Official Documents on Medjugorje and FAQS

The 1975 Decree - Romanis Pontificibus (Herzegovina Case)

2010-11-09T20:44:00.007-05:00

In many books, websites, and other media on the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje, there is discussion of something referred to as the "Herzegovina Case". It has also been referred to as the "Herzegovina Affair","Herzegovina Question" and "Herzegovina Conflict". It is more loosely expressed in blogs, forums, and comment boxes as "the rift between the local bishop and the franciscans" (not an accurate expression by any means).

It concerns the distribution of parishes between Franciscans of the Herzegovina Province, and diocesan clergy of Mostar-Duvno as laid out in the 1975 decree, Romanis Pontificibus. The name of the decree has been discussed, but in the English speaking world we have not seen the actual document, until today. This is not so much a conflict between those local franciscans and the local bishop, but a matter between members of that province of franciscans and the Holy See itself.

It should be noted, that most franciscans have been cooperating. Others, however, resisted unto usurping - quite forcibly - several parishes in the late 1990's, ultimately leading to their removal from the Order of Friars Minor, and "a divinis" suspensions.   On February 20, 1999, Romanis Pontificibus was definitively implemented by the then Vicar General of the OFM, Br. Stefano Ottenbreit and Msgr. Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno. The Papal Nuncio at the time, Msgr. Mario Cassari, represented the Holy See.

Still, a number of Franciscans of the Herzegovina Province refused to sign a declaration of obedience, incurring other penalties. If you scroll down in this google translation of the page dedicated to the "Herzegovina Case" at the diocesan website, you will see the nine who were removed from the Order of Friars Minor and suspended, and another 23 names suffering other penalties (toggle to Croatian in the upper right hand corner to see untranslated names). Jozo Zovko, OFM, well known in Medjugorje circles, is listed 23rd.

Parish Breakdown in Mostar-Duvno

It is helpful to see these numbers today, as you read what is below. Using data from pages at the diocesan website, I know in Mostar-Duvno, the Franciscans of the Herzegovina Province are responsible for 30 of the 66 parishes, with the rest in the hands of diocesan priests.

Bishop Peric is also the apostolic administrator for the ancient diocese of Trebinje-Mrkan, which has 16 parishes run by 32 diocesan priests (the franciscan custody does not reach into Trebinje-Mrkan).

The 1975 Decree Romanis Pontificibus

The 1975 Decree Romanis Pontificibus is now available in two translations at the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno: [English] [Croatian]. (For your convenience, the full decree is also available at the bottom of this post, so just scroll down.)

I would like to suggest that this document could be of interest to anyone who is not famliar with the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first half of the decree goes through a kind of catechesis - drawing heavily from documents like Lumen Gentium and Christus Dominus on the role of the bishop.  It gives us a view into how areas transition into the form of functioning dioceses most of us live in today. This part of it, I found very informative. We take for granted the governance of our dioceses and how they grow over time.

Here, you learn about the powers of the bishop, and the wishes of the Holy See with regards to settling diocesan clergy into parishes once an area begins to emerge from missionary status. This decree doesn't neglect to speak about the great good the Franciscans have done for centuries in that region, but it is not the norm for a religious order to have administrative control of most parishes in a diocese.   In fact, the decree generously allows the Franciscans to retain half of the parishes - something which probably does not exist in any other part of the world.

It has been noted by Bishop Ratko Peric in an interview with "Crkva na Kamenu" (Church on the Rock), the difficulty some have in accepting diocesan clergy. Here is Bishop Peric discussing what he told the Holy Father in his 2006 ad limina visit:

The third category corresponds to nine members who are not only disobedient, but who have also been expelled from the Franciscan Order and suspended from all liturgical activities, through their own fault and responsibility. They behave though, as if nothing has happened and have usurped five parishes and continue to create havoc and ecclesiastical chaos in some other parishes as well. Along with the adherents they have gathered for themselves, they have created a schism, a division, which is not so much a schism of intellectual as it is of an affective nature.

These faithful for instance, do not accept “Don (father) Luke” but only “Fra Luke”, no matter how much the General of the Franciscan Order declares that this Fra Luke is no longer a Catholic Franciscan and despite the fact that he has been expelled from the Order due to his obstinate disobedience and schismatic attitude towards the Pope, the General Curia of the Order and the local Church. Whatever these nine do is done illegally or against the Church, and therefore the sacraments of confession, confirmation and marriage they administer are invalid. All the Church documents they issue are illegal and invalid, since they are not authorized to do so. They have even established their own association, through which they aim to pressure those responsible in the Church to act according to their disobedience and schism.

Recent Homily of BiH Papal Nuncio

After you are famliar with the 1975 decree, it is also worth reading a homily delivered some months ago by the papal nuncio in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Archbishop Alessandro D'Errico. It was on the occasion of the naming of Marko Semren, OFM, of the Bosnia Province of Franciscans, to the rank of auxiliary bishop in Banja Luka [bah-nya loo-kah] - the first Franciscan to hold the rank of bishop in decades in Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Archbishop D'Errico's homily, given on the feast of St. Bonaventure, he articulates clearly the Holy See's desire for unity among diocesan priests and those in religious orders. He does this first by speaking about the need to be united with the institution of the Church through the diocesan bishop. The first two-thirds of the homily deals with St. Bonaventure which was an awesome read on it's own. That first part of the homily also gives us context for what he says near the end. I can't say with certainty that this is related to Romanis Pontificibus because he does not mention it specifically. But the language used over several paragraphs seems to point in this direction.

Medjugorje Angle

What does this all have to do with Medjugorje? Let's look closer again at the words of Bishop Ratko Peric, this time from a position he updated in 2007: Međugorje: Secrets, messages, vocations, prayers, confessions, commissions.

Rebellious ex-Franciscan at usurped Grude Parish

In the diocese of Mostar-Duvno there exists a problem which in recent years has practically become a schism. At least nine Franciscan priests, who have been expelled from the Franciscan OFM Order and suspended a divinis, have rebelled against the decision of the Holy See and have not allowed the transfer of some of the parishes from Franciscan to Diocesan administration. They forcefully occupy at least five parishes, all the while continuing with all priestly functions. They invalidly perform marriages, hear confessions without canonical faculties, some of them invalidly confirm youngsters, and in 2001 they invited an old-Catholic deacon who falsely presented himself as a bishop to “confirm” about eight hundred young people in three parishes. Two of these expelled Franciscans even went as far as asking the Swiss old-Catholic bishop, Hans Gerny, to ordain them as bishops, yet they did not succeed. So many invalid sacraments, so much disobedience, violence, sacrilege, disorder and irregularities and not even a single “message” amongst the tens of thousands of “apparitions” has been sent to alleviate these scandals. A very strange thing indeed!

That is a good point Bishop Peric makes in the end: Why doesn't the "gospa" of Medjugorje seem to care about all of the invalid sacraments taking place a stone's throw away by a number of ex-franciscans without faculties? As an aside, Bishop Peric had to inform those 800 young people, and their parents, that their confirmations were invalid. He then administered the Sacrament to them.

The length to which the "sacramental" chaos ensued, is described in greater depth in a 2004 document by Bishop Peric entitled, "The Truth Both Frees and Binds Us".

Considering that St. Francis would have given the cloak off his back if someone had asked for it, and had reverence for ecclesiastical authority, I cannot reconcile this behavior with authentic Franciscan spirituality. St. Francis would not only have handed over the parishes to the diocesan clergy, he would have done so in such a fashion as to exhort the faithful to accept those priests as their shepherds. From the "gospa", not a word of disappointment.

THE DECREE ROMANIS PONTIFICIBUS
CEP, 1975-06-06
THE SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE EVANGELIZATION OF PEOPLES
OR PROPAGATION OF THE FAITH

Prot. N. 2021/75
DECREE
by which the question pending in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno is decided.

Roman Pontiffs, ever solicitous for the good of souls, have always taken care, whenever local Churches sufficiently developed their own structures and the conditions of circumstances and times permitted, not only to establish everywhere the sacred ordinary hierarchy, but also, as the usual order of canon law directs, to entrust the same Churches to diocesan clergy.

Thus in the previous century in Europe, Pope Pius IX restored the episcopates in England, Wales, and Holland, while Pope Leo XIII established local Churches in Bosnia-Herzegovina and entrusted them to residential bishops. This same Pope, by the apostolic constitution Ex hac augusta of [5 July] 1881, erected the ecclesiastical province of Vrhbosna, which also contained Herzegovina, and appointed a residential bishop for the diocese of Mostar, to which he joined the ancient title of Duvno.

In these regions, which are the witnesses of so great a faith, that fire which Christ came to set upon the earth, although there were great dangers, remained always kindled, which accomplishment came about especially from the praiseworthy zeal and apostolic spirit of the Friars Minor, who for so many years, while bearing many hardships, brought about the expansion and strengthening of the Kingdom of Christ among the local people.

Through the Constitution we mentioned above, the same Vicar of Christ, fully aware of the particular situation in Herzegovina, and wanting to provide for the further devolvement of that Church, the care of which was entrusted at that time to the Friars Minor, advised the bishop of Mostar of his responsibility to establish a substantial and suitable diocesan clergy to whom would be entrusted the care of souls as is customarily done in all places wherein the sacred hierarchy has been established. Thus, from the advice of Pope Leo XIII of venerable memory, the diocesan clergy of the Church of Mostar-Duvno began to be developed and has been blessed with a providential increase in vocations especially in these more recent years.

Nevertheless, in the ecclesiastical province of Vrhbosna it seems that a certain doubt remains concerning mutual relations between the diocesan and the religious clergy and indeed great difficulties have arisen, especially in the Diocese of Mostar.

On account of these difficulties, which had also arisen elsewhere, the Holy See issued important norms, such as the apostolic constitution Romanos Pontifices, given by the same Pope Leo XIII to England in 1881, which was later, in the wake of clear and generous fruits, extended to several other regions. The teaching expounded in this Constitution and the norms contained in it, as well as others, rely on other pontifical prescripts laid down after the Council of Trent as promulgated by Pope Benedict XIV in 1744 in the apostolic constitutions Firmandis and Cum nuper charissimus, now belong to the common law of the universal Church.

These rules therefore apply to the ecclesiastical province of Vrhbosna, even more so because time has proven them to be of the greatest benefit to souls and they among others, were either directly or indirectly received by Vatican Council II.

