ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON MEDJUGORJE
VATICAN CITY, 17 MAR 2010 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today published the following communique:
"An international investigative commission on Medjugorje has been constituted, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini and dependent upon the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Said commission - made up of cardinals, bishops, specialists and experts - will work privately, submitting the results of its work to the authority of the dicastery".
OP/INVESTIGATIVE COMMISSION/RUINI VIS 100317 (80)
ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ESTABLISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
By Richard Chonak on March 18, 2010 12:27 AM | No Comments
From the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 17 MAR 2010 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today published the following communique:
"An international investigative commission on Medjugorje has been constituted, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini and dependent upon the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Said commission - made up of cardinals, bishops, specialists and experts - will work privately, submitting the results of its work to the authority of the dicastery".
I assume that this is good news for Bishop Perić of Mostar, as he has wanted an intervention from the level of the Holy See for a long time. It has been twenty years since the last official investigation, held at the level of national bishops' conference in the former Yugoslavia. While the facts of the case's early years have not changed, the intervening years have allowed us to examine the historical record, and they have confirmed the wisdom of the bishops' decision to deny approval.
After the commission presents its report to CDF, there may eventually be a declaration on the case, containing a doctrinal judgment and pastoral directives.
The doctrinal judgment could be:
•"constat de non supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is confirmed to be not of supernatural origin
•"non constat de supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin
•no judgment, but cautious encouragement: "nihil obstat"
Because the phenomenon is ongoing, it cannot be given a fully favorable evaluation ("constat de supernaturalitate"), so the most favorable result theoretically available is to give cautious encouragement on the grounds that "nothing stands in the way".
I mention that last option as a theoretical possibility, but the many objective reasons against approval, and the relatively few and subjective reasons for approval make me expect that the doctrinal judgment will be negative. Readers unfamiliar with the case against the apparition can see the archives of this blog. Under the category of "Apparitions and Mystical Phenomena", there are translations of commentaries from experts and reports by Bishop Perić, which point out questionable aspects of the "messages".
In addition to a doctrinal evaluation, CDF can also issue pastoral directives. Possibly it might leave them up to a lower authority, either the local bishop or the Bosnia-Herzegovina bishops' conference.
In the case of a negative doctrinal evaluation, the current vague limitations could be left as is, or there might be new restrictions.
What cannot be forbidden totally is travel to Medjugorje and visits to the parish church: after all, it is a lawful parish, and Catholics are free to attend Mass there. Also, the long-standing devotional traditions of the country, such as the saying of seven Our Fathers, etc., are perfectly acceptable, and their spread to other places is unobjectionable.
What can be regulated or prohibited? Devotions based on the alleged apparition; the use of titles such as "Our Lady of Medjugorje"; the publishing of promotional material (in literature, through the mass media, on the internet); the use of Church facilities to promote the claims of supernatural revelations; the participation of the clergy in promotional events; perhaps even the participation by the laity in promotional events.
Promotional events which could be regulated or restricted may include prayer services, speeches, journeys to Medjugorje: perhaps any event based on a belief in the claimed supernatural origin of the phenomenon. If the Church wishes, She can regulate or forbid the formation of associations to promote belief in the apparitions: that is, She can forbid the various "Medjugorje centers" or "Marian centers" from promoting the claims of supernatural apparitions.
At present, foreign priests can celebrate Mass or hear confessions in Medjugorje without the local bishop's permission, merely by presenting proof (a celebret) to the pastor, attesting that they are in good standing with their own diocese or religious order. It is conceivable that this freedom could be restricted in some way.
Of course, these are only possibilities that indicate the range of actions that could be taken, depending on how permissive or restrictive an approach the authorities of the Church decide to take.
Is it possible that the Church might issue a split decision: say no to the apparition, impose some restrictions, and yet allow or encourage visitors to keep going to Medjugorje as a "place of prayer" or of "retreat"? Such a mixed verdict would be intended to smooth over difficulties among those faithful who are very attached to the alleged apparitions; it would seek to spare the poor country a loss of tourist revenue; it might seek to keep the reported "good fruits" going. But it seems there would be a fundamental inconsistency about it, and it opens Church authorities to an accusation of consequentialist decision-making.
Some voices, pro- and con-, are saying that the goal of the commission should be to render a decision before the 30th anniversary of the start of the affair: that is, before mid-June, or before this summer's planned youth festival in early August. I'm not holding my breath for that: if a commission with twenty members (so says papal spokesman Fr. Lombardi) reaches conclusions and writes a report that quickly, that may be the first real miracle to happen in connection with Medjugorje.
From the Vatican Information Service:
VATICAN CITY, 17 MAR 2010 (VIS) - The Holy See Press Office today published the following communique:
"An international investigative commission on Medjugorje has been constituted, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini and dependent upon the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Said commission - made up of cardinals, bishops, specialists and experts - will work privately, submitting the results of its work to the authority of the dicastery".
I assume that this is good news for Bishop Perić of Mostar, as he has wanted an intervention from the level of the Holy See for a long time. It has been twenty years since the last official investigation, held at the level of national bishops' conference in the former Yugoslavia. While the facts of the case's early years have not changed, the intervening years have allowed us to examine the historical record, and they have confirmed the wisdom of the bishops' decision to deny approval.
After the commission presents its report to CDF, there may eventually be a declaration on the case, containing a doctrinal judgment and pastoral directives.
The doctrinal judgment could be:
•"constat de non supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is confirmed to be not of supernatural origin
•"non constat de supernaturalitate": the phenomenon is not confirmed to be of supernatural origin
•no judgment, but cautious encouragement: "nihil obstat"
Because the phenomenon is ongoing, it cannot be given a fully favorable evaluation ("constat de supernaturalitate"), so the most favorable result theoretically available is to give cautious encouragement on the grounds that "nothing stands in the way".
I mention that last option as a theoretical possibility, but the many objective reasons against approval, and the relatively few and subjective reasons for approval make me expect that the doctrinal judgment will be negative. Readers unfamiliar with the case against the apparition can see the archives of this blog. Under the category of "Apparitions and Mystical Phenomena", there are translations of commentaries from experts and reports by Bishop Perić, which point out questionable aspects of the "messages".
In addition to a doctrinal evaluation, CDF can also issue pastoral directives. Possibly it might leave them up to a lower authority, either the local bishop or the Bosnia-Herzegovina bishops' conference.
In the case of a negative doctrinal evaluation, the current vague limitations could be left as is, or there might be new restrictions.
What cannot be forbidden totally is travel to Medjugorje and visits to the parish church: after all, it is a lawful parish, and Catholics are free to attend Mass there. Also, the long-standing devotional traditions of the country, such as the saying of seven Our Fathers, etc., are perfectly acceptable, and their spread to other places is unobjectionable.
What can be regulated or prohibited? Devotions based on the alleged apparition; the use of titles such as "Our Lady of Medjugorje"; the publishing of promotional material (in literature, through the mass media, on the internet); the use of Church facilities to promote the claims of supernatural revelations; the participation of the clergy in promotional events; perhaps even the participation by the laity in promotional events.
Promotional events which could be regulated or restricted may include prayer services, speeches, journeys to Medjugorje: perhaps any event based on a belief in the claimed supernatural origin of the phenomenon. If the Church wishes, She can regulate or forbid the formation of associations to promote belief in the apparitions: that is, She can forbid the various "Medjugorje centers" or "Marian centers" from promoting the claims of supernatural apparitions.
