If I knew I was part a grand cover-up and a conspiracy, I would have dressed nicer. Black. Black would have been a good color for a conspiracy, don’t you think?
Stephen K. Ryan of MinistryValues.com has accused me and a number of others of being in cahoots to keep the world from knowing about Medjugorje. In a recent article at the site, Ryan makes the following startling claims.
But across the “Pond” in the United States there is a different view of Medjugorje and the gate keepers of Catholic opinion seem to work almost in a conspiratorial manner to quell any interest or trust in Mejdugorje. The who’s who of Catholic opinion makers, journalist and bloggers are eerily similar in their skepticism and condemnation. Two things the opinion makers have in common – 1. They have never been to Medjugorje and 2. They are all men.
Patrick Madrid, Patrick Coffin, Mark Shea, Greg Kandra, Pat & Matthew Archbold, Jim Akin, Kevin Knight at New Advent, and the editors of Catholic Culture and the National Catholic Register.
I speak with some authority on this issue. Perhaps no other reporter of Catholic news in the United States has personally reached out individually via e-mail or phone calls to prominent opinion makers who write about Medjugorje than Ministryvalues.com . What I have found is that they all talk to each other and they all have basically the same reasons for being “against” Medjugorje . They are against Medjugorje because – 1. To them the issue is one of disobedience against the local Bishop who has jurisdiction over Medjugorje and 2. One of the “Seer’s (Ivan) has a nice house and worst of all he married a Massachusetts beauty pageant contestant.
Now Ryan makes a number of outrageous, silly, and just plain stupid accusations in his ridiculous piece. Let me address a few of them.
First, he colors me as a skeptic and as one who has condemned Medjugorje. I challenge Mr. Ryan to find one negative thing that I have said about Medjugorje, just one. He will not be able to do it. To the best of my recollection I have mentioned Medjugorje three times. One was a joke during the 2008 election in which I titled a piece “Palin Visits Medjugorje” which of course was not the Alaska Governor but Michael Palin of Monty Python fame. More on that in a moment. The second time I criticized bad reporting about Medjugorje by Reuters. And the third was in a serious context in which I explained the peril for the Church in ruling on Medjugorje one way or the other.
Now 3 times over five years is not a lot, I grant you. But I have written about it. Further, in none of my articles have I said anything critical or supportive of Medjugorje. I generally refrain from writing about it because there is little to be gained by doing so. I have found that most of the Catholics who read me on a regular basis have made up their minds, either pro or con, and anything I say on the matter is likely to be misconstrued and generate much more heat than light. I could not change anyone’s mind on the matter even if I had the inclination to do so, which I don’t.
What could I possibly add to what has been written and debated about Medjugorje for the last 30 years? Absolutely nothing. So I choose not to write about it. This decision was in part formed from the reaction I got just from posting the joke about Palin and Medjugorje in 2008. I think I got 100 emails just for that. Half accused me of mocking Our Lady by making a joke and the other half accused me of being a Medjugorje promoter for even posting the video. 100 emails just for that and I think I only had about 50 readers then. Like I said, nothing to be gained by giving my opinion on matters I am highly unqualified to judge.
So in all the particulars of that, Mr. Ryan got it wrong. He states that he has personally reached out individually to me and the others. Nope, never happened. He says that we all talk to each other about it. Nope. Never happened. I did speak to Jimmy Akin about the show Fringe once, but that was it. The other reasons he states, the Bishop thing and the beauty queen thing, are equally absurd as I have never said them in my articles or even in a private conversation with anyone. Not once. Never. And then he calls us sexist. Really. Mr. Ryan is either delusional or a liar.
Last but not least, Mr. Ryan emphatically states, since he speaks with some self-proclaimed authority on the matter, that I have never, that none of us have ever been to Medjugorje. How could he possibly know that? Has he filed a freedom of information act request to procure my international travel records? I have been all over the world. How could Mr. Ryan possibly know whether I have ever stopped in Medjugorje to see for myself? Whether or not I have have hiked and prayed on Podbrdo and Križevac. He couldn’t.
