever on the official status of Medjugorje as an approved pilgrimage destination. But that is a moot point, because it is highly improbable that these conversations ever took place, and even the supporters of Medjugorje admit that they cannot document these conversations. They are always spoken "privately," or as in the one case illustrated above, the Pope leaned in and spoke his alleged support of Medjugorje privately into the priest's ear. Are we supposed to base JPII's alleged support for Medjugorje on such scanty evidence? One Medjugorje website which purports to list all John Paul's comments in favor of the apparitions has this disclaimed across the top of the page:

While these statements are not verified by the Pope's seal and signature, they are brought to us by persons in whom we may trust (source).

Gee, that doesn't sound suspicious! If you tell a Medjugorje pilgrim that pilgrimages to the site are forbidden, they will insist that you provide some document from the Vatican or the Pope himself condemning the apparitions (nevermind the fact that the Vatican has supported the local bishop's jurisdiction and he has condemned them) - but ask for sources from the Medjugorje crowd and you just get anecdotal stories anonymously promulgated that are "not verified" by the Pope. Give me a break.

But setting aside the Pope's alleged and unsubstantiated statements whispered in ears privately, what did John Paul II actually do with regards to Medjugorje? First of all, if he really liked Medjugorje as much as he claimed, why did he replace Bishop Zanic, a hostile critic of Medjugorje, with another bishop, Msgr. Radko Peric, who is equally as hostile to the events taking place there? Wouldn't the 1994 appointment be the Pope's chance to put in a bishop supportive of the apparitions? The fact that he appointed a man who disbelieves them and who has forbidden pilgrimages there suggests that the Pope must share his opinion.

Furthermore, we must look at the Pope's visits to Croatia and recognize that he did not make one statement concerning the apparitions or even mention the name 'Medjugorje.' On a September 10-11th trip to Croatia on 1994 (right after the war), he failed to make any mentioned of Medjugorje. If the Pope did support Medjugorje, where Mary is venerated as "Queen of Peace," is it not odd that he did not mention this, especially since he was on a mission of peace to a war-torn country? He similarly made no reference to Medjugorje in his 1997 visit either.

Those who claim that the late Pope supported Medjugorje resort to truly pathetic efforts to create any illusion of papal support for their claims. Take this example from Michael Davies' book on Medjugorje:

A truly pathetic attempt was made to indicate that the Holy Father does indeed accept the authenticity of the apparitions. The Christmas 1994 edition of The Children of Medjugorje, published in Scotland, informs us that a group of Medjugorje adepts was present at one of the Pope's Masses in Croatia with a Medjugorje banner, and that: "This earned them a big blessing from the Pope to whom they were quite close." This is not simply a gratuitous but a ludicrous claim. I was able to watch the Holy Father's principal Mass in Croatia on TV, and when it was over he turned to bless each portion of the vast congregation as he always does. It was thus inevitable that he would give a blessing in the direction of the Medjugorje banner, but there can be no possible basis for claiming that it was directed at that banner or that this particular papal blessing was a "big" one. As far as I know, but I am open to correction, papal blessings are not classed in such categories as enormous, very big, big, standard, small, and very small (Medjugorje After Twenty-One Years by Michael Davies).

Anyone who has seen a papal Mass knows that there are dozens if not hundreds of flags and banners in the crowd. I could easily go to a papal Mass, wait until the blessing and then hold up a flag that said "Ku Klux Klan: Klavern No. 14, Pulsaki, TN" and technically receive a blessing in my direction - but it would be highly deceitful to say that the Pope had given my banner specifically a "big" blessing, and even worse to say that this evidenced support for my positions. Yet the incident with the banner related above was widely promoted by Medjugorje enthusiasts.

It had been alleged that John Paul II sent autographed portraits of himself to each of the Medjugorje Seers, with a message that said, "If I could have my own way I would be a parish priest, and that in the church of St. James [ the Medjugorje parish]." An inquiry to the Vatican brought a categorical denial of any such action by the late Pontiff. In fact, many alleged-statements made by John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger were being circulated in the early and mid-1990's, so much so that they were even being reported in mainstream Catholic publications (the July 29th issue of the National Catholic Register quoted the Pope as saying, "Let the people go to Medjugorje if they convert, pray, confess, do penance," a statement still repeated on Medjugorje sites to this day). This quote had been circulating for quite a while (since 1988) and had prompted an inquiry to the Vatican, to which Archbishop Pio Laghi, Apostolic Pro Nuncio, responded:

The statement you cite as a quotation from the Holy Father has never been published or officially verified. Although there have been made observations about Medjugorje attributed to the Holy Father or other officials of the Holy See, none of these have been acknowledged as authentic.

Cardinal Ratzinger further confirmed the falsity of these alleged statements by the Holy Father and by himself in a statement of July, 1998. In response to an inquiry from a reporter about some of JPII and Ratzinger's alleged sayings, he writes:

First of all, I have to apologize for answering your kind letter from 27th May only today. The burden (i.e. work load) of the last few weeks has been so heavy that I had to postpone my private correspondence again and again so that only now, as my vacation is about to begin, I can at last try to answer the more important letters.

I thank you very much for sending me the memorandum by Claus Peter Clausen, whom in fact I know as the author of the Schwarze Briefe (Black Letters). I can only say that the statements attributed to the Holy Father and me are freely invented.

With my best wishes for your manifold activities.
Josef Ratzinger

However, I think it is possible that the Pope was alluding to Medjugorje when he made the following comments in the September 18th, 1996 edition of L'Osservatore Romano:

Some members of the People of God are not rooted firmly enough in the faith so that the sects, with their deceptive proselytism, mislead them to separate themselves from true communion in Christ. Within the Church community, the multiplication of supposed "apparitions" or "visions" is sowing confusion and reveals a certain lack of a solid basis to the faith and Christian life among her members.

In some instances, the alleged support of JPII for Medjugorje comes down to nothing but absurd stories that he said the word "Medjugorje" while smiling, or this characteristic example from the Medjugorje- A Millenium Update:

At the Sarajevo airport 12 April, the very first to await the Pope's arrival were the bishops and provincials of Bosnia-Herzegovina. When the provincial of the Sarajevo Province, Father Peter Andjelovic, as the first of the provincials approached the Pope to greet him, the Pope asked him the question, "Medjugorje?" He pointed to Dr. Father Tomislav Pervan, the provincial of Herzegovina who said, "I am from Mostar and Medjugorje." The Pope nodded his head with satisfaction and twice repeated, "Medjugorje, Medjugorje." All TV viewers who watched the presentation of the Pope's arrival also saw it (pg. 53).

First, does the fact that JPII acknowledged Medjugorje by saying the name of the city twice prove anything? If anything, more important is the fact that this event occurred during the 1997 trip to Sarajevo in which John Paul made no mention whatsoever of Medjugorje and did not visit it. The Pope's silence regarding the site is much more important than this absurd piece of "evidence" cited above. Another absurd incident, cited in Davies' book, from the Pope's 1997 visit:

After supper in the Sarajevo Catholic School of Theology Father Tomislav took advantage of the occasion to personally present the Pope with the newest photo-monograph on Medjugorje which the Franciscans who work in the parish of Medjugorje had sent to him. On that occasion he spoke to him briefly about Medjugorje. The Pope did not say anything, but by the expression on his face, he accepted both the former and the latter with satisfaction and interest.

So now we are determining papal approval for something by mere facial expressions? Whatever expression may have been on the Pope's face, the fact remains that he has never mentioned Medjugorje in any official capacity whatsoever.

Just for a refresher, let's take a look at a devotion that was approved recently by the Vatican and see what such an approval would look like.

