Presentation (Update – 2012-03-27)
In the first edition of Part 2: The Facts (2012-03-15), I sent out an SOS to a reader who would have the generosity to translate from German into English the five excerpts of Source 14. My friend Mark Waterinckx has found that special someone: Hildegard Alles, from the Netherlands, who has been able to render into English Mr. O.’s difficult text with its very particular style and insight. Hildegard and Mark have all my gratitude.
With these added excerpts of Source 14 ( 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 ), we have completed: Medjugorje: The unbearable sadness of duping the faithful – 2) Fr. Laurentin’s fabrication concerning the father of a nun’s child – Part 2 – The facts. I invite the readers to look attentively at each of those five excerpts and appreciate their gravity and profoundness.
*****
In the previous article, we have presented a casus calomniae with the help of an original undisputed source published by its instigator, Fr. René Laurentin. The mariologist released the results of his “deep investigation” which “reveals” that
Fr. René Laurentin Ivry 1985-01-26 (photo: Louis Bélanger)
– the nun/mother of the child “has made problems in three successive convents”;
– the “presumed father of the child quit the Franciscan Order and left for the USA where he married after reduction to the lay state”.
In doing so without referring to any substantiated source, Fr. Laurentin condemned the former Ordinary of Mostar for having “falsely” attributed the child’s paternity to another well known Franciscan, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, who has been the spiritual guide of the Medjugorje visionaries between 1981 and 1985.
As the integrity — not only of Mgr Pavao Zanic but also of some Medjugorje protagonists — is at stake, the unveiling of the necessary and valid documentation to shed the “light of truth” to the case becomes imperative.
I invite the readers who have not read the preceding article to do it first. They will find some answers to the following questions:
– How did I become acquainted with the “T. affair” and what primary sources did I collect?
– What is Fr. René Laurentin’s version of the affair and his credibility — taking into account his precedent falsifications of historical documents?
– Why do I suspect and claim that Laurentin’s version consists in the fabrication of a story aimed at discrediting the Ordinary of Mostar?
– On what occasion did the former Bishop of Mostar conduct his own investigation on the affair that led him to Rome — where Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger delivered primary sources to Mgr Zanic — and what results did he achieve?
– Why do I publish a “strictly confidential” document and excerpts of private documents?
Famous accusation against Fr. Vlasic: a hoax, according to Laurentin
In light of recent developments, I must add an important reason for the unveiling of primary sources, as there are renewed published attempts to “rehabilitate” Tomislav Vlasic in using Fr. Laurentin’s fabrication. With full knowledge of these attempts, Mr. Vlasic makes no effort to put the record straight. We feel the obligation to do it, with the help of his own writings.
In the following lines, I will invite you to examine with me the authenticity of primary sources after submitting most of them to you with their significant excerpts. These sources are essential for the reconstruction of the facts. At the same time, three main protagonists will reveal themselves: the father and the mother of the child, and the “adoptive grandfather”. How will they manage to keep the secret or to make/not-make the truth known? We will be witnessing an intense drama of human fragility, desperation, manipulation, ambition, whose sad consequences will be the subject of our next article.
The examination of the sources’ authenticity
Before going through the sources, I suggest that you first read the “report” by the former Bishop of Mostar which will give you the chronological sense of the whole drama. That undisputed source 8 is to be found in the archives of the Bishopric of Mostar. As I explained in the preceding article when presenting the English version of that “report”, the complete names of some protagonists are not revealed for the sake of discretion.
We are now ready to proceed with the examination of each source that is presented chronologically with its significant excerpts — most of them having been translated into English. I will be adding some clarifications and questions for an “active reading”… Remember that my clarifications and questions will be proposed with the supposition that you have at least glanced through Mgr Zanic’s “report”.
My explicit answers as well as yours — if you submit comments — will be treated in the next article.
My sources with significant excerpts
Source 01
1. Letter – 1976-12-07 – from Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV) to Sr. RK [(nun, mother of a child to be born on 1977-01-25)
[„Was den Vater des Kindes anlangt, kann niemand Dich zwingen, darüber Auskunft zu geben. Du sagst: Du hast jemand vorübergehend kennengelernt. Er hat gesagt, er wird Dich heiraten. Später ist er weggegangen und hat sich nicht mehr gemeldet. Am besten ist zu sagen, Du kennst ihn nicht und niemand kann Dich zwingen ihn zu nennen. Auch für das Kind ist es später am besten.“]
“Concerning the father of the child, no one can force you to give any information about him. You say: you have met someone for a short time. He said he will marry you. Later he went away and disappeared. The best way is to say, you don’t know him and no one can force you to give his name. Also for the child, it will be better later on.”
Clarifications:
Mr. O. has sent that typed letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic. The translation from German into English is mine.
Fr. Laurentin has concealed the existence of that letter to his readers.
Question: Fr. Vlasic’s “instructions” to M. are given 6 weeks before the birth of the child: How would you qualify them?
On page 2 of that long letter, Fr. Vlasic also formulates another “instruction” to M. as to how she should be dispensed from her vows. That typed letter includes the equivalent of five handwritten lines that give the possibility to identify the writer.
Former Franciscan M.P. testifies that that letter has been written by Fr. Vlasic.
Question: What is your impression of MP’s testimony concerning the authenticity of that letter?
