Our readers have already been informed about an insidious attack by Croatian journalists against the late Ordinary of Mostar. The serious charge has been uncritically transmitted by journalist-vaticanist Andrea Tornielli who initiated— but abruptly interrupted — an exchange in our commentaries section.

Shortly before Christmas 2011, Mgr Peric published a response that Richard Chonak translated from Italian into English. According to the main accusation, Mgr Zanic was allegedly a collaborator of the Yugoslav secret police [UDBA] and, under communist threats, changed drastically his position on the so-called apparitions of Medjugorje.

As if it were not enough, visionary Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti echoed the allegation in a recently published interview with an Italian journalist. She claimed, without providing any evidence for her arbitrary statement, that the communist police ordered the Bishop to deny the apparitions and Marian faith and so “Zanic denied everything”.

Mgr Peric revealed that he had access, last November 2011, to the secret police reports in connection with Mgr Zanic and Medjugorje:

“None of the 30 documents from the years 1981 to 1988 makes any mention anywhere, of any kind of communist coercion or threats under which Bishop Žanić would have made a “denial” so that nothing would “happen” to him, as the “visionary” “informed” the public in the Italian language.

“Moreover, in several reports that were sent during these years from the security services of Mostar to their higher offices inSarajevo, it is clear that Bishop Žanić did not want to meet with the President of the Commission for Religious Questions on 14 July 1981.

“And being a persistent opponent of the communist system, it is explicitly mentioned that he is a “bearer of enemy activity” under number 1 in the documents dated: 31 January 1983; 7 November 1983; 8 December 1983; 4 January 1984; 7 March 1984; 24 April 1986.

“He was an ideologically principled opponent of communism during all his time in Mostar, from 1971 to 1993.

“The truth shall set you free. In the miscellany on Bishop Pavao Žanić titled “The Truth shall set you Free”, Mostar 1992, there is an extensive discussion between the editor of this work Fr. Tomo Vukšić, who today is the Military Ordinary of B-H, and Bishop Pavao. The editor put forth the question:

“Many of your homilies contained criticisms of the communist authorities and ideology. I personally oftentimes listened to these criticisms. On what grounds did you base your convictions and courage?”

“Fr. Tomo was associate pastor of the Cathedral parish of Mostar between 1980 and 1982.

“The Bishop replied:

“Being a principled opponent of communism – the universal lie – I often took aim against this lie. The communists had in their hands all means of intimidation against people, especially on the youth. The faithful were being ‘disciplined’ everywhere.

“Communism bathed the entire world in blood and despite this it still had its adherents. And yet, it disintegrated because it controlled everything for too long through lies, force and empty words. I did not end up in jail but I was the last person in Split to receive a passport.

“I was constantly being eavesdropped…” [Source]

Part of the “first” truth that “shall set us free” is to know how the political authorities for religious affairs handled the “crisis” in the mid-eighties. The Croatian journalists, the Medjugorje Franciscans and the visionaries of today are very careful not to reveal us what was at stake at that time.

Let us hear what Filip Simic, deputy minister for religious affairs in Bosnia Herzegovina, said to a British film crew, in September 1986:

Doesn’t Mr. Simic contradict the core of the accusation against Mgr Zanic of collaboration with communist authorities?

If the communist authorities were welcoming the boost to the economy, and profiting from it, as we have seen in the video clip, shouldn’t they have “ordered” the bishop not to “deny the apparitions and Marian faith”? That was the situation five years after the beginning of the events.

The argument of the accusers, not substantiated with any valid documentation, doesn’t then resist to the facts.

Instead of being a “collaborator” of the communist regime, Mgr Zanic may have been rather considered as a potential “saboteur” of the government’s new lucrative activities, in an ailing Yugoslav economy, particularly because of his 1984 firm Posizione:

We know, however, that Mgr Zanic had a positive but careful attitude, in 1981:

“The main question remains, however, whether it is a subjective experience of children or something supernatural.” He didn’t hesitate to defend the visionaries and the Franciscans against the calumnies disseminated by communist journalists and political authorities:

“That night Sarajevo TV gave its own explanation of the day’s events, quoting a press release issued at a meeting of the Citluk commune:

“We decided that it was necessary to underline that what the priests, Jozo Zovko of Medjugorje, and his colleagues, Ferdo Vlasic, Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar, and other extremists intend and desire is nothing less than to restore the terrorist Ustasa organisation. All of this constitutes the very gravest abuse of religious freedom.“  [underlined by LB]

“Bishop Zanic protested in a letter to the Federal President on 1st September. Speaking for himself and the other accused priests, he expressed himself saddened by: “these irresponsible calumnies and these attacks whose bad taste will in no way facilitate a calm appraisal of the events which have been taking place in Medjugorje. Such behaviour violates fundamental human and civic rights.”

Mary Craig – Spark From Heaven, 1988, hardcover, p.78

Finally, part of the “second” truth that “shall set us free” is to acknowledge the real concern of the courageous Pastor that Mgr Zanic was. As evidence, his words captured by the same film crew, in September 1986:

Bishop Zanic was well aware that pilgrims to Medjugorje had cast him in the role of villain. “Anyone who doesn’t believe in the place is dismissed as an atheist,” he complained. “People are looking for miracles, and if they can’t find them they invent them. They’re trying to prop up their faith with things they know nothing at all about, intangible things. But a great deal of caution is needed: you can’t use apparitions as a basis for faith. They may prove false – and then where are you?”

