As long time readers of CMR are aware, we discuss almost every thing on this blog. Almost. There is one topic not to be discussed here, until now. The M-word. Yes, Medjugorje.
Our general policy is that there is not much to be gained by discussing it as most people’s perceptions of the claims are set and dialogue between the two camps tends toward civil war. This coupled with the fact that there is little actual “news” out of Medjugorje these days leads us to the prudent decision to leave this topic alone.
But now, we actually have some news coming out of Medjugorje. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna and member of the CDF spent the last five days in Medjugorje. Medjugorje supporters have steadily hinted in advance of the visit that the Cardinal coming was a tacit endorsement of Medjugorje while detractors said that is no such thing since this is merely a “private visit”.
Of course, a private visit in and of itself is no endorsement, tacit or otherwise. However, while in Medjugorje the Cardinal said Mass in the Church and gave a public speech. While careful to note that the status of Medjugorje has not changed (neither approved or disapproved) and that a final decision on the phenomena will not be reached until the alleged apparitions end, it is hard to view some of his comments as anything other than tacit (if personal) approval. Emphases mine.
“I know about Medjugorje for many years, not personally because I have never been here before, but in our Diocese and even farther, I do experience fruits of Medjugorje. I always used to say what Jesus has said in the Gospel: “You will recognise the tree by its fruits.” When I see the fruits of Medjugorje back at home I can only say that the tree is surely good.
Speaking, furthermore, about Medjugorje in the Church, the Cardinal added: “Supreme authority in the Church is the Holy See, the Holy Father and his Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that is the highest authority in all of the issues of faith and morality. Supreme authority of the Church gave us clear guidelines, not directly from Holy Father himself, but from Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith that had clearly confirmed what the bishops from Yugoslavia once said, and that undoubtedly is applicable in Medjugorje. I have always repeated that. Those texts are very much known. There are three elements that are valid still today, and I can place my visit to Medjugorje within those guidelines. In that sense, my visit is not something that is unusual at all. The Holy See, in accordance with the Statement of Bishops from 1991, says the following:
“First: Non constat de supernaturalitatae. [HERE HE DESCRIBES WHAT THAT MEANS – SEE Transcript for complete text]
“Second: no official pilgrimages are to be organised, which means that I can not organise pilgrimage of my diocese to Medjugorje. That is logically related to what was mentioned in the previous point. So, there is no official recognition yet, but in that formulation it is also said that supernaturality is not excluded. The Church has clearly said it is not excluded. It is not confirmed, but it is not excluded.
“Third thing that church doctrine clearly states is also in accordance to the statement of Yugoslavian Bishops, that the faithful journeying to Medjugorje require attention and pastoral care. …
I would advise for patience. The Mother of God is so patient with us that for nearly 29 years here, in a very direct way. She is showing Her vicinity and care for the parish of Medjugorje and numerous pilgrims. We can peacefully wait and have patience! Twenty nine years is a long period of time for us, but not such a long period to our God!”
While not a ringing endorsement, it is arguably a tacit and very surprising one and I am not the only one who thinks so. Bishop Peric, Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, is not happy with the Cardinal. While emphasizing that his visit, in and of itself is no endorsement, he confronts the Cardinal in a direct way for what has transpired and the obvious impression it will leave with many. Bishop Peric, after listing the events and communication that led up to the Cardinal’s visit, says this:
On December 29th, the Cardinal arrived in Medjugorje. He was followed by the media over the next few days. Reports say that he gave a speech in the church of St. James the Apostle, and noting the mercy of God, said: “Who could make these things up? Who could invent this thing? Man? No, this is not a human act.” On December 31st a journalist [blogger] wrote: “While some had expected the cardinal’s visit to Medjugorje to be private, he has instead surprised the town by being very visible. He has spent his time concelebrating Mass at St James Church, climbing Apparition Hill with visionary Marija Lunetti, praying in silence at Adoration, and, perhaps most notably, giving his talk today in the parish church with the Franciscan friars at his side”
5)In all this I have to admit that I personally, as diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, remain surprised. I understand that the Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church enjoys the right to profess and preach the Gospel throughout the Catholic Church. But with regard to public appearances outside their own diocese there also exists a certain etiquette in the Church: the bishop or cardinal who intends to come to another diocese publicly, first informs the local bishop, which is encouraged by the Church and by prudence. This understanding in the church and specific caution should be applied especially in this case.