*****
Source 02
2. Letter – 1977-01-09 – from Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV) to Sr. RK [(nun, mother of a child to be born on 1977-01-25)
“The best thing is not to talk about the child. If you say anything about it only to one person, be it your own mother, or sister, or to anybody else, you said to the whole world. Besides, that will be of no help to you, just one more load to carry. On the contrary, you will have more merits and God’s blessings if you keep it to yourself, because in these difficult times you are going to save many sisters, Franciscans and Catholic world from disappointments. Then you are going to earn more reward than if you lived as a nun. You are going to be, indeed, like the Mother of God who accepted her special lot: she went with her child where it was necessary. God’s protection accompanied her, and that Child, even though it caused her crosses, became the source of the greatest glory to her. If you will embrace it in the same manner as She had done it, then there will not be the lack of joy and success in your life. And God will bless you forever. What is more, you do not have to tell it to anybody. You simply say that the child is yours, and let everybody else mind his own business. In this, you ought to be determined, since people are bad and they know how with their tongues to entangle the matters that nobody can disentangle.”
“N.B. Since Pervan [Fr. Tomislav Pervan: added by LB] has spread the news about you, a lot is being said about this house.”
“God! N.B. If you are going to speak about the father of the child, the best thing would be to say that last summer, he went to Australia, and that you will arrange everything over there. Once you are there, you will find your way around. You can “give” any name to the father in order to satisfy the curiosity of people. This is the best way to do it. But in this, you have to be consistent and firm.”
Clarifications: Mr. O. has sent that typed letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic. The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Fr. Ivo Sivric (1986).
Fr. Laurentin has concealed the existence of that letter to his readers.
Question:
How would you qualify that kind of intervention towards M., 16 days before the birth of the child?
That typed letter includes the equivalent of eight handwritten lines that give the possibility to identify the writer. Former Franciscan M.P. testifies that that letter has been written by Fr. Vlasic.
Question: What is your impression of MP’s testimony concerning the authenticity of that letter?
*****
Source 03
3. Letter – 1977-01-before the 25th – from Sr. RK (nun, mother of a child to be born on 1977-01-25) to Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV)
“My dear Tomo, I received your letter. Thanks for the prayers and good wishes. As far as my health is concerned as days are approaching, I am not bad. I am having headaches but this is from too much worrying. I went to be examined and was told that I will have the baby around the 10th of February. I got the dispensation from my vows. I went to confession. At present, everything is fine. I am praying to God that I die during childbirth since my life is so terrible. I don’t want it. Hundred times I would rather see myself dead than that someone of my folks sees me bearing an illegitimate child after 18 years of religious life. What is more, I have to lie that I had a baby with this and that. I don’t care for that kind of life that this old man has to take care of me.” […] “My Tomo, I brought shame upon myself. Everybody wants to be thought of as being honest. Not even an idiot will tell lies about himself. Just a bit is missing that I am completely insane.” […] “As it is now, I am in need of everything.” […] “Who is going to take care of myself.”
“Besides, I am hiding from my relatives like a snake. Tomo, don’t aggravate yourself, I won’t reveal your identity to anybody – at least not for the time being. I will let you know if I reveal you to anybody. The other day, the old man started to inquire who is the father and if he was going to marry me. I told him that he would not marry me and that I won’t tell his name to anybody; and then he stopped to question me anymore. Tomo, don’t be angry with me but you ought to understand me that it is not easy for me to cope with all this. You keep telling me to be like Mary. I understand that she was in a foreign land, but her Joseph was with her.”
Clarifications:
Mr. O. has sent that handwritten letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic. The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Fr. Ivo Sivric (1986).
Fr. Laurentin has concealed the existence of that handwritten letter to his readers.
Questions:
– How would you qualify the state in which M. finds herself at the moment of writing? Do you consider her response directly linked to Fr. Vlasic’s previous letter?
– If your answer is positive, would you agree that the authenticity of M’s letter is also linked to — or leads to — the authenticity of Fr. Vlasic’s previous letter?
– Does her “consolation” — “Tomo, don’t aggravate yourself, I won’t reveal your identity to anybody” constitute an admission/confirmation that “Tomo” — Fr. Tomislav Vlasic — is the father of the child to be born?
Former Franciscan M.P. testifies that that letter has been written by M.
Questions:
What is your impression of MP’s testimony concerning the authenticity of that 1½ page handwritten letter by M.?
What is your impression of the following opinion of MP?
*****
Source 04
4. Letter – 1981-12-15 – from Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV) to MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., an almost five-year-old boy)
“[Liebe M. Ende September habe ich Dir geschrieben. Ich erhielt keine Anrwort. Ich weiss nicht warum. Wie du siehst, nachdem Fr. Jozo Zovko eingesperrt ist, bin ich Pfarrer in Medjugorje geworden. Hier sind wir nur zwei, und tausend Menschen kommen, um Gospa zu beten. (Ich hoffe dass Du gehört hast, wie sich die Gospa hier erscheint.) Ich bin glücklich, dass ich hier bin, obwohl es viel Arbeit gibt un bin überlastet. Ich bin glücklich, dass ich ein Franziscaner bin und dass ich Gott diene.“]
“Dear M. I wrote to you at the end of September. I received no response. I don’t know why. As you see, after Fr. Jozo Zovko has been put in prison, I have become the parish priest of Medjugorje. We only are two priests, here, and thousand people are coming to pray to the Gospa. (I hope that you have heard that the Madonna is appearing here.) I am happy to be here, even if there is much work to do and I am overloaded. I am happy to be a Franciscan and to serve God.”
Clarifications: Mr. O. has sent that handwritten letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic. The translation from German into English is mine.
Fr. Laurentin has admitted the existence of that letter to his readers. However, he considers the letter of the “accused” (Fr. Vlasic) as “anodine” [“insignificant”].