In April of 2000, John Paul II canonized St. Faustina Kowalska, another visionary who was the recipient of special messages from the Lord. Look at the language JPII used publicly at her canonization (section 8):

And you, Faustina, a gift of God to our time, a gift from the land of Poland to the whole Church, obtain for us an awareness of the depth of divine mercy; help us to have a living experience of it and to bear witness to it among our brothers and sisters. May your message of light and hope spread throughout the world, spurring sinners to conversion, calming rivalries and hatred and opening individuals and nations to the practice of brotherhood. Today, fixing our gaze with you on the face of the risen Christ, let us make our own your prayer of trusting abandonment (source).

Here is no ambiguity, no saying Faustina's name with a smile: here is a solid declaration of the highest authority in the message of a visionary.

Here is another example from the official decree concerning Fatima, from 1930:

In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby: 1) Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fátima, in this diocese, from 13 May to 13 October, 1917. 2) Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fátima (Bishop of Leiria-Fátima, October 13 1930).

So there you have it. This is what it is supposed to look like when the Pope or the hierarchy approves of a vision. Do we have anything like that with Medjugorje? Not at all - only the Pope whispering in peoples' ears and supposedly communicating his approval through expressions. Let's stop all this nonsense regarding John Paul II approving of Medjugorje because it is manifestly false. Even if he did support it, it doesn't matter because he is gone now, never approved it officially during his pontificate and currently the papacy is in the hands of a man who unambiguously has stated that he thinks Medjugorje is hogwash and is shocked that anybody believes in it:

We at the Congregation always asked ourselves, how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years? Are they still occurring every day? (source)

But I guess even that doesn't matter, apparently, because the Medjugorje fanatics are already saying that Benedict supports the apparitions, too!

Much of the information in this post was drawn from the exhaustive work of Michael Davies on Medjugorje, which you can view in its entirety here.

Medjugorje: The End is the Beginning

The day has come. It has been announced that the CDF's long-awaited judgment on Medjugorje is negative (source). Of course, Pope Francis has yet to sign off on the judgment, but it is presumed he will.

The judgment on Medjugorje has now come down from the highest authority; no more waffling by Medjugorje adherents; no more ignoring the repeated condemnations of the local ordinaries while maintaining glibly that "the Vatican has not made any ruling." The Vatican has now made a ruling. And it does not bode well for Medjugorje. Medjugorje has been weighed in the balance and found wanting. "The Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes" (Ps. 118:23).

It will be extraordinarily interesting to see how this plays out. We can only hope for the following:

1) That the Holy Father Pope Francis will sign off on the judgment of the CDF.

2) That Medjugorje devotees will accept the decision with docility and invest their time and efforts into other Marian Messages such as Fatima and Lourdes.

3) That anti-Medjugorje Catholics (such as ourselves) will not gloat...well, maybe a little gloating.

That is the best case scenario. May the Holy Spirit make it so! Yet, there has always been worry that, were Medjogorje ever condemned, the Medjugorje supporters would not adhere to the Church's judgment but rather would continue promoting the alleged apparitions in a state of blatant disobedience or possible schism. The apparition has already been characterized by disobedience to the local ordinary. Anyone who has really studied the history behind Medjugorje cannot fail to see that disobedience and division are the only real "fruits" of this apparition (cf."Understanding the Herzegovina Question", USC).

How likely is an outright schism? I do not see this as extremely likely. Yes, Medjugorje people can be a little eccentric, but the vast majority of them are decent Catholics who would never break with Rome over something like this.

I do not see an out and out schism as likely. But I do not see the confusion abating. In fact, the likelihood of the confusion continuing is exacerbated by a very troubling statement allegedly found in the CDF statement. Catholic Culture reports that the CDF document will:

"...urge recognition of Medjugorje as a special “place of prayer,” in light of the numerous reports of intense spiritual experiences enjoyed by visitors there. Pilgrimages to Medjugorje will not be forbidden, provided that they do not center on the alleged apparitions."

If the CDF has authoritatively decided that there is nothing supernatural going on a Medjugorje, by what rationale ought it to be designated a special "place of prayer", or why anyone would want to make a pilgrimage there if it did not center on the alleged apparitions? The CDF reportedly says the rationale is that it recognizes Medjugorje as a "special place of prayer" not based on on the credibility of any apparitions, but "in light of the numerous reports of intense spiritual experiences enjoyed by visitors there."

We do not know if this is the language the document will use, but if so, it is gravely troubling. To suggest any location can be designated as a "special place of prayer" and even pilgrimage based not on any objective reality but only on the "intense spiritual experiences" of people is nothing other than to pivot the whole issue towards the subjective. If a place can be designated as a special place of prayer just by virtue of what someone thinks they experience there, what is the point of attempting to objectively validate the experience at all?

My suspicion is this is a compromise arrangement. The Vatican realizes that the apparitions and messages of Medjugorje are prima facie absurd and indefensible. There's no way they can be approved without the Church looking completely idiotic. And yet, because so many millions of people go to Medjugorje - and because of the ostensible pious experiences of those people who go - the Vatican is hesitant to crush the smoldering wick or break the bruised reed. It fears the reaction of the Medjugorje lobby.

Therefore, lest these millions of Medjugorje fanatics adherents go into schism, fall away from the Church, or become even more distanced from the faith, the Vatican wanted to find a way to formally express its disapproval of the apparitions while allowing the pilgrimages and activity at Medjugorje to go on unabated. The ground has merely been shifted. "Look, go to Medjugorje all you want. Pilgrimage there. Stare at the sun there. Talk about the mystical experiences you have with our Lady. Just don't mention the apparitions; go there because of the way it makes you feel."

Of course, it could be argued that the Vatican cannot exactly prohibit Catholics from praying anywhere they want, so long as they are not promoting the apparitions. In fact, Scripture commands Catholics to pray not only always but everywhere (1 Tim. 2:8). The Vatican cannot say, "And henceforth nobody is to ever go to Medjugorje and pray."

Granted. But the Vatican could just say nothing. They could just say, "There is nothing supernatural going on at Medjugorje and it is prohibited to promote the apparitions." Period. There is no reason why the negative judgment needs to include a clause which urges recognition as a special place of prayer, let alone based on people's intense personal experiences. The only reason people had intense experiences is because they thought they were visiting an apparition site. Thus, the potential CDF wording does not distance the pilgrims from the apparitions; it merely distances the Church's judgment from the objective to the subjective, from the verifiable to the experiential.

The safety of defaulting to experience is that nobody can ever argue with an experience. We may be able to now authoritatively state that the apparitions are not supernatural in the objective sense, but who can argue against somebody's experience? Thus, while having the appearance of a condemnation, the Church may have in fact just abdicated its role here entirely by shuffling the whole ordeal off on to the shoulders of individual Catholics who now can decide in their own conscience whether it is worth it to go to Medjugorje based on an evaluation of their own "intense spiritual experiences."

But meanwhile, it remains "officially" condemned. Just like the Extraordinary Form is "officially" allowed everywhere and equal to the Ordinary Form. Just like the Church's teaching on marriage will "officially" remain intact under the Kasper proposal. Just like "officially" the normative manner for reception of Holy Communion is on the tongue.

Yes, it's official!

Now, I pray it does not go down that way. I pray the Medjugorje adherents are docile and that somewhere down in their sensus catholicus they say to themselves, "Why the hell would I spend thousands of dollars to fly over to Medjugorje to celebrate my own experiences?" Hopefully the whole thing withers and dies.

But the pessimist in me doubts it. The pessimist realist in me worries that the CDF will leave an out for those who want to continue patronizing Medjugorje. That part of me worries that while Medjugorje remains officially condemned, in practice it will go on unabated, now no longer in disobedience but in an official space created for it by the wording of the CDF judgment. It will allow the Church to affirm one thing while doing another.

The pessimist in me sees it as nothing other than the Kasper doctrine under another guise.

Contact: uscatholicam@gmail.com

Exorcist Andrea Gemma on Medjugorje: "Absolutely diabolical"

We haven't heard much from Medjugorje lately - I was following the Ruini Commission for awhile, which was charged with investigated the alleged apparitions by the Holy Father and was supposed to come up with some sort of  definitive judgment. I still haven't heard anything from Cardinal Ruini, but this 2008 interview with Bishop Andrea Gemma, one of the Church's foremost exorcists, has recently come to light in which the bishop soundly condemns Medjugorje as a diabolical phenomenon.

