In 1981, a year after the death of ex-Yugoslavia's communist dictator, Josip Broz Tito, events in Medjugorje, a small town in Bosnia-Hercegovina, began to stir the Christian world. Six Croatian Catholic children-four girls and two boys, then aged from ten to sixteen-claimed to have experienced visions of the Virgin Mary.
Even now, after twenty-eight years, three of the Medjugorje seers still report nightly visitations, usually around 6:40 local time, according to their official website. One of them, Ivan Dragicevic, who was sixteen years old when the apparitions commenced, holds prayer sessions on Mondays and Fridays, at 10:00, with additional communications from the Virgin. When the visionaries travel, they say, the Virgin increases the number of her messages to accommodate their itineraries.
As a result, Medjugorje is said to have drawn some 30 million pilgrims. But the visions were always controversial, especially within the Catholic Church. Bishop Pavao Žanic of Mostar-the nearest major city-who officiated in 1981, refused to support the authenticity of the children's revelations. Bishop Žanic died in 2000 and was succeeded by Bishop Ratko Peric in 1993, who also repudiated Medjugorje. Rumor circulated in Bosnia over the past year that Benedict XVI shared their incredulity.
And this summer, at the end of July 2009, Benedict acted on his doubts. He has removed from the clergy one of two local priests most active in supporting the visions, Tomislav Vlašic, and threatened him with excommunication. (The suspension of the other, Jozo Zovko, from pastoral duties was confirmed in 2004.) Vlašic is also prohibited from residing in Franciscan facilities. The story has received little coverage in the United States, but has excited widespread comment in Ireland, from where millions of people had gone to Medjugorje, and Britain, which also contributed a significant contingent.
Simon Caldwell of the Catholic News Service recently wrote that Vlašic was moved last year to a Franciscan monastery in the Italian city of L'Aquila, "after he refused to cooperate in a Vatican investigation of his activities for suspected heresy and schism. He also was being investigated for 'the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum (against the Sixth Commandment not to commit adultery)."
These harsh phrases appeared over the signature of Cardinal Levada, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. But Vlašic had already moved from Bosnia to the Italian city of Parma in the mid-1980s. And Franciscan minister general Fr. José Rodríguez Carballo has said that Vlašic requested his own laicization.
So what happened at Medjugorje? The visionaries, now approaching middle age, claim they were visited by the Virgin on tens of thousands of occasions. When Bishop Žanic was reluctant to support them, the children's proponents accused him of submitting to Communist government pressure. Still, even after Croatia became independent in 1991, the Catholic hierarchy rejected the supernatural character of the incidents at Medjugorje.
While it is difficult and tragic to cast doubt on a religious occurrence that brings comfort to ordinary people, the Croatian and Bosnian Catholic bishops were aware that Medjugorje had questionable aspects in its local, political, and secular background.
Members of the Franciscan Province of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, located in Hercegovina, took up the children's cause. What had once been an obscure hamlet "between hills" (the meaning of the name Medjugorje) was transformed. New facilities were added to the local church of St. James; guest houses proliferated, along with souvenir shops. During my first visit to ex-Yugoslavia in 1990, I went to Dub
rovnik-where the international airport served flights filled with passengers to and from Medjugorje-but knew nothing about them, aside from observing their fervor.
The location itself is remarkable, in that it sits at the western point of a triangle formed with two of the most important Islamic and Jewish spiritual sites in the Balkans, both of which have also drawn many wayfarers. Northeast of Medjugorje is the Sufi shrine of Blagaj. In its appearance, Blagaj could not be more different. While Medjugorje sits in a dusty basin, Blagaj stands at the source of a river, under steep limestone cliffs. Blagaj was built in the sixteenth century and survives as a rather modest complex, including a guesthouse and a tekija or Sufi meditation lodge. The river has been seeded with trout and a fish restaurant accommodates visitors-but in nothing like the numbers who go to Medjugorje.
Directly east of Medjugorje is the old Ottoman town of Stolac, outside of which one finds another hamlet, Krajsina, and the tomb of the "wonder-working rabbi," Moshe Danon of Sarajevo, who died there in 1830 while on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Until the Holocaust, the grave of Rav Danon was visited by large groups of Bosnian Jews, who composed songs and devotional tracts about the virtue of making the journey.
On the road to Stolac sits Radimlja, a large aboveground necropolis of centuries-old stone sarcophagi, decorated with human and natural motifs, as well as crosses and other religious symbols. Although not considered a spiritual site, Radimlja is nonetheless a significant Bosnian cultural asset. The stone memorials are, more than any other feature in the landscape, the object of cultural rivalries, claimed by Croats, Muslim Bosnians, and Orthodox Christians.
I have visited all these places, some of them repeatedly. Blagaj is admirable for its simplicity. The grave of Rav Danon is saddening, because photographs and pamphlets demonstrate that it was once crowded with Jewish visitors, who were slain in the Holocaust. Radimlja is mysterious, rather than spiritual, but fascinating in revealing the premodern culture of the region. There are also reports of Serbian Orthodox shrines nearby, but since the Balkan wars of the 1990s they are not easily found.
I have also been to Medjugorje. In 1999 I copublished an article with a then-colleague, Laura Peterson, in a Californian Catholic monthly describing the hubbub at the town. But Peterson and I also heard the voices of discord. At Medjugorje, we listened to a Canadian woman who had been there twenty-five times. She told us, "It's the peace. . . . There's nothing like this in the West. If I didn't have a family, I'd sell my home and move here. [The West] just doesn't have the strength of faith they have here."