At present, foreign priests can celebrate Mass or hear confessions in Medjugorje without the local bishop's permission, merely by presenting proof (a celebret) to the pastor, attesting that they are in good standing with their own diocese or religious order. It is conceivable that this freedom could be restricted in some way.
Of course, these are only possibilities that indicate the range of actions that could be taken, depending on how permissive or restrictive an approach the authorities of the Church decide to take.
Is it possible that the Church might issue a split decision: say no to the apparition, impose some restrictions, and yet allow or encourage visitors to keep going to Medjugorje as a "place of prayer" or of "retreat"? Such a mixed verdict would be intended to smooth over difficulties among those faithful who are very attached to the alleged apparitions; it would seek to spare the poor country a loss of tourist revenue; it might seek to keep the reported "good fruits" going. But it seems there would be a fundamental inconsistency about it, and it opens Church authorities to an accusation of consequentialist decision-making.
Some voices, pro- and con-, are saying that the goal of the commission should be to render a decision before the 30th anniversary of the start of the affair: that is, before mid-June, or before this summer's planned youth festival in early August. I'm not holding my breath for that: if a commission with twenty members (so says papal spokesman Fr. Lombardi) reaches conclusions and writes a report that quickly, that may be the first real miracle to happen in connection with Medjugorje.
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
MEDJUGORJE—THE ACTUAL SITUATION (March 2010)
Both inside (and even outside) the Church, Medjugorje remains a “hot” item, with the divisions between believers and non-believers becoming ever larger. Believers tend to only see the “fruits of the tree” (Matt 7, 15-20): conversions, prayer groups, healings, vocations etc.
But let us read further in Matt, 7, 21-23 : 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'”
Non- believers tend to see especially the disobedience of the seers and of the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the rebellion against the bishops and the Pope, the fanaticism, the manipulations, lies, contradictions, the profiteering, the luxurious homes of the “seers”, the sex scandals of the Franciscans, the suspended Franciscan rebels involved in Medjugorje and their illegal sacraments.
Among the non- believers are people who have either been personally disillusioned with Medjugorje, with consequent suicides, divorces, psychiatric problems etc, or those who have read the many critical books and publications.
Among the believers two groups can be distinguished, the commercial and the not for profit. The commercial believers earn a great deal of money from their „goldmine”, e.g. the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the “seers”, the organisers of the pilgrimages, the sellers of videos, DVDs, books etc. Among the not for profit believers are those who naively accept everything and who only read books, periodicals and websites which are pro Medjugorje and who thus can be considered to be misled by their ignorance.
With both groups there are many believers who display a marked degree of fanaticism and obsessiveness. Medjugorje has become their all encompassing dogma which overrides everything else. This fanaticism overrode all common sense, critical evaluation, intellectual honesty, prudence and friendship. This attitude can only be explained by the influence of the “diabolos”, the evil spirit, the malign entity which everywhere sows enmity and disunity.
In June 1981, when Fr Jozo Zovko had thoroughly interviewed all the “seers”, he told them “You have not seen Mary: there is no sign, there is no message. You can only have seen Satan.” Yet he refused to perform an exorcism when a Franciscan colleague proposed that. Later on, first he and then Tomislav Vlasic began to manipulate and direct the “messages”. In fact, Jozo proposed to the “seers” that they should let him formulate the answers of the “Gospa” to the questions of the villagers.
All this has been recorded and can be read in “Ces 10 jours qui ont fait Med.” by J.Bouflet and “ Understanding Medugorje.” by D.Foley. I possess about 100 pages of transcripts from these recordings.
Those who have the courage and honesty to present the truth are insulted by fanatical believers (I have a list of 100 insults addressed to me) and are often demonised and even threatened.
What is the position of the official Church?
All the local bishops, (Zanic and Peric) of Mostar and all the official commissions of investigation were uniformly negative: “non constat de supernaturalitate” (supernaturality is not demonstrated)
When bishop Zanic tried to convince Pope John Paul II to condemn Medjugorje, the Pope was influenced by the Marialogue René Laurentin, by US president Reagan (who supported the Polish Solidarnosc and who was in contact with Marija Pavlovic), by Sister Emmanuel, bishop Hnilica and promoters of the Charismatic movement. However, as a phenomenologue the Pope was mainly interested in the positive outcomes of Medjugorje and no papal intervention was achieved.
On 27 June 1991, when the bishops conference of Yugoslavia was about to issue a strong condemnation of Medjugorje, the civil war in Yugoslavia had just broken out the day before. Indeed, on 10 April 1991 the declaration of Zadar announced clear pastoral guidelines which had been prepared by a special liturgical-pastoral committee on 17 June 1991. I possess the English translation:
1. The “seers” were ordered not to make any public declarations and to hand over their “messages “ only to the local bishop and the competent committee. 2. The parish priest of Medjugorje was ordered to ensure that no mention was made of “apparitions” or “messages” on public occasions or publications. 3. The faithful were directed to accept the guidance of their bishop.
This committee consisted of four bishops and four theologians. The bishops were Komarica from Banja Luka as president, Stanbuk from Hvar, Puljic from Sarajevo and Zanic from Mostar. The theologians were two Franciscans and two diocesan priests. The meeting took place in the basement of the presbytery in Medjugorje. It was anticipated that these directives would be approved and presented ten days later in the general session of the Yugoslav bishops conference of 27 June 1991.
However, on 25 June 1991 Slovenia and Croatia declared themselves independent of the federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and on 26 June 1991 the Serbian army first entered Slovenia and began the terrible civil war in Yugoslavia. At the same time, the State of Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and with it the Yugoslav bishops conference!
The general session of the bishops‟ conference on 27 June 1991 therefore did not take place and the anticipated directives were therefore never published. It is in any case difficult to prohibit pilgrimages and prayers in a time of war. The “seers” of Medjugorje and the Franciscans continued to propagate their “messages” throughout the whole world. The war had saved Medjugorje!
In the meantime, the non recognised Medjugorje became world famous and was on the way to compete with such recognised apparition sites as Lourdes and Fatima.
What action did Pope John Paul II take? Officially nothing. According to some, he did speak privately about the positive fruits of Medjugorje. Perhaps he hoped in his hart that Medjugorje was real, but realised in his mind that it could not be genuine. In a private letter of 22 July 1998 Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that all the positive aspects of Medjugorje which had been attributed to him and the Pope by René Laurentin, bishop Hnilica, Sr. Emmanuel, etc. were “frei erfunden” (fantasies). De facto the Pope, a deeply pious and patient man, as well as a typical polish fervent believer in the veneration of Mary, allowed in good faith some dubious practices to continue.
After the death of this Pope, it fell to Cardinal Ratzinger, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now as Pope Benedict, to make some resolute but painful decisions. He severely punished Fr Gino Burresi (a false stigmatist from San Vittorino Romano) and also Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionnaires of Christ. Fr Tomislav Vlasic of Medjugorje was suspended, laicised and dismissed from the Franciscan order. The rebellious Franciscans from Assisi were forced to obey their bishop. The prayer of the Lady of all Peoples of Amsterdam (which had imprimaturs from 70 bishops) was partially condemned (“who once was Mary”). Jozo Zovko was banned from Medjugorje. The Neo Catechumenate was reined in. The editor of the influential USA-magazine “America” was forced to resign etc etc. The list is far from complete.