As for what expressly applies to the diocese of Mostar-Duvno, the agreement which in 1899 the local Ordinary and the religious Order of Friars Minor entered into and which in the same year the Holy See confirmed, remains in full effect, unless this decree establishes otherwise and always with due regard for the right of the Holy See to make other provision. Furthermore the decision of the Sacred Congregation “for the Propagation of the Faith” issued 26 March 1965, by which the rescript concerning the assignment of parishes “freely by the Holy See” granted by the Congregation of the Council in 1923 was declared entirely extinct, abrogated and devoid of all authority, and remains in force, as does the decree which the Pontifical legate in Yugoslavia, at the mandate of the same Sacred Congregation “for the Propagation of the Faith”, issued on 13 November 1967.

No one can in the future invoke any privilege concerning pastoral ministry, acquired in any manner, unless it will have been obviously provided for in this decree and thus indeed will be plainly consistent with this document and the particulars established in it.

The theological rationale for the norms of which we have made mention up to this point are contained in the general ecclesiological teaching of Vatican Council II, which indeed teaches that “bishops by divine institution have succeeded to the place of the apostles, as shepherds of the Church,” (LG 20, cit. om.). This too refers to them: “from the Lord, to whom was given all power in heaven and on earth, [bishops receive] the mission to teach all nations and to preach the Gospel to every creature” (LG 24). And likewise “individual bishops, who are placed in charge of particular Churches, exercise their pastoral government over the portion of the People of God committed to their care” (LG 23b).

Moreover, “It is the bishop's role, as the ruler and center of unity in the diocesan apostolate, to promote missionary activity, to direct it and to coordinate it but always in such a way that the zeal and spontaneity of those who share in the work may be preserved and fostered. All missionaries, even exempt Religious, are subject to his power in the various works which refer to the exercise of the sacred apostolate” (AG 30b).

Because the pastoral task of the Church is ordinarily conducted through the institute of parishes, for this reason the second Vatican Council set forth a general principle that applies to their overall governance. Thus in the decree Christus Dominus 32 it states that “the same concern for souls should be the basis for determining or reconsidering the erection or suppression of parishes and any other changes of this kind which the bishop is empowered to undertake on his own authority.”

It belongs to the Ordinary of the place to provide for the governance of parishes. Yet the aforesaid decree (CD 35, 1b) exhorts the moderators of religious institutes to offer their assistance to bishops, even by taking up, for a time, the care of parishes.

About the care of parishes entrusted to religious even exempt, the following points from the same decree should be recalled: “All Religious, exempt and non-exempt, are subject to the authority of the local Ordinaries in those things which pertain to the public exercise of divine worship-except where differences in rites are concerned-the care of souls, the sacred preaching intended for the people, the religious and moral education of the Christian faithful, especially of the children, catechetical instruction and liturgical formation. They are subject to the local Ordinary also in what pertains to the decorum proper to the clerical state as well as in the various works which concern the exercise of the sacred apostolate” (CD 35, 4).

To this same end, the general principle is confirmed in the aforesaid decree of the Council by which a bishop must be led in ordering parish activity, in that “the parish exists solely for the good of souls” (CD 31b). In the light of this outstanding principle the bishop brings about necessary modifications by his own authority, as is confirmed in the Motu proprio [of Pope Paul VI] Ecclesiae Sanctae (cf. I, 21, 3): “The bishop of the diocese on his own authority can establish or suppress parishes or change them in any way after consultation with the council of priests”, so that even if some rights are perhaps acquired by others, they should be suitably comported to these points.

It follows from what has been said before that it seems most opportune for the same decree to say (in CD 35, I): “All Religious should always look upon the bishops, as upon successors of the Apostles, with devoted respect and reverence. Whenever they are legitimately called upon to undertake works of the apostolate, they are obliged to discharge their duties as active and obedient helpers of the bishops”. This norm, as is obvious, indeed applies even more to those religious to whom the care of parishes is entrusted.
In other respects, it is proper that one be mindful of the exemption, “by which Religious are called to the service of the Supreme Pontiff or other ecclesiastical authority and [are] withdrawn from the jurisdiction of bishops”, not in such a way, obviously, as to interfere with the Supreme Pontiff making dispositions concerning religious “for the good of the universal Church”…, and neither taking away from the fact that “[t]his exemption, however, does not exclude Religious in individual dioceses from the jurisdiction of bishops in accordance with the norm of law, insofar as the performance of their pastoral office and the right ordering of the care of souls requires.”

Such an exemption “refers chiefly to the internal order of their communities so that in them all things may be properly coordinated and the growth and perfection of the Religious common life promoted” (CD 35, 3).
Thus, “[f]or a grave reason any member of a Religious institute can be removed from the position assigned to him either at the will of the authority who made the appointment, after he has advised the Religious superior, or at the will of the superior after he has advised the one who made the appointment. In this matter the superior and the authority are legally equal and the action of the one does not require the consent of the other, nor is the one bound to make known to the other the reason for his judgment, much less prove it, though recourse to the Apostolic See, in devolution, remains open” (Ecclesiae Sanctae, I, 32).
But the juridical observations which we have set-out up till now are informed by pastoral solicitude also; for the good of souls requires that between religious members and diocesan clergy “[a] well-ordered cooperation is to be encouraged between various religious communities and between them and the diocesan clergy. There should also be a very close coordination of all apostolic works and activities which especially depend upon a supernatural attitude of hearts and minds, rooted in and founded upon charity. The Apostolic See is competent to supervise this coordination for the universal Church; sacred pastors are competent in their own respective dioceses” (CD 35, 5).

The desired cooperation and coordination of this sort will be well advanced if, canonical rules having been observed, there are included priests from both clergies among the members of the various groups that are in the diocese, in the way suggested for presbyteral and pastoral councils in Ecclesiae Sanctae /I, 15-16/.
The end therefore, for which reason this decree was issued, is connected with that task of sanctifying proper to the Church, and it can in no way be attained except in virtue of that supernatural attitude of hearts and minds, which is rooted in and founded upon charity (CD 35, 5). The call to fraternal conversion and reconciliation most insistently propels [one] toward this. In it, according to the words of the Supreme Pontiff there is posited one of the outstanding propositions of the Holy Year (cf. bulla Apostolorum Limina): The grace of conversion and reconciliation which is proper to the sacred celebrations of the Jubilee provides the most crucial foundation of juridical norms and confirms that apostolic efficacy which is expected from their performance. By the hope of this grace the diocese of Mostar-Duvno will, beyond any doubt, proceed by great strides towards its own ecclesial renewal, and the full cooperation of diocesan and religious priests, participants in the one priesthood of Christ will be formed into a whole along with all the Christian faithful [united] with their holy Pastor.

Therefore this Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples or Propagation of Faith, attentive to documents either issued by the Ecumenical Council Vatican II or promulgated by the Apostolic See for their execution, and all things being maturely weighed, having heard all those with an interest in them, and also with the consent of the Council for the Public Affairs of the Church and of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes, decides and establishes this which follows concerning the assigning, distribution, and division of parishes, always with due regard of the Holy See to make other arrangements on the account of changes in circumstances, which might happen:

1. Attentive to the mutual agreement between the two parties with an interest here, and in consideration of the merits which the Friars Minor of the Province of Herzegovina have secured for themselves, the Holy See accepts that it be taken as a general rule that half of the faithful of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno remain entrusted to the pastoral care of the same religious, while the other half entrusted to diocesan clergy.
This apportionment - once there will be an equal number of the faithful entrusted to each party, according to this generally set-out plan - will remain legitimate in the future.

2. After the execution of this decree and until other norms are established, before the local Ordinary proceeds, for the good of souls and while respecting the laws to be observed, with regard to new dismemberments or divisions of parishes entrusted to the care of the Franciscan Fathers, he must consult the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples or Propagation of Faith.

3. With the derogation from the decision given in 1965 by the [Sacred] Congregation for the Propagation of Faith having been made, and with due consideration of the mutual agreement concerning this matter between the two parties, the pastoral care of the parishes in Izbično, Klobuk, and Kongora, is entrusted to the Friars Minor of the Province of Herzegovina.

4. The Franciscan Fathers, within one year from the day of the promulgation of this decree, must hand over to the diocesan clergy the parishes of Blagaj, Jablanica, Ploče, and Nevesinje.

5. Likewise with the decision given by the [Sacred] Congregation for the Propagation of Faith in 1965 having been derogated, the parish of Čitluk is entrusted to the pastoral care of the Friars Minor of Herzegovina.
But, according to this same decision of the [Sacred] Congregation, the entire pastoral care of the parish of Čapljina, with no part of its territory being taken away, must be transferred within a year from the Franciscan Fathers to the diocesan clergy. The Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno will reimburse the Province of the Friars Minor of Herzegovina the costs undertaken by the Franciscan Fathers for the building of their religious residence, but not the costs for constructing the church of the parish.

6. The Parish of Mostar, up to this point wholly entrusted to the pastoral care of the Friars Minor, according to the mutual agreement of the two parties concerning this, will be divided within one year and in the territory taken, in the meantime, there will be constituted a cathedral parish which will be entrusted to the diocesan clergy.

7. Likewise from the parish of Humac, which up to now has been wholly entrusted to the pastoral care of the Friars Minor, territory will be separated in which, in the meantime, there will be erected, within one year, according to the agreement of the two parties concerning this, parishes Crveni Grm-Prolog and Zvirić-Bijača, to be entrusted to the diocesan clergy.

As for what applies to the parishes in Crnač, Grude, and Mostarski Gradac, there still applies the decree issued by the apostolic delegation in Yugoslavia on 13 November 1967, which still retains its obligatory force according to the norms concerning this issued by the [Sacred] Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. As for the full execution of the decree, the Holy See permits that the manners and rationales be preserved which are contained in the documents which are separately redacted.

To bring about all these things, the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples or Propagation of the Faith establishes [the following] executors. From one side, His Excellency Peter Čule, bishop of Mostar-Duvno, together with his coadjutor [bishop with right of succession], His Excellency Pavao Žanić, titular bishop of Edistiana; and from the other side, the Reverend Father Constantine Koser, minister general of the Order of Friars Minor, granting to them the necessary and opportune faculties, with the obligation on their part of transmitting to the same Sacred Congregation as soon as possible a copy of the act of the completed execution.