Such a comment was counterintuitive, to say the least, given that the surrounding area had been devastated during the Croatian and Bosnian wars. Muslims and Serbs had been driven from the district; Serbs in Trebinje, a city further east, had expelled Muslims and Croats, destroying many old mosques; Ottoman monuments in Stolac were demolished by Croats, and the surviving Sarajevo Jews were afraid to visit the grave of Rav Danon. And that seemed to justify the question put forward by a Franciscan critic of the Medjugorje story, Fr. Ivo Sivric, who was born in the village. With exquisite understatement, he commented, "The lack of reconciliation and division in Herzegovina contraindicate the presence of the Queen of Peace and the apparitions." Others asked why the messages from the Virgin were apocalyptic and punitive, filled with end-times rhetoric.
Some have even alleged that at Medjugorje, Mary had replaced Jesus at the center of worship. For most Bosnians, the most significant elements in the Medjugorje narrative are precedents from church and local history. The Franciscans in Bosnia have two provinces: one based in Hercegovina and the other, the Province of Srebrena Bosna, headquartered in Sarajevo. The Bosnian Franciscans had been granted special privileges to tend to the religious needs of Catholics, after the Muslim conquest of the land in 1463. This was a break from the Ottoman custom of recognizing the Orthodox churches as Christian representatives. But the Hercegovinians have a reputation as hard-headed nationalists, while the Franciscans in central Bosnia are considered by Muslims as well as Christians as dedicated to interreligious civility and local patriotism.
At Medjugorje, for almost thirty years, many have seen a demonstration of Hercegovinian militancy, and even of heresy. Once the local bishop rejected the visionaries, priests sent to the area by the regular ecclesiastical authorities were beaten up, prayer was held in local churches without the presence of clergy, and, some allege, the Medjugorje group was on the road to schism from the Roman church.
Serbs have loudly denounced Medjugorje as a Croatian conspiracy, while Bosnian Muslims have tended to remain subdued about it, at least in public. Local Muslims are mostly silent, especially after a war that took so many lives. But many admit they perceived in Medjugorje a Croatian ultranationalist production.
More could be said about the matter, but Benedict XVI appears to have made up his mind about Medjugorje. And many Croats, as well as Muslims and other Bosnians, are likely to quietly welcome his action.
Stephen Schwartz is a widely published journalist and author of The Two Faces of Islam.
Comments:
Here is what one esteemed voice in the Church had to say about Medjugore, Hans Urs von Balthsar:
"The theology of Medjugorje rings true. I am convinced of its truth. Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from the Catholic point of view. All that happens there is so evident, so convincing.... There is only one danger alone for Medjugorje – that people will pass it by!"
Cited in Medjugorje: What does the Church say? By Sr. Emmanuel and Denis Nolan. 1995.
Happy Birthday, Mother Mary! Our Lady, Queen of Peace, pray for us.
others who've pilgramged there. There is an unfortunate parallel in that
many young men also found spiritual comfort in the ranks of
the Legion of Christ, despite its dubious origins.
Truly God works in mysterious ways. By their fruits you shall know them?
Anything that happens in the Balkans is a mixture. The subtle implication though, from the author, is that the other sacred sites are not as confused with the threat of misture or contamination as M. is.
Is this the case? Maybe the author can clarify.
Have always enjoyed the author's writings, beginning with his book on California. But, I believe, that it would be helpful (and fair to the readers) that the author give a bit of his ow biography and include his own conversion to Islam.
See his Wikipedia entry.
To Father Jeffrey: Balthasar was merely a theologian--why does his opinion have great authority? He thought hell might be empty and was in a great swoon over his own dubious seeress (Adrienne von Speyer). His judgment is questionable.
Finally, the defenders of the seers only make counter-assertions that the site has born good fruit for many people. True, but so has Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism and probably every pre-Christian religion. God does not ignore people when they sincerely seek him. Defenders of the seers need to offer arguments and evidence to rebut the many criticisms.
1) "When the visionaries travel, they say, the Virgin increases the number of her messages to accommodate their itineraries".
This leaves the impression that the Virgin always does so when the visionaries travel. This is not the case. And, even if it was, it would not say anything about the authenticity of the apparitions.
2) "Bishop Žanic died in 2000 and was succeeded by Bishop Ratko Peric in 2003".
Lack of research. Bishop Žanic retired and was replaced by Peric in 1993. Žanic only died in 2000, that is right.
3) "Rumor circulated in Bosnia over the past year that Benedict XVI shared their incredulity. And this summer, at the end of July 2009, Benedict acted on his doubts".
Rumor...? Since when has the use of un-checked rumors become a recognized journalistic method? The verifiable and documented truth is that it was Benedict XVI who (in 1986, as Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) removed the dossier of Medjugorje from Bishop Žanic, and handed over the case to the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. This removal was un-precedented in Church history and only took place because Cardinal Ratzinger rejected bishop Žanic's "investigation" of the apparitions in Medjugorje (the bishop's commission was biased from the beginning, comprised of atheists). Later The Vatican, in unquestionable language, asked bishop Žanic to stop his media blitz against Medjugorje. Verifiable truth: Both as Cardinal and Pope, Benedict XVI has worked to protect Medjugorje. The removal of ex-Fr. Vlasic tells nothing about the Pope's stance on the acclaimed apparitions. See also Denis Nolan: "Medjugorje And The Church", 4th edition, Queenship Publications 2007 which includes the largest available collection of statements on Medjugorje from Benedict XVI, John Paul II and dozens of Cardinals and other members of the Church hierarchy.
4) "The suspension of the other (priest), Fr. Jozo Zovko, from pastoral duties was confirmed in 2004".
This is an untruthful attempt at defamation. As confirmed by the Franciscan Provincial of Hercegovina, Fr. Ivan Sesar: "Fr Jozo Zovko, as a member of the Herzegovinian Franciscan Province, has all the rights and obligations as every other solemnly professed member of this Province". (http://www.medjugorjeca.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=45&Itemid=64)
5) He (ex-Fr. Tomislav Vlasic) also was being investigated for 'the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum (against the Sixth Commandment not to commit adultery)."