Questions:
Now that you know what Fr. Laurentin knew, would you agree with his statement that the translated excerpt of this letter is “insignificant”?
Please read again the two statements made by Fr. Vlasic in the said letter:
1) “I have become the parish priest of Medjugorje.”
If one acknowledges
— Mgr Zanic’s statement in his “report”: “In 1981, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic came to Medjugorje without any approval.”
— and the present Ordinary’s declaration (see note 6, at the bottom of the page): “T. Vlasic in a letter to M. K., December 15, 1981, writes from Medjugorje: “As you see, after the arrest of Fr. Jozo Zovko, I am the parish priest at Medjugorje“. It wasn’t true.”
– How would you qualify Fr. Vlasic’s statement to M.?
– Do you agree with Fr. Laurentin’s appreciation that it is an “insignificant” statement?
– How would you qualify the concealment of that statement?
2) As to Fr. Vlasic’s other statement: “I am happy to be a Franciscan”, what would be your own appreciation of it, considering some “hopes” M. could have entertained of being with “her Joseph” who would share the responsibility of taking care of their child?
What is your appreciation of Former Franciscan M.P.’s statement that testifies that that handwritten letter is from Fr. Vlasic?
*****
Source 05
5. Letter – 1982-05-15 – from Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV) to MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., a five-year-old boy)
Clarifications: Mr. O. has sent that handwritten letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic.
Fr. Laurentin has admitted the existence of that letter to his readers. He considers the letter of the “accused” (Fr. Vlasic) as “anodine” [“insignificant”], and he seems to be right, except for the benign reproach addressed to M., here as in source 4, of failing to answer his letters.
*****
Source 06
6. Letter – 1983-05-15 – from Fr. Tomislav Vlasic (Fr. TV) to MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., a six-year-old boy)
[„Ich habe mich gänzlich unserer Gospa ausgehändigt. Ich wünsche mein Leben zu leben.“]
“I have totally abandoned myself to our Gospa. I wish to live my life.”
Clarifications: Mr. O. has sent that handwritten letter and its German translation to Cardinal Ratzinger who delivered personally the document to Mgr Pavao Zanic. The translation from German into English is mine.
Fr. Laurentin has admitted the existence of that letter to his readers. However, he considers the letter of the “accused” (Fr. Vlasic) as “anodine” [“insignificant”].
Questions:
Now that you know what Fr. Laurentin knew, would you agree with his statement that the translated segment of this letter is “insignificant”?
Please read again the two statements made by Fr. Vlasic in the said letter: “I have totally abandoned myself to our Gospa. I wish to live my life.”
Considering the importance of source 3, and its significance, what could be a plausible interpretation of the said statements?
*****
Source 07
7. Letter – 1984-11-?? – apparently from MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., a seven-year-old boy) to Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar – excerpt 1
“It seems to me that it is better that I tell you, because of our dear God and of our faith. If I wouldn’t say, I would consider it to be a sin. Our dear Saviour has given me strength to make everything known to you. I bore a child. [scratched in original letter: remark by LB] I worked in Zagreb before I left for Germany. I became acquainted with Rev. Tomislav Vlasic in Zagreb who is, at present, in Medjugorje. Please, forgive me Father Bishop since I want to tell that I had a child, a son, by Rev. Tomislav Vlasic. Ever since then I am accompanied by so many miseries. I had to go to Germany to work there and also to leave the milieu where it was not easy for me.”
“My son T. is already a big boy and goes to school. Christian family without a father is a family where Christian love is lacking and education without parents. I do not know what I am going to tell my son T. since his father Tomislav does not communicate with us lately. And T. knows everything. Dear Father Bishop,…”
« … what am I supposed to do that my son experiences the love of both parents? I am praying all the time to dear Saviour that my son might obtain the help from his father. I beg you that you find a way and that you tell Tomislav to help his son T. in his life so that he may finish school and that we put him on the Christian track. With Christ’s love I am kindly greeting you. M. I beg you, Most Reverend, that you speak to Father Vlasic and that you, in your conversation, only mention the names M and T.”
Clarifications:
That handwritten letter has been received by Mgr Pavao Zanic in November 1984. It is highly probable that it has been transmitted to Cardinal Ratzinger for examination. The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Fr. Ivo Sivric (1986).
Fr. Laurentin has concealed that that handwritten letter with M’s signature has been received by Mgr Zanic and has also concealed its content to his readers.
Characteristics of that “mysterious” letter raise some doubts about the identity of its sender:
– The letter is not dated and is signed only by M’s first name, without her address.
– In a handwritten note at the end of that letter (p. 2), Mgr Zanic writes that the envelope has been stamped in a post office at the border of Denmark.
– The content, which corresponds to facts, is not put into question, as we have noticed in the examination of the previous documents. It seems, however, that the size of the writing or calligraphy is different from the one observed in source 3, and the one in sources 9 and 10 whose authenticity is assured, as we shall see.
– As witnessed personally by Mgr Zanic, M. denied that she had written that letter. That denial left the Bishop sceptic:
“With the help of my priests in Germany and police I found her in S., but while I was investigating the matter in Hercegovina, her tutors had persuaded her to deny that she wrote the letter to the Bishop. I seemingly accepted that…” (Mgr Zanic to MP)
Because of that controversy, I initiated a double-blind quantitative grapho-analytic investigation on the four copies of the letters written by M. that I had at my disposition. The report was positive: similarities were observed in the slope of writing, calligraphic qualities and traits. “The size of the writing is different but this can be linked to the state of mind in which these letters were written.” However, taking into account that the grapho-analyst had copies instead of original documents, and that grapho-analysis is not an “exact” science — and in our case, submitted to one expert only — I have to suspend my “judgement” on a “convincing” material proof.