The same Sacred Congregation confirms His Excellency Stephan László, bishop of Eisenstadt, as Apostolic visitor to Herzegovina for referral and, if there is need, for providing, while it associates with him in the same task the Reverend Father Vladimir Vlašić, S.J., rector of the interdiocesan minor seminary of Zagreb.

Our most holy father Pope Paul VI, in an audience granted on 5 June 1975 to the undersigned cardinal prefect, held the present decree ratified in all respects and confirmed it and ordered it to be given public effect not withstanding anything to the contrary even if worthy of special mention.

Given in Rome, from the halls of the Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples or Propagation of Faith, on 6 June 1975.

Agnellus Cardinal Rossi,
Prefect

[Duraisamy Simon] Lourdusamy,
Secretary

The official translation in Croatian published in: Glas Koncila, 14/1975, p. 4.
The original Latin published in: Acta Ordinis Fratrum Minorum, Roma, II/1989, pp. 85-89.

English translation: Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD

Acknowledgement
I want to thank Edward N. Peters, JD, JCD, who is an instructor of Latin (among other things) at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit. It is his translation work from the Latin, which appears on the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno site.

Opinions and thoughts expressed in this blogpost are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of Dr. Peters.

Further reading:

(2004) The Truth both Frees and Binds Us (Bishop Peric goes into greater detail about the scandalous activities of the ex-Franciscans and how this plays into Medjugorje)

(2010) Homily of Apostolic Nuncio to Bosnia-Herzegovina, Archbishop Alessandro D'Errico (given on the Feast of St. Bonaventure upon the naming of Marko Semren, OFM to the rank of auxiliary bishop in Banja Luka. In the last part of the homily, after discussing the virtues of St. Bonaventure, he gets into an interesting exhortation: "Yet I still can not conceal that the Holy See, and indeed the Holy Father himself personally today is seeking an extra effort, asking for greater attention to certain painful questions, mostly inherited from the past.....")

***Home Page***

Temporary Note: Links to be Updated

2010-11-02T13:28:00.000-04:00

Italian researcher, Marco Corvaglia, who has a rather extensive selection of works in English, has recently changed his web address. You will see many links in my sidebar which have (Marco Corvaglia) after the title. These were to his site.

I need to udpate these. You can see a complete list at his site (see the right sidebar when you get there):

http://www.marcocorvaglia.com/medjugorje-en/home.html

I will update my sidebar links within a week or so. Until now, go directly to his page for English language readers.

Note also that he has a French available, and obviously.... Italian.

I will delete this temporary post after links have been updated in my sidebars.

***Home Page***

Should bishops allow "seers" of Medjugorje to speak in their dioceses?

2010-09-25T15:10:00.001-04:00

We need to break this question down.

The second question, with it's many parts, needs to be answered first, in order to comprehend the answer to the first question. Here are the two questions together:

1) If public speaking engagements by Medjugorje "seers", along with public "visions", and devotions, medals, statues based on "Our Lady of Medjugorje", etc. are prohibited by the Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno, should bishops in other dioceses permit these things in their territory?

2) Multi-part question:

a)Does Bishop Peric have authority to prohibit those things stated above?

b)If "yes", what gives him that authority?

c)Has Bishop Peric issued prohibitions/directives?

d) If so, is there proof that the Holy See supports him in these prohibitions/directives and are they meant to be honored in other dioceses?

Now I will answer these starting with #2 - the question of Bishop Peric's authority to make certain prohibitions/directives:

2a) Does Bishop Peric have authority to prohibit those things listed in question 1, above?

Yes. Bishop Peric has this authority on these pastoral matters in Medjugorje. He also has responsibility to ensure that liturgical activity in Medjugorje is in harmony with the teachings of the Church on liturgy.

*

2b) What gives him this authority?

The 1991 Zadar Declaration which remains in effect (Nota Bene: The announcement of a new commission does not abolish this declaration).

It states,

"....Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim...."

A few notes on the above:

- While subsidiarity - driving decision-making down to the lowest level of authority - is often discussed in context of the Church's social teachings, we can also see it at work here. The bishop's authority was not stripped by the 1991 Zadar Declaration, but reinforced. The declaration says, "first and foremost" with regards to the local bishop.

- Subsequent communications, such as those concerning pilgrimages, have all referred back to the 1991 Zadar Declaration.

- The 1991 Zadar Declaration then encourages collegiality when it says "and the other bishop's with him".

- It gives him authority over what happens pastorally not only in Medjugorje, but in all connected with it.

- The declaration makes clear that it wants a healthy devotion to the BVM according to the teachings of the Church. The teachings of the Church on Mary, specifically referencing Marialis Cultus, encourages time-tested, approved devotions. Above all, it does not include devotions based on unapproved private revelations.

- It is illicit, and a form of liturgical abuse, to promote unapproved private revelations, during liturgical activities. The 1991 Zadar Declaration merely reinforces what is proper in the liturgy when it says, "The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim..."

*

2c)Has Bishop Peric issued prohibitions and directives?

Yes. Most notably are those which came at the end of his 1996 homily in Medjugorje. It's too much to quote in full here, but in part, he said:

Therefore I responsibly call upon those who claim themselves to be “seers”, as well as those persons behind the “messages”, to demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish. In this fashion they shall show their necessary adherence to the Church, by neither placing private “apparitions” nor private sayings before the official position of the Church. Our faith is a serious and responsible matter. The Church is also a serious and responsible institution!

So, he explicitly prohibits these things in the parish of St. James.

If they cannot do these things in the parish of St. James, common sense would dictate that he is not going to permit them to have them in any other parish in the diocese.

In fact, isn't it interesting that you don't see the Medjugorje "seers" given a platform in any parish or cathedral in the entire country of Bosnia & Herzegovina (BiH)? What you see demonstrated here are, "the other bishops with him". This includes not only BiH, but Croatia, which makes up a large part of the former Yugoslavia. So, in 29 years, the "seers" of Medjugorje have not been given public speaking engagements, nor have they been allowed to have "visions" on Church property in the former Yugslavia, or in BiH and Croatia today. More on that in a moment...

Bishop Peric also re-iterated more formally his directives, which he is authorized to give, and added some, in 2009 (see part 3 here).

With regards to statues and devotions, that was was denied in 1985 by Bishop Zanic when he explicitly ordered these things to be put away, as well as called for the "messages" to cease and the "seers" head off into privacy. This was the first real evidence that the cult-following was not only not approved, but denied!

*

2d) Does the Holy See support him in these directives and prohibitions. Is there proof? And should it be taken seriously by other bishops with regards to their having a platform in other dioceses?

The Holy See supports him in all that was said in his 2006 homily with regards to Medjugorje. In fact, we see that the CDF interprets it in a way that makes it applicable in other dioceses.

What is the proof?

This 2007 fax from the Bishops of Tuscany to the priests of the diocese concerning Medjugorje instructing them to read that same 2006 homily by Bishop Peric.

What does the fax say? (crude google translate version here)

During the visit "ad Limina" of the Bishops of the Region of Tuscany, in the period 16/20 April 2007, we had a meeting at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretary Monsignor Angelo Amato, who speaks to us of apparitions of Medjugorje, has invited us to make public the homily the Bishop of Mostar, in order to clarify the religious phenomenon linked to this site.

In compliance with this invitation to make known, and pray, especially priests, to read it carefully and to learn the lessons necessary for the proper lighting of our faithful.

In a 2009 homily, Bishop Peric stated publicly, that Cardinal Levada told him that this is how all inquiries are handled on Medjugore by the CDF now.

Now we turn to Question #1:

1) If public speaking engagements by Medjugorje "seers", along with public "visions", and devotions, medals, statues based on "Our Lady of Medjugorje", etc. are prohibited by the Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno, should bishops in other dioceses permit these things in their territory?

But not before looking at the subject of pilgrimages, which applies...in reverse.

We all know that pilgrimages are permitted. However, there are conditions attached though - very specific conditions. They are not permitted to be organized at the parish or diocesan level. In chronological order we have this explained by Vatican officials.

In Prot. No. 154/81-01985, dated March 23, 1996, then Archbishop Bertone stated....

official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, understood as a place of authentic Marian apparitions, are not permitted to be organized either on the parish or on the diocesan level, because that would be in contradiction to what the Bishops of former Yugoslavia affirmed in their fore mentioned Declaration

Then Vatican Spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls added in August of 1996:

The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje ... This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession...

And, finally in Pr. No 154/81-05922, dated May 26, 1998, then Archbishop Bertone again responds, this time to Msgr. Gilbert Aubry:

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.

(All of these communications are collected in one blogpost here: Are pilgrimages permitted to Medjugorje or not?

One last thing we need to understand is what it means when +Bertone stated with regards to private pilgrimages where are permitted...,

"...on condition that they are not regarded as an authentification of events"

This means that even if giga-billions of people visit Medjugorje each year, they are not considered/regarded as a sign of authenticity of "events". No matter how much people want to force the issue with large number of people, large numbers of vocations, and conversions, this is not how the Church discerns authenticity of private revelations. This word "events" is used to basically describe the who, what, where, when and how of the actual "apparitions" and all related to it. That comes first in discernment.

In other words, if a giga-billion people showed up to watch a woman sawed in half in a box by a magician, the giga-billion people being there does not make what appears to be true, an objective reality.

FINALLY, THE ANSWER TO QUESTION 1

It is reasonable to conclude that if pilgrimages are not permitted to be organized on a diocesan or parish level, then the parish or diocese ought not be bringing the pilgrimage to the people. It has the same effect on people that an organized pilgrimage would have: It lends credibility to the unapproved "apparitions", in the minds of the faithful.

It's a break with tradition and it is against collegiality. Are there any other private revelation in the history of the Church where bishops around the world simply decided to host "seers" in parishes, shrines and cathedrals who are forbidden to have public events on Church property in the diocese of origin?

How is it, that when the "seers" of Medjugorje are given a platform, outside of Mostar-Duvno, at a diocesan cathedral, or a parish, or a popular shrine, these priests and bishops are not, "....giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje"? (referencing what Joaquin Navarro-Valls said earlier on pilgrimages)

It is relativistic to make exceptions for Medjugorje because of the wave of enthusiasm.

I'm afraid the same wave of enthusiasm has led to consequentialism, as well, whereby certain Church leaders believe it is inauthentic, but want to squeeze every vocation and conversion they can out of it. That is noble. But it is also justifying the means to gain an end.

