Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli’s last writing on Medjugorje appears afflicted with willful blindness. That critical diagnosis is based on the observation of the following symptoms:
1- An incapacity for discrimination applied to the “non constat de supernaturalitate” is apparent. The origin of that symptom is unknown. However, it may be hypothesized that the vaticanist’s astigmatic view of the “classic expression” in Canon Law has emerged from an excessive exposure to some writings and interviews of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn following the Prelate’s stay in Medjugorje, two years ago.
2- The Vaticanist’s optical system seems to be irremediably fixated on the Lady of Medjugorje. When other stimuli are presented to his sight, such as gestures of the Ordinary of Mostar, there is no response. That point-blank refusal or incapability to consider some visible facts is puzzling. No organic impairment has been found. Apparently, the said Ordinary’s gestures have been determined by communist invisible forces, which would explain why they are not seen… Are we confronted with a complex psychological mechanism called “cognitive dissonance”?
3- The third symptom is mystifying, because it appears to resort to extrasensory perception (ESP). The vaticanist wants us to believe that the seers “generally made a good impression on the commissioners.” Cardinal Vinko Puljic having said: “We cannot talk about what the commission is doing, because we are bound to secrecy”, how can a vaticanist incite commissioners to breach a binding agreement? If so, has he “generally” interviewed the more than twenty Commission members? If not so, is that information coming from the interested seers themselves? Otherwise, should we hypothesize a “third eye”? Does the journalist have the capacity to induce out-of-the-body experiences and observe in vivo what is happening during the sessions of the Commission? Should we examine seriously what is often seen in the paranormal world: the compensation on a “third eye” of what the subject cannot see with his two normal ones? Last but not least, the gifted vaticanist announces his premonition of the verdict: “…the outcome considered most likely at the moment […] is a repeat of the 1991 suspension of judgment, the “supernaturality is not certain” without openly taking a stand for or against.” No justification, no analysis, period.
4- Finally, the fourth and last symptom speaks for itself. Mr. Tornielli quotes then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Mgr Tarcisio Bertone writing in 1998, that the pilgrimages were permitted, “provided they are not considered as an authentication of events still in progress…“. A few lines before, the journalist wrote in the same breath: “Mary defining herself the ‘Queen of Peace’, began to appear in a parish run by Franciscan friars, and the village of Medjugorje, which still today is rather difficult to reach, has attracted millions of people, in spite of the public disavowals of the Bishops of Mostar.” The vaticanist’s pilgrimage in the land of mystification has ended successfully, filled with its proverbial fruits. Notwithstanding Mgr Bertone’s caveat and its logical understanding, Andrea Tornielli “authenticates” the Lady of Medjugorje with the nihil obstat of a vaticanist, “in spite of the [substantiated, competent and legitimate] public disavowals of the Bishops of Mostar.” There are a few names for that intellectual presumptuousness: “willful blindness”, “willful ignorance”, “vincible ignorance” which are considered synonyms in the context of the present post.
In part 2, I will submit some explanations on the four points. In the meantime, the interested readers could refer to my considerations concerning the non constat de supernaturalitate that can be found in one post and in some comments. I have placed anchors on the following points that I will try to summarize next time:
– the meaning of “non constat de supernaturalitate” (article)
– on the subtleties of the Vaticanese language and Fr. Kingham’s thesis on the 1978 Norms (comment to Sharon)
– clarifications on a clear positive, a clear negative and a wait-and-see negative (comment to Maria)
– do the Norms mention the constat de non supernaturalitate? (comment to Sharon)
– a prospective response to Andrea Tornielli’s perception of the “non constat” (comment to Maria)
To the Italian readers of medjupedia: please read the article published today in Cantuale Antonianum by an (unnamed) author who criticizes Mr. Tornielli’s perception of the non constat in referring to my position. [Update – 2012-02-28: myself afflicted with a certain blindness — not scrolling down far enough at midnight — I missed the discrete identification of the blogger, Franciscan Fr. A.R. With my excuses and respect: L.B.]
Your remarks/comments/critiques are welcome. They will be moderated and should be identified properly with a valid name linked to a valid IP.
With my cordial greetings,