Questions:
– As the content of that letter seems to confirm the information revealed in the previous letters — from M. and Fr. Vlasic — should we simply ignore M’s denial of being its author?
– If, in any shape or form, directly or indirectly, M. is the author of that letter, what could explain that she asked for the Bishop’s help?
– Mr. P. submitted to me his own answer to the previous question. Do you agree with his interpretation?
– If M’s denial is truthful and not “forced”:
– who could have written that letter and incited the Bishop to visit M. in Germany, and why?
– does M’s denial invalidate the letter she wrote to “Tomo” in January 1977, before giving birth to her son?
*****
Source 08
8. Report – 1985-11-?? – (private and strictly confidential) from the Ordinariate of Mostar (Bp. PZ) [see English translation here] I have left Fr. Ivo Sivric’s dictated translation (1986) untouched.
Clarifications:
Fr. Laurentin has admitted the existence of that “report” to his readers but has concealed its specific content in order to be able to submit his own fabrication.
I suppose that, at this stage of looking at the sources, the readers will have gone through Mgr Zanic’s “report”.
We remember that the Bishop of Mostar made the following controversial statement:
“Then, two Franciscan fathers of Herzegovina went to the U.S. to ask the former Fr. P. to take the responsibility upon himself for the fatherhood of the boy. P. was in Zagreb with Fr. Tomislav when Sr. R. became pregnant and they wanted to put the responsibility upon him…”
Unfortunately, Mgr Zanic doesn’t mention the source of that information. Only one year later, in his letter to M.P., the Bishop refers to his two sources: Mr. O. and the Franciscan Provincial. Mgr Zanic asked Mr. P., in that same letter, to confirm his “non-fatherhood” of M’s child and the visit of the said Franciscans. Mr. P. did not answer the Bishop’s letter.
According to Mr. P, Mgr Zanic’s allegation on the Franciscans’ visit is untrue. In his long letter to me, Mr. P. wrote:
“He [the Bishop] says that Fr. Tomislav has confessed his fatherhood before him and the Provincial, and that the Provincial told him about two Franciscans who allegedly went to America to ask me to accept the fatherhood. I talked to the former Provincial, and I did not get the impression that this was true.”
I could not get any documentation to corroborate one or the other version. It looks like a “he said, he said”, which is not reliable. A suspension of judgment would be appropriate. It must be said, however, that an answer by Mr. P. to the Bishop’s letter would have helped to clarify the said allegation.
*****
Source 09
9. Letter – 1985-11-26 – from MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., an almost nine-year-old boy) to Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar
“Most Reverend Father Bishop, Ever since you visited here, since then this old man won’t leave me alone. I am serving him already nine years. He told me that you came to inquire who is the father of my son. He is suspecting a priest over there [in Yugoslavia] and he is writing letters all over. He is also writing to you, too. I am a Catholic, I was in the convent for 18 years, and I know what means to be a priest, and I cannot allow that something like that is said against them. I beg you as a Bishop and a priest that you would not believe that grandpa of 95 years of age who is feeble-minded. He is not aware how one can destroy someone’s reputation and cause a scandal… [a sentence hard to make out: remark by Fr. Ivo Sivric – 1986] I am going to tell you what is all about. I am here nine years and serve him. But he did not obtain for me social insurance, and I am granted a permit to live in Germany and to work since the period of nine years is quite long. He did not care about me … [it cannot be figured out: remark by Fr. Ivo Sivric – 1986]… he wants me to continue to be with him, but I won’t stay here because some lies are spread around. That’s the secret between God and myself [who is the father of M’s son: remark by Fr. Ivo Sivric – 1986), and nobody else knows. I am leaving him and I will get a job. I gave a notice to the grandpa.”
“Most Reverend, I maintain that you will accept what I have said and not what other people are saying who love to gossip. Take this into consideration because of the Church since in nowadays the world is full of evil and you know that. I am wishing you happy and joyous Christmas, please, keep me in your prayers, with sincere greetings. M.”
Clarifications:
The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Fr. Ivo Sivric (1986).
Fr. Laurentin has concealed that that handwritten letter with M’s signature has been received by Mgr Zanic and has also concealed its content to his readers.
Questions:
If you confer some credibility to the authenticity of sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8:
– how do you understand M’s position in that particular letter?
– what is your interpretation of some of M’s “justifications”? [ I know what means to be a priest…— how one can destroy someone’s reputation and cause a scandal…]
*****
Source 10
10. Letter – 1985-12-26 from MK (former Sr. RK, mother of T., an almost nine-year-old boy) to Fr. Ivan Dugandzic, (Fr. ID) Franciscan member of the Diocesan Commission
“Dear fra Ivan, Here I am answering your questions which the Most Reverend brought up during the session of the Commission against me. First I did not write that letter at all which supposedly had been written in 1983 and which the Bishop had shown to you. He himself knows that that letter is not mine for he came to me last spring in S. The same letter he showed to me, too. I said: Most Reverend, that’s not my letter nor is it my handwriting. The two of us alone spoke about it face to face. I told: Most Reverend, do you believe that that letter is not mine? He answered: I do believe. And now once again I hear that he said that that letter was mine. Besides, he asked me not to talk about it at all, and he promised that he would not talk either, and he did not talk. It hurts me very badly that a Bishop can spread around a lie against me. And I was unable to imagine that he can say something like it. God is my witness, and I am willing to take an oath before anybody, even on the cross, that I never either wrote or said to anybody. I never asked a help from anybody for my child and I will never ask. I never said to anybody who is the father of my child. That’s my private matter about which I am not willing to talk nor do I allow anybody else over there to talk about it. Fra Ivan, tell Most Reverend once more that he hurt me in soul with those wrong words. And my old man whom I have served nine years and whom I respected. When I have heard that he also behind my back writes against me that untruth hit me so hard that I left him right away.”