Here's a background item on the Medjugorje case, a May 2008 interview with Bishop Andrea Gemma from Gianluca Barile's website Petrus. It was reported in the press at the time, and some quotations did appear, but I never came across the full text until recently. 

Medjugorje: the accusation of the bishop-exorcist Mons. Gemma: "The apparitions of the Madonna? Completely false: the seers lie under the inspiration of Satan to profit economically"

(Gianluca Barile, Petrus)

VATICAN CITY - A mixture of economic and diabolical interests, with the alleged seers and their collaborators directly involved in profits related to the increased flow of pilgrimages and visits in the area, and the Evil One well content to sow discord between the faithful most convinced of the validity of the apparitions of Medjugorje and the Church, sceptical as ever in the face of what she has declared more than once, through the words of two successive bishops of Mostar during that time, "a great deception." Monsignor Andrea Gemma, former bishop of Isernia-Venafro [served 1990-2006], among the greatest exorcists living, does not mince his words: instead of the Virgin, so far only rivers of money have appeared at Medjugorje, a grave accusation that sums up not only the courage but also the moral and spiritual capacity of the prelate who agreed to respond to questions from "Petrus" on such a prickly event.

PETRUS:  So, Excellency, how do you define Medjugorje?

"It is an absolutely diabolical event, around which numerous underworld interests revolve. The Holy Church, which alone can make a pronouncement, through the words of the Bishop of Mostar, has already said publicly and officially that the Madonna never appeared in Medjugorje and that this whole production is the work of the Devil."

PETRUS: You speak of "underworld interests". Of what kind?

"I'm referring to 'the Devil's dung', to money, what else? At Medjugorje everything happens for the sake of money: pilgrimages, overnight stays, the sales of trinkets. In this way, abusing the good faith of the poor people who go there with the idea of meeting the Madonna, the false seers have set themselves up financially, they have married and live a wealthy life, to say the least. Just think: one of them, directly from America, with a direct economic profit, organizes tens of pilgrimages every year. These people don't seem to be really disinterested persons to me. Rather, with all the people vulnerable to this noisy swindle, they evidently have a great material interest in getting people to believe that they see and speak with the Virgin Mary."

PETRUS: Monsignor Gemma, is there no appeal from your verdict?

"Could it be otherwise? These people claim to be in contact with the Madonna, but in reality are inspired solely and exclusively by Satan, are creating chaos and confusion among the faithful for the sake of absolutely deplorable interests and advantages. Think, then, of the disobedience they have fed in the bosom of the Church: their spiritual guide, a Franciscan friar expelled from the Order and suspended a divinis, continues to invalidly administer the sacraments. [NB: The interview took place in 2008, before the laicization of Tomislav Vlasic.] And numerous priests from all over the world, despite the express prohibition of the Holy See, continue to organize and participate in pilgrimages with Medjugorje as their destination. It's a shame! This is why I speak of a mixture between personal and diabolical interests: the false seers and their helpers are pocketing money, and the Devil creates discord between the faithful and the Church; the more fanatical faithful, in fact, aren't listening to the Church, which - I repeat - has, from the beginning, warned about the mendacity of the Medjugorje apparitions."

PETRUS: And if the alleged seers were really seeing the Madonna?

"In reality they would be seeing Satan under false pretenses. Because Satan has great interest in splitting the Church, setting the two currents of the 'pro' and the 'contra' Medjugorje against each other. Moreover, it wouldn't be the first time: St. Paul himself asserts that the Devil can appear as an Angel of Light and can, so to speak, camouflage himself. He did that, for example, with St. Gemma Galgani. But beyond his disguises, the Evil One has already intervened and I can assure you that it is he inspiring the false seers since the beginning with the promise of easy money."

PETRUS: You're not exactly fond of those seers...

"Please! It's enough to see how they act: they're disobedient to the Church, they should have withdrawn to private life and instead they keep on making propaganda for their lies, for the sake of money, and thus playing the Devil's game! My thoughts go immediately to St. Bernadette, the seer of Lourdes: that sweet creature wanted to shed her life and took up the habit of a Sister to serve the Lord. Instead, the impostors of Medjugorje continue to live comfortably in the world without showing any kind of love either for God or for the Church."

PETRUS: The supporters of Medjugorje emphasize that the Holy See has never expressed any position on the matter.

"That's another lie! As I pointed out before, the Vatican has forbidden pilgrimages by priests to the place and has spoken through the words of the two successive bishops of Mostar, Monsignors Zanic and Peric, with whom I have spoken personally, and who have always manifested their doubts to me. You see, even for Fatima and Lourdes, the Holy See didn't express any position directly on those Marian apparitions. So why would they have to make an exception in this case? The truth is that when the Bishop of Mostar speaks, the Church of Christ speaks, and is it to him, who speaks with the authority conferred to him by the Vatican, that we need to listen. Thus, the Holy See has already expressed itself with the words of the Bishop of Mostar, making evident that Medjugorje is a diabolical trick. But I will share a secret with you. You'll see that soon the Vatican will intervene with something explosive, to unmask once and for all who is behind this swindle."

PETRUS: The same supporters note that at Medjugorje every year they report a record of conversions and miracles...

"It's artificial. And who is counting all these conversions? You see, if someone has a conversion, it's because he had a certain predisposition, because he thinks to look inside himself, because he receives the gift of the Spirit. The place in which this conversion happens is completely relative. Let's think of St. Paul: he converted on the road, and now what should we do, all go out to the road and wait to be converted? As regards the miracles, I'll tell a personal anecdote. I owe the miraculous healing of a person in my family to the intercession of Our Lady of the Rosary at Pompei, but that doesn't imply that the Madonna ever appeared to me at Pompei. So, just from believing, or from being healed inside or outside, it doesn't necessarily mean that Mary is letting people see her."

PETRUS: To the best of your knowledge, what opinion does the Holy Father Benedict XVI have of Medjugorje?

"I'll limit myself to underscore what he did as Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to send out official notes adverse to Medjugorje, such as the one which forbade priests and religious from going on pilgrimages in that country."

PETRUS: Yet it is said that John Paul II was convinced of the goodness of the apparitions.

"An unproven legend, considering that his opinions were personal and did not in any way represent an act of the Magisterium" [by the way, please see here for John Paul II's alleged "support" for Medjugorje].

If one of the Church's foremost exorcists, a man who spends his life observing the methods and schemes of the Evil One, says that Medjugorje reeks of diabolical influence, should we not pay him heed?

The sources for this story are this recent post from Catholic Light and another from the Italian site Petrus.

RELATED:
Understanding the Herzegovina Question
2017 Statement of Bishop of Mostar that Our Lady did Not Appear in Medjugorje
The Laicization of Fr. Vlasic
Bishop Ratko Peric's Directives on Pilgrimages to Medjugorje (2009)

Thoughts on Fr. Vlasic's Laicization

By now everybody knows that Fr. Tomislav Vlasic has been laicized. Let's review some of the events in this saga and see what it implies (if anything) for Medjugorje.

Vlasic was confined to a Franciscan monastery in L'Aquila, Italy, in February 2008 after he refused to cooperate in a Vatican investigation of his activities for suspected heresy and schism.

In the decree of the Congregation [see circular 939/2008, dated 8 July 2008, from the Curia of Mostar] it was written that Fr. Vlašić was suspected of "heresy and schism" and accused of "spreading questionable doctrines, manipulation of consciences, suspect mysticism, disobedience to legitimate orders and violations contra sextum (against the sixth commandment, that is, relating to his impregnation of a nun in the Queen of Peace community).