6)I am surprised because Cardinal Schonborn’s office to the publication of this statement, no one has reported, and assuming that the Cardinal knows the position of the Church, based on the results of the commission’s research that no one can say that these are “supernatural apparitions or private revelations.” His visit to Cenacolo and with Sr. Elvira, who, by the way, as a religious nun with no permission to reside and operate in the territory of this diocese, could be interpreted as supportive. And, not only her, but a growing number of new communities and disobedient associations of the faithful in Medjugorje, which can be read as an encouragement for their ecclesiastical disobedience.
…[Here he lists his complaints about Medjugorje and the local Franciscans and then finishes]…
8)The Cardinal is excited by the many confession s in Medjugorje, where the Father’s mercy is manifested. We believe that the mercy of the heavenly Father, as reflected in Medjugorje is also in each and every parish of his diocese, both before and after the phenomenon of Medjugorje. Just look at the long lines of faithful before the confessional in all the parishes, especially for Christmas, for Easter, for holidays, or for Confirmation. Many say these confessions in Medjugorje are strong evidence that the Lady “appears”. According to this conclusion on the numbers making confessions, Our Lady would appear in all our parishes, not just those three people once a year in Medjugorje and the other three every day, in fact most outside of Medjugorje, and apparently in the cathedral in Vienna! All together now: about 40,000 “apparitions”! Indeed, one gets the impression that some “visionaries” determine where and when the Lady “comes” since the appearance happens when and where they want. Is this not an inadmissible manipulation of Our Lady and the Sacred in general?
As the diocesan bishop with this statement I want to inform the faithful that the visit of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn does not imply any recognition of the authenticity of the “apparitions” related to Medjugorje. I regret that the Cardinal, with his visit, appearance, and statements, brings something new to the present suffering of the local Church which does not contribute to peace and unity so necessary.
This episode is quite remarkable. The Cardinal’s comments and actions in and on Medjugorje are very surprising. While they are certainly nothing approaching official endorsement, they are sure to excite Medjugorje supporters and infuriate Medjugorje detractors. This is so clearly the case that Bishop Peric has publicly called out Cardinal Christoph Schönborn for his words and deeds.
Did the Cardinal really do all this without talking with Bishop Peric? Wow!
We don’t take sides on this blog on Medjugorje, but since they added mud-wrestling to the attraction, we just couldn’t stay away!
Note: Please try not to destroy the furniture here at CMR discussing this one.
January 7, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Diane wrote:
I just can't imagine, that under the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI, the lies and deceptions would get a free pass because people like to pray there.
🙂 You have seriously got to teach me how to make a great point like that, in 30 words or less! I usually have to blabber on for 4000+ words in my attempts (and hit the "Paladin Google Limit", to boot)!
January 7, 2010 at 4:34 pm
@Paladin. There was no ruling then just as there is no final ruling now. And I do not promote this alleged apparition but, I keep an open mind and heart. I do not know nor am I inclined to believe everything that the visionary says or hears. I don't think those private revelations require an assent of faith from the faithful – even from legitimate apparitions.
However, if I have the time and money then I might go there on the chance that God's Mother were truly visiting. If it's true then it's true. If it's not, then God will still know that I preferred that over the carnival or the Louvre to experience a possible visit from His Mother and grow in my devotion. And I don't think I am being presumptious or forcing His hand because, the Church has not said the event is bogus nor stopped me from going. On the contrary, the Vatican citations and the Cardinal's comments seem to not be averse to it.