***Home Page***

2005 Article about Cardinal Bertone on Medjugorje - Is he a skeptic?

2010-09-09T17:01:00.000-04:00

This is a partial translation from Italian of an article which ran in Corriere in 2005 (original source). In it, we learn about an experience that Cardinal Bertone had with angry "Medjugorjeans" after he dared to voice his own skepticism.

...the ultra-Marians who heard him speak on Bruno Vespa's "Door to door" a few evenings ago weren't happy to hear his skepticism about the apparitions of Civitavecchia and Medjugorje, and fired back point-blank, by mail or the microphones of God: "Unseemly and offensive reactions of faithful and priests who describe themselves as 'Medjugorjean'", the Cardinal censured on Monday: unacceptable attacks "even from Radio Maria, certainly not compatible with the promoters of authentic Marian devotion".

Probably no one would have noticed the dispute, if Bertone had not decided to make it public. "A priest was first to point out what happened Friday evening on Radio Maria," the archdiocese explained. At 9 p.m., ninety minutes live with listeners, with the director of the much-followed Marian station, Fr. Livio Fanzaga... "Bewildered" is the most frequent word from the speakers: how is it possible that an archbishop goes on Rai Uno to say, for the Church, at this moment, there was no supernatural event at Civitavecchia or at Medjugorje either? In reality, Bertone knows what he's saying: Ratzinger's right hand, professor of canon law, and prelate, sent by the Pope to Fatima for Sr. Lucia's funeral, he's followed all the investigation on the apparitions in Herzegovina, and knows the story of the statue of Mary weeping blood in Lazio. He doesn't deny the right to pray to the Virgin in places where she's not present, but he "deplores the excesses of fanaticism, such as the events in various churches, in which they promise the possibility of being present at an apparition of the Madonna on March 18 at a scheduled time".

The clouds burst. The devotees of miracles break out on the radio and in two weeks of mail to the curia in Genoa: "We don't agree in the least with what was said about the apparitions being programmed like a show" (Aldo); "Bertone said he never met the seers in person, or least not to his knowledge" (Efisio); "Cardinal Bertone wasn't clear about anything"; "the journalist Socci knows more about it than him"; "the place to make such arguments isn't a TV set: I don't think Vespa's show is the Cathedral of St. Peter" (salomone@mediacomm.it)... On Civitavecchia they brought in a former bishop, Girolamo Grillo, who commented venomously: "If Bertone had read my dossier, he would have learned that I never spoke of supernatural events or inexplicable events, so that the Archbishop of Genoa would have to take the lid off the hot water".

In faithful Genoa, they're with the archbishop, even among the rebellious priests unpopular at the curia. "The Doges dedicated their acts to the Madonna; the Virgin was crowned here as 'Queen of the City'," says Fr. Andrea Gallo, friend of De André and of the poor. "But the tradition is more sober: to the Madonna della Guardia, where there was an apparition, the Genovese came secretly, preferably by night. I haven't been to Lourdes either, not at all. The cardinal is right to take this up with Radio Maria: they're hammering away at propaganda; it's a crusade. But what do we expect to get from it? If I tell young people to use a condom, I'll be hauled in front of an ecclesiastical court. If they use the Madonna to ask for money, nobody does anything. That station is a hot potato. It's not the voice of Mary, because it benefits from a certain fanaticism, a little like the /maghetti/ on TV who get rich off people's suffering". Less severe is Fr. Gianni Baget Bozzo, a collaborator of Radio Maria: "The Church is not obliged to accept a miraculous fact, and regarding Medjugorje, Bertone is saying the legitimate things that the bishop of Mostar also says. It's too much that they are so attached to it. But they are right to some extent..." Who? "The people who go to Medjugorje or Civitavecchia. Probably it's not really true. But why discourage people who basically just want to pray to Our Lady?"

Cardinal Bertone (left) with Bishop Peric in Mostar in January 2010

Many thanks to Richard Chonak for this translation.

***Home Page***

Croatian Bishop's Conference Official Bulletin - Glas Koncila - Common Question on "Pilgrimages" to Medjugorje

2010-04-13T07:02:00.007-04:00

Recently looking through articles at the official bulletin of the Croatian Bishop's Conference - Glas Koncila (Voice of the Council), I found this question and answer among the "Common Questions" (Opća pitanja). I wrote to Glas Koncila asking them if they could provide a date when this went onto the website. It seemed as if the question was written on April 9th, but a few days later, it read April 12 (meaning the date shown was the current date). I got quick response from Glas Koncila that it appeared in the February 2001 issue. The fact that this particular question remains on the website, means they are still receiving these sorts of questions, thus "common" (or FAQ).

It is offered here in English, not only as a record, but because it contains good information in general about the nature of pilgrimages (what may be defined as a pilgrimage and what may not), who can organize them, and what should and should not happen on them. Another interesting question is answered within this one on vegetarianism.

My emphases in bold. Summary and notes at the bottom.

Here is a translation of: Doživjela sam duhovni teror na putu za Međugorje; zar crkvena vlast to ne može spriječiti?.

I experienced spiritual terror on the way to Medjugorje; can’t church authorities prevent that?

[Full Question]On a bus going to Medjugorje I experienced surprise and scandal. On the way a lady guide, who leads such pilgrimages as a private person, allegedly healed sick people by the laying on of hands and cast out evil spirits from some of them. The scenes were in bad taste. Some of the passengers on whom she carried out her rituals went into an obviously abnormal state, but for her that was a sign that the Devil had really gone out of them.

Among the passengers there happened to be some vegetarians who requested a meal without meat. The guide in front of everyone insultingly accused them of being heretics, followers of Sai Baba and similar non-Christian sects. She herself at the same time wore us out with her smoking.

Don’t church authorities have control over such cases?

A female reader

[Glas Koncila]The case is indeed disturbing and urges certain clarifications. The person involved may not be considered the leader of a pilgrimage, nor may trips like that such as she organizes be called pilgrimages. Real pilgrimages must be within the organization of a church institution or association.

When talking about Medjugorje, it is understood that every believer alone or in a group can go there to pray, but motivated only by personal devotion. Church authorities have not confirmed the authenticity of the apparitions taking place there and church institutions can not invite the faithful on pilgrimage for the reason of Our Lady’s apparitions. There are no such problems when it comes to pilgrimages to other recognized Marian churches, for example, Marija Bistrica, Trsat, Aljmaš and others which have been declared to be Marian shrines and holy place where the faithful can pray and receive the gifts of grace, even though at those places there was neither recognized nor disputed apparitions.

We can not close our eyes to the fact that many believers from our homeland and from the world are going to Medjugorje as though on pilgrimage believing in the apparitions of Our Lady there. No one can forbid that to them nor call it a sin; it is always possible for devout prayers to bear good fruit. But for the reasons mentioned above, those cannot be an official pilgrimages that church representatives would lead. Therefore, it is indeed possible that self-styled organizers set to work and lead those kind of pilgrimages. Some of them without any kind of supervision of church authorities, as witnessed in the above example, can behave altogether arbitrarily, in bad taste and inappropriately spiritually terrorize the faithful who have trusted them. Obviously, those who wish to go to Medjugorje for devotional reasons should be warned not to accept any kind of spiritual guide during the journey. If some travel agency arranges that kind of trip because there are those who are interested, that cannot be forbidden to it, but even it does not have the right to arrange any kind of spiritual leader. The faithful, if it is appropriate, can also pray customary prayers together on the way, but in no way accept extraordinary acts of alleged healings and exorcisings of the Devil. When they reach their goal, they can participate in the devotions that the local spiritual caregivers lead, assuming that they are under the supervision of higher church authorities and that they are acting in accordance with church regulations. If they notice something quite otherwise, they should refrain from it.

This is also an opportunity to recall that our bishops, while once admitting that they did not find evidence for official recognition of the apparitions, were still, independent of that, determined, to provide the faithful who come there the ability to perform appropriate devotions and have reception of the sacraments and that is why the church authorities should help and keep control. Should it come to a serious implementation of that second part of the decision of our bishops, maybe one could find a way to prevent really scandalous cases like the one you experienced. It is a particularly crude abuse of devout intentions and could scandalize the well-meaning faithful and show our faith in the most ugly and corrupt light to those who are not of the faith.

As for vegetarianism, it must be said that there are also vegetarians among the most orthodox, that it is not a religion but a discipline of living, indeed a kind of permanent abstinence that should be commended even if we ourselves do not wish to undertake it. As long as religious parties do not find legally acceptable and appropriate precautions feasible, such would-be pilgrimages will be possible in which it will be able to experience also such deviant people who obviously have no basic knowledge of Catholic faith and spirituality. [Private translation by Fr. Philip Pavic, OFM]

Note: The Croatian Bishop's Conference speaks in a way that reflects the fact that the bishops of Croatia and BiH were once one conference in the former Yugoslavia. Hence, the language: "Should it come to a serious implementation of that second part of the decision of our bishops, maybe one could find a way to prevent really scandalous cases like the one you experienced."

Main points with additional notes

Trips to Medjugorje by individuals or groups are not considered pilgrimages since the phenomenon is not recognized as authentic, nor has the site been approved as a "shrine" or "sanctuary" such as other places named. Church institutions and associations, or those going as representatives may not lead group visits.
Individuals or groups may go to Medjugorje "motivated only by personal devotion".

In 1987 Cardinal Kuharic stated in the Glas Koncila: "it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events."
On March 23, 1996 (Prot. No. 154/81-01985), then Archbishop Bertone wrote: "...official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, understood as a place of authentic Marian apparitions, are not permitted to be organized either on the parish or on the diocesan level..."
On August 21, 1996, then Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls explains why: "...The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje ..."
Finally, on May 26, 1998 (Pr. No 154/81-05922) Archbishop Bertone writes: "...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..."