This raises the question of why the present decisive Pope Benedict XVI has not yet condemned Medjugorje??? Perhaps because it might cause a schism? The Pope is trying to achieve closer ties with the Pius X fraternity of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, with the Orthodox Churches. with the Muslims, with the Jews etc.
Quite a number of Cardinals (think of the eccentric Schönborn of Vienna) and bishops have let themselves be persuaded by the manipulative siren song of Medjugorje, and this has caused a considerable amount of controversy in the Vatican. The problem of Medjugorje could and should have been solved long ago, but initially it was the influential Marialogue René Laurentin and later the civil war in Yugoslavia which saved Medjugorje from a boycott.
Medjugorje is Satan‟s masterpiece in these confusing end times. He incites pious believers against the bishop of Mostar because he refuses to recognise their “sanctuary”. The danger is that if the Pope will not recognise Medjugorje, many such fanatical believers may turn against the Pope. In that way, the small herd of still pious believers may separate from Rome and become a de facto sect.
The late Fr Slavko Barbaric said it in this way: “We Franciscans want to remain here.” The resistance of the rebellious Franciscans is in fact a resistance against the papal decree “Romanis Pontificibus” of Pope Paul VI of 6-6-1975. This decree ordered that the Franciscans should leave 50% of the parishes to the diocesan priests of the diocese Mostar. The consequence of the decree was an open rebellion from a great many hot-headed Franciscans. These rebels against Rome were supported by the messages of the “Gospa”. In this way, Medjugorje became a “deus ex machina” against Rome.
What has happened with the main manipulators of Medjugorje?
1°Fr Slavko Barbaric died on 24-11-2000 in disobedience on the Krizevac. Bishop Peric had forbidden him to live in Medjugorje. The next day he was “canonised” in a “message” from the Franciscan“Gospa”... 2°Fr Tomislav Vlasic is no longer a priest or a Franciscan 3°Fr Jozo Zovko has already been suspended three times and is now exiled from Medjugorje.
What has happened with the “seers”?
Milka Pavlovic and Ivan Ivankovic did not return to the apparition mountain of Podbrdo after only one apparition. The others all live in luxurious homes and lost their “vocation” and married. Some run their own hotel and work with American travel agencies.
What will the new Vatican investigation committee achieve? Let us hope it is able to combine genuine pastoral care for the millions of duped pilgrims with a true regard for the truth.
PRESS RELEASE
Vatican City, Mar 17, 2010 / 09:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A statement was released by the Holy See on Wednesday confirming the formation of a commission to investigate the “phenomenon” of Medjugorje.
The Vatican communiqué reads: “Under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, an international commission of investigation on Medjugorje has been constituted. Said Commission, composed of cardinals, bishops and experts will work in a reserved manner, subjecting the results of their studies to the authority of the Dicastery.”
Waterinckx Mark Bruges Belgium E-mail : markwaterinckx@skynet.be
Both inside (and even outside) the Church, Medjugorje remains a “hot” item, with the divisions between believers and non-believers becoming ever larger. Believers tend to only see the “fruits of the tree” (Matt 7, 15-20): conversions, prayer groups, healings, vocations etc.
But let us read further in Matt, 7, 21-23 : 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'”
Non- believers tend to see especially the disobedience of the seers and of the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the rebellion against the bishops and the Pope, the fanaticism, the manipulations, lies, contradictions, the profiteering, the luxurious homes of the “seers”, the sex scandals of the Franciscans, the suspended Franciscan rebels involved in Medjugorje and their illegal sacraments.
Among the non- believers are people who have either been personally disillusioned with Medjugorje, with consequent suicides, divorces, psychiatric problems etc, or those who have read the many critical books and publications.
Among the believers two groups can be distinguished, the commercial and the not for profit. The commercial believers earn a great deal of money from their „goldmine”, e.g. the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the “seers”, the organisers of the pilgrimages, the sellers of videos, DVDs, books etc. Among the not for profit believers are those who naively accept everything and who only read books, periodicals and websites which are pro Medjugorje and who thus can be considered to be misled by their ignorance.
With both groups there are many believers who display a marked degree of fanaticism and obsessiveness. Medjugorje has become their all encompassing dogma which overrides everything else. This fanaticism overrode all common sense, critical evaluation, intellectual honesty, prudence and friendship. This attitude can only be explained by the influence of the “diabolos”, the evil spirit, the malign entity which everywhere sows enmity and disunity.
In June 1981, when Fr Jozo Zovko had thoroughly interviewed all the “seers”, he told them “You have not seen Mary: there is no sign, there is no message. You can only have seen Satan.” Yet he refused to perform an exorcism when a Franciscan colleague proposed that. Later on, first he and then Tomislav Vlasic began to manipulate and direct the “messages”. In fact, Jozo proposed to the “seers” that they should let him formulate the answers of the “Gospa” to the questions of the villagers.
All this has been recorded and can be read in “Ces 10 jours qui ont fait Med.” by J.Bouflet and “ Understanding Medugorje.” by D.Foley. I possess about 100 pages of transcripts from these recordings.
Those who have the courage and honesty to present the truth are insulted by fanatical believers (I have a list of 100 insults addressed to me) and are often demonised and even threatened.
What is the position of the official Church?
All the local bishops, (Zanic and Peric) of Mostar and all the official commissions of investigation were uniformly negative: “non constat de supernaturalitate” (supernaturality is not demonstrated)
When bishop Zanic tried to convince Pope John Paul II to condemn Medjugorje, the Pope was influenced by the Marialogue René Laurentin, by US president Reagan (who supported the Polish Solidarnosc and who was in contact with Marija Pavlovic), by Sister Emmanuel, bishop Hnilica and promoters of the Charismatic movement. However, as a phenomenologue the Pope was mainly interested in the positive outcomes of Medjugorje and no papal intervention was achieved.
On 27 June 1991, when the bishops conference of Yugoslavia was about to issue a strong condemnation of Medjugorje, the civil war in Yugoslavia had just broken out the day before. Indeed, on 10 April 1991 the declaration of Zadar announced clear pastoral guidelines which had been prepared by a special liturgical-pastoral committee on 17 June 1991. I possess the English translation:
1. The “seers” were ordered not to make any public declarations and to hand over their “messages “ only to the local bishop and the competent committee. 2. The parish priest of Medjugorje was ordered to ensure that no mention was made of “apparitions” or “messages” on public occasions or publications. 3. The faithful were directed to accept the guidance of their bishop.
This committee consisted of four bishops and four theologians. The bishops were Komarica from Banja Luka as president, Stanbuk from Hvar, Puljic from Sarajevo and Zanic from Mostar. The theologians were two Franciscans and two diocesan priests. The meeting took place in the basement of the presbytery in Medjugorje. It was anticipated that these directives would be approved and presented ten days later in the general session of the Yugoslav bishops conference of 27 June 1991.
However, on 25 June 1991 Slovenia and Croatia declared themselves independent of the federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and on 26 June 1991 the Serbian army first entered Slovenia and began the terrible civil war in Yugoslavia. At the same time, the State of Yugoslavia ceased to exist, and with it the Yugoslav bishops conference!