The antagonists of Medjugorje put lots of efforts into making people believe that accusations against Fr. Vlasic had to do with the apparitions and the doctrine and teachings coming from there. However, the Vatican has never said so. Strangely, none of the antagonists have ever investigated what these accusations against Fr. Vlasic were exactly aiming at. Maybe because The Vatican has never repudiated a single message coming out of Medjugorje. As for the antagonist claim that Fr. Vlasic "invented" the apparitions, this is verifiably wrong: The apparitions began in June 1981, and Fr. Vlasic only arrived in the village in September, not knowing any of the visionaries.
6) "But Vlašic had already moved from Bosnia to the Italian city of Parma in the mid-1980s".
Exactly! Could it be that the accusations against Fr. Vlasic have to do with this behaviour after 1985, not in 1981-85, especially when we consider that he is only being laicizised now...?!
7) "Still, even after Croatia became independent in 1991, the Catholic hierarchy rejected the supernatural character of the incidents at Medjugorje".
This is the most common, most widespread and most un-justified false claim about Medjugorje. In April 1991, the Yugoslav Bishops Conference issued a statement saying that "the supernatural character of the apparitions has not been established". However, the commission did not say that it had been established that the apparitions were NOT supernatural. These are 2 among the 3 different possible statements the bishops could have issued: The former leaves the matter open to further investigation (which the bishops expressedly called for), the latter does not leave the matter open. Again, see: Denis Nolan: "Medjugorje And The Church" or http://www.medjugorje.org/tenyrzadar.htm
8) "the Croatian and Bosnian Catholic bishops were aware that Medjugorje had questionable aspects in its local, political, and secular background".
Here we are talking about the centuries-old conflict between Franciscan and secular clergy in Hercegovina. While this conflict was and is a matter of fact, it tells nothing about the authenticity of the apparitions. One thing is the apparitions, another thing (historical) events surrounding them.
9) "we listened to a Canadian woman who had been there twenty-five times. She told us, "It's the peace. . . . There's nothing like this in the West. If I didn't have a family, I'd sell my home and move here. [The West] just doesn't have the strength of faith they have here." Such a comment was counterintuitive, to say the least, given that the surrounding area had been devastated during the Croatian and Bosnian wars".
Biased nonsense! From the very first messages in June 1981, the Virgin called for peace and reconcilliation. She called for prayer and fasting for these intentions, to be more exact. Exactly 10 years after this message was given for the first time, war broke out in Yugoslavia, most likely because the message had not been sufficiently heeded. Besides: Throughout 3 years of civil war and bloodshed, the worst of its kind on European soil since WW II, Medjugorje was left completely un-damaged -- indeed: endoved with the peace the Canadian pilgrim is talking about. Miracles were countless as to how Medjugorje was protected. Further details, see: Sr. Emmanuel Maillard: "Medjugorje -- The War Day By Day" (Queenship Publications).
10) "that seemed to justify the question put forward by a Franciscan critic of the Medjugorje story, Fr. Ivo Sivric, who was born in the village. With exquisite understatement, he commented, "The lack of reconciliation and division in Herzegovina contraindicate the presence of the Queen of Peace and the apparitions."
Again: See my note about as to why this is utter nonsense. How can anyone in his right mind hold The Queen of Peace responsible for every event and every action on behalf of every inhabitant in every single part of Hercegovina...?! Furthermore: When the apparitions first began in 1981, the people of Medjugorje reacted by reconciling among themselves, putting an end to generations-old clan strives. Millions of people have reconciled with God in Medjugorje. Among the pilgrims, tens of thousands of family members have also reconciled. Countless numbers of threatening divorces have been avoided due to God's grace in Medjugorje.
11) "Some have even alleged that at Medjugorje, Mary had replaced Jesus at the center of worship".
These "some"bodies can impossibly have studied the Virgin Mary's actual messages from Medjugorje. She points to Jesus over and over again.
12) "some allege, the Medjugorje group was on the road to schism from the Roman church".
Again: Who are these "some"bodies, and what actual messages, events and verifiable facts make them say so...?! What takes place in Medjugorje is Eucharistic, Marian and Sacramental, that is: in complete accordance with Church teachings. Otherwise the Vatican would have condemned Medjugorje many years ago.
13) "Benedict XVI appears to have made up his mind about Medjugorje"
Indeed he has. And so, besides once more referring to "Medjugorje And The Church" which chronicles his actual actions in this case, it was no coincidence that Benedict XVI expressedly used the title "Queen of Peace", by which the Virgin Mary first identified herself in Medjugorje when he -- on September 6th, only two days ago -- prayed for the Virgin to obtain the gift of harmony and peace "for all humankind" (!): According to http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=17046 his prayer was: “Queen of Peace, obtain the gift of harmony and peace for peoples and for all humankind.”
Mr. Schwarz, if you want to protect your professional integrity, you have certain tasks of editing and rectifications in front of you.
I know people who have gone to Medjugorje and are convinced it is an ongoing miracle. I am skeptical but don't have a firm opinion either way.
+ The conversions of millions and millions of visitors
+ The un-animous testimonies of independent doctors, psychiatrists who examined the visionaries on four occasions between 1985 and 2006
+ Close to 500 documented, unexplainable healings in Medjugorje
+ Thousands of signs, major and minor, witnessed by countless numbers of people
"By their fruits shall you know them"....
Besides, Tominellay, did you know that bishop Peric has never been present at just one single apparition? And did you know that he has never spoken to the visionaries whom he accuses of lying to the whole wide world?