Last week it was announced that the CDF, acting upon Fr. Vlasic's request, had reduced him to the lay state and imposed several penalties on him. A transcript of the statement reads:

The Holy Father, accepting the request of friar Tomislav Vlasic, O.F.M, member of the province of friars minor of St. Bernardino of Siena (L'Aquila), responsible for conduct harmful to ecclesial communion both in the spheres of doctrine and discipline, and under a censure of interdict, has granted him the favor of reduction to the lay state (amissio status clericalis) and of dismissal from the Order.

The following penalties were imposed on Fr. (now Mr.) Vlasic:

Absolute prohibition from exercising any form of apostolate (for example, promoting public or private devotion, teaching Christian doctrine, spiritual direction, participation in lay associations, etc.) as well as of acquiring and administering goods intended for pious purposes;

Absolute prohibition from releasing declarations on religious matters, especially regarding the "phenomenon of Medjugorje";

Absolute prohibition from residing in houses of the Order of Friars Minor.

So, what does this mean for the Medjugorje movement? First, let me state explicitly what this does not mean. It does not mean the apparitions are a fraud (though I think they are), nor does it represent any official Vatican condemnation of the apparitions. We ought to be precise when we speak about this, for we don't want to errantly go around saying the Church has come down against the apparitions when in fact it has only laicized a single man who has not been actively involved with the apparitions since the 1980's.

But hold on. Many Medjugorje enthusiasts are going even further and asserting that this has absolutely no bearing on the status of the apparitions whatsoever. I certainly wouldn't say that - there are various grades of status between outright support and categorical condemnation, and the fact that Fr. Vlasic's laicization does not mean the phenomenon itself has been condemned is no reason to assert that its status has not been affected.

A good parallel would be the case of Fr. Maciel. When the founder of an entire order is found guilty of something like fathering an illicit child (as did Mr. Vlasic), you cannot think that the organization he founded is somehow immune to this or that it can simply be written off. Regardless of the intentions and charisms of the persons involved with RC/LC, their organization will suffer because of the shenanigans of their founder.

But there is a difference between Medjugorje and RC/LC - in the case of Fr. Maciel, prior to his downfall we were not asked to accept anything he said on faith. That is to say, he was simply the head of an order, and his fall reminds us that all men can sin. Fr. Maciel was not asking us to put our faith in his word about anything. On the other hand, Fr. Vlasic, spiritual director and mentor of the young visionaries, was asking us to accept his word, and the word of his proteges, about something extraordinary. In his case, though his fall was not entirely different from Fr. Maciel's, it has a direct bearing on the credibility of the thing he promoted. His credibility was more personally bound up in the events at Medjugorje than Fr. Maciel's was with the Legionaries. The Legionaries could easily endure and move on despite Fr. Maciel's fall (which I don't think they will), but Medjugorje is forever linked to Fr. Vlasic and it will not be as easy to put this hurdle behind them.

But Medjugorje proponents will say that Fr. Vlasic has not been associated with the visions since the mid-1980's, and that this laicization has very little to bear on Medjugorje today. Let us not forget a few things;

First, even though Fr. Vlasic was not laicized until this year, the original investigation of him was "in the context of the 'phenomenon at Medjugorje'", as the original document of interdict from the Vatican stated. Even though it has been a long time since he was directly connected with Medjugorje, the charges leveled against him were brought up regarding the time he was involved in it.

Second, Fr. Vlasic's first known impropriety happened not after he distanced himself from Medjugorje, but in 1977, well before the first (non)apparitions. Therefore, we can deduce that at the time the apparitions began, Fr. Vlasic was already of questionable character.

Third, as the "creator" of Medjugorje, he bears a special relation to it, even though he has since moved on. He introduced himself to Pope John Paul II in 1984 as "the one according to Divine Providence who guides the seers of Medjugorje" (source). He was present when the phenomenon began and was instrumental in making it what it is today. He guided the seers through their first interviews with Bishop Zanic and got Medjugorje noticed in the Church at large. You cannot separate him from Medjugorje - he is, as Bishop Zanic said, the "creator" of the phenomenon, and the fact that the creator and "guide" of the seers is a sexual deviant and all other sorts of improprieties does in fact bear very heavily on the reliability of the supernatural visions this same person asks us to accept.

Fourth and finally, we are always being told to judge Medjugorje by its fruits. Very well, then. How about we start with the fruits of the ones closest involved? Don't you think that, if anything, the spiritual guide of the seers should be the holiest of all? If he was really privy to the secrets and graces given to the seers through Mary, would he be impregnating nuns? My wife made an interesting observation about Fr. Vlasic: the reason he was laicized was because he asked for it. He was under investigation and when he found out the penalties that were to be imposed upon him, he requested for laicization rather than endure them. When she heard that a priest had voluntarily asked to be removed from the priesthood rather than submit to discipline, she said, "He must not love God very much."

If he were really a man of God, would he really ask to leave the priesthood rather than submit to discipline? St. Padre Pio, who was innocent of the charges levelled against him, submitted to unjust disciplines for years, trustful in God's justice. But as soon as Fr. Vlasic is disciplined, he requests that he be laicized. Had Mary really been appearing to the seers he was guiding, he should have had a bit more dedication to his vocation than that.

Fr (now Mr.) Vlasic's laicization does not mean Medjugorje has been condemned, but it is a strong sign that the Vatican (or at least the CDF) is moving in that direction.

New Medjurgorje Directives

This June (2009), Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno in Bosnia and Herzegovina sent letters to the pastor and a parochial vicar at Medjugorje, with specific directives about how they and the parish are not to promote the alleged apparitions of the place. Bishop Peric is the ordinary of the diocese in which Medjugorje is located and per Paul VI's 1978 CDF instruction "Norms for the Congreagtion for Proceeding in Judging Presumed Apparitions and Revelations", has jurisdiction over affairs at Medjugorje.

The English translations became available last month and are available in their entirety at Catholic Light (here). The Bishop uses some very strong language and made some substantial directives on how things are to be done in Medjogorje. Here are the most important points of the directives, though I suggest you read them in full.

Regarding priests who come to Medjugorje to hold retreats or promote the apparitions:

"The rule is still valid that in the parish of Medjugorje priests coming from elsewhere are not permitted to conduct retreats or spiritual exercises, nor to hold conferences, without the approval of this office. Analogously, neither foreign nor domestic priests can promote alleged "messages" or "apparitions" which have not been proclaimed authentic in that church or on church property."

Regarding the use of the title "shrine" in reference to Medjugorje:

"The parish of Medjugorje cannot be called a shrine, neither privately, nor publicly, not officially, because it is not recognized as such by any level of competent ecclesial authority. And that wording cannot appear on the web site of "Medjugorje - place of prayer and reconciliation", where it is currently found in many places....As the local Ordinary, in this present letter, I declare that the so-called "shrine" has no mission to declare itself a "Shrine", nor to present (the parish) with that title, because it has no ecclesiastical mission to present itself in the name of Medjugorje, nor to spread or interpret the "apparitions" and "messages" of Medjugorje."

Here is a reaffirmation of a previous directive absolutely prohibiting the seers from appearing and delivering any messages:

"In September 2007, on the occasion of your installation in the office of parish priest, I indicated to you that the so-called "seers" cannot present themselves on any occasion to promote their private "apparitions" and "messages", nor to preside, nor to have anyone preside in their place, at the recitation of a certain number of prayers "received" in an "apparition". Therefore, they cannot use prayers from scripture or those approved by the Church as a means of introducing "numbers" and "messages" from the private "apparition"."

And regarding praying the Rosary:

"It is equally not permitted to introduce intentions received in an "apparition" or "message" during the prayer of the Rosary of Our Lady. We have sufficient official intentions (from the Pope, from the bishop, for the missions) and there is no need to arbitrarily have recourse to alleged apparitions and messages and mix them with the Church's public prayers."

These preceding directives all came in a letter dated 12 June 2009 to the parish priest of Medjugorje. The following excerpts come from a second letter, dated the same day, to the Franciscan parochial vicar of the parish, Danko Perutina.