It may not be forbidden or considered sinful for people to visit Medjugorje, as though on pilgrimage. [many who do this are unaware of the distinction, some being misled by tour companies and promoter sites].
Devout prayers of visitors is what bears fruit (along with the Sacraments, as pointed out later)
Since the current status of Medjugorje does not permit official pilgrimages organized by representatives of Church institutions or associations, other private organizations may be leading them.
These tour guides are not under any kind of supervision by Church authorities.
Advises against getting involved with "spiritual guides" on such tours.
Customary prayers may be prayed along the way (this means devotions according to the teachings of the Church, such as the Rosary, and other approved prayers).
Those visiting should not accept, "extraordinary acts of alleged healings and exorcisings of the Devil"
Upon arriving in Medjugorje, visitors may participate in devotions led by local spiritual caregivers, "assuming that they are under the supervision of higher church authorities and that they are acting in accordance with church regulations." And, they should refrain from anything to the contrary. This goes back to the authority given to the local bishop in the 1991 Zadar Declaration when it said (my emphases in bold; comments bracketed in red):

Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motivesrequire the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted [Note: Marialis Cultus does not have a provision for devotions based on alleged apparitions which have not gained approval at any level of the Church. Hence, devotions based on the alleged apparition, which have not been approved for use by ecclesial authority, are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church]. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through the commissions. [Bishop Peric has provided pastoral and liturgical directives here, here, here and here among other places, and his 2006 homily (third link) was acknowledged by the CDF when it advised the Bishops of Tuscany to share it with priests of the diocese.]

Independent of the question of authenticity, which was never acknowledged to date and is a question now being handled by the new commission, the Croatian Bishops again acknowledge the second part - the ability of people to go there for devotions.
The Croatian bishops then affirm the authority of the local bishop when they say, "...the church authorities should help and keep control...." and then in pretty strong terms point out: "Should it come to a serious implementation of that second part of the decision of our bishops, maybe one could find a way to prevent really scandalous cases like the one you experienced"
Points to the fact abuses such as the one depicted in the question, "could scandalize the well-meaning faithful and show our faith in the most ugly and corrupt light to those who are not of the faith"

***Home Page***

Archbishop D'Errico, Papal Nuncio to BiH, discusses new commission

2010-04-11T10:13:00.005-04:00

Below is a translation by Fr. Philip Pavic, OFM of the text from an interview that took place following news of the new commission on Medjugorje as that text appears in Croatian on the BiH Bishop's Conference website.

I make this clarification because medjugorje.hr is providing two different Croatian texts on it's own website in different places (one is the full interview - which matches what is on the BiH Bishop's Conference website - and the other is shortened for just the portion on Medjugorje and this does NOT match the full length interview. The text in the shorted version is questionable and it appears that this is the one which used for other languages, including English). The Croatian text in the truncated version does not match the text provided in Croatian at the bishop's conference website, nor in the full interview provided in Croatian on medjugorje.hr!

At the very bottom of this post, I bullet some key contrasts between the two Croatian texts. For example, there is a big difference in saying, "the Holy Father is interested in Medjugorje" (short version) and, "the Holy Father is interested in the question of Medjugorje" (full interview). The word "question" is conspicuously missing in several places within the shortened version, among other strange things I noted.

Without further delay, here is the translation of the text as it appears on the Bishop's Conference website:

[Interviewer] Three days ago the Holy See established the International Commission for Medjugorje. How do you see that event?

[Abp D'Errico] Obviously, that also is a great sign of hope because it tells us one thing - the great attention that the Holy Father Benedict XVI pays to Bosnia and Herzegovina, and especially the Catholic community in the country and the questions being discussed within this community.

From personal experience, every time I met the Holy Father he had great interest in the question of Medjugorje, a question to which he was directed from the very beginning that he became prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It deals with a question for which he feels responsible as the supreme head of the Church to pronounce a clear message.

The Holy Father personally knows it very well and he has told me that several times - he is well acquainted with the whole phenomenon. He knows about the great good that is being done in this region by the priests, the Franciscan friars, and the laity. And on the other hand he asks himself how come there is information in such opposition to this phenomenon.

For that reason he wanted to establish this commission which is on an especially high level to obtain a complete picture of it by persons who are highly qualified. So from different parts of the world he has invited cardinals, bishops, experts and expert witnesses to be part of this commission.

It was announced that the president of this commission will be Cardinal Ruini, a Cardinal of great prestige and of high qualification, who as everyone knows is very close with the Holy Father and not only since he is the Pope. He is always very close to the Holy Father. Cardinal Ruini also knows B-H very well, especially since the time of the war when he was President of the Italian Bishops' Conference.

One interesting and special thing that tells about the great solidarity of the Holy Father with this land and this community is the fact that he could announce the commission and finish the question with it. But, because of the respect he has for the communities in B-H he wanted the announcement of this commission to be simultaneous, both in the Vatican and in Mostar. In Mostar because obviously Medjugorje is located territorially in the boundaries of the diocese of Mostar.

I am well aware that the media have talked about this commission for quite a while. A great suspense has been created. Today we can say that we are satisfied and grateful to the Holy Father for this attention that he wanted to show toward Mostar and toward our Catholic communities. Thus, in the name of the Holy Father I announced this important decision of the Holy Father to the bishops at the same time that the news was also announced in Rome. It is clear to us that the work of this Commission will be very demanding and I would like to invite all our communities to commend the work of the Commission to the patronage of St. Joseph whose feastday we will celebrate and to Mary, Mother of the Church, who are the patrons of Mostar.

Here is the Croatian used for the translation, as it appears on the bishop's conference website (white space added for easier reading to match the above):

Prije tri dana Sveta Stolica utemeljila je međunarodno povjerenstvo za Međugorje. Kako gledate na taj događaj?

[D'Errico]Očito i to je veliki znak nade jer nam kaže jednu stvar - veliku pozornost koju Sveti Otac Benedikt XVI. posvećuje Bosni i Hercegovini i posebno katoličkoj zajednici u zemlji i pitanjima koja se raspravljaju unutar ove zajednice.

Iz osobnoga iskustva, svakoga puta kada sam susreo Svetoga Oca imao je veliko zanimanje za pitanje Međugorja, pitanje u koje je upućen od samoga početka kada je bio prefekt Kongregacije za nauk vjere. Radi se o pitanju za koje on osjeća odgovornost kao vrhovni poglavar Crkve da izrekne jasnu poruku.

Sveti Otac osobno dobro poznaje i to mi je više puta rekao – dobro poznaje cijeli fenomen. Zna za velika dobra koje se čine na ovome području od strane svećenika, redovnika, franjevaca, laika. A druge strane pita se kako dolaze tako suprotstavljene informacije o tome fenomenu.

Zato je želio ustanoviti ovo povjerenstvo koje je na posebno visokoj razini da bi stekao cjelovitu sliku o tome od strane osoba koje su vrhunski kvalificirane. Tako je s raznih strana svijeta pozvao kardinale, biskupe, stručnjake i vještake da budu dio ovog povjerenstva.

Najavljeno je da će predsjednik ovoga povjerenstva biti kardinal Ruini, kardinal od velikoga prestiža i velikih kvaliteta za kojega svi znaju da je vrlo blizak sa Svetim Ocem i to iz vremena ne samo dok je papa. Vrlo je blizak Svetome Ocu oduvijek. Kardinal Ruini također dobro poznaje BiH, posebice iz vremena rata kada je bio predsjednik Biskupske konferencije Italije.

Tada je odredio da talijanska Crkva i Biskupska konferencija bude prisutna velikim ‘interventima’ solidarnosti u korist svih naroda u BiH. Jedna zanimljiva i posebna stvar koja govori o velikoj solidarnosti Svetoga Oca za ovu zemlju i ove zajednice je i u tome da je mogao najaviti povjerenstvo i da stvar s time završi. No, zbog poštovanja koje ima prema zajednicama u BiH želio je da najava ovoga povjerenstva bude istodobno, u zajedništvu u Vatikanu i u Mostaru. U Mostaru jer je očito da se Međugorje nalazi teritorijalno na području biskupije Mostar.

Znam dobro da su mediji o ovome povjerenstvu govorili poodavno. Stvoreno je veliko očekivanje. Danas možemo kazati da smo zadovoljni i zahvalni Svetome Ocu za ovu pozornost koju je htio pokazati prema Mostaru i prema našim katoličkim zajednicama. Tako sam u ime Svetoga Oca najavio biskupima ovu važnu odluku Svetoga Oca istodobno kada je i u Rimu objavljena vijest. Jasno nam je da će rad ovoga Povjerenstva biti vrlo zahtjevan i htio bih pozvati sve naše zajednice da djelovanje ovoga Povjerenstva povjere zaštiti svetoga Josipa čiji ćemo blagdan proslaviti i Mariji Majki Crkve koji su zaštitnici Mostara.

THE SHORT VERSION (CROATIAN) ON MEDJUGORJE.HR

That second paragraph shown in the above pic (click and use "View-Zoom" to enlarge) is suppose to be an excerpt of what you will see when you click the link to see the full interview, which contains the same text that is on the bishop's conference website. However, the two texts in Croatian do not read the same (see emboldened text above). In particular, in Croatian lead-in paragraph, they quote the archbishop as follows:

''Kad god sam susreo Sv. Oca, on je pokazivao veliko zanimanje za Međugorje. Slijedio je sve, već od početka, dok je bio pročelnik Kongregacije za nauk vjere. Radi se o pitanju za koje on osjeća odgovornost da kao vrhovni autoritet Crkve kaže jasnu riječ.

Sv. Otac dobro poznaje, i više puta mi je rekao kako dobro poznaje, čitavi fenomen. Poznato mu je veliko dobro koje ovdje biva ostvareno od strane svećenika, redovnika, franjevaca, laika. I onda se pita kako to da dolaze tako suprotstavljene informacije o tom fenomenu.

Which translates much like what they have in English (compare this to what Fr. Philip Pavic translated at the top of this post (emboldened) from the full interview found at both the Bishop's Conference website and medjugorje.hr)

“Whenever I would meet Holy Father, he was always very much interested in Medjugorje. He was involved in everything, starting with the time when he was Head of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He is aware that this is the issue of special importance, and he, as supreme authority of the Church, needs to give his precise statement about that matter.

Holy Father is very much familiar with Medjugorje phenomenon; he even mentioned that to me personally. He is aware of huge amount of positive and good influence of local priests, religious, Franciscans, lay people, and therefore, it is very difficult for him to perceive that there can be so many opposing information about the same matter.

Contrasts
Point 1: Missing from the shortened Croatian version on this page of medjugorje.hr (and in their English translation), but not in this full interview version on medjugorje.hr (which matches what is on BiH bishops conference website)

The word "question" preceding "Medjugorje" in several places. To say that the Holy Father is "interested in Medjugorje" is not the same as his being interested in "the question of medjugorje". In the English langauge, to say that someone has an interest in something can mean that the person has a favorable view of the thing (i.e., "The boy has an interest in fishing." means he enjoys it or likes it).