I ask Mr. Ryan to consider an apology to all those he has accused with absolutely no basis. I also ask Mr. Ryan to consider whether or not bandying about such obvious falsehoods with no regard to facts or evidence helps or hurts his ‘authority’ in promoting the supposed apparition site to which he is so dedicated?
May 1, 2012 at 3:16 am
Go fuck off. How's that for a combos comment
May 1, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Steve wrote:
at Fatima "In the end MY heart will triumph. I see that manifestation at Medjugorje.
Could you clarify, a bit? What do you mean by "that manifestation"?
Where do you see Our Lady's heart triumphing?
Er… Our Lady *did* say that her heart would triumph "in the END", yes? It's not the end yet, methinks. Beyond that, I'm afraid the idea of "seeing her heart triumphing", while it's a beautiful devotional image (and which has great application in the hearts and minds of those who are devoted to her), doesn't settle anything. Anyone could make the same claim about anything at all, and there'd be no way to prove (or even clearly demonstrate) it, one way of the other.
From your writing you reveal that you are not familiar with Medjugorje
I'm not at all sure how you could make such a hasty jump to a conclusion on such scant data, friend; that's a bit rash, don't you think? I've studied the phenomenon, and the circumstances surrounding it, quite a bit. I don't claim to be an "expert"… though I'm not quite sure how anyone would qualify for that title, anyway.
A major component of Medjugorje are its LASTING conversion.
(??) Pardon me, but: where did I say that the conversions at Medjugorje were not "lasting"? I have little doubt that the new-found or newly-renewed faith of many people who experienced such conversion perdure, to this day. I specifically said that, despite such durable conversions (do you recall my comments about similar long-lasting conversions happening at Necedah, Bayside, and other false apparitions?), they prove nothing in particular about the authenticity/validity of the alleged apparition itself, since both approved (e.g. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, Akita, etc.) and condemned (e.g. Necedah, Bayside, Holy Love Ministries, etc.) apparitions can say the same. Given only that "we see lasting conversions", we cannot possibly distinguish between the valid and the invalid. Does that clarify?
Go to my site and read the comments…there are over 100 and you will see that there are many testimonies how they were converted by Medjugorje 10,20,years ago.
I never contested that. But see above; unless you're willing to say that all the condemned apparitions in the history of the world in which some people experineced (through the grace and mercy of God) genuine, enduring conversion must necessarily be genuine, then I'm not sure how else to explain this to you. Conversions are very good and relevant to the order of grace; but–logically speaking, and with respect to this particular logical point–they are simply not relevant.
You are speculating I think you would be better off if you investigated for yourself.
My dear chap: I assure you, I've investigated matters quite thoroughly (though I'm sure I'll investigate further, as time goes on); there's no need to assume ignorance on my part, simply because I don't embrace your own position, lock-step!
Let me offer a question of my own: given that the local promoters of Medjugorje are defying the bishop by ignoring his "cease-and-desist" orders on numerous counts (e.g. publishing spiritual materials without his express permission and against his prohibition, inciting the faithful to defy the bishop by attempting to receive the Sacraments from priests who were suspended/laicised, defaming the bishop in print, hearing Confessions in the context of Medjugorje "pilgrimages" despite the bishop's absolute prohibition against it, etc.), what do you make of all that? Do you approve? Do you condone? Do you diapprove? Do you condemn?
May 1, 2012 at 3:46 pm
(P.S. Just ignore the anonymous drive-by troll at 10:16 PM.)
May 1, 2012 at 5:15 pm
to paladin
"In the end my heart will triumph"
what i mean by this is that salvation will best be found by finding Christ through the heart of Mary
Evangelical and protestants in many cases have corrupted the Christian faith with their emphasis on political agendas – They reject Our Lady and because of this they lose the path of peace.