The first directive prohibits seers from sending messages from abroad and having them published in the parish bulletin. The prior directives already forbid the seers from delivering messages in person, but this one prohibits the parish from acting as a messenger on behalf of the seers:

"Marija Pavlović, married name Lunetti, daily "seer" who lives in Italy, and temporarily also at Medjugorje, sends to the parish office or to some one of your pastoral workers in the parish of Medjugorje, her "message" of the 25th day of the month, which is then published on the Medjugorje web site and in other mass media. And you regularly make commentary on the monthly "message", which is published in various languages.

When I asked how the "messages" of the 25th were published, and not the other "messages" said to be "private", I did not feel I received a clear and convincing answer. I do not know who has sent and authorized you to comment on them and publish them on the site. What sort of person is assuming the right to decide that some "messages" be omitted and others published, and that this is done through the parish office and the site connected with the parish of Medjugorje?"

...To avoid any misunderstanding, in this present letter I declare that you, according to my decree, are not authorized, either in the name of the parish office or as parochial vicar, to comment upon and publish the "messages" of the 25th or any other day of the month. These are private "messages" of private persons for private use. And we cannot permit that this is given the form of a message from the parish office, from the parish priest, or any parochial vicar, or even of the "Shrine" which is not recognized as such at any level: not diocesan, or the level of the episcopal conference, or of the Holy See."

We may be mistaken, but Bp. Peric seems to be forbidding any communication of the alleged "messages" whatsoever other than on the entirely private level. The letter to the pastor of Medjugorje prohibits seers from delivering messages in person, and his directive to Danko Perutina prohibits them from sending messages abroad to be published. This rules out any type of official mass communication of alleged "messages."

This final statement from the Bishop expressed admirably what he is attempting to do here:

"We are gradually succeeding in distancing the unrecognized "apparitions" and "messages" from the parish church and from church property, and the appearances of the "seers" before or after Holy Mass."

Why would the Bishop want to do this? For the obvious reason that these messages are unapproved, will not be approved, and are so dubious that the local Ordinary wants everybody to understand that the local Church does not endorse them.

Here is a summary of everything contained in these directives:

1) Seers are not to deliver any messages in public
2) That alleged messages and commentaries on them are not to be published
3) That prayers from the apparitions are not to be used publicly

4) The parish church is not to be called a "shrine", even privately

5) That foreign priests may not give conferences or retreats without permission of the bishop

foreign priests wishing to offer Mass must present a celebret from their diocese or order, and the information is to be recorded

5) A privately-built church has already been closed and is not to be used
6) Unauthorized religious communities have no permission to set up residence in Medjogorje

Can anybody really think that this bodes well for Medjugorje? It is gradually being distanced from the official Church and will someday be condemned, at which point it will either peter out (hopefully) or go into schism.

"Yes, but the fruits, the fruits..."

Vatican will reject Medjugorje

Andrea Gemma

This news broke about six days ago, but I wanted to add it to my collection of post on Medjugorje (my emphases and comments):

Vatican will reject Medjugorje, says bishop

By Simon Caldwell 6 June 2008 (The Catholic Herald)

An Italian bishop has predicted that the Vatican will soon declare as false the claims that the Virgin Mary has been appearing to a group of visionaries in Medjugorje, Bosnia, for nearly 30 years. Emeritus Bishop Andrea Gemma of Isernia-Venafro said that he believed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which has been studying the claims since 2006, would not rule in favour of the six seers at the end of a review of the alleged apparitions.

"You'll see that soon the Vatican will intervene with something explosive to unmask once and for all who is behind this deceit," the 77-year-old bishop told Petrus, an online Italian Catholic journal [He believes that the seers are not just misled but are actually engaging in active deception].

Bishop Gemma, the most senior exorcist in the Catholic Church until his retirement two years ago, said he personally believed the phenomenon to be a "scandal" and a "diabolical deceit".

He said: "It is a phenomenon which is absolutely diabolical, around which revolve many underground interests. Holy Mother Church, the only one able to pronounce, through the mouth of the Bishop of Mostar, has already said publicly, and officially, that the Madonna has never appeared at Medjugorje and that this whole sham is the work of the demon" [This is interesting with regards to those who throw out the statements of the Ordinary and still claim that the Church has not ruled definitively on Medjugorje. Gemma says that the Church indeed has spoken through the Bishop of Mostar and that his verdict is the verdict of the Church. If the person closest to the events wouldn't support it, why would the Vatican?].

He said: "In Medjugorje everything happens in function of money: pilgrimages, lodging houses, sale of trinkets [see Michael Davies book where he relates how 160 people were killed in Medjugorje due to fighting between rival families over the proceeds from the pilgrimage racket. It's linked on the sidebar].

"So much so that abusing the good faith of those poor souls who go there thinking to encounter the Madonna, the false seers have organised themselves financially, have enriched themselves and live a rather comfortable life.

"Just think, one of them organises directly from America, with a direct economic interest, tens of thousands of pilgrimages every year. These don't seem to me to be disinterested persons.

"Thus, together with those who shore up this noisy deception, they patently have every interest in convincing people that they see and speak with the Virgin Mary."

Since the first alleged apparition on 25 June 1981, the seers say they have seen Mary on about 40,000 occasions during which time she has supposedly imparted tens of thousands of messages and dozens of secrets.

Medjugorje has since become a popular destination for pilgrims, attracting more than five million visitors, including hundreds of thousands each year from the UK and the Irish Republic.

Pilgrims have included Spanish tenor José Carreras, who performed a concert there, and the American actor Jim Cavaziel, who played Jesus in Mel Gibson's blockbuster The Passion of the Christ.

The Medjugorje phenomenon began when a group of children told a priest they had seen the Virgin on a hillside near their town.

An investigation by Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar-Duvno found the claims inconsistent with the faith and they were dismissed as false. But the seers responded by claiming that the Virgin had told them that the bishop was a "wolf" who would perish unless he accepted the apparitions as true.

Three Church commissions failed to find evidence to support of their claims and in 1991 the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared that "it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations".

Their judgments have sharply divided Catholics and the Vatican, which banned pilgrimages to the site in 1985 and began a review of the claims two years ago.

According to the Sunday Times newspaper some of the seers have grown wealthy as a result of their claims - and so has their town. Some seers today own smart executive houses with immaculate gardens, double garages and security gates, and one has a tennis court. They also own expensive cars and have married - one of them, Ivan Dragicevic, to an American former beauty queen.

The new Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, Ratko Peric, is as opposed to the claims as his predecessor and in 2004 he upheld the suspension of Fr Jozo Zovko, the "spiritual adviser" to the visionaries [All of the Franciscan priests involved with Medjugorje, the three main ones that is, have been excommunicated or suspended. One has been kicked out of his order and impregnated a nun].

Well, I only have two comments on this article. First, it is about time. Second, now comes the moment of truth. When the Vatican makes its "explosive" decision to unmask and denounce Medjugorje, will the Medjugorje adherents obey and remain in submission to Peter, as they claim they always have? Or will they go off into schism and heresy? I believe, unfortunately, that for many intimately invested in Medjugorje, it will be the latter, because it has already happened. The Herzegovnia Franciscan's are already in a state of schism. The "Madonna" has already uttered heresy. Pilgrimages have already been banned, and people continue to go there in disobedience.

If Medjugorje is officially denounced, a great many will stop supporting it, but I think a sizeable cluster will go off the deep end and wind up like the "Mary is God Catholic Movement" or the "Army of Mary" or some of these other wacked out groups. They have already developed a schismatic mentality, and I think an official denouncement would only make it worse. Nevertheless, the truth needs to be told, and the sooner the better.

Criteria for Judging Private Apparitions

Vicka during one of her visions.