The general session of the bishops‟ conference on 27 June 1991 therefore did not take place and the anticipated directives were therefore never published. It is in any case difficult to prohibit pilgrimages and prayers in a time of war. The “seers” of Medjugorje and the Franciscans continued to propagate their “messages” throughout the whole world. The war had saved Medjugorje!
In the meantime, the non recognised Medjugorje became world famous and was on the way to compete with such recognised apparition sites as Lourdes and Fatima.
What action did Pope John Paul II take? Officially nothing. According to some, he did speak privately about the positive fruits of Medjugorje. Perhaps he hoped in his hart that Medjugorje was real, but realised in his mind that it could not be genuine. In a private letter of 22 July 1998 Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that all the positive aspects of Medjugorje which had been attributed to him and the Pope by René Laurentin, bishop Hnilica, Sr. Emmanuel, etc. were “frei erfunden” (fantasies). De facto the Pope, a deeply pious and patient man, as well as a typical polish fervent believer in the veneration of Mary, allowed in good faith some dubious practices to continue.
After the death of this Pope, it fell to Cardinal Ratzinger, the former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now as Pope Benedict, to make some resolute but painful decisions. He severely punished Fr Gino Burresi (a false stigmatist from San Vittorino Romano) and also Marcial Maciel, the founder of the Legionnaires of Christ. Fr Tomislav Vlasic of Medjugorje was suspended, laicised and dismissed from the Franciscan order. The rebellious Franciscans from Assisi were forced to obey their bishop. The prayer of the Lady of all Peoples of Amsterdam (which had imprimaturs from 70 bishops) was partially condemned (“who once was Mary”). Jozo Zovko was banned from Medjugorje. The Neo Catechumenate was reined in. The editor of the influential USA-magazine “America” was forced to resign etc etc. The list is far from complete.
This raises the question of why the present decisive Pope Benedict XVI has not yet condemned Medjugorje??? Perhaps because it might cause a schism? The Pope is trying to achieve closer ties with the Pius X fraternity of the late Archbishop Lefebvre, with the Orthodox Churches. with the Muslims, with the Jews etc.
Quite a number of Cardinals (think of the eccentric Schönborn of Vienna) and bishops have let themselves be persuaded by the manipulative siren song of Medjugorje, and this has caused a considerable amount of controversy in the Vatican. The problem of Medjugorje could and should have been solved long ago, but initially it was the influential Marialogue René Laurentin and later the civil war in Yugoslavia which saved Medjugorje from a boycott.
Medjugorje is Satan‟s masterpiece in these confusing end times. He incites pious believers against the bishop of Mostar because he refuses to recognise their “sanctuary”. The danger is that if the Pope will not recognise Medjugorje, many such fanatical believers may turn against the Pope. In that way, the small herd of still pious believers may separate from Rome and become a de facto sect.
The late Fr Slavko Barbaric said it in this way: “We Franciscans want to remain here.” The resistance of the rebellious Franciscans is in fact a resistance against the papal decree “Romanis Pontificibus” of Pope Paul VI of 6-6-1975. This decree ordered that the Franciscans should leave 50% of the parishes to the diocesan priests of the diocese Mostar. The consequence of the decree was an open rebellion from a great many hot-headed Franciscans. These rebels against Rome were supported by the messages of the “Gospa”. In this way, Medjugorje became a “deus ex machina” against Rome.
What has happened with the main manipulators of Medjugorje?
1°Fr Slavko Barbaric died on 24-11-2000 in disobedience on the Krizevac. Bishop Peric had forbidden him to live in Medjugorje. The next day he was “canonised” in a “message” from the Franciscan“Gospa”... 2°Fr Tomislav Vlasic is no longer a priest or a Franciscan 3°Fr Jozo Zovko has already been suspended three times and is now exiled from Medjugorje.
What has happened with the “seers”?
Milka Pavlovic and Ivan Ivankovic did not return to the apparition mountain of Podbrdo after only one apparition. The others all live in luxurious homes and lost their “vocation” and married. Some run their own hotel and work with American travel agencies.
What will the new Vatican investigation committee achieve? Let us hope it is able to combine genuine pastoral care for the millions of duped pilgrims with a true regard for the truth.
PRESS RELEASE
Vatican City, Mar 17, 2010 / 09:56 am (CNA/EWTN News).- A statement was released by the Holy See on Wednesday confirming the formation of a commission to investigate the “phenomenon” of Medjugorje.
The Vatican communiqué reads: “Under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini, an international commission of investigation on Medjugorje has been constituted. Said Commission, composed of cardinals, bishops and experts will work in a reserved manner, subjecting the results of their studies to the authority of the Dicastery.”
Waterinckx Mark Bruges Belgium E-mail : markwaterinckx@skynet.be
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
"Medjugorje under the magnifying glass"
By Richard Chonak on March 18, 2010 4:29 PM
The Vatican's new study commission is conducting its research behind the scenes, but an open theological debate continues, mostly in Europe, regarding the alleged apparitions and supernatural messages of Medjugorje. Here at Catholic Light, I've been covering some of the discussion from the German Catholic press.
In his latest contribution, Fr. Manfred Hauke, a professor in the Catholic theology faculty in Lugano (Switzerland), has followed up on arguments by Medjugorje defenders Dcn. Thomas Müller and Dr. Christian Stelzer, who disputed some of Hauke's historical points. He offers a response with information from two experts:
•Medical expert Dr. Thilo Buchmüller explained that the reported healing of three-year-old Daniel Setka in 1981 was not proof of a miracle.
•Anthropologist Mart Bax responded to complaints about name discrepancies in his writings about ethnic violence near Medjugorje.
A third Medjugorje supporter, Fr. Ivan Dugandzic, OFM, a member of one of the previous commissions, offered his own defense which appeals to the theories of Karl Rahner. Professor Hauke responds to Dugandzic's argument as well. The article follows.
The events of Medjugorje under the magnifying glass
Fr. Hauke responds to Dr. Stelzer and Fr. Dugandzic
My interview about the "Medjugorje phenomenon" (Die Tagespost, February 2, 2010) found three rebuttals on the pages of kath.net, by Thomas Müller, deacon of the Cologne archdiocese (2/18), Christian Stelzer, M.D. ("Oasis of Peace", Vienna) (2/22), and Professor Ivan Dugandzic, OFM (2/22). I addressed the critique by Thomas Müller with a response published February 22, upon which Müller offered an apology (2/25). I was very happy to see his apology as well as his greater objectivity in argumentation. Thomas Müller took notice of my response, but thinks that in regard to two points I have "unintentionally repeated untruths from others... without sufficient examination", namely in relation to the "little war" with 140 dead, described by Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax, and also in relation to the "healing" of Daniel Setka announced by the "Gospa". Müller points to the contribution of Dr. Stelzer in support of both points. Therefore, I would be happy to return to these two topics, and also to the considerations of Fr. Dugandzic.
