Before I begin this post I want everyone to take a few deep breaths and try your best to remain calm. I am going to speak glancingly about a word that is verboten on this blog. I am going to violate my own rule but this is to make an entirely different point. I will mention the M—- Word.
Now now, I told you. Remain calm. Whenever I mention the M word people go crazy. Last year I mentioned it in a joke post entitled “Palin Visits Medjugorje” Of course, it was Michael Palin of Monty Python fame and not the governor of Alaska. For even making such a joke I got nasty emails and one anonymous person said they removed us from their blogroll.
I mention this because I know it is difficult for some people to control their emotions when this topic is mentioned and they come from both sides. My post is not really about the M word but rather about reporting on it.
If you haven’t heard, a Balkan Cardinal said that he believes that the “Vatican” will issue guidance on Medjugorje. I suppose, if true, that this is a good thing. Clarity is important. I suspect that even if some sort of guidance is issued it will not be the definitive statement that either side is looking for and the debate will continue.
All that said, I was struck when reading the article by Reuters just how BAD the reporting is. I mean really bad. The article itself does nothing to clarify and actually obscures the facts surrounding the site. Why is it that big news agencies such as Reuters gives religion assignments to reporters who clearly know nothing about the religion they cover? This is particularly true when they cover the Church.
Can somebody please explain to Mr. Tanner, the author of the piece, what the word “Vatican” means and what it doesn’t mean. Better yet, why don’t we ban the use of the word Vatican in Reuters stories altogether. It is clear that they do not know how to use it.
Further, the report is filled with factual errors that would be plain to anyone remotely familiar with events and even to those disinclined to believe in the claims. You do no one a favor when you get your facts wrong and incorrectly assign actions to “the Vatican” out of ignorance.
Whether you believe that Medjugorje is heaven on earth or a diabolical fraud, I think we can all agree on one thing. Clarity is needed. This Reuters story, due to its ham handed and ignorant reporting, did not help.
October 8, 2009 at 7:11 am
Hey, Palin never visited Medjugorjie! (and neither did Our Lady…)
What is sickening to me is how Medj makes seemingly good Catholics into dissenters. The church has already made its decision here. I doubt this "clarification" would do any more than the old one, which is to say, "we don't believe this is legitimate, but hey…if it gets you to come back to church then whatever."
What I don't understand is that there are so many LEGITIMATE and ACCEPTED apparitions and messages. What on earth is it that makes Medj so appealing? Why are so many seemingly good Catholics turning their back on the magesterium on this?
October 8, 2009 at 4:05 pm
The only party responsible for a lack of clarity is the Church, unfortunately. They've let this scam go on forever and a day, scandalizing anyone who scratches the surface. That's why so many good people got caught up in it – too little action too late. Why? The usual money, politics, greed… one palm greasing another.
It is a powerful lesson to learn for the future. The amount of money involved in an apparition is astronomical, and the enticement for an impoverished town to participlate in the scam is overwhelming. But a scam is a scam, and it always hurts more than helps to follow a "wait and see" course of action. Before you know it, generations are caught up in it. It reminds me of the masses swarming around that the Kaaba in Mecca. A scam for the ages.
October 8, 2009 at 5:11 pm
In the book "The Miracle Detectives," Fr. Groeschel has an interesting take on The Place That Shall Not Be Named. He suspects that there might have been some form of apparition at the very beginning, but that it very quickly changed into "devout hysteria."
October 8, 2009 at 5:46 pm
I think news services don't pay for good religion reporting because it's not profitable. Sports – profitable. Politics – profitable. Weather – judging by the fact that half the local TV news seems to be about the weather I'd guess it's profitable too.
Religion reporting requires depth on both the part of the journalist and the readers. I'd be willing to guess that a poorly reported religion story is more often than not a more sensational and/or polarizing story than a well-reported one. Sensationalism and stories that get people riled up are what sells papers (or advertising or whatever it is they use to turn a profit).
October 8, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I tend to sympathize with the Church here. As implausible as the M-events appear, proving a negative is tough, and God sometimes acts in strange ways. Recall the skepticism that surrounded Bernadette and Lourdes in the early days.
It's one thing for the Church to say that the report of an apparition is not approved, and even that it is suspect. It is quite another to declare it to be false, and I can see why the Church is reluctant to do that.
October 8, 2009 at 8:37 pm
With all due respect, I don't believe that Fr. Groeschel is correct that there might have been an apparition at the beginning. I can't believe that Our Lady would have anything to do with something that has been so divisive and continues to divide. There is also an aura of disobedience that is associated with all the players involved.
So, I am on the 'diabolical fraud' side of the argument.
Suzanne
October 9, 2009 at 2:00 am
Wow.
I've been. I've met visionaries. No heresy. No dissent. Normal, well-adjusted human beings. Not sure how the five simple perscriptions from M are diabolical either.
Pray rosary
Fast
Go To Mass
Go To Confession
Read Scripture
If people want to burn their retinas or squeeze beads till they turn gold they're prone to do it for any old reason. Don't recall those things being proscribed through the visionaries.
Chill out, people
October 9, 2009 at 2:42 am
I think Jimmy Akin has an entire section on bad religious reporting….
http://www.jimmyakin.org/news_media/
October 9, 2009 at 4:24 pm
You should read Fr. Groeschel's "A Still Small Voice" about the varieties of reported revelations. In "Miracle Detectives," he points out that a revelation may still be genuine, but be incorrectly reported or even corrupted due to human action. He cites the miserable lives of several genuine visionaries, as well as St. Catherine Laboure's simple admission (when confronted by some of her incorrect prophecies) that "she" (meaning St. Catherine) "got it wrong." Fr. Groeschel's point is that the revelations and visions are not sanctifying of the visionary in and of themselves. There is still a human agency involved, and that human agency can misconstrue or even misuse that revelation.
He makes no declaration that "M" is genuine, mind you. But he suspects there might have been some shared visionary experience that was later warped. He's particularly appalled by the behavior of the Franciscans.
October 9, 2009 at 8:37 pm
The warping started early — if the "apparition" wasn't just a prank to begin with. Tomislav Vlasic moved into Medjugorje within a week after the thing started, and made himself the mouthpiece of the "apparition".
But yes, there certainly were changes later, too, as Vlasic thought up new wacko ideas: e.g., having Our Lady change her birthday from Sept 8 to Aug 5, three years into the thing:
(shameless self-blog-promotion:)
http://catholiclight.stblogs.org/archives/2009/10/medjugorje-cont.html
October 10, 2009 at 1:50 am
Anonymous, all the things you mentioned are just swell. And as it happens, the church has been preaching them for some 2,000 odd years now, yeah, hard to argue with those particular messages.
The Medjugorje story was just too fishy to begin with (remember it began in a communist bloc country at the height of the cold war). We now know that the mouthpiece, Father Vlasic (no relation to the pickle-stork) is no longer a priest due to his scandalous behavior during the alleged "apparitions". Remember: by your fruits shall ye be known. Do you REALLY want to put your faith in the likes of charlatains?
As another poster said, there are already so many other approved apparitions which essentially give the same message. Why would you even possibly bother with one which is even remotely considered suspect by the Vatican? I really don't understand it either. To me, ANY apparition which pits the faithful against the magesterium is inspired by Satan at some level.
Does anyone here remember Veronika Leuken (aka the "Bayside Bimbo")?