In response to some of my postings on Medjugorje, I thought I might be wise to post the traditionals rules for judging alleged apparitions in the Church. I want to state up front that the tradition of the Church, as seen from Lourdes, Guadalupe and others, is for the bishops and the ecclesiastical authorities to be suspicious of an apparition until such a time when convincing evidence is brought forth to prove otherwise. In American law, a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Catholic Tradition, an apparition is judged false until proven true. This is the case because in any given situation the possibility of a true apparition is relatively small. Therefore, the Church must approach all apparitions from the standpoint that they are probably false until such a time when a miraculous occurrence gives reason to believe they are true.

The Catholic Encyclopedia warns that dealing with apparitions is a serious business: “Illusions in the matter of revelations often have a serious consequence, as they usually instigate to exterior acts, such as teaching a doctrine, propagating a new devotion, prophesying, launching into an enterprise that entails expense. There would be no evil to fear if these impulses came from God, but it is entirely otherwise when they do not come from God, which is much more frequently the case and is difficult of discernment.” Notice that it says that it is difficult to discern if a message comes from God or not, but that it is “much more frequently the case” that it is false. Many supporters of Medjugorje criticize those who seek to look at the evidence in a straightforward and scientific manner. But this is a must because, as the Encyclopedia says, the truth is “difficult of discernment.”

In judging the apparitions and the messages themselves (not counting whatever is found about about the life of the seers), the Church uses a guily until proven innocent method: “To prove that a revelation is Divine (at least in its general outlines), the method of exclusion is sometimes employed. It consists in proving that neither the demon nor the ecstatic's own ideas have interfered (at least on important points) with God's action, and that no one has retouched the revelation after its occurrence.” The Church first tries to see if the apparition can be attributed to anything else: demonic activity, hallucination, etc. The Church finely combs through every detail of the supposed apparition looking for possibilities of corrupted doctrine and non-supernatural origins. Only if all of these other possibilities are ruled out is it finally admitted that the apparition may be divine. Therefore, when looking at Medjugorje, we need to finely go through every detail and scutinize it from every angle. If it is of God, then it will pass the Church’s scrutiny (and by Church, I mean the competent ecclesiastical superiors, not just the whole mass of laity. It is not the job of the laity going on pilgrimages to determine whether or not an apparition is true based on their "experiences"). A similar process is undergone in the canonizing of saints, where the burden of proof is on the supporters of the saint to prove his/her holiness, not on the Church to disprove it.

The Encyclopedia goes on to list seven questions to be examined when looking into the character of the visionary. Again, we see the process of the Church attempting to find any other explanation for the phenomenon before declaring them supernatural in origin:

(1) What are his natural qualities or defects, from a physical, intellectual, and especially moral standpoint? If the information is favourable (if the person is of sound judgment, calm imagination; if his acts are dictated by reason and not by enthusiasm, etc.), many causes of illusion are thereby excluded. However, a momentary aberration is still possible.

(2) How has the person been educated? Can the knowledge of the visionary have been derived from books or from conversations with theologians?

(3) What are the virtues exhibited before and after the revelation? Has he made progress in holiness and especially in humility? The tree can be judged by its fruits. [In looking at this criteria, check out the message from 10/20/81 where Vicka asks Mary to "Paralyze someone; strike someone on the head" in regards to Fr. Jozo's trial. She then says, "I know it is a sin to speak so, but what can we do?" Is this the words of someone making progress in grace and holiness?]

(4) What extraordinary graces of union with God have been received? The greater they are the greater the probability in favour of the revelation, at least in the main.

(5) Has the person had other revelations that have been judged Divine? Has he made any predictions that have been clearly realized?

(6) Has he been subjected to heavy trials? It is almost impossible for extraordinary favours to be conferred without heavy crosses; for both are marks of God's friendship, and each is a preparation for the other.

(7) Does he practice the following rules: fear deception; be open with your director; do not desire to have revelations?

It is interesting that the Encyclopedia goes on to list signs of false messages. Two are pertinent in our discussion of Medjugorje: the first is that “They [the apparitions] reply to idle questions, or descend to providing amusement for an assembly.” This happens repeatedly in the Medjugorje visions, where the seers ask idle questions again and again: what happened to so and so? When is so and so going to get out of jail? We haven’t seen so and so for a few weeks; where are they? (see the messages of 9/17/81, 10/30/81 and 12/2/81 for this type of idle questioning about things unrelated to spiritual things) At one point, Mary supposedly even rebukes them for their curiosity(9/30/81)! The second sign of a false message: “Finally, a revelation is suspect if it is commonplace, telling only what is to be found in every book. It is then probable that the visionary is unconsciously repeating what he has learnt by reading.” The messages of Medjugorje certainly are commonplace. Their non-stop banal drones for peace sound like they could have come from a statement by the USCCB Committee for Social Justice. I imagine the messages would tend to sound commonplace after being repeated about 35,000 times.

Finally, the Encyclopedia asks, “If any work has been begun as a result of the revelation, has it produced great spiritual fruit? Have the sovereign pontiffs and the bishops believed this to be so, and have they assisted the progress of the work?” The answer os a resounding no. The Bishop of Mostar, the one is the greatest postion to know the facts of the story and discern the truth, has frequently denied the visions any authenticity, and neither Pope John Paul II nor Benedict XVI accorded any merit of truthfulness to the visions. In fact, the Bishop of Mostar expressely forbid pilgrimage to Medjugorje: “Therefore it is not permissible to organise pilgrimages and other manifestations motivated by the supernatural character attributed to the facts of Medjugorje” (Jan 29, 1987 Communiqué of the Yugoslav Bishops Concerning the Facts of Medjugorje). Nevertheless, millions of pilgrims each year continue to disobey the Bishop and spurn his authority, something that in itself is a witness against the apparitions.

This ban was reconfirmed June 30th, 1996 by none other than Cardinal Bertone. This same document states the Vatican’s position on Medjugorje as of 1996: “The Vatican position, which also reflects that of local bishops in the former Yugoslav republic was outlined in a letter by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Bertone cited a 1991 report by the Yugoslavian bishops which said that, after much study, it could not be confirmed that supernatural events were occurring at Medjugorje. From what was said, it followed that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, understood as a place of authentic Marian apparitions, should not be organized, Archbishop Bertone said. Such pilgrimages would be in contradiction with what the local bishops had determined, he added.” As for Pope Benedict XVI, in 2006, Bishop Peric of Mostar discussed Medjugorje with Pope Benedict XVI during a visit to the Vatican. In a summary of the discussion published in his diocesan newspaper, Bishop Peric said he had reviewed the history of the apparitions with the pope, who already was aware of the main facts from his time as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. "The Holy Father told me: We at the congregation always asked ourselves how can any believer accept as authentic apparitions that occur every day and for so many years?" Bishop Peric said. Bishop Peric noted that Yugoslavian bishops in 1991 issued a statement that "it cannot be confirmed that supernatural apparitions or revelations are occurring" at Medjugorje.

These are the types of criteria the Church must follow when examining alleged apparitions. Not so-called fruits (which are always subjective), but hard evidence. Furthermore, no matter what the outcome of the Church’s decision is, one must always submit to the authority of the Bishop; in the case of Medjugorje, the Bishop (who by the way has led pilgrimages to Lourdes and loves the Blessed Mother dearly) has had his authority flounted at every turn. This in itself is enough to make the visions suspect. So let’s not get bent out of shape just because somebody is trying to examine these things rationally. We have to make absolutely certain that a vision is true before we proclaim it so; otherwise, false apparitions and false prophets, like in Old Testament Israel, are able to cause much mayhem.

This my last post on Medjugorje for awhile; I think people are getting sick of it. Read the Medjugorje messages for yourself and see how silly they are. You can find a pretty exhaustive list of them on this website run by long-time Medjugorje supporter Fr. Laurentin, including the ones I quoted above.

Medjugorje Rumblings

There has been a lot of rumblings about Medjugorje this fall from many different sources and on an amazingly broad spectrum: some of pro-Medjugorje crowd have been claiming that the (non)pilgrimage site is about to get a big endorsement from a visit by Cardinal Schönborn this December. On the other hand, there have been rumors in the Vatican that a very high level pronouncement about Medjugorje is about to be issued - before the end of 2009 - and that this pronouncement will probably be a condemnation of the alleged apparitions (this would make logical sense since every action the CDF and the Vatican has taken with regards to Medjurgoje connected issues in the past few years has been negative, as in here and here).