James at 12.38 pm, from the verifiable facts mentioned above, I feel sure that you cannot take Tominellay's bad advice any seriously. :) Instead I recommend that you read:
+ Denis Nolan: Medjugorje And The Church (Queenship Publications 2007). Includes dozens of statements on Medjugorje from our beloved John Paul II, including several of his hand-written letters. A must-read for anyone into fact-finding and solid documentation concerning the events of Medjugorje, especially the Church's position on the matter.
+ all books by Sr. Emmanuel Maillard, also published on Queenship Publications. She is a French nun who has lived in Medjugorje since 1989. All her books are excellent transmissions of the greatness, grace and peace of Medjugorje. Her latest book is called "The Hidden Child of Medjugorje".
+ if you come across Medjugorje books by Waine Weible, June Klins, Fr. René Laurentin, Fr. Slavko Barbaric, Fr. Jozo Zovko, Fr. Svetozar Kraljevic and (thank God) a good number of other authors, too, they are also most recommendable. Study the sources and literature lists of the above-mentioned authors, and what you will get is facts, not fiction. Take it from one who has spent 10 years, so far, attempting to un-biasedly study the documentation and first-hand sources concerning Medjugorje.
Good websites are:
http://www.medjugorje.hr (offical)
http://www.medjugorje.org
http://www.childrenofmedjugorje.com
http://www.medjugorje.eu
http://www.medjugorje.com
and (thank God once more) dozens of others, though few of them add anything truly important that the sites mentioned here do not have.
That is not true. How can you write that the church has rejected the supernatural character of Medjugorje when no such statement has ever been made? In fact never have the bishop’s conference said anything negative about Medjugorje at all. The last major public statement the Bishops took with regards to Medjugorje was in 1991, when the Bishops Commission made of members of the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia published their position in regards to the authenticity of the apparitions of Medjugorje. They stated that, "on the basis of the investigations so far it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations. However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who come to Medjugorje, prompted both by motives of belief and various other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the diocesan bishop and with him of the other bishops also, so that in Medjugorje and in everything connected with it a healthy devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary may be promoted in accordance with the teaching of the Church." They chose to take a wait and see approach and have not changed their position since. Rarely does the church rule favorably or unfavorably towards purported apparitions until they are over.
The position of the local Bishop in Medjugorje has been hostile to the situation. However, his position has always been his personal opinion and never the church’s position. At this point, pilgrims are allowed to go to Medjugorje and priests are allowed to accompany them and administer the sacraments.
Again the the church never rules favorably for any apparition until it ends and all the phenomena can be investigated in it is entirety.
I can’t believe you would write the Pope is planning on acting against Medjugorje. The only source for that story which has been circulating around the blog sphere is a retired Vatican exorcist who has publically said that the Medjugorje is the work of the devil. Nobody with any sort of major involvement with the CDF has remarked that the Vatican is in the process of doing anything about Medjugorje until it ends.
In addition, the CDF remarked in 1998 that the local bishop’s position on Medjugorje “remains his personal opinion” and that his particular views on the situation have anything of an official verdict on the situation. There has been a longstanding feud between the Franciscans who run the parish and the Bishops which threatened to prevent any sort of unbiased assessment of what was going on out there. As a result the Bishops conference took over the investigation and removed the local bishop’s authority in dealing with this matter. If people want the church’s official statement on Medjugorje Google the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith and Medjugorje and read all official letters and correspondence that have to do with the apparitions.
Lastly, if Jesus’ mother is appearing in Yugoslavia we should welcome her and be concerned with what she wants to tell us. The church has not condemned Medjugorje, so why should so many people have already made up their minds?
A Muslim on the validity Medjugorje.
Next, will it be Al Gore's scientific evaluation of global warming?
Those who use the "good fruits" argument presumably believe that Christ is Lord. Now explain to me how this argument is decisive given that Mormonism, Islam and a plethora of pagan religions have produced good fruits even though they are false religions? If you are Christian, then you better hold that they are false religions, and if you think those religions have not brought people close to God than you are delusional. Moreover, this problem of Med. has not merely born good fruits: it has caused division for decades, and frankly makes catholics look silly.
That said, I can only speak favorably about what I'm seeing: there are a lot of
conversions and these are often sound, that is not only mystical excitement but a change of life toward the Church's service; I heard good news about Marija and her lifestyle, which seems to be quiet and normal, even as a seer; there's a *very* popular radio here in Italy (but I think it's present also in the USA), Radio Maria, which is doing a wonderful work of evangelization: its fervent catholic orthodoxy and obedience to the Church and the Pope are evident for all. This radio was born from the inspiration of its director, padre Livio, after his visit to Medjugorje: it has no commercials and lives only with the (ten of thousands of) listeners' offerings. Every morning the programs begin with the prayer composed by the Pope for the radio itself.
I'm sorry to say that the present article is rather tendentious: the problems with father Vlašic are well known since a long time, and it's clear he's not in any way a representative for Medjugorje or the seers, who have instead repeatedly distanced themselves from him and his strange actions. I've heard that several times - besides, there are a lot of documents on the radio's site - well before the interdiction by Rome.
I don't know from where this hostility towards Medjugorje comes: heresy? "Hercegovinian militancy"? "a Croatian ultranationalist production"?? Please, give documented references, otherwise all this is laughable.
And lastly, this is priceless: "Serbs have loudly denounced Medjugorje as a Croatian conspiracy"? You can bet about that: the Serbs, also known as the Communist party! and very friendly with the muslim minority, isn't it?
As I said previously, I'm ready to accept any decision by Rome about Medjugorje, when it comes; still I don't find this article well researched, sorry. And yes, the Pope is not infallible in his private opinions, but the Spirit is not usually so far from him: you cannot use the Maciel's case to dismiss everything you don't like.