Mary Craig, idem, p. 184

Anyone who did not believe in the place was “dismissed as an atheist”, or — as we have seen recently — a “collaborator” of the atheists/communists according to irresponsible “Christian” Medjugorje propagandists who dared tarnish Mgr Zanic’s memory.

“People seemed unable to understand that his refusal to accept Medjugorje was based on valid objections:

“I have a responsibility to God, to the Holy See and to my own conscience, to examine this matter thoroughly and discover the truth about it. If in so doing I were to speak against the dictates of my own conscience, I should deserve the terrors of Hell. And if I must suffer for the truth, then so be it.”

Mary Craig, idem, p. 184-185

Here are the main fallacies — which I will discuss in the next posts — found in books, periodicals, blogs, video documentaries, and some articles written recently by a rédacteur working for the Medjugorje Franciscans:

1]      The predecessor (Mgr Pavao Zanic) of the present Ordinary of Mostar (Mgr Ratko Peric) has persecuted some Franciscan Friars, especially Frs. Jozo Zovko and Tomislav Vlasic by broadcasting slanderous accusations about them, notably of Fr. Vlasic having fathered a child, “a claim that was soon revealed to be baseless, but none the less has been repeated ever since”. The real father of the said child was a former Franciscan established in the USA, according to Fr. René Laurentin.

2]      Fr. Tomislav Vlasic was not the “spiritual director” of the visionaries.

3]      The Ordinary of Mostar and his predecessor are/were alone negatively and stubbornly biased against the so-called apparitions.

4]      The non constat de supernaturalitate judgment is negative, when coming from Mgr Zanic who had arbitrarily chosen the members of the first two commissions, but “neutral” and not “negative” when maintained by the Yugoslavian Bishops Conference.

5]      The Ordinary of Mostar and his predecessor have been “discarded” by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the Medjugorje issue.

6]      The changing of Mgr Zanic’s position, from positive at the beginning to negative after January 1982 towards the so-called apparitions, was due to threats against him from the political authorities that made him a collaborator and marionette of the communists;

7]      The so-called apparitions have nothing to do with the Herzegovina affair and should be “separated” from it.

8]      A Church judgement on the authenticity of the apparitions cannot be made as long as they continue.

9]      After his “private” visit to Medjugorje, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, excused himself to the Ordinary of Mostar (2010).

10]  Fr. Jozo Zovko has been persecuted by the communists and imprisoned for his “faith” (1981).

Context of the present post

Almost four months ago, I reacted to the article “Medjugorje: Communists against apparitions”, published in La Stampa (2011-09-08) under the heading “Inquiries and interviews”, that perplexed me.

Written by journalist-vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, it conveys the allegation that the Yugoslav secret police have manipulated the former Bishop of Mostar, Mgr Pavao Zanic:

-          They supplied him a series of documents that fed the Ordinary’s hostility against the Franciscans of Medjugorje.

-          The said documents directly influenced the bishop’s actions by making him the main tool of the communist regime and the most determined enemy of the Medjugorje events.

-          Bishop Zanic “was willing to accept any document against the Franciscans and against the apparitions, even if of dubious origin.”

-          While the Bishop of Mostar defended the visionaries and the Franciscans at the beginning of the events, the Secret Service heavily influenced the Ordinary’s decision to change completely his position from January 1982.

-          The objectives were to compromise the Bishop and to gather information on “hostile activities” of some monks — Fr. Jozo Zovko, who was said to have had a number of love escapades, being one of the compromised Franciscans.

That piece of journalism, concocted especially by a vaticanist, puzzled me.

My main concern was Mr. Tornielli’s insidious attack against the intellectual, spiritual and pastoral integrity of the former Ordinary of Mostar, Mgr Pavao Zanic, by an interposed Croatian Medjugorje propagandist, journalist Zarko Ivkovic.

The Italian journalist didn’t “document” anything, didn’t verify anything: he copied/pasted very serious allegations without granting his readers any factual historical retrospective.

Was Mr. Tornielli so ignorant of the facts concerning Medjugorje that he blackened Mgr Zanic’s integrity and reputation by identifying him as a blind marionette of the Yugoslav communist regime?

The vaticanist was the first commenter of my post, a few hours after its release.

“Is a fact that the communist were trying to control and influence Medjugorje phenomenon, and that they were trying to influence bishop Zanic.

“I don’t think (and I did not write) Zanic was “a blind marionette of the Yugoslav communist regime”. But I think these documents are important: the direct or indirect influence of the communist regime in Medjugorje is a historical issue, and it needs to be studied.”

I did agree partly with his comment but justified clearly my position:

-          There seems to be nothing more in your article in La Stampa and in your Blog post that what is found in the book description’s blurb released on the publisher’s website.

-          As far as I have been able to understand from the automatic translation, your interview with Mr. Ivkovic “published in a different article” in the paper edition of La Stampa is neither referenced in the electronic edition nor in your Blog post. Is the international reader not justified to perceive both of your accessible electronic articles — the first one released by La Stampa, the second one on your complete control — as a coherent whole that reveals your position?

-          Have you not used Antonio Socci to back up the attack against Mgr Zanic and his successor, Mgr Peric — thus avoiding a counterbalance that should have been submitted by an objective journalist to Mr. Ivkovic’s agenda supported by Cardinal Schönborn himself, a Medjugorje propagandist?

-          As a vaticanist, would it not have been appropriate to interview the actual Bishop of Mostar who is concerned by those allegations? Or his spokesperson? May I suggest that a well informed critic who is geographically nearer to you, Marco Corvaglia, could have helped you to explore some discerning points of view, quite different from those you are used to hear like the ones of Fr. Livio Fanzaga, the Director of Radio Maria where you host a monthly tribune?