1.I did not have any second thoughts in relation to the data reported by Mart Bax, a professor of political anthropology at Amsterdam, because in the relevant international literature the author is considered a specialist on the political events in Bosnia-Herzegovina and I was not aware of any contrary representations. The investigation, mentioned by Dr. Stelzer, in a Croatian newspaper, which was repeated in the summer of 2008 in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard and in the Frankfurter Rundschau, was not known to me at the time of the interview in the Tagespost. In general, I do not make a claim to know "everything" about Medjugorje, but I do make an effort to carefully provide a basis for the assertions I make. The statements made in the newspaper reports and the information from Dr. Stelzer simply have not convinced me. Dr. Stelzer has apparently not consulted the book by Bax, but only the newspaper reports: otherwise he would have had to notice that the author (in order to protect himself and his sources) changed all the names of persons:
My informants in Bosnia, Hercegovina, and various Croatian communities abroad provided hospitality and multifarious help. For reasons of safety I will not mention them by name. Many of them are also personae dramatis in this book; therefore, I use fictitious names only" (M. Bax, Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia, Amsterdam 1995, XI).
Therefore, it does not make sense when Dr. Stelzer matches the pseudonym "Ljerka Sivric" with a lady in Medjugorje who by chance bears the same name and talks about a possible lawsuit. That would be more or less as if a person named James Bond in New York were to undertake a suit against the movie industry for depicting him as a killer and womanizer. In regard to the numerous atrocities committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it may be interesting to consult the homepage of the tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, based in The Hague. The relevant reports can be retrieved in multiple languages, and using the site's search function, the word "Medjugorje" brings up many results (www.icty.org). To look into them would be a job for a state's attorney, but not a theologian. In order to chase down the information about the "little war" as precisely as possible, I turned, with the help of a Dutch priest, to Mart Bax, and, through a Croatian acquaintance, to the Chancellor of the Mostar diocese. From Mostar came the answer that in Herzegovina the "little war" in Medjugorje described by Bax was not known. From Bax himself I received the following answer, which I reproduce here by the permission of the author (Bax's text is from 2/16):
Reactions of this sort [he is referring to Dr. Stelzer's letter to the editor in the Tagespost on 2/11] to the roughly two decades of work behind me, are not completely unknown to me. They almost always come from people who are interested in the area for some reason other than scholarly interest: e.g., religious, 'believers'. Motivated (actually handicapped) by such a one-sided outlook on reality, they are not willing to accept another perspective. Outraged, they reject it with designations such as "untrue", "lie", etc. And they think they can justify this with empirical proof that "it is not true". The names of people, families, places, events are incorrect. A fruitful exchange of ideas with such people - and there are many of them! - is difficult. Every discussion threatens to run aground in a "partisan war", which is discouraging. I remember the comment of an older colleague about such situations: "Never ask questions about dirty laundry: they just deny it". I am aware that in my work there are mistakes and gaps; they happen to every researcher, because of false information and/or skewed interpretation. Besides that, it is common in anthropological circles to intentionally make some changes in the reality described at times, in order to protect oneself and above all one's informants. Unfortunately, my health makes it impossible for me to take part in any further discussion at this time. I ask your forgiveness.
With this answer from Prof. Bax the historical question is not clarified beyond all doubt, but in any case in the future I will not make use of the statements he made about the "little war" in Medjugorje.
2.The situation in relation to the alleged miraculous healing of Daniel Setka, which was announced by the "Gospa" (June 29, 1981) is another matter. When I spoke of the healing that did not happen, this referred to a miraculous healing, which takes place all at once and completely. There is an interview about this event by the Franciscan Father Svetozar Kraljevic, who argues for the authenticity of the "apparitions", with the boy's parents; several medical documents from the years 1978, 1980, and 1981 are also provided. (S. Kraljevic, The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorje, 1981-1983: An Historical Account with Interviews, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1984, 181-185). This interview speaks only of a partial healing, which does not fulfill the criteria for miraculous healings of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. "In order that a healing be recognized as a miracle, these criteria require that the illness be unambiguously diagnosed, that it be organic, severe, and life-threatening, and that the healing happen suddenly and be complete and lasting" (T.H. Buchmüller, „Wunderheilungen als Zeugnis für die Marienerscheinungen in Lourdes": Forum Katholische Theologie 25, 3-2009, 218-223, cf. 221). I conveyed the information reported in Kraljevic to Dr. Thilo Buchmüller, who gave a presentation on miraculous healings from a medical point of view at the Mariological World Congress at Lourdes in 2008 (since published in the work just cited). Dr. Buchmüller writes to me:
I have the following information:
•birth of a boy on 9/21/1978 at the Mostar hospital
•at four days, shortness of breath and convulsions
•a one-month stay at the Mostar hospital
•diagnosis according to the discharge letter #1344/c of 10/20/1978: sepsis with convulsions, anemia, and hypoglycemia
•discharge and baptism
•visits of various physicians
•a one-month stay in West Germany without treatment (?!), only with exercises (!!)
•diagnosis from 5/6/1981, Sarajevo: suspected epilepsy, spastic hemiparesis [weakness on one side of the body] on the right side, CT and EEG with hospitalization recommended
•then two distinct reports follow about an improvement in movement with the appearance of independent speech by the boy at a restaurant
•and improved walking on level ground
•then further improvement of his mobility to the point of playing with a football
If I had received this patient report without any reference to Medjugorje, the course of the illness fits with a natural healing of this unfortunately very common illness profile through physical therapy (the most effective therapy for this illness profile). The age of the boy at the time of the healing would also be important.
In a hemiparesis on the right side, the left half of the brain is affected (probably occasioned by a post-natal infection or hypoglycemia), and because the motor speech center for right-handed people is located on the left side, an improvement of mobility on the right side of the body can also explain an improvement of motor speech. The difference between this and the miraculous healings in Lourdes is healing without any recovery time.
3.The contribution of Dr. Stelzer has apparently not yet taken notice of my reply to Thomas Müller, to which I shall refer for most points. He calls into question my observation on the negative consequences of the "apparitions" in relation to two Franciscans who, citing the "Gospa", set themselves against the canonically legitimate directives of the local Ordinary in relation to their pastoral activity. Stelzer writes: "Yet it is a fact that the 1982 judgment against both Franciscan fathers was lifted by the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of the Holy See, in March 1993." It is correct that the 1982 judgment against both Franciscan fathers was lifted by the Apostolic Signatura in March 1993, but only due to a procedural error. The disobedience by both Fathers at the time is not justified by this. Later one of the two Franciscan fathers got married. The disobedience against the legitimate directives of the bishop is unequivocally a negative sign in relation to the authenticity of the apparitions.
Dr. Stelzer asks me why I have not contacted the "seers" directly. Well, there are tape-recording transcripts of the statements of the "seers" from the first days of the "apparitions", in which the young people speak for themselves. These earliest historical witnesses, in which the whole problematics of the phenomenon clearly come to expression, are more important than later statements, but are ignored by most supporters of the "apparitions". In addition, some of the seers have demonstrably lied (Vicka Ivankovic, Marija Pavlovic, Ivan Dragicevic), which does not exactly encourage me to question them personally. Even a long-time Medjugorje apologist such as Rene Laurentin freely admits the repeated lying and as justification, cites a prelate with these words: "I have lied many times in my life, but always for the good of the Church" (Dernières nouvelles 17, 1998, S. 64, cited in R. Franken, Eine Reise nach Medjugorje, Venlo-Antwerpen 2000, 118). I do not believe that lying can be reconciled with a commitment to Christ, the Truth in person.