The problem with the article is exactly its substance, which I find wanting. Vlasic's case has very little to do with the seers. The Catholic hierarchy never rejected the supernatural character of Medjugorje. What Serbs and "many Muslims" allegedly say about Medjugorje is very weak as a "substantive objection". Et cetera.
Yes, I try to base my fallible judment on the evidence I have, and this evidence is good, sorry again. If you want to complain about the "good fruits" argument, please refer to the primary Source: you can find some hints in the Gospels. Good fruits by Mormons, Muslims and pagans are welcome but have nothing to do here, we are talking about a Catholic issue: can you show me an heretic message? And do you really think that other similar event didn't cause similar divisions?
Obviously anybody looking back in hindsight could say that the prudent thing to have done was to back off the quick judgments and let the thing work itself out and let the competent church authorities decide the matter. When people write and make statements that the Medjugorje defenders are out in full force using ad hominem arguments he neglects to use the gentleness and compassion which would have been wise to have implemented during the initial questioning period of the Fatima seers.
The fact is the church hasn't ruled against or for Medjugorje. If the Blessed Virgin Mary is appearing in Medjugorje, it would seem foolish to be one of those most vocally attacking her work. If she is not, you should have the faith that the competent ecclesial authorities motivated by the Holy Spirit will discern the origin of the apparition and alert the faithful. The good fruits in Medjugorje are evident. People go to confession and return to the faith. To say that the fruit of Medjugorje is division because some people are not happy with what is going on is tantamount to rejecting Jesus because he was crucified and to them Jesus himself was kind of divisive since some people were obviously not happy with him. Jesus own words to his disciples was that he came not to bring peace, but the sword. That he would be a sign of contradiction and there would be division in the lives of those who chose to follow him. If that is not the case, then how come almost all of the early church leaders ended up dying as martyrs? Has not the church reserved a special place for those whose testimony to the Truth cost them their own lives?
The reality is we live in a world that sin has disfigured, but not destroyed, and the Gospel will have its enemies. If Medjugorje is a message from Jesus through his mother to us, why fight him? Why get in the way of what God wants to do? Why turn people away from his work, by ranting and raving about how bad Medjugorje is? Didn’t Gamaliel warn you that you might find yourself fighting against God? The Catholic Church has not decided against Medjugorje. Let the church judge this situation. “For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38)
Veronica O Connell
I think it would have been nice if the folks at First Things had at least held this article off for a day or two (after Our Lady's birthday). In the interest of fairness, I hope an article offering a rebuttal will be forthcoming.
The issue of Vlasic has been hashed over quite a bit and there is little to connect him to the actual events there. He has his own serious problems and that is why he was released from the priesthood. I am prepared to accept the Church's decision on Med. But not a hatchet job trumped up by those with a religious ax to grind. I am shocked that First Things would publish this kind of
report. It seems more like something to be found in another mag that tip toes on the fringe. We went to Medjugorge in 88 and again in 1990. Both times we were impressed by the peace we found there even with thousands of pilgrims present for the Anniversary celebration in June. The stories of this place during the war were also very different from the impression Schwartz tries to create. There was no fighting in this village and there are reports that bombs dropped on the village failed to detonate. Mr. Schwartz has demonstrated that he is a spin doctor and not an honest observer of facts.
I will now view First Things as a questionable source on Catholic issues. Sad.
I was wrong about Bishop Ratko Peric succeeding to Bishop Pavao Zanic in 2004. The correct date is 1993. I apologize for the error.
"I was wrong about Bishop Ratko Peric succeeding to Bishop Pavao Zanic in 2004. The correct date is 1993. I apologize for the error".
No, Mr. Schwarz, you were wrong on at least 13 points which I listed yesterday, among them some very central ones, like the Church's and Benedict XVI's actual stand on the apparitions. Yesterday I pointed to the facts and the sources of the actual documentation which you either do not know or pretend you don't know. You opened this party, and you cannot get away with only apologizing and correcting the error of a succession year of bishops.
Scott W says:
"Predictably, the Med. defenders are (...) ignoring the substantive objections".
No, we are not. On the contrary, we point to factual documentation leaving no doubt that Mr. Schwarz's "substantive objections" (sic...) are based on errors, misunderstandings, lack of good will and/or lack of research.
Tominellay says:
"I will repeat my recommendation of the writings and homilies of Bishop Peric".
Tominellay, will you please respond to my actual arguments from 9.8.2009 at 2.45 pm? To sum them up for new readers: The bishop ignores the massive amounts of factual documentation as to the authenticity of the apparitions, he has never been present during an apparition, and he has never spoken to any of the visionaries whom he none the less accuses of lying to the world.
These are facts, Tominellay. How do they affect your opinion of the validity of bishop Peric's writings?
"The Holy Spirit does not guide John Paul's judgment in his private opinions".
Wow, that was quite a claim! While it is true that The Holy Spirit only guarantees the Pope from erring when he speaks ex cathedera, how can you exclude, Scott, that The Holy Spirit ALSO guides (of all people....) The Pope in other situations as well?
According to people close to him, people who observed him, John Paul II prayed for up to seven hours a day. Given this fact, if The Holy Spirit was not a more or less constant companion to him, we would have to conclude that there is no power in prayer and/or that The Holy Spirit cannot descend on human beings. Both of which would be grave errors, needless to say.
Scott writes:
"Those who use the "good fruits" argument presumably believe that Christ is Lord. Now explain to me how this argument is decisive given that Mormonism, Islam and a plethora of pagan religions have produced good fruits even though they are false religions?".
Why is this argument decisive? Because Jesus says so! :) ("By their fruits shall you know them"). And because He also explicitly states: "A bad tree cannot bear good fruits".