-          I don’t put into question that the Yugoslav communist regime has tried “to control and influence the Medjugorje phenomenon”, and “influence Bishop Zanic” — we agree on that.

-          My main point is that you convey the allegation that the Secret Service so heavily influenced Mgr Zanic’s decision that he changed completely his position from January 1982 — does the choice of that date point to a specific historical document? — making him a tool of the communist regime, thus its marionette concerning Medjugorje. As if the Ordinary had no legitimate intimate intellectual, spiritual and pastoral motive for the change of his initial spontaneous and positive assessment of the supernatural quality of the Medjugorje events — completely independent of the regime’s political stratagems.

-          That said, I agree with you, dear Mr. Andrea, that “these documents are important: the direct or indirect influence of the communist regime in Medjugorje is a historical issue, and it needs to be studied”, indeed in context with the ins and outs of Bishop Pavao Zanic’s real Posizione. With the same attention and concern that you showed in your acclaimed work in which you denounced “the arbitrary diminishment of the figure of Pope Pius XII.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Tornielli did not come back to medjupedia: total silence from his part. I have not been able to verify if he has taken my objections into account.

But the attack against Mgr Zanic, and my reaction, drew the attention of the present Ordinary of Mostar, Mgr Ratko Peric, who published a response that Richard Chonak translated from Italian into English. Which in turn gave rise to Jakob Marschner’s post on Medjugorje Today. It has been also reverberated on diverse blogs critical of Medjugorje by Richard Chonak, Marco Corvaglia (Part1 and Part 2), Patrick Madrid, Terry Nelson, Mark Shea, Vincenzo.

Mr. Marschner was a few months ahead of Andrea Tornielli when he reported on the Croatian book by Ivkovic et al., in June 2011. His articles had escaped my attention: Communists spied intensely on Franciscans and Medjugorje critics parrot old communist lies.

The grave core of the treacherous attack against Mgr Zanic was there.

Indeed, Mr. Marschner writes:

“In an attempt at compromising Medjugorje priest Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, the Communist power-holders of the then Yugoslavia invented slanderous stories about him, claiming he had fathered a child. Though the accusations were proven false long ago, Medjugorje critics still repeat the claim whose Communist origin is now coming to the light in a new documentary book that details how the official Yugoslavia sought to destroy Medjugorje.”

Rédacteur Marschner continues:

“Part of the strategy on behalf of the secret police was informing the then Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar about the accusations against Fr. Vlasic. Bishop Zanic reacted by broadcasting the accusations against Fr. Vlasic all around the world – but still the secret document of  November 17th 1987 ends with a detailed proposal for further compromising not only Fr. Jozo Zovko, but also the Bishop.”

In short, according to Mr. Marschner’s decoding, the communists invented the story that Fr. Vlasic had fathered a child with a nun and informed Mgr Zanic who disseminated the slanderous story all around the world, without any verification.

Is that all true or simply a gross attempt to rehabilitate Fr. Vlasic at the expense of Mgr Zanic? Aren’t we left here with the terrible alleged constat that the Ordinary of Mostar lied outrageously and that Fr. Tomislav Vlasic was “innocent”?

Who fabricated the story about the father of the nun’s child? The “Communist power-holders” or Fr. René Laurentin?

According to my sources and documentation, the real story is quite different and very serious. Fr. René Laurentin would be the protagonist of a fabricated story intended to protect the said Franciscan and “save” the Medjugorje “apparitions”.

Back in time, we remember that Fr. René Laurentin had “covered” a similar story in the following manner.

“On November 28, 1985, the three priests of the parish (Ivan Dugandzic, Tomislav Pervan and Pero) were called to a meet­ing at the Bishop’s house in Mostar, along with the three seers, Maria, Ivan, and young Jakov (who was then 14 years old) , as well as Sister Janja, responsible for the community of sis­ters at Medjugorje, (today transferred as vice-provincial). The Bishop announced an accusation of misconduct against one of the Franciscan priests, formerly attached to the parish. The astonished guests asked, “What has this to do with us?” since the accusation referred to a period many years prior. This suspicion declared against an unsuspecting and presumably innocent man, could not have surprised them more.

“The next day, the Bishop of Mostar presented the same re­port to the Commission. They also were very astonished and asked, “Why are you bringing this up in conjunction with these apparitions?” In the days before and after, the Bishop mentioned the same accusation to several of his visitors. Some were made to feel this constituted a decisive argument against the apparitions.

“This apparently ill-founded accusation seemed to bring about a new level of discord between the Franciscans and the Bishop. This latent hostility developed years ago regarding the right of authority for certain parishes and areas of the country, and which had culminated with the suspension of two Francis­cans, by the Bishop, a few years ago.”

[Laurentin, René (1987) - The Apparitions at Medjugorje prolonged – A Merciful Delay for a World in Danger?,Milford,Ohio: The Riehle Foundation, p. 40-41]

Unfortunately, the English translation of the French booklet is shortened into three paragraphs, while Laurentin’s original French story is contained in 29 paragraphs that have been concealed from view of monolingual English readers. [to be continued]

Cordially,

Louis Bélanger

The serious charge has been uncritically transmitted by journalist-vaticanist Andrea Tornielli who initiated — but abruptly interrupted — an exchange in our commentaries section.

A few days ago, the Bishop of Mostar, Mgr Ratko Peric, has published a response that Richard Chonak translated from Italian into English.