First, Cardinal Schönborn's visit. This news originally broke about ten days ago, and Medjugorje supporters immediately began trumpeting it as a victory for the cause of the apparitions. Schonborn has apparently supported them, even hosting one of the "seers" in his cathedral. It was reported (as here) that Schönborn was supposed to visit from December 8th to January 4th (a month long visit?). All the old quotations from Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly supporting Medjugorje were also brought back out, quotations which Ratzinger has said are "freely invented."

This has become somewhat embarassing for the Cardinal, who apparently was making the trip as a private individual and was a little chagrined that the news was leaked to the public, who immediately started taking it as a sign of support for the apparitions. The Cardinal's secretary, Fr. Johannes Fürnkranz, told CNA:

"It was supposed to be a completely private visit, it was not supposed to go out to the internet...The cardinal's visit was supposed to be absolutely personal and not public, but since it has been leaked, I can only confirm that it will take place. There is no statement whatsoever involved in the visit" (source).

In my opinion it is extraordinarily naive of the Cardinal to think that such a high-ranking ecclesiastic as himself could pull off a visit like this and have it kept private - he is also naive for thinking that a visit by such a high ranking member of the hierarchy would not be construed as support for the apparitions, especially since the Medjugorje movement has shown itself unscrupulous in the past when attempting the dredge up alleged support for itself from the Vatican (see here). At any rate, Schönborn probably shouldn't have arranged his visit in this manner anyway - there is protocol that must be followed when one bishop visits another bishop's territory, and at least it seems that Schönborn planned and announced this visit without notifying or consulting the Bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric. This is just speculation, but this seems to be one reason why Schönborn got so upset when this was made public - Peric had not yet been informed or involved. It would be interesting to get Peric's opinion on the matter, since he has specifically stated that Medjugorje is not a shrine and has no business acting like one (see here). The announcement of Schönborn's visit, even if private, is an admission that the Cardinal is violating protocol. I personally have been suspicious of the prudential judgment of the Cardinal since this episode.

The controversy over the visit apparently prompted a leak from the CDF, in which an unnamed official reported the following, which was published by CNA on 11/11/09:

Speaking on background, an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told CNA that the Roman dicastery remains behind the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"The local bishops have the ultimate authority on this matter, and their arguments against the alleged apparitions are doctrinally solid," the official said.

Asked if Medjugorje should not be judged by its fruits of many conversions and vocations to the Church, the official responded: "It is not the duty of this Dicastery to make a pastoral assessment, but a doctrinal one. But regarding the argument, it can equally be argued that God can write straight with crooked lines, just as it has been proven in several previous occasions with patently false apparitions" (source).

By making the comparison between the fruits of Medjugorje and other "patently false apparitions" is the CDF making an allusion to the Vatican's mind in the matter? This brings us to our next news item regarding Medjurgorje: the rumors that the Vatican will issue a ruling on Medjugorje before the end of 2009. This I think is more than a rumor, for it was stated quite categorically by Cardinal Vinco Puljic, head of the Bosnian bishops' council (their UCSSB). He stated on October 7th, 2009:

"We are now awaiting a new directive on this issue. I don’t think we must wait for a long time, I think it will be this year, but that is not clear… I am going to Rome in November and we must discuss this” (source).

This is exciting news, indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some statement upon the issue on one of the major Marian feast days coming up - perhaps Immaculate Conception, Guadalupe (which would eb especially fitting since Guadalupe is a true Marian apparition as opposed to these false ones, and it would send the signal that the Bosnian bishops are not against Marian apparitions per se, as is often claimed), or maybe January 1st.

Let's hope this is more than just rumors - and if so, given the actions of the CDF with regards to Fr. Vlasic, the new directives on Medjugorje from Mostar and the unswerving support of the Vatican for the local Bosnian bishops, I think we can safely say what way a ruling would fall.

Medjugorje promotes indifferentism

Taken from an article by Dr. Tim Brady from the May 2008 issue of Los Pequenos Pepper (linked on the sidebar):

Particularly evident in those rare venues in transition, or at least partially in transition, from faux-Catholicism to the Faith of All Time (Catholicism) are those people of very good will who have been misled by certain very significant deceptions. I think we must expect these topics to arise over and over and we must be patient, but we must not hesitate to point out the truth, for the benefit of those deceived (an act of charity), but, even more importantly, to stop the spread of these very damaging deceptions within the Church itself. Germane to this, the topic of Medjugorje has again surfaced at our parish. Last week, during one of his catechism classes, Father repeated and explained the infallible Catholic dogma "Extra-Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (There is no salvation outside the Church)."

I was sitting in the very back and the wife of a very nice young couple very politely challenged Father on this dogma of the Faith. It was one of those situations where, although looking at the back of her head, I could tell that her face evinced her lack of conviction after Father’s explanation.

The class soon ended and she came straight to me (I do not know why, because I remain very silent in that class) and said, "What about what Mary said at Medjugorje?"

"What is that?" I asked.

"That one religion is as good as another," she answered.

I did not have a lot of time, nor, I suppose, was I disposed at that moment to some sort of long explanation, so I opted to cut to the chase. "Medjugorje is a hoax," I replied, not expounding on the fact that a hoax is the most benign thing Medjugorje can be.

Well, that led to the predictable type of interchanges such as "What about the fact that Pope John Paul II said Medjugorje was good", and the like. I really (untypically) kept it brief. I was asked to produce on the spot the documents from the ordinaries of the Diocese of Mostar condemning the apparitions. I did not have them, but I brought them to the next meeting.

So let’s back up. Let’s ask ourselves, "What well-formed Catholic mind could not see immediately that any supposed apparition that claimed that all religions are just as pleasing to God as the Catholic religion could not possibly be Our Blessed Mother?" I mean, the discussion ends before it begins. Now we are left with two possibilities:

1. There are no apparitions whatsoever. The whole thing is a hoax and a type of mass hysteria, if of the seemingly pious type, or...

2. Something is appearing and impersonating Our Blessed Mother. This is, at least to me, the more sobering option.

In either event, I believe we need to take the whole phenomenon very seriously. I am not a student of Medjugorje nor do I really wish to be. I am frying other fish. But it did later come up in conversation and the reasonable question was asked, "Well, did whatever is supposed to be appearing at Medjugorje really say that?"

Excellent question. I assumed that it had been said because I have heard it more times than I can count from Medjugorje devotees. But that is intellectually lazy so I did a quick search on the internet for that supposed "teaching" of whatever this is at Medjugorje.

I came up with a lot of hits, but the following one, I think, expresses all of this much better than I am currently doing: http://www.unitypublishing.com/Apparitions/Medjugorjecraig.html. [Excerpts from Craig Questions Medjugorje…] Below are the problematic statements...written in books by those who believe and support the apparitions at Medjugorje:

Question to Vicka: "There are millions of people on earth who are not Christian -what does the Blessed Mother want of them?"

Vicka: "To pray. All people on earth are born with knowledge of God in their hearts. Everyone has his own way to pray. The Blessed Mother is the mother of all people on earth. She has a mother’s love for them all, and her messages, which are from God, are for everyone.

Question: "Then it doesn’t matter what name or person they call God?"

Vicka: There is only one God. It is man who makes divisions."
(Page 51, Queen of the Cosmos by Connell)

Question to Vicka: "Is the Blessed Mother calling all people on earth to be Catholic?"

Vicka: "No! The Blessed Mother says all religions are dear to her and her Son. She says it is we on earth who have made division."
(Page 119, The Visions of the Children, Connell)

Interview with Mirjana by Father Tomislav Vlasic

Mirjana: "The Madonna always stresses that there is but one God, and that people have enforced unnatural separation. One cannot truly believe, be a true Christian, if he does not respect other religions as well. You do not really believe in God if you make fun of other religions."