Now, Scott, I presume we agree that millions of conversions can be labeled "good fruits", right. As to your objection that false religions have also led people closer to God, it is not at all an objection as to the authenticity of the apparitions in Medjugorje.
The one you are objecting to is Jesus. This you do by not readily accepting the criteria of the trees and the fruits when it comes to discerning what comes from God and what does not. This is a problem you have with The Lord. May I recommend that you solve this problem with The Lord by laying forth your doubts and praying for His guidance.
the supernatural] but constat de non supernaturalitate
[give evidence of being non-supernatural]” The "fruits" that Jesus said we should look for from "good trees" do not include disobedience to Bishops by the seers and by the Franciscans. There are "signs" that were promised and never materialized, and the 10 "secrets" sound like a con job. The devil has tremendous powers, and could even appear as the "Gospa." The prime "fruits" for which he is responsible are the acts he is famous for -- pride and disobedience.
Considering the dismal state of catechesis in the Body of Christ today, I advise all I know to focus on teaching people about the beauty and Truth of the authentic teachings of Christ as mediated to us through His Bride, the Church. All else, including authentic and “alleged” private revelation, should be, in my opinion, secondary.
The fruits of Medjugorje are many.
That reasoning reminds me of the reasoning an Augustinian monk used in 1517 and we all know what fruit that bore.
"What disturbs me most is that a whole industry has arisen that seems intent on making people believe that Our Lady is “absolutely” appearing and that the alleged messages are in fact authentic. This is deceptive and divisive because it is only the Church that has the authority to declare if this alleged private revelation is true or false (see paragraph #67 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church). Why? Because Christ Himself arranged it to be so. But this FACT seems to be overlooked or downplayed in much (not all) of the rhetoric about Medjugorje".
Paul, if you have the impression that the Medjugorje movement is overly zealous, it is due to two things (to my mind): On the one hand the graces flowing from Medjugorje are unprecedented in history when we compare Marian apparition sites (to take just one example, no other apparition site sees the number of confessions as Medjugorje does). Also Our Lady's messages make it very clear that Medjugorje is indeed the central current apparition. On the other hand we are facing many erroneous claims about Medjugorje. Though by far the worst example, Mr. Schwartz's article is but one example of this. When you combine these two conditions, you may better understand why Medjugorje people may come across as overly zealous.
It is not true that Medjugorje proponents do not recognize the Church's final authority. On the contrary, in the the majority of books about Medjugorje the author explicitly states the he or she will obey the Church's final decision on the matter.
+ + +
Spera Rose, OCDS writes:
"Disobedience to legitimate church authorities puts one in danger of cooperating in sin. The Bishop of the diocese in which the apparition takes place has the grace by God to discern the truth of an alleged apparition".
Well, this is how it uses to be. However, The Vatican itself turned Medjugorje into the exception to this rule when, in 1986, The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by the present Pope) removed the dossier of Medjugorje from the local bishop, and handed it over to Yugoslavian Bishops Conference. In yet another move unprecedented in Church history, the case of Medjugorje has now been handed over to The Vatican itself, and so it was The Vatican that requested the renewed medical and scientific investations of the visionaries that took place in 2006.
The Vatican has expressedly stated that the issue of discerning and passing judgment on the Medjugorje apparitions does not rest with the Bishop of Mostar:
In a letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) dated May 26, 1998, the then Secretary of the Congregation, Archbishop Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone , replied to a bishop, who had made enquiries, as follows:
"What Bishop Peric declared in his letter to the Secretary General of Famille Chretienne, declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' but likewise, 'constat de non supernaturalitate' of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje," should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which IS AND REMAINS HIS PERSONAL OPINION" (my emphasis).
See also Denis Nolan: "Medjugorrje And The Church", 4th edition, Queenship Publications 2007. The complete text of the above letter can also be read at http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Bishop+Peric's+comments+on+Medjugorje-a0156002634 .
+ + +
Spera Rose also writes:
"If all the monies time and efforts to promote the Apparitions of Medjugorje went into living the Message of Fatima approved by the Church the triumph of Mary may have taken place long ago".
Did you know that Sister Lucia of Fatima was also a firm believer of the apparitions in Medjugorje? Otherwise you may see for yourself in Sister Emmanuel Maillard's book "Medjugorje: The 90s" page 71 (Queenship Publications 1997).
As for John Paul II he said (on March 25th 1984, the very day he consecrated the world indluding Russia to The Immaculate Heart): "Medjugorje is the continuation and fulfillment of Fatima". For this an dozens of other John Paul II quotes on Medjugorje, including a good handful in his own private letters, see Denis Nolan: "Medjugorje And The Church".
+ + +
Howard writes:
"The "fruits" that Jesus said we should look for from "good trees" do not include disobedience to Bishops by the seers and by the Franciscans. There are "signs" that were promised and never materialized, and the 10 "secrets" sound like a con job. The devil has tremendous powers, and could even appear as the "Gospa." The prime "fruits" for which he is responsible are the acts he is famous for -- pride and disobedience".
Excuse me, Howard, but your last claim borderes on the ridiculous: With millions of conversions, close to 500 healings and the renewal of the Church thorugh uncounted numbers of Catholic apostles etc., I can find no other word.
There are no examples of the visionaries or Franciscans not obeying the local bishop. Latest example came when the Franciscans obeyed the bishop when he demanded they stopped publishing a commentary on Our Lady's monthly message. The Franciscans COULD have said that the Bishop does not hold the authority of the apparitions (since The Vatican has taken that back), but this they did not. They silently obeyed. Just like the visionaries did when the Bishop forbade them the right to travel here or there to spread the message. When, in March 2009, the Bishop forbad communities in Medjugorje to celebrate Mass, hear confessions and adore The Blessed Sacrament in their own community houses, the communities suffered...but obeyed without a single unkind word being uttered.