Why i say Medjugorje is the manifestiation of this is because nowhere on earth do we see a movement where so many return to God through Our Lady's heart then we do at Medjugorje.
At Medjugorje, everybody who converts back to the faith does so through Our Lady's heart
I do not understand why more people do not see this.
May 1, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Steve,
Well… to be brief… (*pause for gasps from those who know me*)
If the Blessed Virgin Mary is/was NOT appearing at Medjugorje, then the conversions must be due to something else (e.g. the sincere faith that the devotees brought with them, their true devotion to the true Mother of God, etc.). That is the main question, after all.
I'd also add: when speaking of "enduring" conversions, that has yet to be tested in the possible circumstance of the Vatican (or whatever competent authorities) making a decisive negative declaration about Medjugorje. I do worry about how many devotees would have their faith in Christ's Church survive such a blow.
May 2, 2012 at 1:58 am
let's talk about the here and now.
people are converting at Medjugorje. they are finding Christ thought Mary's heart. They go to confession. MILLIONS
this is all good …lets be happy that so many people are returning to the Catholic church
May 2, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Steve wrote:
let's talk about the here and now.
My dear chap: that's precisely what we CANNOT (exclusively) do! "Those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, (George Santayana)" and "This man began to build what he could not finish! (cf. Luke 14:28-30) both come to mind.
people are converting at Medjugorje.
Perhaps. Every sincere and authentic conversion is a glorious thing, regardless of whether the original apparition was false, or not.
they are finding Christ thought Mary's heart.
That may certainly be what they intend; but that is precisely what we need to discern: is it a true conversion to the TRUE Christ and the TRUE Mother of God, in and through the TRUE Church established by Christ (Whom we are morally obliged to obey: "If he will not listen even to the Church, then treat him as you would a tax-collector or heathen; what you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in Heaven" [cf. Matthew 18:16-18]). Those who are led to prefer "some given apparition" to "obedience to Christ's Church" have been converted away to great evil, cloaked in the guise of "good".
As an example (which I think you, in particular, will appreciate): millions upon millions "give their hearts to Jesus" as the result of Protestant missionary work (including tens of millions of ex-Catholics in the USA, alone–they make up the second-largest non-Catholic Christian "denomination" in the USA, in fact). Do you regard the "conversion" of Catholics to Protestantism (or other types of Christianity, etc.) to be "a good thing"? Many of those people were lack-luster Catholics who couldn't have cared less about Jesus (before encountering Protestant missionaries), after all…
Do you see my point? Some types of "conversion", even though they contain SOME good, might prove to be an ultimate evil… if they eventually lead people away from the Church (and from obedience to Her rightful leaders), and from a greater good to a lesser one.
They go to confession. MILLIONS
That is a wonderful thing, to be sure. But this is not a sure demonstration of the validity of the alleged apparition; to believe otherwise would be to regress to a mere "appeal to popularity" (e.g. "so many people do it, so it must be right!"), which simply won't do. Remember that many of the false apparitions boasted such sincere conversions, etc., as well. You remember that, yes?
this is all good …lets be happy that so many people are returning to the Catholic church
I am certainly happy about that, so far as it goes. I merely say that (as is the case with Necedah, Bayside, etc.), this really says nothing significant about the VALIDITY of the alleged apparition in the first place. No apparition (whether real or false, approved or condemned, etc.) is the ultimate point, after all. If it proves to be valid, then well and good: I will be the first to tell people to feel free to embrace it (or not) as they choose. If it proves to be invalid, I will be the first to warn people away from such a pernicious danger. In the meantime, I remain extremely concerned about the accounts of flagrant disobedience (sometimes attributed to the "Gospa" herself!) and incitement to disobey rightful authority. No valid apparition will ever do that.