Father: "What, then, is the role of Jesus Christ, if the Moslem religion is a good religion?"

Mirjana: "We did not discuss that." (The role of our Lord Jesus Christ) "She merely explained, and deplored, the lack of religious unity, ‘especially in the villages.’ She said that everybody’s religion should be respected, and of course one’s own."
(Page 124, The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorje, Kraljevic)

By comparison, Pope Pius IX condemned the following propositions as errors:

1. Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation."

2. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ.

3. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."

The above errors are collectively know as indifferentism, meaning that it doesn’t matter which religion one adopts, since one can be saved, according to this error, outside the Catholic Church. (One can read more at the above website.)

It is not pleasant in these days to be a naysayer. There are today, however, a number of "sacred cows" that are perversions of the truth or denials of truth. Nonetheless, these sacred cows have gained, in some cases, what amounts to "celebrity" status amongst some members of the Church. As Holy Mother Church finds her way back to Catholic dogma someone is going to have to begin pointing these things out. Like so many parties in the 60s, there are going to be some hangovers after this one. Thank God we have the signposts of true Catholic dogma to guide us
back to truth and reality as the euphoria wears off. Turn on the lights. The party's over.

BIshop Sartain on Unapproved Seers

Among those involved in the Medjugorje debate there is a distinct difference of opinion with regards the importance of having the Church (meaning the Magisterium in this case) approve any alleged apparitions. For those who accept Medjugorje and are proponents of the alleged apparitions, the reasoning tends to be that visions are approved unless explicitly condemned. Those who oppose the Medjugorje fanatacism tend to take the opposite (and in my opinion, correct) approach that unless they are explicitly approved, they are questionable.

In Medjugorje, we have a situation where the local ordinaries have condemned the apparitions as false and dangerous to the faith and have asked pilgrims to stop coming there. The Vatican has not officially condemned or approved the alleged apparitions, and so we have the Medjugorje enthusiasts saying that the visions are presumed authentic until the Vatican explicitly condemns the visionaries. For them, silence is consent, and the opinion of the local ordinary seems to not matter.

Back in April, Bishop J. Peter Sartain of Joliet, Illinois clarified what I believe to be the proper way of dealing with these alleged apparitions, that of refusing to give them any endorsement unless the Vatican does so explicitly. In April of this year he sent a letter to all of the priests in his diocese asking them not to allow their parishes to be used as venues for seers claiming visions that have not been approved. Any guess who the seers referred to in the letter were?

You guessed it! Mirjana Soldo and Ivan Dragicevic, who were speaking on a "tour" of the Midwest that spring. Here is an excerpt from Sartain's letter:

From time to time we are approached by parishioners who would like to invite speakers representing various alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, private revelations, or locutions, or others claiming to possess extraordinary spiritual gifts. My purpose in bringing this to your attention is to ask that you not issue such invitations. Whether the speakers would make presentations on well-known alleged apparitions, such as Medjugorje, or lesser-known private revelations, we must be extremely cautious about inviting or promoting them.

As you know the Church takes great time and care before declaring that an apparition is worthy of belief, and even then it never says that a Catholic must accept the apparition as a matter of faith. We must avoid giving the impression that alleged apparitions about which the Church has not made a judgment are somehow already approved. Ity is our responsibility to see that our parishioners are not led down the wrong path. That is not to say that those who ask us to promote these matters are doing so out of bad faith, but we must be extremely careful not to confuse our parishioners.

This is a great synopsis of how priests and bishops locally should deal with such alleged visionaries: unless the Church has explicitly sanctioned themk as worthy of belief, then they should get no official support or promotion. Caution and skepticism is the de facto attitude towards such claims, unless the Magisterium says otherwise. This goes against everything the Medjugorje crowd has been saying for years, that unless the Vatican condemns the visions explicitly it means they are presumed approved. Bishop Sartain sets this straight: the procedure is guilty until proven innocent, at least when it regards apparitions.

One final excerpt from the letter:

Needless to say, these comments do not refer to apparitions such as Fatima, Lourdes, or Guadalupe, which enjoy the approval of the Church.


This is an important distinction to add in, because too often Medjugorje is lumped in with these other apparitions as if it is of the same caliber of authenticity and enjoys equal authority with them. Even Ignatius Press has recently published a book on Our Lady of Guadalupe in which the author devotes a whole chapter to Medjugorje and treats it as if it a modern Guadalupe, on par with the other famous Marian pilgrimage sites that have been approved. Bishop Sartain reminds us that there is a vast chasm of differentiation between the approved apparitions of Lourdes, Fatima et al. and the spurious and unapproved hoax going on at Medjugorje.

Latest statement on Medjugorje

Msgr. Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar, Herzegovnia

This is still a few years old (2004), but I thought it worth linking to. Here is the most recent statement by the Bishop of Mostar (Msgr. Ratko Peric) regarding the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje. For those who, after 26 years, are still saying that full approval for the Medjugorje messages is right around the corner, this letter certainly puts that notion to rest. These messages will never be accepted as authentic. Bishop Peric points out in this statement how it took the Church 4 years to accept the messages of Lourdes and 13 years to accept Fatima. If the Vatican has not accepted Medjugorje after 26 years, it seems unlikely that they ever will, especially since there is so much disorder, schism and falsehood surrounding the so-called "seers." Here is an excerpt from Bishop Peric's statement on the schism, disobedience and even heresy that have come from Medjugorje:

There are at least 6 or 7 religious or quasi-religious communities, just initiating or already established, some of diocesan right, some not, which have arbitrarily been installed in Medjugorje without the permission of the local Diocesan authorities. These communities are more a sign of disobedience than a real charisma of obedience in this Church!

There exists a problem in this diocese of Mostar-Duvno which in recent years has practically precipitated into a schism. At least eight Franciscan priests, who have rebelled against the decision of the Holy See to transfer a certain number of parishes administered by the Franciscans to the diocesan priests, have been expelled from the Franciscan Order and suspended 'a divinis'. In spite of this, they have occupied at least five parishes through force, and continue to exercise sacred functions. They invalidly assist at marriages, hear confessions without canonical faculties and invalidly confer the sacrament of confirmation. Three years ago they even invited a deacon of the Old-Catholic Church who falsely presented himself as a bishop, to preside at a confirmation and he "confirmed" about 800 young people in three parishes.

Two of these expelled priests sought after episcopal consecration from Swiss bishop of the Old-Catholic Church, Hans Gerny, yet without any result. So many invalid sacraments, so much disobedience, violence, sacrilege, disorder,irregularities, and not a single "message" from tens of thousands of "apparitions" has been directed towards eliminating these scandals. A very strange thing indeed! The Church, from the local to supreme level, from the beginning to this very day, has clearly and constantly repeated: Non constat de supernaturalitate! [No evidence of supernatural activity] No to pilgrimages that would ascribe a supernatural nature to the apparitions, no shrine of the Madonna, no authentic messages nor revelations, no true visions! This is the state of things today. How will things be tomorrow? We'll leave them in God's hands and under Our Lady's protection!

I recommend you all read over this document in full. It summarizes the position of the Chuch (both the local bishops and the Vatican) on the phenomenon at Medjugorje and exposes many of the falsehoods surrounding the alleged apparitions and the seers. Here's one final excerpt from Bishop Peric on the real danger of Medjurgorje:

Regarding Medjugorje, there's a real danger that the Madonna and the Church could be privatized. People could start contriving a Madonna and a Church according to their own taste, perception and deception: by not submitting their reason as believers to the official Magisterium of the Church, but rather forcing the Church to follow and recognize their fantasy.

Naive believers could easily then leave the living fountains of grace in their own parishes to mosey on down to Medjugorje or follow the "seers" around the world, who by the way, thanks to the "apparitions" have good homes and a comfortableexistence - at least that's what the mass-media say.