We will be back next week with a follow-up of the first article in presenting the real positions of Mgr Zanic caught on audiotape during the two interviews graciously given in French by the Ordinary of Mostar, in January 1985.

Cordially,

Louis Bélanger

with my gratitude for their encouragement and prayers,

a blessed and merry Christmas

centred on the beginning and unfolding of a profound mystery.

Louis Bélanger

Rome – 2011-10-02 – The Pope commented on today’s Gospel reading which ends with a particularly severe admonition addressed by Jesus to the chief priests…

“These words”, Holy Father explained, “make us think of the great responsibility of those who, in all ages, are called to work in the vineyard of the Lord, especially in positions of authority.”

Shortly after the Angelus, Benedict XVI expressed a special invitation in French to all the persons involved in training and education:

“At the start of this academic term, I would like to invite university teachers to convey, through their teaching, the love for knowledge and truth. Knowledge is important, but even more so is the education of the person, in order to be able to discern where the truth lies, and to make free choices. And also educate young people to the authentic moral and spiritual values to help them find meaning in their lives.

“In this month of October, may the Virgin Mary, Our Lady of the Rosary, accompany all the persons involved in training and education! I cordially impart my blessing.”

[translation by Medjupedia]

Written by journalist-vaticanist Andrea Tornielli, it conveys the allegation that the Yugoslav secret police have manipulated the former Bishop of Mostar, Mgr Pavao Zanic:

-          They supplied him a series of documents that fed the Ordinary’s hostility against the Franciscans of Medjugorje.

-          The said documents directly influenced the bishop’s actions by making him the main tool of the communist regime and the most determined enemy of the Medjugorje events.

-          Bishop Zanic “was willing to accept any document against the Franciscans and against the apparitions, even if of dubious origin.”

-          While the Bishop of Mostar defended the visionaries and the Franciscans at the beginning of the events, the Secret Service heavily influenced the Ordinary’s decision to change completely his position from January 1982.

-          The objectives were to compromise the Bishop and to gather information on “hostile activities” of some monks — Fr. Jozo Zovko, who was said to have had a number of love escapades, being one of the compromised Franciscans.

Tornielli’s sources of inspiration are

-          Journalist Zarko Ivkovic, author of a section of the book

The Mystery of Medjugorje (2011) published by the Croatian daily Vecernji List

-          and Italian journalist, Antonio Socci, author of Medjugorje Mystery (2004) published by Piemme Editions.

Although Tornielli’s article is published under the heading “Inquiries and interviews”, it doesn’t appear that the Italian vaticanist has interviewed for his article one or the other among the four authors of that book.

It seems rather evident that he translated the book description’s blurb released on the publisher’s website on 2011-06-17 only to add:

“These documents will also be scrutinized by the Holy See committee called upon to pronounce itself on Medjugorje, which two years ago Benedict XVI entrusted to the leadership of Cardinal Camillo Ruini.”

To give some credit to that three-month-old “news”, he interviewed an Italian colleague-journalist who stated that

-          the said allegations-“revelations” do not surprise him and that

-          the firm opposition against Medjugorje from Bishop Zanic’s successor is an eloquent reason why the actual Ordinary of Mostar has not been called to be part of the Commission appointed by the Pope.

The day after the publication of his article in La Stampa, Mr. Tornielli announced to the friends of his Blog that he didn’t want to address the question of the authenticity of the apparitions but rather to document the pressures, threats, attempts — and success (?) — by the Yugoslav communist regime to influence the opinion of the Church.

Well, that piece of journalism, concocted especially by a vaticanist, puzzles me.

My main concern is Mr. Tornielli’s insidious attack against the intellectual, spiritual and pastoral integrity of the former Ordinary of Mostar, Mgr Pavao Zanic, by an interposed Croatian Medjugorje propagandist.

The Italian journalist doesn’t “document” anything, doesn’t verify anything: he copies/pastes very serious allegations without granting his readers any factual historical retrospective.

Is Mr. Tornielli so ignorant of the facts concerning Medjugorje that he blackens Mgr Zanic’s integrity and reputation by identifying him as a blind marionette of the Yugoslav communist regime?

Andrea Tornielli (right) with René Laurentin who published more than three thousand pages on Medjugorje (Milano, 2008)

Could it be a case of wilful ignorance? Why does he call, in his article, for the help of another Italian Medjugorje propagandist, his colleague Antonio Socci? Does he intend to influence the work of the members of the Fourth Commission as did René Laurentin for the Third one?

In the next article, I will try to set the record straight on Mgr Zanic’s position and show how Mr. Tornielli’s readers may be ill-informed by abuse of inadequate journalistic tools.

It will be followed in a third post by some speculations/hypotheses on the vaticanist’s agenda and his sense of journalistic ethics related to the Medjugorje affair: a business “too big to fail”, so much so that the end justifies the means…

Cordially,

Louis Bélanger

June 25th, 1981 : the second “encounter” between the Lady of Medjugorje” and Ivanka Ivankovic (15) accompanied by Mirjana Dragicevic (16), Vicka Ivankovic (16), Marija Pavlovic (16) and Jakov Colo (10) is taking place at the end of the afternoon.

Ivanka decides to go back to the place where she saw a white silhouette the day before.