May 2, 2012 at 6:47 pm
two things
1.do not be fooled by the loud claims of disobedience. The Vatican has spoken about this and of course they have started an investigation. Leave this one be.
2. I agree that many Protestants and evangelicals are in grave error. Much of their faith is based on "prosperity" gospels..
I am a strong beleiver that more, now than ever, because of the corruption of the ministry of Jesus Christ at the hands of the evangelicals we need Our Lady. –
the key toady is to see that Our Lady;s hearts triumphs . the key today is to find Christ through Our Lady;s heart because outside of Our Lady's heart and her path to Her son there may be no salvation.
May 2, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Steve wrote:
do not be fooled by the loud claims of disobedience.
The volume has nothing to do with it, I assure you; I am not one to be impressed by drama or rhetorical window-dressing. Rather, I refer to several accounts in which the Bishop himself (hardly a propaganda agent outside of the situation) recounts (among many similar episodes) these accounts of the "Gospa" contradicting the direct authority of the Bishop (according to the diary of Vicka Marija, one of the alleged "visionaries"), in matters which are objectively certain (i.e. the fact that, when a bishop suspends a priest, his faculties absolutely cease to function, regardless of anyone's feelings on the matter, and even regardless of whether the bishop was just or unjust!):
1982, Jan. 20: "'The children asked what Rev. Ivica Vego and Rev. Ivan Prusina were to do now that they were thrown out of the Order. Our Lady answered: 'They are innocent. The bishop was harsh in his decision. They can stay.'"
[I hope I don't need to illustrate how this is disobedient… and how the alleged "Gospa" is fomenting taht disobedience to the rightful bishop of Mostar.]
1982, April 15: "Vicka asked Our Lady a question. 'Could you generally tell me everything about Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina?' Our Lady smiled at first and then she said, 'They are innocent.' She repeated twice that: 'The bishop has made a mistake… let them remain at Mostar…. they can say Mass sometimes but may they be careful to stay away from attention until things calm down. They have no faults….'"
[This was in direct reaction to the Bishop suspending both Fr. Ivica Vego and Fr. Ivan Prusina. When a priest is suspended, he CANNOT offer the Holy Sacrifice; the ability to do so is suspended. Any suggestion that they could "say Mass sometimes" is provable nonsense.]
As such: unless you (or anyone else) are ready to claim that this account of the Bishop is substantially wrong, we seem to have cases where, according to the "seer's" own words, the "Gospa" is fomenting disobedience, and (even more remarkably) showing a striking ignorance of how Holy Orders work.
The Vatican has spoken about this and of course they have started an investigation. Leave this one be.
Friend, don't you see that you're not even following your own advice? When I say, "Do not rush into this–let the investigation go forth, and if it is approved, THEN embrace it", you reply that you see no reason to wait! You must choose one (wait and see in all things uncertain) or the other (embrace both the "apparition" and the fact that the "apparition" gave false and pernicious information/advice); the second course is insane… so I suggest that we both follow the first.
2. I agree that many Protestants and evangelicals are in grave error.
But do you not see that their sheer numbers would prove them "right", if we use your standard of "millions have come to faith"? That was my point: sheer numbers, and even sincere conversions and enthusiasm, do not prove anything about the point at hand (i.e. whether Our Lady actually appeared at Medjugorje, or not)!
Much of their faith is based on "prosperity" gospels.
Not in most cases; a minority of smaller communities do so, but it would be false to say that this is typical of Protestantism. And even if it were: it would not help your case. (See above.)
I am a strong beleiver that more, now than ever, because of the corruption of the ministry of Jesus Christ at the hands of the evangelicals we need Our Lady.
I agree. The very question, however, is this: is our Lady actually appearing at Medjugorje, or was that particular apparition false? Our Lady is true and good, no matter what the fate of Medjugorje! Does that clarify?