Point 2: Additions in the short medjugorje.hr version (my notes bracketed in red):

"therefore" [which is a word that leads to a conclusion]
"it is very difficult for him [the Holy Father] to percieve"
"about the same matter"

Point 3: Conveying different meanings in the short version to long (translated as shown)

medjugorje.hr (short): "...difficult for him to perceive that there can be so many opposing information..."
medjugorje.hr (full interview) and BiH Bishop's Conference as translated by Fr. Pavic : "...he asks himself how come there is information in such opposition to this phenomenon..."

We will let readers discern for themselves why this difference exists.

As of this posting, I still have not received a response from Radio Mir sent on the Wednesday of Holy Week. I had asked them to upload the audio since a claim was made that the Archbishop spoke in Italian and felt that the audio would help clarify what was actually said. I pointed out the differences in texts and asked if they could confirm that the Archbishop spoke in Italian.

***Home Page***

June 10, 2004: Excerpt of Confirmation Sermon by Bp Peric in Medjugorje

2010-03-21T14:35:00.003-04:00

With the official announcement of a new commission on the phenomena of Medjugorje, we will continue to accumulate, publish, and examine closer, existing documents for informational purposes.

This excerpt from the June 10, 2004 homily at the parish of St. James in Medjugorje has only been available in Croatian at the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno website, until this private translation was made at my request.

Recall first, what the 1991 Zadar Declaration said about the local bishop:

Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through the commissions.

A few points from the above paragraph:

1) It gives to the local bishop, the lead in giving this "pastoral attention and care", and "then the other bishop's with him".

2) It is not only in reference to what happens in Medjugorje, but "all connected with it".

3) The declaration talks about a"healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church."

4) It makes clear the authority of the bishops to set pastoral and liturgical directives, "corresponding to this aim".

In this homily, Bishop Ratko Peric talks about Marian devotion and the Church's teachings on it. He speaks fervently about the Eucharist as the greatest miracle. He weaves together the relationship that Mary has with Christ and the Church.

Emphases mine in bold. Links were added by me, as well.

Excerpt from Confirmation Sermon by Bp Peric in Medjugorje June 10, 2004

3 - This parish church of St. James the Apostle in Medjugorje should be a place of great veneration of the Eucharist and the other sacraments of Christ. But all those pictures, images and words, which connect unapproved private accounts with the holy things of God or that refer to unapproved and unproven apparitions or to the private assurances which have already for 23 years played with and manipulated the “Queen of Peace”, must be removed from the church and from church usage.

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the greatest servant of God. And she is also in the service of Jesus Christ from his conception to his ascension. About her the Catholic Church has its own dogmas of faith, theological truths, teachings expressed in ecumenical councils and in the ordinary magisterium of the Church. And the Exhortation of Paul VI from 1974. - Marialis Cultus - "To Honor Mary”, and the encyclical of Pope John Paul II from 1987. - Redemptoris Mater - "Mother of the Redeemer," present the entire and correct Catholic doctrine on Our Lady, which the Church celebrates and sets in front of our eyes with all its dignity and honor! Not a single preacher can present to the people, either by examples or content, so-called messages and accounts taken from unapproved private apparitions.

It is not allowed from this altar, nor is it allowed from any altar in the Catholic world, in place of safe Catholic doctrine, to refer to the alleged messages and apparitions, which even after the canonical commissions of investigation are neither proven nor accepted by the Church.

The faithful are called by Catholic faith to adhere with confidence to official church doctrine, and not one of them is obligated to accept the unapproved private accounts that daily come from the alleged visionaries, who have promoted their apparitions around the world.

Being responsible, the Church cannot conform to irresponsible news that confuses and frightens the people of God, that presents the alleged apparitions with their visionaries and messages sensationally, and incompetently calls this place a sanctuary. We have a right to the seriousness and the dignity of our holy Catholic faith and we are obligated as genuine believers of Christ to keep the authentic teachings, without ever privatizing the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, or the Mother of the Church, the Blessed Virgin Mary!

The Body of Christ is the greatest gift of the Lord to His believers. When giving Holy Communion the priest says “The Body of Christ” and the communicant confirms it with “Amen”, confessing faith in Jesus' greatest miracle. Next to such a clear doctrine, divine message and miracle, is it really necessary to hop all over rocky Herzegovina for the tens of thousands of questionable "apparitions" throughout these 8,400 days? How is that taking our holy Catholic faith seriously?

The fundamental message of Jesus is “This is my Body! Take and eat. This is my Blood! Take and drink! Do this in remembrance of me! The mystery of faith!” Can there be a greater message than this that the Church makes present in every Holy Mass in every part of the world already for two thousand years? From the behavior of some individual believers and priests one gets the impression that the Most Blessed Eucharist and the sacraments are in the service of countless "apparitions", not one of which the Church has ever confirmed. And as though someone who goes to confession and receives Holy Communion here, is thereby proving the authenticity of private apparitions. A true believer, priest and bishop, must not forget the Apostle’s warning that the time will come when people will “accumulate teachers for their itching ears who turn them away from hearing the truth to following myths”.(2 Tim 4, 3-4)

Mary, like her Son also, is characterized most of all by obedience to God. How then and to whom is it allowed frivolously to play games with the Most Blessed among women, the Mother of God? How is it that people have no fear of God? And priests by-passing the Church, who accept such "apparitions" as authentic and bring them not only into the devotion of Our Lady’s Rosary, but even into homilies, and liturgical ceremonies, or they organize "pilgrimages" presuming their authenticity, giving proof not only that due ecclesiastical seriousness does not oblige them but showing themselves to be disobedient sons of the Church. The saints of God became saints because they obeyed the concrete Church of Christ, and did not work according to their conceited ideas and self-will. [private translation by Fr.Philip Pavich OFM]

When Bishop Peric mentions priests who, "organize 'pilgrimages' presuming their authenticity", we have to look back again at several documents.

Prior to the 1991 Zadar Declaration, the former head of the Yugoslav Bishop's, His Eminence, Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, when announcing the new commission in 1987 in the Glas Koncila (Voice of the Council), explained:

While waiting for the results of the Commission's work and the Church's verdict, let the Pastors and the faithful honor the practice of the usual prudence in such circumstances. For that reason, it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events.

March 23, 1996 (Prot. No. 154/81-01985), then Archbishop Bertone wrote:

"The result from this, in what is precisely said, is that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, understood as a place of authentic Marian apparitions, are not permitted to be organized either on the parish or on the diocesan level..."

May 26, 1998 (Pr. No 154/81-05922), Archbishop Bertone, speaking now of private pilgrimages explains in a letter to Msgr. Gilbert Aubry:

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.

Both protocol letters can be read in this post: Are pilgrimages permitted or not???

One of the best assessments made in reference to this langauge, was that of Msgr. Henri Brincard of Puy-en-Velay and "Accompanying Bishop of the Association of Marian organisations", writing on behalf of the French Bishops in a statement that first appeared in the official bulletin of the French Episcopal Conference [SNOP], No. 1,064, [printed in Documentation Catholique of 7 January 2000]. See entire document online, in English here.

"I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my having come there, to the events who's discernment and assessment rests henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles (11): "Individual bishops, in so far as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal."

How many base their private pilgrimage to Medjugorje on the belief that it is authentic? How many feel that their private pilgrimage, combined with numerous other people, authenticate the events of Medjugorje?

***Home Page***

2007: Bishops of Tuscany advised by CDF to read 2006 homily of Bishop Peric

2010-03-11T09:12:00.001-05:00

In his June 2009 homily for Confirmations at Medjugorje, it was widely reported that Bishop Peric said:

I also visited the superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and thanked them in particular for informing the bishops of the region of Toscana, in Italy, who had asked the Congregation during their “ad limina” visit what position to take regarding the phenomenon of Medjugorje. The then Secretary of the Congregation, Archbishop Angelo Amato recommended that the bishops convey to the priests and faithful of their dioceses the homily that was given here in Medjugorje during the rite of Confirmation, on the solemnity of the Body and Blood of Christ in the year 2006, which they then did.

This was disputed by supporters and promoters of Medjugorje because there was no proof.

The above is the notice released by the Bishops of Tuscany asking priests to share the bishops 2006 homily. Here is a crude google translation:

During the visit "ad Limina" of the Bishops of the Region of Tuscany, in the period 16/20 April 2007, we had a meeting at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Secretary Monsignor Angelo Amato, who speaks to us of apparitions of Medjugorje, has invited us to make public the homily the Bishop of Mostar, in order to clarify the religious phenomenon linked to this site.

In compliance with this invitation to make known, and pray, especially priests, to read it carefully and to learn the lessons necessary for the proper lighting of our faithful.

That which was said in the 2006 homily was very strong and many statements can be found on promoter sites saying "the bishop was removed" from the Vatican. This is patently false and deceptive. The above proves that the CDF is working with the Bishop of Mostar as one would expect. A further explanation about why the matter was taken up by the bishop's conference, then commissions is detailed here.

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

***Home Page***

Ecclesial Disciplinary Actions against Fra Jozo Zovko, OFM

2010-02-21T08:02:00.001-05:00

This is a list of disciplinary actions taken against Fra Jozo Zovko, OFM through early 2009. It was compiled by Mark Waterinckx of Belgium. Mark had gone to Medjugorje at least 24 times and had raised many thousands of dollars. He knew Fr. Jozo Zovko personally through his promotional activities in Medjugorje before discovering sobering realities about the phenomena and the players. He has since worked actively to expose these things.

For serious researchers and academics, I would encourage you to contact the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno using the reference numbers below for documents and further clarification on any particular event listed. Conclusions made in this document belong to Mark Waterinckx. The work is placed here for the sake of the chronology and document numbers.

Below Mark's document, are other items related to Fr. Jozo's faculties.

The Papal War against Medjugorje: Jozo Zovko exiled

1° Suspension: On 23-8-1989 (letter nr. 622/89) Jozo has been suspended by Mostar-bishop Zanic, because of serious accusations.

Jozo refuses to obey and appeals to the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples in Rome.

This Congregation confirms on 15-2-1990 (letter nr. 5673/89) the suspension of Jozo by Mgr. Zanic, and asks that Jozo should be exiled to a convent, far from Medjugorje.