“I went away from him. Those letters that he sent to Cardinal Ratzinger, everything was behind my back. I knew nothing, nor did I know which letters were involved, nor who wrote those letters. You believe more the old man of 95 years who is spreading a lie around. He does not care either about the Church or the priests. Ask Bishop to show you my letter which I wrote to him November 26, 1985; tell him also that my soul hurts me because of the lie which is being spread all over the world against me. I would end with this: if I have offended anybody, I ask for pardon, in the same manner let those who offended me to apologize. My greetings to the Bishop and all on the Commission; and if they want to do something for me, let them pray for me. And I will be grateful to them for it, I am not asking for anything more. That is best for me. MK”
Clarifications:
The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Fr. Ivo Sivric (1986).
Fr. Laurentin has concealed that that handwritten letter with M’s signature has been received by Fr. Dugandzic and has also concealed most of its content to his readers. The recipient of the partial content of that specific letter is falsely identified as the Bishop of Mostar. [See more on the “anatomy” of the fabrication in the next article: “The perfidy and its consequences”.]
M’s letter contains some factual errors:
– the letter in question [source 7], not dated, has been posted in November 1984 — according to the Bishop’s written testimony—, not 1983;
– following the reception of that letter, the Bishop visited M. in S., in November 1984 (according to Mr. O.’s written testimony), not in the Spring of 1985.
Questions:
If one confers some credibility to the authenticity of sources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8:
– Can one explain why M. has been asked by a Franciscan colleague of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic to answer some “delicate” questions in writing concerning the identity and behaviour of Fr. Vlasic?
– Did Fr. Dugandzic have a legitimate mandate from the Commission to require some targeted answers from M.?
– If Fr. Dugandzic had a legitimate mandate from the Commission to enlighten its members on that subject, why has Fr. Tomislav Vlasic not been asked to answer some “delicate” questions in writing by the same colleague concerning his own correspondence with M. since 1976 and his behaviour towards M. in that period of time?
*****
Source 11
11. Brochure in French released by Fr. René Laurentin (Fr. RL), 1986-01 (p. 6)
We have already presented the first phase of Fr. Laurentin’s version.
*****
Source 12
12. Booklet in French authored by Fr. René Laurentin (Fr. RL), 1986-07 (p. 50, 51, 52, 53)
We have already presented the second phase of Fr. Laurentin’s version.
*****
Source 13
13. Letter – 1986-10-31 – from Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar (Bp. PZ) to MP (former Franciscan living in the U.S.)
“Dear P.! We don’t know each other, but there is something that both of us should be concerned about, and that is the child of ex-nun RK.
I am sending you a part of correspondence what Cardinal Ratzinger gave me. That and much more was mailed to him by old A-M O. with whom they accommodated pregnant M.
In November 1984, she wrote me a letter on which there was just a mark M. With the help of my priests in Germany and police I found her in S., but while I was investigating the matter in Hercegovina, her tutors had persuaded her to deny that she wrote the letter to the Bishop. I seemingly accepted that, stayed there for dinner, saw little T. (looks the same as Fr. Tomislav).
I wasn’t telling anyone about that. Afterwards, the old O. asked himself why the Bishop was coming to M.? I had not told him anything. He translated some letters photocopied long time ago, and he found out that M. was a nun, that the father of the child is Fr. Tomislav Vlasic.
Fr. Tomislav had pleaded guilty before me and the Provincial that he is the father of the child. Before that he did confess the same to one of the members of the Commission, but after that, in front of some, he is denying, and in front of others, he forgives to all “calumniators”.”
“Everything is clear, but now I’m sending you a photocopy where Laurentin writes that the child is yours, even though he isn’t mentioning your name.
I wish you would write to me about the events from 1976, when the drama was taking place in Zagreb, and would you send me a statement that you are not little T.’s father.
Old O. writes, and the Provincial is telling me that when this was discovered, two Franciscans again went to you in America to persuade you to accept the fatherhood.
M. and T. were transferred in A. so that they can be better taken care of. Old O. loved little T. a lot. From what I hear he bought them an apartment in Zagreb, and again he asked me to help them with both Provincials.”
Clarifications:
The translation from Croatian into English has been made for me by Mr. M.P. (1988).
We have already clarified the untruth concerning the purported visit of two Franciscans to Mr. P. aimed at “persuading the former Franciscan to accept T.’s fatherhood”, which Mr. P. denied.
*****
Source 14
14. Letter – 1986-12-01 – from A-M.O to members of a student help organization he founded. – Excerpt 2 – excerpt 3 – excerpt 4 – excerpt 5
[Am 21.Dezember 1985 schritt Frau M. nachmittags 4 Uhr wortlos an mir vorüber, drehte sich auf der Gartentreppe überraschend um und rief mir zu: “Vater, danke für alles!”
Das war wie eine Stimme des Hl. Geistes, wie ein Lichtstrahl aus den Sternen des bevorstehenden Weihnachtsfestes, vor dem ich bangvoll stand. Genau wie damals M. vor neun Jahren, bis auf den Boden zerstört, wie ein Wurm zertreten in den Staub, mit ihrem ungeborenen Kind, das sie damals noch als fremde Last ansah. Und denen beiden ich und mein gutes altes Haus Vater, Beschützer, Heimat und Herberge wurden.