When the Bishop celebrated Confirmation in Medjugorje many years ago, he assigned all who believed in the apparitions to "the lowest place in hell". Not a single parishioner revolted, not one of them said an unkind word about the Bishop. Neither has the visionaries done except (you may say) a single example of a very young and spiritually immature Vicka in the very first months of the appartions.
The history of disobedience has to do with the centuries-old conflict between Franciscan and secular clergy in Hercegovina. While this conflict is a matter of fact, it does not say anything about the authenticity of the apparitions.
Which promised signs never materialized? Please name them; I cannot think of any. As for the secrets having not materialized, maybe we should just pay thanks to God and His Mother that mankind is being given so relatively long to convert.
Now if you go to the site of the false apparitions at Bayside, Queens, you will see that the header on the sites says: “This is the Greatest Apparition of Our Lady, ever, in the History of the World.” Moreover, in their “Frequently asked questions” section you will find the following: Is the Bayside Apparition condemned? Answer: The unfavorable decision by the late Bishop Mugavero on Bayside Apparition was illicit and invalid as it was not based on an inquiry required by Canon Law...: Many statements by those who promote Medjugorje are very similar to the statements made by those who are “certain” that this is a “true” apparition and they utilize the same mental gymnastics and they encourage others to do so!
So it’s not excessive zeal that troubles me; no, it’s misplaced zeal and the language being used to make people believe that an "alleged" apparition is genuine. What about using that zeal to encourage people to go to daily Mass? After all what is greater than the privilege of being able to daily accept Christ’s invitation to enter into communion with Him? Or better yet, encourage them to frequent the Sacrament of Confession more often – after all who can say that they have loved God above all things and their neighbor as themselves? Or, what about encouraging people to learn more about the authentic teachings of Christ rather than some “alleged” messages? For example, I facilitate a Faith Formation group that studies the Scriptures and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I also work with potential converts, etc.
Now, if you would write or state: ‘“in my opinion” the alleged apparitions in Medjugorje are true but it is Christ through His Church that has the right and obligation to make a definitive judgment about the veracity of these alleged claims.” I could accept that because you are then stating the facts. But to give the impression that the “alleged” apparitions are true is mendacious.
I was brought back to the church by an unapproved apparition in Bayside NY. It took me years to pull away from it having the same feelings and using the same arguments as Medjugorje devotes do today. I also witnessed miracles; rosaries turning to golden colors, photos with unexplained image popping up and the miracle of the sun. I felt I owed our Lady to defend the apparition. I know what I witnessed! I did not understand the difference between supernatural and preternatural miracles. The Devil does appear as an Angel of light and has appeared to Ann Catherine Emmerich and other mystics as Jesus and Mary. If they never had a true vision they would have been deceived. The devil divides and conquers!
Obey the Church our Holy Mother. Follow the bishops in union with the magisterium. Your Salvation and the salvation of others depend on it! Spera Rose, OCDS
Q. What do you think about Medjugorje's "healings" and "miracles"?
A. Notice that we do not hear so much about miracles today as we did earlier. I asked Fr. Ivan Landeka that he - as a pastor - give me a report on the present situation in Medjugorje, which he did in June of this year. It ran six pages. He did not mention the "miracles" at all.
This means that by 1993 the phony claims of miraculous healings had been discredited to the extent that the Franciscans did not bother to report them to the new bishop.
Regarding Fr. Jozo Zovko, it is remarkable that he is a Franciscan in good standing in his province, while at the same time all his priestly functions in the dioceses of Hercegovina are revoked. In 1990 a Vatican congregation directed him to remove himself to a distant location, which he has finally done early this year - 18 years later.
I have followed Fatima for over 30 years and I have never come across any documentation to support such a claim except for what you just submitted and I cannot find it on line.
Anyone can say Sr. Lucia or so and so said this. Give me the quote the supporting documentation. Not someone else’s hearsay. Sr. Lucia was an obedient daughter of the church and would never have expressed an opinion on something that was so controversial and caused such sufferings for the bishops involved.
Remember that Our Lady gave a sign at Guadalupe that brought the bishop to his knees. If Medjugorje was from God this sign should have taken place. If we have been truly converted to the church we would not be disobedient to legitimate church authority but submit our judgment to the church. Pride the sin of Adam and Eve repeats itself I know best I will follow my opinion.
Lord grant us unity and humility. Spera Rose, OCDS
In July 1988, Marija Pavlovic admitted that she had made a false claim of the Madonna's endorsement for a new religious community founded by Fr. Tomislav Vlasic. Her statement is on-line at my web site: http://chonak.tripod.com/documents/m19880711_pavlovic.html
In the first days of the apparition in 1981, Mirjana and Ivanka claimed that they had first seen the Lady while they were on the hill looking for a lost sheep; but in a tape-recorded interview conducted by one of the parish priests, they admitted that they'd actually gone out to have a smoke, a hobby they hid from their parents. (Fr. Sivric's book contains a transcript of the interview.) However, they switched back to the sheep story later on: for instance, for an interview with author Fr. Svetozar Kraljevic.
How do you like that? An apparition that owes its beginning to teens sneaking out for a butt!
First, it's surprising that no one mentioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church (i presume that we're catholic), esp.:
There will be no further Revelation
66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.
67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
That said, I'd like to say that I was at Medjugorje and it wasn't as fascinating as some posters would like it to be. As for the millions of conversions, it's a bit of a overstatement, I'd say if that'd be the truth, we'd be in eschaton by now.