Why? :

“Everybody kept telling us how she [the Gospa] had appeared 18 times in Lourdes at the same occasion.” (to Fr. Cuvalo, taped on 1981-06-27 – The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 206)

Ivan Dragicevic is absent:

The first evening I was with them, the second I wasn’t. (idem, p. 222)

The second evening I didn’t go, I worked in the field, I was picking tobacco leaves. (idem, p. 228)

Ivanka takes some time to spot the “Lady of Medjugorje” then cries out:

She just appeared to us. There she is! There she is! (idem, p. 207-208)

Marija:

We asked her for a sign, and she left it on the watch. (idem, p. 209)

Vicka:

I arrived and I lowered my hands [and I said]: “My Gospa, give us some sign,” and I didn’t mean on the ground. And again, nonchalantly: “My Gospa, give us some kind of a sign.” Then, I [turned and said] to Mirjana: “What time is it?” She said to me: “Vicka, the watch has made a complete revolution.” She said that to me at that moment… (idem, p. 209)

Ivanka:

The first time when I asked her about my mother, she said: “She is well.” (idem, p. 212)

Ivanka:

I asked: “My Gospa, are you going to come tomorrow?” She was nodding her head and was slowly leaving, and said: “Go in God’s peace!” (idem, p. 210)

Summary:

On the second day, according to the visionaries,

the “Lady of Medjugorje”

said:

“She is well.” (concerning deceased Ivanka’s mother)

“Go in God’s peace”

and gave

a sign on Mirjana’s watch.

*******

Preliminary remarks

The so-called messages and sign of the “Lady of Medjugorje” begin to take form on the second day of the Medjugorje events. It is important for the reader to know more about our primary sources and our position.

→ Our primary sources

They consist in the first section of Vicka’s Diary, one of the visionaries, and of 15 transcripts of taped interviews conducted by the Medjugorje pastoral personnel with the six visionaries, between the 27th and the 30th of June, 1981. I have presented elsewhere my encounter with Franciscan Father Ivo Sivric and the modalities of our collaboration that led to the publication of La face cachée de Medjugorje, in 1988, and its English translation, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, in 1989.

→ Are our primary sources authentic?

The authenticity of the magnetic tapes that contain the conversations that have been transcribed is no more open to doubt. The original tapes are stored in the St. James parish archives and the duplicates are left at the bishopric of Mostar and at the residence of Mr. Grgo Kozina, a parishioner who has generously reproduced them for his friend, Fr. Sivric, and for Mrs. Daria Klanac, a Canadian citizen of Croatian origin and Medjugorje devotee, who published her transcriptions in French, in 1998.

→ Are our transcriptions reliable?

In 1987,I asked the Ordinary of Mostar to confirm in writing his permission to publish by validating each of the 38 documents and their translation into the French language that he knew well. He accepted with good grace as indicated by these first two pages of a complete list that he marked with his signature.

Donal Anthony Foley, who knows French well, has compared our transcriptions with those made by Mrs Klanac who published her own French version of them, ten years after our publication. His “judgment” is positive: our transcriptions are reliable… Please read his analysis in his book that I highly recommend, Medjugorje Revisited (p. 26-34) and on the Internet in a document that keeps the same pagination. He agrees that these tapes “are of primary importance in understanding Medjugorje, and that is why a study of their contents forms one of the central aspects of [t]his book. The reality is that they are a severe embarrassment to the official position held by supporters of Medjugorje.” (p. 33)

Ivan Zeljko, a theologian and psychologist whose mother tongue is Croatian also paid an hommage to our work in his doctoral thesis in theology (452 pages, 1621 notes) published in 2004: Marienerscheinungen – Schein und Sein aus theologischer und psychologischer Sicht – Dargestellt am Beispiel der Privatoffenbarungen in Medjugorje.

A short excerpt that I have translated from German reflects his respect for our work: “It is, to my knowledge, the only work on the events in Medjugorje that has a scientific foundation. [...] In that critical study, Sivric presents in addition to numerous important informations and documents on Medjugorje the first taped interviews that have been made available to the public for the first time.“ (p. 27-28)

→ Medjugorje: a collective construction

Thanks to the tools developed by disciplines I am more familiar with such as psychology, electrophysiology, socio-politology, I have tried to reconstruct the first minutes of Medjugorje’s events in their proper context and discern the stakes that permitted their continuation.

The main protagonist of the first days is Ivanka Ivankovic. She was in grief by her mother’s sudden death due to an attack of bronchial asthma, on April 1981, at the age of 39. The grief was enhanced by the fact that her mother died alone. The Medjugorje events began three days after her 15^th birthday.

Ivanka is the first to have named the Gospa. She was accompanied by Mirjana Dragicevic who didn’t feel the need to look at the Podbrdo, thereby confirming her “imperience”, or the profound inner experience of a grieving adolescent. To my knowledge, no member of the pastoral personal took into account those crucial psycho-affective dynamics.

If there is something authentic at the beginning of the events, it is surely that spontaneous appeal to a spiritual substitute of her earthly mother. The following day, Ivanka is again the first to see the entity she names the Gospa. She inquires about her mother and even hopes to see her. She said later on that she saw her deceased mother four times until the ultimate daily “apparition” on May 7^th, 1985.

Because of those personal events of outstanding importance, the meticulous analyst should refrain from pretending that fraud presided to the creation of the event.

→ The entity:  The “Lady of Medjugorje”  (LoM)

I want to clarify straightaway what I mean by using the expression “Lady of Medjugorje”. It does not refer to the Virgin Mary, the important spiritual figure whose qualities have been acknowledged and specified by the Catholic Church over the centuries.