And yes, I can do all that at Fatima; however, the apparitions there have long stopped. And when did the Church finally get around to approve the apparitions there? So, one can miss out on an opportunity waiting for the approbation.
January 7, 2010 at 4:53 pm
– sigh –
January 7, 2010 at 4:57 pm
I should point out, if someone hasn't already, that there is a pretty lenghty discussion happening at Mark Shea's blog on this, as well.
January 7, 2010 at 5:23 pm
"There was no ruling then just as there is no final ruling now."
The assumption is that there needs to be a final ruling to determine one's attitude toward a phenomenon. This assumption is false, as alluded to in the Catechism, the writings of John of the Cross, and others.
To put it more succinctly, if it's not yet approved, it's … NOT approved!!! That as opposed to "could be approved" or "no news is good news." Try finding that in the Catechism.
January 7, 2010 at 6:11 pm
I have to admit, I've always been a little confused why anyone would WANT to see an apparition or have visions! I mean, in general, they cause nothing but trouble and suffering for the visionary– people thin you're crazy, you have to double check everything with your spiritual director, you get punished… for most visionaries, it seems like the 'gift' of visions is more of a penance than a reward….
except at Medj…….
(Full disclosure: As a little girl, I was so disturbed by the stories of Lourdes and Fatima that I spent YEARS begging God never to let me see a vision. Or to experience demonic torments that were obviously demonic. My daily tasks and burdens are MORE than challenging enough — I wouldn't be able to cope with visions ON TOP of diapers and dirty floors!)
Anyway, the apparent LACK of suffering of the MEdj. folk also makes me suspicious– it seems like when Mary and Jesus draw close to someone in visions, the visionary is also asked to take a greater part in sharing their suffering… for most people, visions are HARD.
January 7, 2010 at 6:18 pm
@Deirdre: Re: Why would anyone want to witness an apparition? If you love someone, would you want to see or hear her? Wouldn't you be interested in news about her specially if she peers through the veneer of eternity and manifest herself in time and space.
January 7, 2010 at 6:40 pm
"If you love someone, would you want to see or hear her? Wouldn't you be interested in news about her …"
This assumption (as with the others) favors authenticity, when the Church essentially teaches the opposite. So the question is not only moot, but has the potential for spiritual danger.
January 7, 2010 at 6:59 pm
Rick wrote:
I do not promote this alleged apparition but, I keep an open mind and heart. I do not know nor am I inclined to believe everything that the visionary says or hears.
That's part of the point, though: how would you ever *know* if the "visionary" says or does anything that's wrong (i.e. not to be believed)? Vicka confessed to lying, not only about her own actions, but about what the alleged "Gospa" actually SAID! It's one thing to lie about smoking (which she did), but it's quite another thing to say, "The Gospa said that she wants thus-and-so", when it's a flat-out lie! See here for just a few examples.
I don't think those private revelations require an assent of faith from the faithful – even from legitimate apparitions.
Right… but that's a reason to be CAUTIOUS about them, not a reason to be chevalier about them!
However, if I have the time and money then I might go there on the chance that God's Mother were truly visiting. If it's true then it's true. If it's not, then God will still know that I preferred that over the carnival or the Louvre to experience a possible visit from His Mother and grow in my devotion.
Well… there's a serious gap in that supposition. You're assuming that it's a "win/win" situation, and that the worst possible outcome is the waste of some of your hard-earned money (and perhaps some disappointment and embarrassment). I wish that were true. I've personally known how false teachings and misguided devotions have *destroyed* people, and their families. And if it's truly demonic, do you really think that you can waltz through it with a guarantee of "no damage"? This isn't a toy, here!
And I don't think I am being presumptious or forcing His hand because, the Church has not said the event is bogus nor stopped me from going.
