PODCAST 018 Medjugorje Special

10 thoughts on “PODCAST 018 Medjugorje Special”

1. Some souls believe in “If there’s a chance it’ll happen, we’ll wait for that chance to happen.” You get this with false prophets who would rather wait for the Church to change her mind about them than change themselves. You get this with alien theorists who would rather wait for aliens to show up than live their lives. You get this with followers of condemned apparitions who would rather wait for a better judgment than live by Public Revelation. But I hope this isn’t the case with Catholics when the Church judges Medjugorje, be it a change to a negative judgment for skeptics or a change to a positive judgement for believers.

2. What a simply sad document you have dispatched throughout the world! I was deeply hurt to see the office of Bishop degraded in this fashion. Instead of having patience as You were advised by Your superiors, You thunder and hurl Jupiters arrows, blackening renowned and innocent people, worthy of Your respect and protection. You repeatedly come up with accusations which have been proven untrue a hundred times over.”
   (Ljudevit Rupcic, ‘The truth about Medjugorje’, Ljubuski-Humac 1990.,page 134)
   I found this statement from Hans Urs Van Balthazar regarding the the Bishops “document” as he puts it. I don’t know if this is a credible source or not. However if he did write this in a letter to the Bishop than I think this might give some evidence that the Bishop handled things in a bad way. Perhaps the Vatican had to step in for that reason and out of respect for the office of the Bishop didn’t specify why they did so.
   I also found this article on the web and it sites a source as well.
   Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference Decision
   In May 1987, the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference nominated Bishop Frajo Comarica, Auxiliary Bishop of Banja Luka, ex-professor of theology at Sarajevo University, and youngest bishop in the Yugoslav episcopate, as President of the Medjugorje Inquiry Commission. By mid-1988 the Commission was reported to have terminated its work with a positive judgment on the apparitions. However, not wishing to directly contradict Bishop Zanic, the group continued its proceedings at a snail’s pace, hoping that the pilgrimages would diminish and disappear. After a long and exhausting “tug-of-war” within the episcopate, the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference, in the 1990 (November 27-28) extraordinary assembly in Zaghreb, approved the following Declaration:
   <1) From the very beginning, the Bishops have been following events in Medjugorje through reports by the local Bishop, the local diocesan Commission, and the Yugoslav Bishops' Commission on Medjugorje. On the basis of research conducted until now, we cannot affirm that there have been supernatural apparitions or revelations.
   2) Nonetheless, the continuing gatherings of faithful, inspired by religious motives and arriving from various parts of the world, necessitate the Bishops' constant attention and concern. For that reason. our Bishops' Conference, in a spirit of ecclesial communion, is willing to assist the resident Bishop in organizing pastoral activities at Medjugorje, in order to promote a correct liturgical and pastoral life in the parish, and thus avoid events or teachings which may not conform to the spirit of the Church.>
   To many, this Declaration appeared ambiguous. Although the supernatural essence of the apparitions is not affirmed, there is recognition of the resulting “cult,” to be “managed” by the resident Bishop. On this subject, ax-Archbishop of Split Frane Franic stated in an interview with the Italian daily , on January 15, 1991, that only the ferocious opposition of Bishop Zanic, who refused to budge from his own verdict, had impeded a positive decision on the Medjugorje apparitions: “The bishops do not wish to humiliate Monsignor, Zanic,” Franic stated, “And when it was brought to his attention.. that his opposition was unfounded, he began to cry and shout, and the bishops finally stopped arguing.”
   Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, Archbishop of Zaghreb and President of the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference, in an interview with Croatian public television on December 23, 1990, said that the Yugoslav Bishops’ Conference, including himself, “has a positive opinion of Medjugorje events.”
   If these accounts are accurate they do not bode well for the Bishop. The Vatican may be doing a balancing act between a Bishop who is behaving in an inappropriate manner and at the same time trying to maintain respect for the office of the local ordinary.
   Was wondering what your thoughts on this would be.
   

3. Whatever document von Balthasar was talking about, it wasn’t one that Bp. Peric issued, because he took office in 1993.
   Von Balthasar was writing in 1984, stating an opinion about the previous bishop, Pavao Zanic, but it’s not clear that von Balthasar ever knew what Zanic knew.
   Von Balthasar probably didn’t know about the contradictions in the visionaries’ stories, which were recorded in taped interviews during the first ten days of the events. The tape transcripts weren’t published in any book until 1988. I don’t believe von Balthasar bothered to ever contact Bp. Zanic before denouncing him. Moreover, having the alleged mystic Adrienne von Speyr as his own protege may have biased von Balthasar’s judgment about mystical claims.
   The other topic David presents reflects opinions of other people, including Abp. Franic, who was famously supportive of Medjugorje; but opinions don’t have much persuasive weight unless there are facts and reasons presented with them, and David does not provide this.
   Supporters of Medjugorje will need to find some facts and reasons to answer the very substantial critical case that challenges it. The first step is to get to know the case. They can find this case described in the documents on the Mostar diocese site, using the link Jimmy provided above.

4. Jimmy thank you for assembling a very logical overview of the Medjugorje situation based on the official documents.

5. I’m sure all of that was very well researched and whatnot, but wow. I’m what you would call “non-Catholic” and/or “protestant” but I still like to check out the podcast. It was actually quite impressive how much legalese mumbo-jumbo you crammed into this one.

6. English translation: I didn’t understand it, but I have such a hatred of all things Catholic that I couldn’t resist the urge to take a shot.

7. Jimmy,
   Wasn’t Amsterdam apparition (Our Lady of all Nations) condemned and than reversed later by another Bishop.

8. Jimmy,
   I was also wondering this. Once the matter has been taken out of the local ordinaries hands is it possible for the decision process to go back to the local ordinary, the bishop whom it was “taken” away from or another bishop who comes into office after him? Or once that decision is made is that a final decision. Meaning the decision would never go back to the local ordinary to make the decision on the authenticity of the apparitions.

9. A good interview given by a Croatian pagan
   http://reasonradionetwork.com/downloads/tsj/TS_20090818.mp3

10. Mr. Akin recommends reading the 2006 homily of the Bishop of Mostar as evidence that the Marian apparitions in Medjugorje are suspect. I am much more influence by the words of Blessed John Paul II and bishops and archbishops throughout the world: http://www.medjugorje.org/pope.htm
    Our Lady, Queen of Peace, pray for us.

Comments are closed.