Jozo refuses.

On 25-7-1991 (letter nr. 377/91) the Franciscan provincial of Hercegovina proposes to the bishop of Mostar to transfer Jozo to the convent of Siroki Brijeg, only 30 km from Medjugorje.

The bishops responds on 30-7-1991 (letter nr. 557/91), refusing this proposal.

On 2-9-1991 (letter nr. 649/91) bishop Zanic complains that Jozo, notwithstanding his suspension, continues to administer the Sacraments in Siroki Brijeg.

When Mgr. Peric is installed as the new bishop of Mostar in August 1993, Jozo is still committing insubordination.

On 11-11-1993 the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples writes to the Minister-General of the Franciscan order that Jozo and 3 other Franciscans are suspended, but that they continue practicing their priestly functions in the vicinity of Medjugorje.

On 29-12-1993 the Franciscan Province informs bishop Peric by letter nr. 380/93 that Jozo is appointed as the parish administrator in Siroki Brijeg.

On 4-2-1994 the bishop by letter nr.69/94 expresses his consternation about this.

On 12-6-1994 the bishop makes a canonical visit to Siroki Brijeg. Jozo confirms him that, notwithstanding his suspension, he still hears confessions.

2° Suspension: On 14-6-1994 the bishop notifies by letter nr. 423/1994, that Jozo is automatically suspended according to canon 1378 par. 2.

On 15-6-1994 the bishop also notifies Jozo’s superior of this by letter nr. 423/1994-ad.

Jozo did not pay any attention to this letter and continues to be disobedient.

During his ad limina-visit to Rome, the bishop by letter nr. 1203/98 of 6-11-1998, informs the Holy See of this situation.

Without mentioning the irregular status of Jozo, in 2002 the Provincial writes that ’those who accept Medjugorje, consider Jozo as a devote priest, and that he, on invitation, gives spiritual retreats on the island of Jakljan and in Medjugorje.’

3° Suspension: On 26-6-2004 in a long letter nr. 843/2004, bishop Peric suspends Jozo for the third time because of his persistent disobedience. He invites him to the bishop’s office in Mostar in order to regularize his priestly status. In the diocesan Curia the bishop wants to show him all documents related to his illegal pastoral activities as well as to his ‘moral’ life. This decree has been officially published in the diocesan bulletin Vrhbosna, 3/2004 p. 293-298.

Jozo again refuses to obey.

And what happens now? On 9-2-2009, the personal assistant of Jozo in Siroki Brijeg, Vesna Cuzic, informs all Medjugorje-groups, that Jozo, for reasons of ‘health, rest and convalescence, and for renovation of buildings on the island of Badija-Croatia (how ‘logical’: renovating buildings while he is supposed to take a rest…), Jozo will not be available for pilgrims for the rest of the year 2009.

During the annual meeting of the Medjugorje-Guides in March 2009, the provincial, Fr. Ivan Sesar, made known that Jozo had ‘requested for a sabbatical year…’

But rumors say that recently Jozo has been seen for several days in Rome, and that after the severe punishment and exile of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic by the Vatican in 2008, a new commission is now occupying themselves with the ‘Jozo case’.

Jozo’s superiors, who until now, had always supported Jozo’s disobedience, now seem to feel uneasy and therefore exiled Jozo to the small island of Badija, near the island Korcula, thus obeying the demand of 1990 of the Congregation for the Evangelization of the Peoples.

And indeed, in the Croatian Magazine “Nacional” of 24-2-2009 (p. 68-72) appeared a long article, titled: ”Papal War against Medjugorje” [Google Translated link - DK]. Subtitle: ”The exile of Jozo”.

Furthermore: “Jozo was moved from Siroki Brijeg and left behind on the island Badija for as long as the Papal Commission concerning Medjugorje is pursuing her investigation".

At last Jozo has been banned to a convent, far from Medjugorje, “ordered by Rome and against his own will".

But, as is always the case, the Medjugorje-media are manipulating the naïve Medjugorje-fans and falsify the real motive for his exile.

“Nacional” continues : “Jozo was moved to Badija not because of health reasons, as was officially stated, but exiled by the Franciscan Province.”

“After 18 years of resistance and disobedience, Jozo was compelled to obey a decision of the Holy See since February 1990, whereby Rome confirmed the suspension by Mgr. Zanic in 1989."

At the end of 2008, the administration of the Franciscan Province of Hercegovina decided that Jozo at last should accept the punishment by Rome.

To some close friends Jozo said that he was ‘sent to the desert’.

Many ask themselves why, after 18 years, Jozo has finally obeyed to the decision of the Church Administration. The answer is that very soon the Vatican will start a new commission about Jozo and Medjugorje.

And it is well known that the former Card. Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, was rather negative about Medjugorje... (see his letter of 22-7-1998).

"Jozo has now decided not to be an obstacle in that process.”

Feast of St Joseph, 19-3-2009
mark waterinckx Belgium

_________________

UPDATE: On January 2, 2010, Bishop Ratko Peric mentions Fr. Jozo Zovko in his statement on the Cardinal Schonborn visit (in point 7). He explains:

- We had two separate charismatic promoters and “architects” of the “Medjugorje phenomenon”: The prominent and disobedient Tomislav Vlašić, who last year was expelled by the Superior General of the Order of Friars and who at his request, was dispensed of his priestly faculties and obligations by the Holy See, and Fr. Jozo Zovko, who has been denied priestly faculties in this diocese since 2004, who according to newspaper reports, has been withdrawn by his religious superiors from the territory of Herzegovina and is prohibited from any contact with Medjugorje.

A guide in Medjugorje has reportedly told fellow supporters that Zovko is now in Austria.

Fr. Jozo Toured US without faculties:

Note in this first link, that it appears the Archdiocese of Los Angeles contacted the Franciscan province to check on Zokvo's priestly faculties, but did not contact the local bishop. This is odd because the religious order does not give and take faculties, the bishop does.

Suspended Medjugorje Priest Gives Retreat in Thousand Oaks (2003)

Let's look closer at the incident at the National Shrine in Washington DC.

On November 14, 2002, Provincial Fr. Slavko Soldo wrote that he was in good standing with the religious order, but says nothing about his faculties:

Fr. Jozo Zovko is a member of our community in good standing. He was the pastor at Medjugorje when the apparition of the Blessed Mother started in 1981. It was time of the communist regime in our country. As pastor of Medjugorje Fr. Jozo was put in prison by the communist court. After he was released from the prison, he continued to spread the message of the blessed Mother Queen of peace.

In our community Fr. Jozo Zovko is known as a charismatic priest who suffered for his faith and continues suffering. He spends long hours in prayer, counseling and preaching. Most of the time he is in the church, often for 10 hours a day.

Those who oppose the apparitions of the Blessed Mother at Medjugorje are constantly after Fr. Jozo, trying to stop his mission, but those who accept the Medjugorje consider him a dedicated priest and are inviting him to lead retreats for them and pray for them in their needs. Among those who are inviting him, are many priests and bishops. Fr. Jozo is tireless in that service. He did ask permission to travel to the United States and it was granted to him. I hope that this will be of help to you.

Peace and all things good!"

Mostar, November 14, 2002, Fr. Slavko Soldo, provincijal

On November 19th, the following statement was issued by the Basicilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington DC. Note that the event was cancelled just two days prior:

Basilica of the National Shrine
Important notice about Father Jozo Zovko, O.F.M.

November 19, 2002

The November 21 Marian Mass and prayer vigil at the Basilica of the National Shrine will continue as scheduled without the participation of Father Jozo Zovko, O.F.M. Father Zovko’s faculties have been revoked and he is under censure from the Bosnian Diocese of Mostar-Duvno. In accord with Canon Law, he may not exercise his priestly ministry here.

The National Shrine and the Archdiocese of Washington, though unaware of the basis for Father Zovko’s censure, or any credible allegations against him, are obliged to adhere to its canonical stipulations.

On November 21st, the Vicar General of the Order discusses Zovko's standing with the religious order, and says nothing about his faculties.

"I Fr. Stefano Ottenbreit, the undersigned, Vicar General of the Order of Friars Minor, testify that Fr. Jozo Zovko is a Member in good standing of the Province of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Herzegovina of our Order. I, also, declare to whom it may concern that he has never been suspended from our Order."

Signed and sealed with the seal of the Order at our General Curia in Rome on this 21st day of November in the year of the Lord 2002.

In fide, Fr. Stefano Ottenbreit, OFM, Vicar General

Now, there is something interesting missing at pro-Medjugorje sites. That is, the standing of Fr. Jozo Zovko with the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno. I copied this from a now defunct website, "Send Your Spirit Medjugorje" some time ago before it went offline. Whomever wrote this letter, raised the appropriate questions reqarding the two replies from the Franciscn order. The site indicated, it never got a response to the questions raised.

November 25, 2002

Fr. Slavko Soldo, OFM,
Provincial of the Herzegovinian
Franciscan Province of the Assumption
Mostar - Fax: 333-526

Although Fr. Jozo is in good standing with you, he is, however, in disobedience to the local bishop, and therefore, the church, as indicated in the letter (Dated November 18, 2002, Prot. 1942/2002) from Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar to Msgr. Michael J. Bransfield, Rector Basilica National Shrine Of Immaculate Conception, Washington, D,C. Fax 001 202 526 8313.

Why did your Franciscan province permit him to be in such disobedience and without priestly faculties for 13 years?

Please reply. Thank you

Further information about Fr. Zovko is learned from Bishop Ratko Peric on his communication regarding the withdrawal of Papal Household Preacher, Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa's appearance at a retreat for priests in 2007.

Bishop Peric writes:

Despite the above mentioned decision, the news of a spiritual retreat for priests directed by Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa OFM Cap., Preacher of the Papal Household, to be held in Medjugorje at the beginning of July 2007 appeared on the internet many months ago, yet the organizers of this retreat did not inform the Diocesan Chancery in Mostar according to the norm, prior to the event. In this regard, celebrations of the sacrament of reconciliation are being publicized billing, alongside Fr Cantalamessa, Fr. Jozo Zovko; yet the latter since 2004 has been relieved of all priestly faculties in the territory of the dioceses of Herzegovina (Vrhbosna, 3/2004, pp.293-298).