The Lady of Medjugorje (LoM), according to my perception, is the product of a collective construction initiated by Ivanka Ivankovic, on June 24^th 1981, shaped first by the visionaries and later by the Croatian pastoral personnel of St. James parish who, to a certain extent, controlled her image and messages communicated worldwide. Those are continuing to be her fervent zealots.

I wish my respectful position to be remembered as such concerning:

a peculiar character, created by Medjugorje protagonists,

which does not involve the Virgin Mary or Gospa, as Croats call Her, whose birthday is celebrated today, and who is not the target of my working hypothesis.

*******

Back to the second day (1981-06-25)

Observations

I would like to pinpoint the following observations:

- Ivan Dragicevic ist absent;

- auditory indication that the Lady of Medjugorje (LoM) is appearing or disappearing;

- visionaries agree that a sign is given by the LoM on Mirjana’s watch;

- Ivanka inquires about her deceased mother and hears from the LoM that she is well.

While preparing the “Mystery” in the making…, it seemed to me so interesting to analyse what the main propagandists have made out of those observations that I decided to initiate a new series of articles entitled: Medjugorje – the devil lies in the details… that will identify and examine the “details” I find significant. The said observations concerning the second day will be treated in the first post of the new series, hopefully next week.

Cordially,

Louis Bélanger

- Commission — the 4^th one — ends up ruling against the position of the local Ordinary; the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of pastoral authority while the victims are the humiliated local bishops (Mgrs Pavao Zanic† and Ratko Peric);

- Commission — the 4^th one — ends up ruling on the non-authenticity of the apparitions, on deceit, misunderstanding, cheating, fraud or hoax; the result is a pastoral catastrophe and the victims are millions of sincere faithful.

In the next lines, I will try to show that Vittorio Messori’s “diagnosis” of the purported dilemma does not stand up to a rigorous analysis.

A reminder: the negative verdict of the first Commissions (1986-2011)

The Ordinary of Mostar, the competent (mandated) and responsible Pastor for Medjugorje, created a first Commission of inquiry (1982) of 4 members that he extended, in a second Commission (1984), to 15 members coming from different Yugoslavian dioceses. They voted in majority: “non constat de supernaturalitate” in May 1986.

“The Commission prepared a draft ‘Declaration’ in which were listed the ‘unacceptable assertions’ and ‘bizarre declarations’, attributed to the curious phenomenon. The Commission also stated that further investigations were not necessary nor the delaying of the official judgement of the Church. The bishop duly informed the Bishops’ Conference and the Holy See, and he then informed the public during his homily in Medjugorje in 1987.” [underlined by LB]

The meaning of “non constat de supernaturalitate”.

Much has been said about that verdict: “there is no proof of a supernatural intervention.”

First, it is a verdict, a judgement made by a majority of experts, not by the sole Bishop of Mostar.

Second, it is a negative judgement, “non constat”.

What does it mean?

“Constat” and “non constat” are terms used in a juridical context. “Constat” practically means “proved”. Then, the formulation of the verdict could be: “it is not proved that the entity — claimed by the Medjugorje visionaries and Franciscans to be the Virgin Mary — is a supernatural entity and that her apparitions and revelations have a supernatural character.” In other words, the “Lady of Medjugorje” is not considered to be the Virgin Mary.

At the tribunal that we are familiar with, you will hear “proven guilty” or “not proven guilty”. The “candidate” is free to go if not proven guilty.

Let us change the word “guilty” for “worthy” in our ecclesiastical tribunal. The members of the Commission have to consider if the “candidate”, the Lady of Medjugorje, is “worthy” of being a supernatural entity, the Virgin Mary. The “entity” that they have to “examine” is still an unknown. They try to compare her traits described exclusively by the visionaries who claim to see, hear and touch that entity with the ones they already know of the Virgin Mary.

They will use rigorous criteria that have been established by Prospero Lambertini. Before becoming Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758), Prospero Lambertini was officially Promotor Fidei (Promotor of the Faith). The people who were craving for a rapid sentimental judgment in the acknowledgment of miracles called him advocatus diaboli: he was a great humanist, he knew much about science and he had a critical mind. He was convinced that science does not threaten faith but rather purifies it. The classical rules of judgment he submitted in his Treatise are still “in force” today.

In 1978, the CDF released sub secreto guidelines or “Norms” of discernment to help the Ordinaries all over the world to reach a better judgement concerning alleged apparitions and revelations. Obviously the members of the second Commission applied the 1978 Norms — the prefect of the CDF who signed that document was former Abp Franjo Seper of Zagreb well known among the members of the Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference. (We have to thank Kevin Symonds, a colleague of his and Richard Chonak for an English translation of the whole document.)

Thus, the second enlarged Commission was of the ecclesiastical doctrinal juridical opinion that the candidate was not “worthy” of being considered a supernatural entity, the Virgin Mary. I repeat: “not”, because some opine, by a kind of magical thinking, that “not” is a “neutral” or even “positive” term… Well, we do not share the same vocabulary and the same logical inferences.

This is why I say that if that entity is not considered to be a supernatural entity, it cannot be the Virgin Mary who is, as far as we know, a supernatural being.

Moreover, attached to the non constat was a precise pastoral directive, co-signed by the Ordinary of Mostar and the President of the Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, in January 1987:

“it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje’s events.” The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 140

I repeat: —  “it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations — based on an alleged supernatural character — attributed to Medjugorje’s events.”

In other words, and to be clear — the propagandists never warn their “victims” about the real meaning of that directive — when the Medjugorje Franciscans and visionaries or tour operators organize religious manifestations based on the allegation that the Virgin Mary has appeared, is appearing or will appear before, during or after the said religious manifestations, they do not respect that pastoral directive.