The local bishop has… and the Vatican has backed up his rightful authority in that regard. Bishop Peric has strengthened his restrictions on so-called "pilgrimages" to Medjugorje and forbidden priests to lead them. The Vatican has said nothing to gainsay that. I'm rather disturbed that you feel quite free to flout the bishop's wishes in this matter; the Fatima visionaries *never* defied their bishop in this way!
On the contrary, the Vatican citations and the Cardinal's comments seem to not be averse to it.
The Cardinal has made a royal mess of things, and he has provably violated many norms in his rash "public private visit"; given his own disobedience to the Holy Father, I really can't consider his views to be anything other than gravely suspect (if not sheer lunacy).
And yes, I can do all that at Fatima; however, the apparitions there have long stopped.
And this is a problem, WHY?
And when did the Church finally get around to approve the apparitions there?
After a prudent interval, when the hysteria had calmed down… while, all the time, the visionaries OBEYED THE BISHOP in every regard. Unlike the Medjugorje "visionaries" and their (now disgraced) "spiritual directors". Seriously… this isn't to be played with, Rick!
So, one can miss out on an opportunity waiting for the approbation.
Again: why is this a problem? If anything, the urge to be a "spiritual ambulance-chaser" can lead one toward the "excitement", and away from self-sacrifice and humility!
January 7, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Why would anyone want to witness an apparition? If you love someone, would you want to see or hear her?
I'd like to se HER, yes… not some hoax, or cardboard cut-out, and certainly not some assassin who's dressed up as her. You seem to be saying, "Mary is appearing, and yeah, it's not required for me to go, but why wouldn't I?" To which we reply, "Whoa, whoa there! What exactly convinced you that Mary was truly there, again, in the first place?" Unless you think false visions are absolutely impossible (and you'd be woefully mistaken if you think that), you could be walking into a trap… and one whose effects are far more subtle than might be expected. (Why do so many Medjugorje devotees say that, if the Church condemns Medjugorje, they'd "stick with the Gospa until the Pope came to see his error"? Divorcing people from obedience to the Church serves Satan, not God… and Our Mother serves only God.)
Summary: I assert that it is not Mary who's appearing at Medjugorje… and therefore it's no slight to the Blessed Mother when I warn people against it. If I'm wrong, I lose nothing but a nonessential. If you're wrong, you could be walking into a diabolical trap. Seriously: do you think Our Mother is so blase about disobedience that she smiles at the "happenings" at Medjugorje (and wherever the "visionaries" are, now)?
January 7, 2010 at 7:34 pm
For what it's worth here are the top 5 subjects from a google search of "pope benedict Medjugorje":
Pope Benedict laicizes priest connected to alleged Medjugorje …
Pope Benedict XVI unfrocks Medjugorje priest – Telegraph
Medjugorje FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions
Pope finally launches crackdown on world's largest illicit …
CNS STORY: Medjugorje 25 years later: Apparitions and contested …
January 7, 2010 at 7:38 pm
Paladin– exactly– one reason I've NEVER wanted apparitions or visions is b/c there's always a good chance they MIGHT be demonic in origin— and having to discern which they are seems a daunting and frightening task…especially since MOST visions are not from God– better not to have them at all, and to stick with the amazing gift God has given us in the Church– why ask for more?
Rick– We can converse with Christ and His Mother perfectly well without the added bells and whistles of a Vision. While I'd like to see Mary some day, I'd really prefer it be after my death, when there's no question about whether it's really her! Until then, prayer is good enough.
Of course, I admit I'm a total wimp when it comes to anything that smacks of the possibility of the demonic– I'd rather St. Michael take care of it and leave me to my own more mundane struggles….
Heck, I know people who believe in the whole 'three days of darkness' thing and say that if you're outside you'll be struck dead, or you can be inside and be demon tormented for 3 days….