Also, Medjugorje, at least here in Croatia is promoted by a newspaper "Vecernji list", part of austrian Styria group:
Lk 11:17 ipse autem ut vidit cogitationes eorum dixit eis omne regnum in se ipsum divisum desolatur et domus supra domum cadet
Even if these appariations are fake, some good can come out it, however we need to be wise that a little good does not justify what started with evil.
Look at James' post shortly after your own for a good rebuttal of criticisms.
So what you are saying is that b/c the visionaries didn't become poor cloistered religious that somehow they must be making the whole thing up? They don't have mansions and aren't driving around in Bentleys so don't exaggerate. They are middle class people with families and homes like average people.
There is nothing wrong with having a family...you are talking like it is some unworthy ocation. I find it inspirational that very holy people like these visionaries can also lead a day-to-day life that includes providing for their families. It's insulting to presume that you know what is better for them, and that somehow b/c in your judgment giving away all their possessions and becoming religious is more noble than having families, they must be liars.
The official vatican exorcist has already condemned these apparitions: http://cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=7452
Even an interview with Father Gabreille Amorth, a previous vatican exorcist, was doctored: it is a false fabrication from the proponents of this "demonically infested" proponents of the seers and all are held in the spell of the devil, providing a luxurious life of excess for these seers. So many are already being lead astray. The Queen of Peace has always been from the beginning of Christianity and is not new. What is new is this diabolical infestation on the truth to make it seem as new: The mir mir mir, in the clouds has always been a deception like the cigarettes these seers where smoking when these feelings took root: invented. How are these seers leading the flock astray? Look at the fruit of the seers LIVES: nothing about Marian humility but always about false pride, hatred (for those who judge there actions), lies, and sinful living in their OWN spiritual directors. That is not from the Queen of Peace, the mother of the humble King of Peace but from the Prince of Lies, Sin, and Pride: the DEVIL. Look at the sorrounding areas if there are any reconciliation or true conversions from the fellow brother muslims, jewish sects or orthodox christians...look at their own Bishops. Keep your eye on Christ and His apointed good and true shepherd, our Holy Father the Pope, the Magisterium, the local appointed Bishops and ArchBishops and not on any other including Cardinal Bertone. Pax Domini.
To Stjepan: Just because Google didn't tell you what their day jobs were, doesn't mean they don't work. And just because one might travel the world speaking doesn't mean that that isn't work. And to the mention of Benedict's Rule, their not monastics.
To Camoron and Valazquez: Why does Medjugorje so anger and/or worry you? If it really is "diabolical infestation" then why doesn't Pope Benedict come out and say so? Sounds like a sin of omission on his part if he doesn't. Or maybe we shouldn't be so quick to make a judgment since the Vatican (by which I mean the Pope and the CDF) have explicitly taken responsibility for making a judgment on Medjugorje. If this is a surprise, perhaps you should take a look at James' post above (9.10.2009 | 5:54am).
We can say what we want about what the Bishops have said, but the CDF has taken over the task of judgment.
We can say what we want about what the Pope Benedict has or has not said, but until he actually outright addresses the matter, we wait.
Anyone can have their own opinion, but do you think you're more prudent than the Pope?
To those doubters of the miracle of Medjugorje, I will simply say this: These 6 children in their teens and tweens not only stood up to Communist officials but even to this day do not waver in their story about what is happening to them. If this was something they made up and lied about, one of them would SURELY have caved in and confessed by now. Anyone with their own kids knows that 6 kids could not have remained faithful to a story for nearly 30 years unless it was true.
But to be very honest, we have a few wonderful Shrines to visit with a day's drive of Omaha, and the peace and joy in these small, local Shrines is just as refreshing as a European, week or two in what seems to be a more 'trendy' pilgrimage, for lack of a 'better' word. In fact, more can be done for my soul at the adoration chapel at my parish, or simply going early or staying after Mass and communing with Jesus. To look at Him and have Him look back at me...what is better than that? Frenetic wanderings hither, thither and yon? No. I kind of like the old cliche, 'Bloom where you're planted.'
Sooo...sure, 'Go if you're CALLED,' after much prayer, but to discern if you are CALLED is imperative, or it would seem so. Why "dis" Lourdes or other approved apparition sites in favor of 'alleged' apparitions/messages? That seems odd to me. I don't have the time to fuss about 'alleged' stuff. I've not got that long to learn my Faith as deeply as I'd like to, to be in a tizzy about this alleged goings on. It's almost like these approved sites/visions/messages are some how not 'happening' enough, or not 'with it' or 'too old school' and I for one don't like that attitude in any Catholic. Warning: "Poo Poo" La Salette or Fatima and Lourdes at your own risk around me!
And then remember this, you're not to 'push it' on others, or speak to others as if it is *ALL TRUE,* just b/c of what happened to you personally. Why? b/c you DO NOT know, that's why! No one is saying, and I'm not saying it's not *real,* but there is a master of disguise who does mighty impressive work. He's also the 'author of confusion.' Jus sayin... and he's waiting to devour gullible people. That's not a 'put down' to anyone, but we need to keep that in mind, no matter who we are, or where we go. We all must remember that even the 'elect' will be led astray as we are warned by Christ Himself. Hmm. Ok. That's all.
.
I disagree that the Pope has made up his mind about anything. To my knowledge, investigations are currently taking place. So we must wait.
I tend to lean towards these apparitions being authentice. I find it hard to believe that Satan is encouraging any kind of devotion to Marian apparitions and daily prayer of the Rosary, with the Rosary being the most effective tool against evil.
I also find it hard to believe that those of us that truly believe in God and in the authenticity of Lourdes and Fatima, would believe that God would allow a farce to take place for 3 decades and not send Our Lady to set things straight.



A demonic apparition, on the other hand...