Damals fragte ich mich: Sind diese neun Jahre und dieser Satz, herausgepreßt, wie aus Trotz, daß es der begleitende Franziskaner, ihr Beichtvater und Berater, beschämt hören mußte, Wirklichkeit?]
On December 21, 1985 Mrs. M. walked past me without saying a word and surprisingly she turned around on the garden stairs and called out to me: “Father, thanks for everything!”
It was like a voice from the Holy Spirit, like a beam from the stars of the upcoming Christmas, which I awaited fearfully. It was exactly like nine years ago, M. totally devastated, like a worm crushed in the dust, with her unborn child, which at that time she still regarded as a strange burden and to both of whom I myself and my good old house became Father, guardian, home and refuge.
At that time I asked myself: is this real, these nine years and this sentence, squeezed out like in defiance, so that the accompanying Franciscan, her confessor and counselor, ashamedly had to hear it?
[An diesen beiden verhängnisvollen Daten des 21. und 26. Dezembers 1985 beginnen mein und Ms. Leben Schicksal und Zeichen des Eingreifens ewiger Mächte zu werden. Sie erkennt nicht, wie ich, in dieser dunklen Wolke des Geschehens zwischen 21. und 26. Dezember 1985 das Menschenleben, Familien und Institutionen der Kirche bedrohende Schicksal aus jener verbrecherischen Untat, der sie und ihr Kind vor zehn Jahren zum Opfer gefallen waren. Damals – ehe sie Zagreb verließ – hatte das Wellen geschlagen bis nach Rom; bis die Strategie des Bösen glaubte, mit dem Mantel des Schweigens und Vertuschens sei alles “ins Reine gebracht”.]
On these two fateful dates of December 21 and 26, 1985 mine and M’s life begin to become destiny and sign of the intervention by eternal powers.
She does not, as I do, realize in this dark cloud of events between 21 and 26 December 1985 the threatening consequences for people, families and institutions of the Church arising from that criminal deed she and her child were victim of ten years ago.
At that time, – before she left Zagreb – it had caused quite a stir up to Rome, till the strategy of evil thought that by drawing a veil of silence and cover up over it, they would come out clean.
[M. schrieb zur selben Zeit ihres wogenden Gewissens und im Sturm ihrer Schuldgefühle jenen einzigartigen Brief, in dem sie vor Gott und ihrem Gewissen mit dem Zerstörer ihres Lebens und ihrer Christusliebe, zuerst noch Gefangene seiner Verführungskunst, dann aber “von Gottes Atemsturm” erfaßte “Magdalena” zu Umkehr und Heilung für sich und ihr Kind bereit und darum für viele Jahre zurückgeholt an Gottes Herz war. Hätten wir diesen Brief und seine Bekenntnisse nicht, so wüßten wir nichts über die innere geistige und geistliche Situation und die überzeugenden providenziellen Möglichkeiten vor ihrem Sündenfall. Jeder Satz darin, richtig gesetzt und durchleuchtet aus dem Glauhen und der Erfahrung liest sich wie ein apokalyptischer Donnerschlag im Gericht Gottes:
“Da muß ich lügen, daß ich das Kind habe von diesem und jenem…”
“Auch der Irre lügt nicht gegen sich selbst. Mir fehlt dazu nur ein wenig… ”
“Jeder Mensch braucht seine Rechtschaffenheit… Ich muß mich verbergen wie eine Schlange…”
(Was aber hat dieser Mann mit ihr gemacht?) – (Da sagt er seelenruhig zu ihr:) “… Sprichst Du: Heilige Dein Leben wie Maria!” (Du hast leicht reden.) “…Sie hatte in der Fremde ihren Joseph”, (der ihre Jungfräulichkeit und Christentreue beschützt hat. Was hast Du getan?)
(Trotz alledem – er hat sie noch stark in seiner Gewalt als Hörige einer vorgetäuschten “Liebe von Gott” und sie sagt:) “Tomo, ärgere Dich nicht zu sehr: Ich werde Dich nicht verraten…” aber schon im Gewissen unruhig, fügt sie hinzu: “… wenigstens jetzt nicht.”]
When her troubled conscience and her sense of right and wrong caught her in a storm, M. wrote that unique letter, in which she before God and her conscience, first still captive of the powers of seduction of the destroyer of her life and her love for Christ, but then, like “Magdalena” seized by a “storm of God’s breath”, was ready for conversion and healing for herself and her child and thus for many years was retrieved to God’s Heart. Would we not have had this letter and its confession, we would not know anything about her inner mental and spiritual situation and the convincing providential possibilities before her fall. Every sentence therein, correctly placed and screened and based on Faith and understanding, reads like an apocalyptic thunderbolt of God’s judgment:
“I have to lie that I have the child from one or the other.”
“Also the insane does not lie against himself. For me it doesn’t need much to do it myself…”. [Remark by L.B. = the original Croatian handwritten text by M. seems to be “stronger” as translated to me by Fr. Ivo Sivric in 1986: “Not even an idiot will tell lies about himself. Just a bit is missing that I am completely insane.”]
“Everyone needs respectability. … I must hide like a snake… ”
But what has this man done with her? – Calmly he tells her: “… Sanctify your life like Mary!” That is easy for you to say. Away from home she had her Joseph, who protected her virginity and Christian faith. What have you done?