May 4, 2012 at 5:20 pm
we did an article on your concern a while back
On Medjugorje Disobedience – Bishop of Mostar's actions were ruled "Wrong and illegal"
http://ministryvalues.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1374&Itemid=125
the article is written by a phd student at Catholic University –
May 4, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Steve,
Thank you for the reply; I'll investigate it further… but three questions come up, at first glance:
1) I'm not sure you quite understand how the specific mechanics of "suspension" (which is quite distinct from laicisation) work. Suspension of a priest's faculties is akin to a water company disconnecting someone's water supply because of delinquency in paying bills. One might accuse the company of being wrong, or even illegal (and both might be true, barring any further information), but the water does, in fact, remain OFF. If the owner of the house were to go up to the spigot and say, "the water was cut off unjustly; I shall get water, anyway!", they would still get NOTHING (save perhaps a few gurgling sounds) when they opened the tap! Now, the fellow might go to court, have the court find that the company was in the wrong, and have the court order the water re-started… but until that happens, no water will flow, at all. Does that clarify?
Just so, with the suspensions of Ivico Vega and Ivan Prusina; at the very instant they were suspended, they LOST THE POWER to consecrate the Eucharist, to absolve sins (save if someone were in danger of death), and to provide the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick (save if someone were in danger of death). That power is proper to the bishop; it "flows through the bishop" into the priests who serve as his deputies, and it can be turned on or off at the bishop's command. If a suspended priest appeals his case to higher authorities (e.g. the Congregation for Clergy, the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Holy Father himself, etc.), and if those authorities overrule the bishop, well and good: the "water" would begin to flow again… but not unless/until that happened.
This is why the "Gospa's" comment about "they can say Mass sometimes, etc." was so absurd; she might as well have been saying that they "could still drink out of the disconnected water system, sometimes"; it simply wouldn't work! It's not a matter of "getting the water, but making authorities angry"; it's a matter of whether any water would FLOW at ALL! (N.B. It wouldn't!) As such: if this is a genuine quote from the "Gospa", then the "Gospa" has at least one provable falsehood attributable to her.
2) Msgr. Tutto (of London) seems to have nothing in particular to do with the situation; he's simply a commentator who offered his opinion (and not being even a canon lawyer, himself) about a situation which is now "locked down" as confidential. He's welcome to his opinion that the proceedings were "wrong and illegal", but since there is no way to corroborate his story… and since Ivan Prusina was, in fact suspended… and that the technicality by which his suspension was declared null was due to a procedural error by the Congregation for Religious Life, not by any error of the Bishop.
3) What of the unauthorised "devotional material" published by Frs. Vega and Prusina, without the permission of (and against the express orders of) the Bishop? See my earlier comment; this was flatly disobedient, yes?
May 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Whoops… I left off part of an entire sentence!
but since there is no way to corroborate his story… and since Ivan Prusina was, in fact suspended… and that the technicality by which his suspension was declared null was due to a procedural error by the Congregation for Religious Life, not by any error of the Bishop, [his comments really don't add any light to the situation at all.]
May 4, 2012 at 11:19 pm
I think what is important for the skeptics (i am not necessarily putting you there) to spend more time on his what is happening NOW. It is all "gotcha" and tedious fixations on certain events.
It is important to remember the seers were uncomplicated teenagers/ children. They say repeatedly that they are no different then the rest of us.. they are not saints and they are not infallible. Ministryvalues came along and started speacking up when after some research I realized that the skeptics had no evidence of fraud – they could not explain anything and all I ever heard was that 14 year olds 25 years ago said somethings that seemed inconsistent. Skeptics – other than talking about disobedience – have never offered a single shred of information that would point to a hoax – yet they call it a hoax none the less. This is why I get upset – the baseless charges. I have reached out to the skeptics like no other as I say in my article. I wanted to know what they know. On the other hand not a single skeptics has ever attempted to try and understand position. "Devotee's" are completely open to listening to skeptics – it is the skeptics that are curiously mute and closed minded.