4.The contribution of Fr. Dugandzic laudably goes into the theological problematics of the messages, of which he is obviously well aware, through his knowledge of the source materials from Sivric. Yet he does not present a single concrete example, but appeals to the well-known fact that a heavenly revelation is presented by a human subject in a way corresponding to his or her personal assumptions. But are the content-related questions about the "messages" of the "Gospa" resolved by this?
Fr. Dugandzic is certainly aware as a biblical scholar of the criteria that are given in Sacred Scripture for the authenticity of prophetic words. Among them is the fulfillment of predictions: "How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken? Thus you will know: when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and his word is not fulfilled and is not confirmed, then it is a word that the Lord did not speak" (Dt. 18:22). An example which I mentioned in my interview addresses the announcement by the "Gospa" on June 30, 1981, that the "apparitions" would be over in three days. This statement by the "seers" was even confirmed in the tape-recording transcripts by both of the social-workers who had taken a ride with the young people that morning and were witnesses of how the "seers" repeated the words "three more times" after the vision (cf. the presentation of utterances in the source question of a Medjugorje supporter, Daria Klanac, Aux sources de Medjugorje, Montréal 1998, 174.184; see also I. Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, Saint-François-du-Lac (Québec) 1989, 361.371). This utterance therefore apparently goes back to the visionary experience itself of the "Gospa". But is the entity making this announcement really the Mother of God? Would the Virgin Mary make a false prediction? Herein comes the contradiction between the utterance "three more days" and the "Gospa's" answer to the question posed the preceding day, how long she wanted to stay "with us": "As long as you want, as long as you wish!" (cf. Klanac, 135; Sivric, Hidden Side, 319). Is it worthy of belief that the Mother of God is making the duration of her apparitions dependent on the wishes of the seers? Could it be that the "seers" have let themselves be deceived by a spirit that is not the Virgin Mary?
There is furthermore the problematics of various messages attributed to the Mother of God. Kath.net published a beautiful piece on March 7, which rightly emphasizes, "The religions are not equal." But what did the Gospa say on October 1, 1981 to the question, "Are all religions good?" "All the religions are equal before God." Rene Laurentin himself has great difficulties with this utterance; he struggles for six pages to bend it so that it becomes acceptable, but can do nothing more than to call it "ambiguous" (cf. R. Laurentin, Message et pédagogie de Marie à Medjugorje. Corpus chronologique des messages, Paris, 1988, 156.317-322). The Mostar Diocese published further examples [here in Italian] [here in an unofficial English translation] from the official chronicle of the "Apparitions" on its web site and related them to a statement by Cardinal Schönborn, according to which there were open questions about Medjugorje.
Fr. Dugandzic apparently sees a way to get out of such problems in the views of Karl Rahner, which lead to a radical subjectivizing of the content-bearing utterances and of what is seen. Dugandzic reproaches Sivric for "theological naïveté", on the ground that he is ignorant of Rahner's relevant book. Has it remained hidden from Dugandzic that Sivric goes into Rahner extensively? (cf. Sivric, Hidden Side, 384-388). I personally consider Rahner's contribution insufficient (cf. my handbook: Introduzione alla Mariologia, Lugano, 2008, 311f.) If Marian apparitions only present the "God-wrought" subjectivity of the seer and not any objectively valid content, then they are at base superfluous.
5.Discussion of the Medjugorje phenomenon should objectively present the entire problematics from a Catholic point of view, without thereby setting up prohibitions to thought or reacting allergically to critical voices. Not only does the statement mentioned above from Cardinal Schönborn indicate that there are problems ("there are open questions"), but also an Italian interview with René Laurentin from 2008, in which the best-known theological promoter of the "Marian apparitions" of Medjugorje emphasizes, to the great astonishment of the journalist, that he had never asserted that the apparitions were genuine ("non ho mai espresso giudizi sull'autenticità o meno delle apparizioni" [English version available here.]).
According to reports, a Commission is being prepared by the Holy See, which should deal more closely with the Medjugorje phenomenon. If this Commission should come to the conclusion that the visionary experiences are not supernatural, then such a result need not disturb Catholic Christians. The Catholic faith does not stand and fall with the authenticity of disputed Marian apparitions. The investigation of the relevant problems could also lead to dignify the authentic Marian apparitions (such as at Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima) with greater thankfulness.
By Richard Chonak on March 18, 2010 4:29 PM
The Vatican's new study commission is conducting its research behind the scenes, but an open theological debate continues, mostly in Europe, regarding the alleged apparitions and supernatural messages of Medjugorje. Here at Catholic Light, I've been covering some of the discussion from the German Catholic press.
In his latest contribution, Fr. Manfred Hauke, a professor in the Catholic theology faculty in Lugano (Switzerland), has followed up on arguments by Medjugorje defenders Dcn. Thomas Müller and Dr. Christian Stelzer, who disputed some of Hauke's historical points. He offers a response with information from two experts:
•Medical expert Dr. Thilo Buchmüller explained that the reported healing of three-year-old Daniel Setka in 1981 was not proof of a miracle.
•Anthropologist Mart Bax responded to complaints about name discrepancies in his writings about ethnic violence near Medjugorje.
A third Medjugorje supporter, Fr. Ivan Dugandzic, OFM, a member of one of the previous commissions, offered his own defense which appeals to the theories of Karl Rahner. Professor Hauke responds to Dugandzic's argument as well. The article follows.
The events of Medjugorje under the magnifying glass
Fr. Hauke responds to Dr. Stelzer and Fr. Dugandzic
My interview about the "Medjugorje phenomenon" (Die Tagespost, February 2, 2010) found three rebuttals on the pages of kath.net, by Thomas Müller, deacon of the Cologne archdiocese (2/18), Christian Stelzer, M.D. ("Oasis of Peace", Vienna) (2/22), and Professor Ivan Dugandzic, OFM (2/22). I addressed the critique by Thomas Müller with a response published February 22, upon which Müller offered an apology (2/25). I was very happy to see his apology as well as his greater objectivity in argumentation. Thomas Müller took notice of my response, but thinks that in regard to two points I have "unintentionally repeated untruths from others... without sufficient examination", namely in relation to the "little war" with 140 dead, described by Dutch anthropologist Mart Bax, and also in relation to the "healing" of Daniel Setka announced by the "Gospa". Müller points to the contribution of Dr. Stelzer in support of both points. Therefore, I would be happy to return to these two topics, and also to the considerations of Fr. Dugandzic.
1.I did not have any second thoughts in relation to the data reported by Mart Bax, a professor of political anthropology at Amsterdam, because in the relevant international literature the author is considered a specialist on the political events in Bosnia-Herzegovina and I was not aware of any contrary representations. The investigation, mentioned by Dr. Stelzer, in a Croatian newspaper, which was repeated in the summer of 2008 in the Austrian newspaper Der Standard and in the Frankfurter Rundschau, was not known to me at the time of the interview in the Tagespost. In general, I do not make a claim to know "everything" about Medjugorje, but I do make an effort to carefully provide a basis for the assertions I make. The statements made in the newspaper reports and the information from Dr. Stelzer simply have not convinced me. Dr. Stelzer has apparently not consulted the book by Bax, but only the newspaper reports: otherwise he would have had to notice that the author (in order to protect himself and his sources) changed all the names of persons:
My informants in Bosnia, Hercegovina, and various Croatian communities abroad provided hospitality and multifarious help. For reasons of safety I will not mention them by name. Many of them are also personae dramatis in this book; therefore, I use fictitious names only" (M. Bax, Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia, Amsterdam 1995, XI).