But In spite of everything – he still holds her in his grip as captive of a feigned “Love of God” and she says: “Tomo, don’t be too annoyed: I will not expose you…” but already bothered by her conscience she adds: “at least not now”.
[Das war Umkehr, die Gott segnete über das Geständnis bei.der Narkosegeburt hinaus und sieben jahre Frieden in unserem Haus. Dann verfiel sie wieder dem Einfluß dieses Mannes, der das Alibi, das er der Mutter seines Kindes und den Mitbrüdern und Oberen abgehandelt hatte, als Freikarte für die Welt und selbst drei Jahre für Medjugorje als Organisator und charismatischer Werber unter milionen von betrogenen Pilgern in Kirche und Welt ausnutzte, bis der Bischof ihn im September 1984 vorerst seines Postens enthob.
Warum konnte das geschehen? Warum belog M. im November 1984 ihren Bischof, als er uns besuchte, um die Wahrheit über den Vater zu erfahren? Warum schwor sie einen Eid, daß sie ihn nie nennen und keine Rente für sich und das Kind annehmen werde? Wer hat ihr gesagt, daß sie mit diesem “Heldentum” der Lüge und des Verzichtens den “Frieden” (Friedhofsruhe des Schweigens) über alles Geschehen legen könne?]
That was a conversion, which God blessed beyond the confession and caesarian birth and seven years of peace in our house. And then she succumbed again to the influence of this man, who exploited the alibi, he had obtained from the mother of his child and from his co-brothers and superiors, as a free ticket for the world and even three years as organizer and charismatic promoter of Medjugorje under millions of mislead pilgrims in Church and world, until the bishop in September 1984 removed him from his post for the time being.
Why could that take place? Why did M. in November 1984 lie to her bishop, when he visited us in order to find out the truth about the father? Why did she swear an oath that she would never reveal his name and that she would not accept compensation for herself and the child? Who told her, that with this “heroism” of lie and rejection “peace”, (the silent peace of the graveyard), could be spread over everything that has happened?
[Liebe M ! Heute schreibe ich Dir als Vater, der heute noch genau so wie in den vergangenen Jahren nur Euer Bestes wollte:
Lasse Dich in dieser Entscheidung von keinem Menschen irreführen! Glaube mir! Du allein entscheide aus Deinem Gewissen, vor Gott und der Gospa! Ich bete für Euch: Es geht um Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit. Mache Frieden mit Gott für Dich und Dein Kind! Keine Lüge mehr über die Vaterschaft! Schreibe dem Bischof: “Er ist der Vater! Schreibe P. Du*** : Ich nehme Eid zurück! Schreibe an Generalat in Rom: Er ist der Vater. Dann hast Du Frieden im Herzen und vor Gott und Menschen. Dein Kind hat den ehrlichen Mutter- und Vaternamen. Er allein hat die Kraft nicht dazu. Später wird er und alle anderen Dir danken. Nur Wahrheit macht frei!]
***(Pater Dugandzic: Bemerkung von LB)
Dear M.! Today I write to you as father, who today, just as the years before, only wanted the best for you.
Don’t let anybody mislead you in your decision! Believe me! You alone can decide in conscience before God and the Gospa! I pray for you. It’s all about truth and justice. Make peace with God for yourself and your child! No lies anymore about the fatherhood! Write to the bishop: “He is the father…”. Write to P.Du.***:”I renounce the oath”! Write to the Superior of the Franciscans in Rome: “He is the father…”. Then you will have peace of heart before God and mankind. Then your child will have the real name of his mother and father. He alone does not have the strength to do it. Later he will thank you and all the others will thank you. Only the truth makes free!
***(Fr. Dugandzic: remark by L.B.)
*****
Source 15
15. Handwriting comparison analysis – 1987-05-22 – of four documents (sources 3, 7, 9, 10) written by Sr. RK/MK (mother of T.)
See above for the presentation of that document.
*****
Source 16
16. Booklet in English authored by Fr. René Laurentin (Fr. RL), 1987 (p. 40–41, partial translation of 12)
That English partial translation has been presented in the context of Fr. Laurentin’s complete French version.
*****
Source 17
17. Transcribed notes – 1988-08-04 – of a telephone conversation between Fr. René Laurentin (Fr. RL) and Louis Bélanger (LB) – page 2 – page 3 – page 4
That document will be presented in the next article together with the discussion concerning the “anatomy” of Fr. Laurentin’s fabrication.
*****
Source 18
18. Letter – 1988-08-31 – from Louis Bélanger to MP (former Franciscan living in the U.S.)
Mr. M.P. is a former Franciscan “accused” by Fr. Laurentin of being the father of M’s child. He used to share the house of a small Franciscan community, in Zagreb, for some years in the 70’s, together with Fr Tomislav Vlasic and Sr R.K. who became the mother of a child. Mr. P. has kindly accepted to answer my written questions sent to him in 1988 and gave his permission for the publication of his answers, as confirmed in the excerpts attached to the source.
*****
Source 19
19. Letter – 1988-09-15 – from MP (former Franciscan living in the U.S.) to Louis Bélanger (LB)
excerpt 1 – excerpt 2 – excerpt 3 – excerpt 4 – excerpt 5 – excerpt 6 – excerpt 7 – excerpt 8
Intro:
Dear Mr. Belanger, […] I’ll try to answer your questions as best as I can. I’ll try to be objective. I don’t have any interest taking one or another side. The truth is that I don’t believe in the apparitions in Medjugorje and Fr. Tomislav Vlasic and M.K. were my friends and they are still my friends. What I’m about to say is what I think based on what I know. My only interest in this matter is that the truth comes out. If you want to publish any of my remarks, feel free to do so. I’m sorry that my English is not very good, so if you quote me, please correct my English. [Permission to publish reiterated by M.P. to LB in an email dated 2012-01-23, twenty-three years later…]
Yes, You are right! There is not any allusion in all the correspondence that Fr. Vlasic would wish to be dispensed from his vows. He is only helping M. to get her dispense from her vows. In my opinion, he doesn’t have the courage to do the same, I mean to leave the Order.