In 1991, the third Commission confirmed the non constat verdict of the second Commission, adding the expertise of 15 members who held 23 meetings in Zagreb, from 1987 to 1990.

“A characteristic of the third Commission was that its work was to be done based on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no communiqués for the public were made. The results of their four-year long efforts were presented to the members of the Bishops’ Conference in Zagreb in 1990. Discussions at the Bishops’ Conference on the “apparitions” were held on four occasions: 25 April, 9 October and 27 November 1990, and the Declaration on Medjugorje was accepted by a vote held in Zadar on 10 April 1991: 19 bishops voted for the Declaration while 1 abstained.”

In October 1997, Mgr Ratko Peric, the Bishop of Mostar, expressed his personal position of “constat de non supernaturalitate” [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje. And he added:

“Nevertheless I am open to a study that the Holy See would undertake, as the supreme court of the Catholic Church, to speak the supreme and definitive judgment on the case, and that as soon as possible, for the good of souls and for the honor of the Church and of Our Lady.”

In May 1998, Abp. Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the CDF, acknowledged the personal opinion of Mgr Peric, “which he has the right to express as the Ordinary of the place”, and reiterated the pastoral directive:

“Finally, as regards pilgrimages to Medjugorje, which are conducted privately, this Congregation points out that they are permitted on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events still taking place and which still call for an examination by the Church.”

That pastoral directive is still in force in 2011 and logically follows the repeated negative verdict since 1986: non constat de supernaturalitate.

At this point, it seems to me important to confirm my own interpretation of the “non constat” with the expertise of a Doctor in Canon Law, Fr. Andrew Kingham, who has written his dissertation on “The Norms for judging alleged apparitions and private revelations”

Here is an excerpt of his “general conclusions”:

The verdict of “non constat de supernaturalitate” can be manipulated by supporters of alleged apparitions, especially in protracted occurrences, to suggest that the diocesan bishop is unable to give an affirmative judgement until the phenomena cease or when a prophecy is fulfilled. Therefore, in order to give greater clarity, the meaning of “non constat de supernaturalitate” should be understood to mean a negative decision. That is, the phenomenon is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case. Given the facts of the case brought before the commission of investigation, if it is impossible to give an affirmative judgement, then the case should be closed with a verdict of “non constat de supernaturalitate”. [Kingham, p. 213-214 - underlined by LB]

The negative verdict of the first Commissions originates from the 8-year work of more than three dozens of experts and the endorsement of 19 out of the 20 members of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference and Secretaries and Prefect of the CDF

Now that we have shown that the negative verdict of the first Commissions — non constat de supernaturalitate­ — originates from the 8-year work of more than three dozens of experts and the endorsement of 19 out of the 20 members of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, let us project that fact on the first “unacceptable choice” of the so-called “tormenting dilemma” evoked by the Italian journalist/writer:

Commission — the 4^th one — ends up ruling against the position of the local Ordinary; the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of pastoral authority while the victims are the humiliated local bishops (Mgrs Pavao Zanic† and Ratko Peric)

Has Vittorio Messori fallen under the spell of the Medjugorje sirens who try to persuade us that the one and only “bad guy” in authority who has brought the negative verdict to the CDF is the Bishop of Mostar, a “renegade”?

If the Commission ends up ruling for a constat de supernaturalitate against the actual non constat…, the “humiliated victims” would be 19 out of the 20 bishops, archbishops, cardinals of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference, three dozens of experts and the CDF itself which has endorsed the non constat until today and the pastoral directive attached to it.

Moreover, last but not least, we would have a “humiliated” Pope Benedict XVI who praised the work of the Third Commission and endorsed its verdict as he was the Prefect of the CDF. On August 28th, 1991, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed some commentaries on the work of the third Commission at a Congress in Linz (Austria) after having specified that he had read all the protocols, or their Italian abstracts for the Croatian ones, and that he got a good idea of the whole work:

„Die Untersuchung war, wie gesagt, sehr gründlich, sehr viel­seitig und sehr objektiv. Und als Folge davon musste man sagen: Es steht nicht fest, dass dies ein übernatürliches Phänomen ist.“ Gebetsaktion, Nr. 22, 1991, p. 15

[“The investigation was, as I said, very thorough, very broad and very objective. And, consequently, one had to say: the supernatural character of the phenomenon is not established.” Translation by LB]

Therefore, according to our analysis and understanding of an awkward situation, to say the least, Vittorio Messori would have to reformulate the first “unacceptable choice” of the so-called dilemma:

Commission — the 4^th one — ends up ruling for supernaturality — constat de supernaturalitate — against the position of

-          the local Ordinary,

-          three dozens of experts of three Commissions who worked 8 years to reach a sustained negative verdict,

-          all the members — except one — of the former Yugoslavian Bishops’ Conference,

-          the former Secretary of the CDF, Mgr Alberto Bovone†,

-          the former Secretary of the CDF, Abp Tarcisio Bertone,

-          the former Prefect of the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI;

the result is a catastrophe with an opened issue of theological “incompetence” — the numerous mandated experts and theologians/pastors/bishops would have failed to identify “properly” the Virgin Mary — and of authority while the victims would be all those “humiliated” authorities and unfit institutions, and the betrayed faithful who are waiting so long to be pastorally enlightened and guided.

Under those conditions, the first “unacceptable choice” becomes highly improbable, let’s say a practical impossibility.

The “dilemma” consequently disappears and only one possibility remains: tell the truth!