Therefore, it does not make sense when Dr. Stelzer matches the pseudonym "Ljerka Sivric" with a lady in Medjugorje who by chance bears the same name and talks about a possible lawsuit. That would be more or less as if a person named James Bond in New York were to undertake a suit against the movie industry for depicting him as a killer and womanizer. In regard to the numerous atrocities committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina, it may be interesting to consult the homepage of the tribunal for war crimes in the former Yugoslavia, based in The Hague. The relevant reports can be retrieved in multiple languages, and using the site's search function, the word "Medjugorje" brings up many results (www.icty.org). To look into them would be a job for a state's attorney, but not a theologian. In order to chase down the information about the "little war" as precisely as possible, I turned, with the help of a Dutch priest, to Mart Bax, and, through a Croatian acquaintance, to the Chancellor of the Mostar diocese. From Mostar came the answer that in Herzegovina the "little war" in Medjugorje described by Bax was not known. From Bax himself I received the following answer, which I reproduce here by the permission of the author (Bax's text is from 2/16):
Reactions of this sort [he is referring to Dr. Stelzer's letter to the editor in the Tagespost on 2/11] to the roughly two decades of work behind me, are not completely unknown to me. They almost always come from people who are interested in the area for some reason other than scholarly interest: e.g., religious, 'believers'. Motivated (actually handicapped) by such a one-sided outlook on reality, they are not willing to accept another perspective. Outraged, they reject it with designations such as "untrue", "lie", etc. And they think they can justify this with empirical proof that "it is not true". The names of people, families, places, events are incorrect. A fruitful exchange of ideas with such people - and there are many of them! - is difficult. Every discussion threatens to run aground in a "partisan war", which is discouraging. I remember the comment of an older colleague about such situations: "Never ask questions about dirty laundry: they just deny it". I am aware that in my work there are mistakes and gaps; they happen to every researcher, because of false information and/or skewed interpretation. Besides that, it is common in anthropological circles to intentionally make some changes in the reality described at times, in order to protect oneself and above all one's informants. Unfortunately, my health makes it impossible for me to take part in any further discussion at this time. I ask your forgiveness.
With this answer from Prof. Bax the historical question is not clarified beyond all doubt, but in any case in the future I will not make use of the statements he made about the "little war" in Medjugorje.
2.The situation in relation to the alleged miraculous healing of Daniel Setka, which was announced by the "Gospa" (June 29, 1981) is another matter. When I spoke of the healing that did not happen, this referred to a miraculous healing, which takes place all at once and completely. There is an interview about this event by the Franciscan Father Svetozar Kraljevic, who argues for the authenticity of the "apparitions", with the boy's parents; several medical documents from the years 1978, 1980, and 1981 are also provided. (S. Kraljevic, The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medjugorje, 1981-1983: An Historical Account with Interviews, Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago 1984, 181-185). This interview speaks only of a partial healing, which does not fulfill the criteria for miraculous healings of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. "In order that a healing be recognized as a miracle, these criteria require that the illness be unambiguously diagnosed, that it be organic, severe, and life-threatening, and that the healing happen suddenly and be complete and lasting" (T.H. Buchmüller, „Wunderheilungen als Zeugnis für die Marienerscheinungen in Lourdes": Forum Katholische Theologie 25, 3-2009, 218-223, cf. 221). I conveyed the information reported in Kraljevic to Dr. Thilo Buchmüller, who gave a presentation on miraculous healings from a medical point of view at the Mariological World Congress at Lourdes in 2008 (since published in the work just cited). Dr. Buchmüller writes to me:
I have the following information:
•birth of a boy on 9/21/1978 at the Mostar hospital
•at four days, shortness of breath and convulsions
•a one-month stay at the Mostar hospital
•diagnosis according to the discharge letter #1344/c of 10/20/1978: sepsis with convulsions, anemia, and hypoglycemia
•discharge and baptism
•visits of various physicians
•a one-month stay in West Germany without treatment (?!), only with exercises (!!)
•diagnosis from 5/6/1981, Sarajevo: suspected epilepsy, spastic hemiparesis [weakness on one side of the body] on the right side, CT and EEG with hospitalization recommended
•then two distinct reports follow about an improvement in movement with the appearance of independent speech by the boy at a restaurant
•and improved walking on level ground
•then further improvement of his mobility to the point of playing with a football
If I had received this patient report without any reference to Medjugorje, the course of the illness fits with a natural healing of this unfortunately very common illness profile through physical therapy (the most effective therapy for this illness profile). The age of the boy at the time of the healing would also be important.
In a hemiparesis on the right side, the left half of the brain is affected (probably occasioned by a post-natal infection or hypoglycemia), and because the motor speech center for right-handed people is located on the left side, an improvement of mobility on the right side of the body can also explain an improvement of motor speech. The difference between this and the miraculous healings in Lourdes is healing without any recovery time.
3.The contribution of Dr. Stelzer has apparently not yet taken notice of my reply to Thomas Müller, to which I shall refer for most points. He calls into question my observation on the negative consequences of the "apparitions" in relation to two Franciscans who, citing the "Gospa", set themselves against the canonically legitimate directives of the local Ordinary in relation to their pastoral activity. Stelzer writes: "Yet it is a fact that the 1982 judgment against both Franciscan fathers was lifted by the Apostolic Signatura, the highest court of the Holy See, in March 1993." It is correct that the 1982 judgment against both Franciscan fathers was lifted by the Apostolic Signatura in March 1993, but only due to a procedural error. The disobedience by both Fathers at the time is not justified by this. Later one of the two Franciscan fathers got married. The disobedience against the legitimate directives of the bishop is unequivocally a negative sign in relation to the authenticity of the apparitions.
Dr. Stelzer asks me why I have not contacted the "seers" directly. Well, there are tape-recording transcripts of the statements of the "seers" from the first days of the "apparitions", in which the young people speak for themselves. These earliest historical witnesses, in which the whole problematics of the phenomenon clearly come to expression, are more important than later statements, but are ignored by most supporters of the "apparitions". In addition, some of the seers have demonstrably lied (Vicka Ivankovic, Marija Pavlovic, Ivan Dragicevic), which does not exactly encourage me to question them personally. Even a long-time Medjugorje apologist such as Rene Laurentin freely admits the repeated lying and as justification, cites a prelate with these words: "I have lied many times in my life, but always for the good of the Church" (Dernières nouvelles 17, 1998, S. 64, cited in R. Franken, Eine Reise nach Medjugorje, Venlo-Antwerpen 2000, 118). I do not believe that lying can be reconciled with a commitment to Christ, the Truth in person.
4.The contribution of Fr. Dugandzic laudably goes into the theological problematics of the messages, of which he is obviously well aware, through his knowledge of the source materials from Sivric. Yet he does not present a single concrete example, but appeals to the well-known fact that a heavenly revelation is presented by a human subject in a way corresponding to his or her personal assumptions. But are the content-related questions about the "messages" of the "Gospa" resolved by this?