What would be my own version concerning T’s father’s identity? If you had asked me that question before I found out about the “T. affair”, I wouldn’t even have tried to answer that, because that would have been very hard for anyone.
Knowing Fr. Tomislav for a long time, I would have never thought that he would do something like that. When I was in Zagreb at that time, when M. left us, we used to discuss many times who could be the father. We never mentioned the possibility that he could be the father.
In the house where we lived, there were two nuns: M.K. and K.L., and there were three of us: K.G., Tomislav Vlasic and me. I did not think of Tomislav as being the father. I knew that I was not, and I knew that M. had never liked K. G.
Furthermore, M. did not go out, except to the store, and not even often. Yes, there were times that some other priests would be in the house, but they would be a day or two and leave. So, as you see, it wasn’t easy to answer that question at that time.
Now, after I read all of this correspondence between M. and Tomislav, her letter to the Bishop, there is no doubt in my mind that Fr. Tomislav is the father of M’s child.
What do I think about the authenticity of those letters? Could they be forged? I know M’s and Tomislav’s handwriting, and I’m very confident the letters are not forged. It is possible that one could forge one letter, but not all those series of letters. I can’t imagine one would have interest to do that. I firmly believe that the letters are M’s and Tomislav’s.
[Question by LB: Could you confirm me (as you did on telephone) that Laurentin has never got in touch with you to verify that “the presumed father of the child quit the order and went to the United States, where he is married after being reduced to the lay state.”?]
Answer by M.P.: No! Fr. Laurentin never got in touch with me.
[Question by LB: Concerning your knowledge of M., Laurentin writes <Source 12, p. 52>: « Il est vrai qu’une religieuse franciscaine croate, dont la présence avait fait problème dans trois couvents successifs… ». Do you have some information that would help to confirm or deny that M’s “presence in three successive convents had created problems”?]
Answer by M.P.: I don’t know where Fr. Laurentin gets his information from? If he accuses me of being the father of M’s child, without any hard evidence, then he can accuse M. of anything he wants. I never heard that M. had created problems in any convent. That is not enough to deny Laurentin’s story, but Herzegovina is very small and if something like that had happened, these things would have been usually known soon after.
[Question by LB: If you accept the authenticity of Document 7 (purported letter from M. to Bishop Zanic), how would you explain that she changed her mind as confirmed in her letter to Bishop Zanic dated Nov. 26 1985? <Source 9>
Answer by M.P.: Why did M. change her mind? That’s easy to explain. […] When everything was done, M. found herself alone in [Germany] without knowing the language, with the old man whom she never knew, with her own child whom she had to take care of, not knowing how. That was a very hard situation for her. Tomislav would write from time to time, but that was not enough for her. She had to talk to someone, but she was very isolated from anyone. In one of her letters to Tomislav, she asked him to send some toothpaste from Zagreb. So, as you see, she felt like being imprisoned. I think she was happy for having her own child, but at the same time, she was very afraid of how to nurse him alone. Finally, she couldn’t take it any more!
About Fr. Tomislav being manipulative. As a person, I don’t think he was manipulative. But, reading his letters to M., one would conclude that he is manipulative. I wouldn’t be surprised if he was manipulative of visionaries, because I think they were afraid of the situation in which they found themselves after claiming to see the Madonna.
[The Bishop writes to me] that Fr. Tomislav has confessed his fatherhood before him and the Provincial, and that the Provincial told him about two Franciscans who allegedly went to America to ask me to accept the fatherhood. I talked to the former Provincial and I did not get the impression that this was true.
[Remark by LB: we have to remember my discussion of that point in Source 8. In his letter to M.P., the Bishop refers to his two sources: Mr. O. and the Franciscan Provincial. Mgr Zanic asked Mr. P., in that same letter, to confirm his “non-fatherhood” of M’s child and the visit of the said Franciscans. Mr. P. did not answer the Bishop’s letter. According to primary sources, particularly sources 1, 2 and 3, there is no reasonable doubt that Tomislav Vlasic is the father of M’s child. Mr. P’s “impression” of an untruth concerns the alleged plan of sending a “delegation” of two Franciscans to ask him to accept the fatherhood of M’s child. Mr. P. asked the former Provincial — one of the two sources of the Bishop — and he got the “impression” that there had been no such plan. No verification has been made with the Bishop’s second source, Mr. O.. This is why I pointed out that a suspension of judgment pertaining to that alleged “plan” seems to be appropriate.]
*****
Conclusion
The expression that comes to my mind in trying to put a “provisional” end to the revealing display of those primary sources is “perfidy”: the act or fact of violating the trust or confidence of another (M-W).
The spectre of perfidy is haunting the history of Medjugorje. How sad is the constat that the trust of faithful and bona fide researchers has been and still is betrayed by unscrupulous and irresponsible communicators, journalists, pastors, historians whose ends justify the means.
Now that we have examined the facts that shed some light on a human drama and a disastrous fabrication attempting to conceal it, we will try, in the next and last article of that series, to draw the consequences of such a perfidy.
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,
Louis Bélanger