How did Vittorio Messori formulate the second “unacceptable choice” of the so-called “tormenting dilemma”?

- Commission — the 4^th one — ends up ruling on the non-authenticity of the apparitions, on deceit, misunderstanding, cheating, fraud or hoax; the result is a pastoral catastrophe and the victims are millions of sincere faithful.

Didn’t the second Commission decide in 1986 that there existed no proof of the authenticity of the apparitions? Didn’t the competent (mandated) authorities publish a pastoral directive in 1987 forbidding the organization of “either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje’s events.”? Didn’t the third Commission, the Bishops of former Yugoslavia and the CDF authorities endorse the negative verdict and the pastoral directive until today?

Where could the new “pastoral catastrophe” be if the 4^th Commission would confirm the preceding verdicts, this time definitively?

The “pastoral catastrophe” has already happened! Millions of sincere faithful are already victims!

As far as we know, the “signal” of non-authenticity coming from the Ordinary of Mostar has been constant since his first Posizione in 1984.

According to Mgr. Pavao Zanic, Fr. Tomislav Vlasic was fabricating the Lady of Medjugorje’s so-called messages.

Without the collaboration of the parochial pastoral personnel, the Bishop of Mostar could not implement the pastoral care of intelligence. The responsible institution for the acknowledgement of the negative verdicts, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has given and maintained its approval to the proceedings and the results of the non constat: the “phenomenon” is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case.

On the other side of that “signal”, the “rebellious noise” coming from Medjugorje has been powerful, with amplifiers — Medjugorje Franciscans, ambulatory visionaries, informers, propagandists, travel agencies — paid with big money and the spending of pilgrims intrigued by that noise.

The religious manifestations organized with or without the visionaries in Medjugorje with the Lady of Medjugorje presented as the supernatural character “Gospa” have constituted a mighty coup de force [takeover by force] against the competent authority that formulated the pastoral directive.

It seems clear to me that the Diocesan authorities have made all in their power to broadcast the truthful signal that the “phenomenon” is not supernatural because no evidence has been found to prove the case. Despite that competent (mandated) signal, thousands of priests and hundreds of bishops — Abp of Vienna being one of them — have come to Medjugorje, without consulting the local Ordinary, to “pay” homage to the Lady of Medjugorje which appears to be undoubtedly for them the Virgin Mary.

The wait-and-Holy-See policy (until 2010) concerning that catastrophic pastoral situation has always perplexed me, even though the President of the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina had already complained in 2004 that “the reported apparitions of Medjugorje were becoming a source of division in the Church” and declared later on that “the doctrinal issue of the Medjugorje phenomenon [was] resolved”.

Now that the Holy See has decided for an efficient action in the establishment of the 4^th Commission, let us hope that the pastoral care of intelligence will be put on the agenda as Benedict XVI sees it:

“It is up to us to seek to respond to the question of truth, fearlessly juxtaposing the proposal of faith with the reason of our time. […] Thus, it is very important to develop what last year we called “the pastoral care of intelligence“. […] In a society and in a culture which all too often make relativism their creed – relativism has become a kind of dogma – the light of truth is lacking. Indeed, it is considered dangerous even to speak about truth…”

In short, there is no “tormenting dilemma”: It is up to us to seek to respond to the question of truth, fearlessly juxtaposing the proposal of faith with the reason of our time.

And it is up to us, especially on the Assumption Day, as the sensus fidelium permits, to repeat the wish of the Ordinary of Mostar that a definitive judgment on the case will be made “for the good of souls and for the honor of the Church and of Our Lady.”

Cordially,

Louis Bélanger

“It is quite clear that in the absence of a recognition by the Church, if the ‘apparitions’ and the messages ended, it would lead to a gradual decline in interest in Medjugorje, with the consequent inevitable end of pilgrimages. Medjugorje, in short, needs the continuation of the apparitions, to stay alive.”

By Marco Corvaglia – just published today.

For pictures and accompanying French and English texts,

such as this one:

take a look at the original Italian post…
Cordially,
Louis Bélanger

]]> http://en.louisbelanger.com/2011/07/08/%e2%80%9c-the-seers-and-an-unescapable-%e2%80%98conflict-of-interests%e2%80%99-%e2%80%9d/feed/ 1 http://en.louisbelanger.com/2011/07/04/the-first-inspiration-of-the-medjugorje-messages/ http://en.louisbelanger.com/2011/07/04/the-first-inspiration-of-the-medjugorje-messages/#comments Tue, 05 Jul 2011 01:52:03 +0000 Louis Bélanger http://en.louisbelanger.com/?p=909 Recent critical post: a disquieting connection with Medjugorje

Marco Corvaglia has just unveiled a disquieting connection with Medjugorje on his website:

“The First Inspiration Of the Medjugorje Messages Is Clemente Domínguez (Schismatic and Excommunicated). Here is the proof [Part 1]”

Clemente Domínguez sitting in the gestatorial chair. The “seer” of Palmar de Troya proclaimed himself pope, in 1978, under the name of Gregory XVII.

“If one asked a connoisseur of Medjugorje what the two most characteristic and recurring expressions in the messages of the Gospa are, he would certainly answer this way: the threefold exhortation “Pray, pray, pray”, and the thanks the Madonna usually addresses to the faithful, with the formula “Thank you for having responded to my call”.

In June of 2011, continuing my research on Medjugorje and its origins, I have been

faced with an unexpected (and objectively disquieting) discovery…” [Part 1 + Part 2]

*******