Fr. Dugandzic is certainly aware as a biblical scholar of the criteria that are given in Sacred Scripture for the authenticity of prophetic words. Among them is the fulfillment of predictions: "How can we recognize a word that the Lord has not spoken? Thus you will know: when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and his word is not fulfilled and is not confirmed, then it is a word that the Lord did not speak" (Dt. 18:22). An example which I mentioned in my interview addresses the announcement by the "Gospa" on June 30, 1981, that the "apparitions" would be over in three days. This statement by the "seers" was even confirmed in the tape-recording transcripts by both of the social-workers who had taken a ride with the young people that morning and were witnesses of how the "seers" repeated the words "three more times" after the vision (cf. the presentation of utterances in the source question of a Medjugorje supporter, Daria Klanac, Aux sources de Medjugorje, Montréal 1998, 174.184; see also I. Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, Saint-François-du-Lac (Québec) 1989, 361.371). This utterance therefore apparently goes back to the visionary experience itself of the "Gospa". But is the entity making this announcement really the Mother of God? Would the Virgin Mary make a false prediction? Herein comes the contradiction between the utterance "three more days" and the "Gospa's" answer to the question posed the preceding day, how long she wanted to stay "with us": "As long as you want, as long as you wish!" (cf. Klanac, 135; Sivric, Hidden Side, 319). Is it worthy of belief that the Mother of God is making the duration of her apparitions dependent on the wishes of the seers? Could it be that the "seers" have let themselves be deceived by a spirit that is not the Virgin Mary?
There is furthermore the problematics of various messages attributed to the Mother of God. Kath.net published a beautiful piece on March 7, which rightly emphasizes, "The religions are not equal." But what did the Gospa say on October 1, 1981 to the question, "Are all religions good?" "All the religions are equal before God." Rene Laurentin himself has great difficulties with this utterance; he struggles for six pages to bend it so that it becomes acceptable, but can do nothing more than to call it "ambiguous" (cf. R. Laurentin, Message et pédagogie de Marie à Medjugorje. Corpus chronologique des messages, Paris, 1988, 156.317-322). The Mostar Diocese published further examples [here in Italian] [here in an unofficial English translation] from the official chronicle of the "Apparitions" on its web site and related them to a statement by Cardinal Schönborn, according to which there were open questions about Medjugorje.
Fr. Dugandzic apparently sees a way to get out of such problems in the views of Karl Rahner, which lead to a radical subjectivizing of the content-bearing utterances and of what is seen. Dugandzic reproaches Sivric for "theological naïveté", on the ground that he is ignorant of Rahner's relevant book. Has it remained hidden from Dugandzic that Sivric goes into Rahner extensively? (cf. Sivric, Hidden Side, 384-388). I personally consider Rahner's contribution insufficient (cf. my handbook: Introduzione alla Mariologia, Lugano, 2008, 311f.) If Marian apparitions only present the "God-wrought" subjectivity of the seer and not any objectively valid content, then they are at base superfluous.
5.Discussion of the Medjugorje phenomenon should objectively present the entire problematics from a Catholic point of view, without thereby setting up prohibitions to thought or reacting allergically to critical voices. Not only does the statement mentioned above from Cardinal Schönborn indicate that there are problems ("there are open questions"), but also an Italian interview with René Laurentin from 2008, in which the best-known theological promoter of the "Marian apparitions" of Medjugorje emphasizes, to the great astonishment of the journalist, that he had never asserted that the apparitions were genuine ("non ho mai espresso giudizi sull'autenticità o meno delle apparizioni" [English version available here.]).
According to reports, a Commission is being prepared by the Holy See, which should deal more closely with the Medjugorje phenomenon. If this Commission should come to the conclusion that the visionary experiences are not supernatural, then such a result need not disturb Catholic Christians. The Catholic faith does not stand and fall with the authenticity of disputed Marian apparitions. The investigation of the relevant problems could also lead to dignify the authentic Marian apparitions (such as at Guadalupe, Lourdes, and Fatima) with greater thankfulness.
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales
INVESTIGATIVE COMMISSION ON MEDJUGORJE MEETS
VATICAN CITY, 13 APR 2010 (VIS) - The Press Office of the Holy See today published the following communique:
"The International Investigative Commission on Medjugorje met for its first session on 26 March 2010."
"The Commission, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, His Holiness' vicar general emeritus for the diocese of Rome, is composed of the following members: Cardinal Jozef Tomko, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples; Cardinal Vinko Puljic, Archbishop of Vrhbosna, president of the Bishops' Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina; Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb and vice-president of the Council of European Bishops' Conference; Cardinal Julian Herranz, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Archbishop Angelo Amato, S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Msgr. Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in Social Psychiatry; Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy; Fr. David Maria Jaeger, O.F.M., consultant to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Fr. Zdzislaw Jozef Kijas, O.F.M. Conv., relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M., teacher of Mariology at the Pontifical Marianum Faculty of Theology; and Fr. Achim Schutz, professor of Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University as secretary. Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, an officer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith serves as additional secretary."
"Other experts have also participated in the commission's work: Fr. Franjo Topic, professor of Fundamental Theology in Sarajevo; Fr. Mijo Nikic, S.J., professor of Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Philosophical and Theological Institute of the Society of Jesus in Zagreb, Fr. Mihaly Szentmartoni, S.J., professor of Spirituality at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and Sr. Veronica Nela Gaspar, professor of Theology at Rijeka."
"As announced previously, the work of the Commission will be carried out with the utmost reserve. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for study."
OP/ VIS 20100413 (320)
VATICAN CITY, 13 APR 2010 (VIS) - The Press Office of the Holy See today published the following communique:
"The International Investigative Commission on Medjugorje met for its first session on 26 March 2010."
"The Commission, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, His Holiness' vicar general emeritus for the diocese of Rome, is composed of the following members: Cardinal Jozef Tomko, prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples; Cardinal Vinko Puljic, Archbishop of Vrhbosna, president of the Bishops' Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina; Cardinal Josip Bozanic, Archbishop of Zagreb and vice-president of the Council of European Bishops' Conference; Cardinal Julian Herranz, president emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Archbishop Angelo Amato, S.D.B., prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Msgr. Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in Social Psychiatry; Msgr. Pierangelo Sequeri, professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy; Fr. David Maria Jaeger, O.F.M., consultant to the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Fr. Zdzislaw Jozef Kijas, O.F.M. Conv., relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, O.S.M., teacher of Mariology at the Pontifical Marianum Faculty of Theology; and Fr. Achim Schutz, professor of Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University as secretary. Msgr. Krzysztof Nykiel, an officer of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith serves as additional secretary."
"Other experts have also participated in the commission's work: Fr. Franjo Topic, professor of Fundamental Theology in Sarajevo; Fr. Mijo Nikic, S.J., professor of Psychology and Psychology of Religion at the Philosophical and Theological Institute of the Society of Jesus in Zagreb, Fr. Mihaly Szentmartoni, S.J., professor of Spirituality at the Pontifical Gregorian University, and Sr. Veronica Nela Gaspar, professor of Theology at Rijeka."
"As announced previously, the work of the Commission will be carried out with the utmost reserve. Its conclusions will be submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for study."
OP/ VIS 20100413 (320)
Devotion to the souls in Purgatory contains in itself all the works of mercy, which supernaturalized by a spirit of faith, should merit us Heaven. de Sales