And personally, given the choice between dying on the spot (assuming no unconfessed mortal sins!) OR being tormented by demons, I'd prefer death, because at least then you're headed in the right direction and don't have to worry about possibly succombing to despair!
But still, it seems to be that most of the approved Visionaries in history (Francis, Bernadette, Padre Pio) didn't really want or seek out signs and marvels– I mean, honestly, what God has already given us is marvelous enough! I mean seriously– he loves us so much he bothered to make snow… and flowers… and goats…. he loves us so much that he died on the cross and gave us the Eucharist…. do we really need apparitions too?
(sorry to wax sappy– the momentary lull in the snowbound induced chaos went straight to my head! 🙂 But I'm sure the screaming will recommence shortly…)
January 7, 2010 at 8:12 pm
@Paladin: "I'm rather disturbed that you feel quite free to flout the bishop's wishes in this matter"
I am flouting nothing as I am still searching for the bishop's teachings and directives. I tried your link but it failed. And so far, all I have read is that it is under investigation. If the bishop says its bogus, then that's good enough for me. I won't even wait for Rome to confirm.
@Deirdre: You're right about the bells and whistles not being necessary. For me, they're nice to have because I need a little jump start every now and then. Not everyone is St. John of the Cross; I am just Rick. And I think I got a jump start once; then again, I may be wrong. Here's my little sharing on that: http://divine-ripples.blogspot.com/2009/09/our-lady-wore-blue-jeans.html
January 7, 2010 at 9:56 pm
Rick,
Try this one; I'll give it as text, rather than as a hyperlink:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2009/09/medjugorje-news/
Beyond that, Diane, at her own excellent blog, has more resources than I, at her fingertips (or, rather at yours… if you search her blog for "Medjugorje"). But here's an article from the actual diocese of Mostar, from the Bishop's office, re: Medjugorje's alleged "apparitions":
http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=101
January 7, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Rick,
I have a blog which is used to collect Church documents on Medjugorje (Vatican, diocesan, religious order). I try not to use news reports, as opposed to the actual documents, but there are exceptions, such as when then Yugoslav conference head explained why the matter was being elevated to a commission (press release carried in Glas Koncila). You will see that the bishop was never "removed", but has been working with the CDF.
My blog: Medjugorje Documents and FAQ's is behind at the moment, missing the notice given by the Bishops of Tuscany, Italy (prompted by the CDF) to the priests of their diocese about Medjugorje referring them to Bishop Peric's 2006 homily.
I concede that there is no better site than that of Marco Corvaglia (Italy), who has made it a point to translate much of his detailed, well documented work into English. What is so unique about his work, and contrasts so well with that of promoters, is the level of facts (complete documents so that excerpts can be seen in context, Church protocol numbers, dates, JPG's of documents, and videos). He even has sections which digs into the science of it all showing that tests done in the past were far from thorough. His work was quoted in part in the local bishop's December 11, 2009 release (Italian) of "The games surrounding the 'great sign'" (English compliments of Richard Chonak).
January 9, 2010 at 11:39 pm
Matt,
In re-reading this thread, I have to say it makes me really sad to see Catholics degenerate into the derogatory, naa-nanny-boo-boo tone that so many of these posts demonstrate. Geez, whether our Mother has been appearing at Medj or not, there is no doubt she (like any mom) hates to hear her children carrying on like this!
January 10, 2010 at 12:37 am
Most people who give Medjugorje a pass pay little or no attention to what the Church says authoritatively about private revelations, using on-the-record opinions of high-ranking prelates as a get-out-of-jail-free card. If matters essential to the Faith were at stake, one could almost understand. But even they will concede that such is not the case.
The most one can ever have about a private revelation, is a strong opinion. That goes ditto for Fatima. The public revelation which ended with the last Apostle, and the constant teaching of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is sufficient.
April 12, 2010 at 6:58 am
I have visited this site. It was well and good. We gets lots of information about home from work over here.Please have a look our this site
Work From Home