The Pastoral decision of 23 August 2001 regarding leaders of spiritual retreats and conferences was reaffirmed and expressly emphasized by the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, Msgr. Ratko Perić in his discourse and invitation given during the Chapter elections on 16 April this year at Humac, where he was officially invited to preside at Holy Mass. On that occasion the Diocesan bishop mentioned the following regarding Medjugorje:

“1 – The pastoral obstinacy of the pastors and other associates of Medjugorje is quite evident on the ‘Medjugorje’ internet site which bears the title ‘Marian Shrine’. ‘Medjugorje’ is neither a diocesan nor national or international shrine. This status must be acknowledged while the events remain as they stand.

2 - The obstinacy of the pastors and other associates of Medjugorje is also evident in the their disregard for the circular letter of the Chancery of 2001, which states that priests coming from beyond the areas where the Croatian language is spoken are not to be invited without the express and written permission of the Diocesan Chancery.

3 - The obstinacy of the pastors and other associates of Medjugorje is evident in that a member of your Province, Fr. Jozo Zovko, who has no priestly faculties and who is forbidden from celebrating any priestly functions in this diocese, has been invited this year to preside at the Way of the Cross in Medjugorje and has been in this regard presented as available for confessions”.

The discourse was published in its entirety at the beginning of May this year in the diocesan pastoral monthly (Crkva na kamenu, 5/2007, pp. 33-35).

Fr. Cantalamessa may have thought that necessary permissions were obtained, but took correct actions upon learning he did not have the local Bishop's permission to preach in Medjugorje. Pro-Medjugorje sites often paint the bishop as being mean-spirited for this actions. However, since he has pastoral jurisdiction to ensure that what takes place in Medjugorje is in accordance with Church norms on Marian devotion (which does not include unapproved phenomena), he acted appropriately. Fr. Cantalamessa's appearance would have lent credibility to something not yet deemed worthy of belief by the Church. Further, his appearance with the suspended priest, Fr. Jozo Zovko, OFM would have been scandalous for the Church.

***Home Page***

January 2, 2010: Statement of Bishop Peric on the visit of Cdl Schonborn to Medjugorje

2010-01-03T20:04:00.009-05:00

ENGLISH TRANSLATION NOW AVAILABLE ON OFFICIAL DIOCESAN WEBSITE:

- Statement regarding the visit of Cardinal Schonborn to Medjugorje (Diocese of Mostar-Duvno)

NOTE 1: The english version found below is an unofficial translation, made with the aid of a google translator from both the Croatian and Italian offered at the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno website. It will be replaced with a better version if one becomes available. Please feel free to email me fixes or better translations of specific sentences or paragraphs at TeDeumBlog (at) gmail (dot) com.

This is in response to Cardinal Schonborn's visit, which does not appear to have been pre-arranged with the local Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, the local Ordinary who maintains pastoral responsibility over Medjugorje.

NOTE 2: I am adding in some links, which are not in the original, which will take you to the respective online sources. I will also offer additional links at the bottom, which will put some of the things offered by the bishop in perspective. I regret that some of these links, especially those on the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno website, are not available in English, but most often in Croatian and Italian. You may use Google Translation tools to get the gist of them.

Comments bracketed in red are mine....

On the occasion of the visit of Cardinal Schonborn to Medjugorje
January 2, 2010

Statement

Since the mass media have announced and tracked the public appearance of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, Archbishop of Vienna in Medjugorje, which has especially given some believers the erroneous impression that the Cardinal’s presence acknowledged the authenticity of the Medjugorje “apparitions” I believe that it is my duty as a diocesan bishop, to provide some information to the faithful, with the observation that I have already sent to the Cardinal in a personal letter with similar content.

1) First, some media have spread the news that on September 15, 2009, in the Cathedral of St. Stephen in Vienna, in the presence of His Eminence, Cardinal Schonborn, was held a meeting at which he participated along with Marija Pavlovic-Lunetti, who was presented as a daily “visionary”. With the usual “apparition”, she testified how the daily “apparitions” of June 1981 influenced changes in her life. On this occasion, the Cardinal said in his speech: “It’s a great gift that the Mother of God wants to be so close to her children! This she has shown in many places in the world. And, for many years has shown in a very particular way, nearby in Medjugorje!”

2)Then, Kath.net – Vienna, on November 13th, 2009 reported, “The Archbishop of Vienna at the end of the year will visit the famous shrine - visit the parish and the Cenacolo community and that there should also be a meeting with the local bishop of Medjugorje and critics. This diocesan Bishop [or diocesan curia] was not notified by the Archbishop’s office, or by the parish office in Medjugorje [which violates the directives given to the pastor of St. James recently (12 June 2009.: Prot. 648/2009)]

3) Catholic News Agency published on November 16th: Christoph Schonborn to visit Medjugorje, a small town in Bosnia, where six children were witnesses of the alleged apparitions of the Virgin Mary. But, according to the Archdiocese of Vienna, the trip is “completely private" and does not imply a statement from the cardinal on the veracity of the apparitions. "It was supposed to be a completely private visit and was not supposed to go out to the internet,” according to Fr. Johannes Fürnkranz, the archbishop’s personal secretary.

4) On December 29th, the Cardinal arrived in Medjugorje. He was followed by the media over the next few days. Reports say that he gave a speech in the church of St. James the Apostle, and noting the mercy of God, said: “Who could make these things up? Who could invent this thing? Man? No, this is not a human act.” On December 31st a journalist [blogger] wrote: “While some had expected the cardinal’s visit to Medjugorje to be private, he has instead surprised the town by being very visible. He has spent his time concelebrating Mass at St James Church, climbing Apparition Hill with visionary Marija Lunetti, praying in silence at Adoration, and, perhaps most notably, giving his talk today in the parish church with the Franciscan friars at his side”

5)In all this I have to admit that I personally, as diocesan bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, remain surprised. I understand that the Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church enjoys the right to profess and preach the Gospel throughout the Catholic Church. But with regard to public appearances outside their own diocese there also exists a certain etiquette in the Church: the bishop or cardinal who intends to come to another diocese publicly, first informs the local bishop, which is encouraged by the Church and by prudence. This understanding in the church and specific caution should be applied especially in this case.

[I struggled to find an adequate translation for the first half of the first sentence up to the first comma]
6)I am surprised because Cardinal Schonborn’s office to the publication of this statement, no one has reported, and assuming that the Cardinal knows the position of the Church, based on the results of the commission's research that no one can say that these are “supernatural apparitions or private revelations.” His visit to Cenacolo and with Sr. Elvira, who, by the way, as a religious nun with no permission to reside and operate in the territory of this diocese, could be interpreted as supportive. And, not only her, but a growing number of new communities and disobedient associations of the faithful in Medjugorje, which can be read as an encouragement for their ecclesiastical disobedience.

7)As the diocesan bishop stated, and I repeat, some painful facts:

- First of all I note the regrettable “Herzegovina Case” [which involves the implementation of the decree Romanis Pontificibus] on parishes associated with the “phenomenon of Medjugorje” from the very beginning, when the figure which appeared in Medjugorje sided decisively with some disobedient Franciscans. One of them subsequently left the order then the priesthood and the diocesan bishop is accused since then for the disorder.

- We now have in the Diocese nine former Franciscans, expelled from the Order of Friars Minor by the Superior General, and the Holy See has confirmed the expulsions. Although suspended a divinis they act as lawful priests in parishes usurped. While the supposed figure of Medjugorje gives answers to the most curiously trivial, I hear not a word about the serious abuses that strike at the unity of this local Church.

- We had a tragic occurrence in 2001 in which some Franciscans - some already suspended from the Order and others not yet suspended, invited a deacon from the Old Catholic Church who identified himself as an ”Archbishop”. More than 700 young people were confirmed in seized parishes. All of these were invalid and sacrilegious. The deacon celebrated invalid Masses, as well, in some parishes. The phenomena of Medjugorje utters not a word about the abuse of the Eucharist and of the Holy Spirit!

- We have another sad fact: Two of those priests went to a bishop of the Old Catholic Church in Switzerland with the request to be ordained bishops, in an effort to create a formal schism from Mostar and Rome. The bishop of the Old Catholic Church declined their request. [scroll down to subtitle "Misfortune" in this 2001 homily to read details of the invalid sacraments. There were other invalid sacraments]

- We had two separate charismatic promoters and creators of the “Medjugorje phenomenon” : The prominent and disobedient Tomislav Vlasic, who last year was expelled by the Superior General of the Order of Friars - and, by the Holy See, at his request, dispensed of his priestly ministry and obligations; Fr. Jozo Zovko, who has been denied priestly faculties in this diocese since 2004, according to newspaper reports, has been withdrawn by his religious superiors from the territory of Herzegovina, and is prohibited from any contact with Medjugorje.

8)The Cardinal is excited by the many confession s in Medjugorje, where the Father’s mercy is manifested. We believe that the mercy of the heavenly Father, as reflected in Medjugorje is also in each and every parish of his diocese, both before and after the phenomenon of Medjugorje. Just look at the long lines of faithful before the confessional in all the parishes, especially for Christmas, for Easter, for holidays, or for Confirmation. Many say these confessions in Medjugorje are strong evidence that the Lady “appears”. According to this conclusion on the numbers making confessions, Our Lady would appear in all our parishes, not just those three people once a year in Medjugorje and the other three every day, in fact most outside of Medjugorje, and apparently in the cathedral in Vienna! All together now: about 40,000 “apparitions”! Indeed, one gets the impression that some “visionaries” determine where and when the Lady “comes” since the appearance happens when and where they want. Is this not an inadmissible manipulation of Our Lady and the Sacred in general?

As the diocesan bishop with this statement I want to inform the faithful that the visit of Cardinal Christoph Schonborn does not imply any recognition of the authenticity of the “apparitions” related to Medjugorje. I regret that the Cardinal, with his visit, appearance, and statements, brings something new to the present suffering of the local Church which does not contribute to peace and unity so necessary.

+Ratko Peric, Bishop

Additional Links:

September 26, 2009 Statement of Bishop Peric (heretical statement attributed to "gospa"; change in Our Lady's birthday by the Medjugorje movement; new list of restrictions, guidelines and prohibitions)
December 12, 2009 Statement of Bishop Peric on "The Great Sign" (or lack thereof) - only in Italian and Croatian at this time, but an English translation is coming soon)
Medjugorje Bishop regrets visit by Austrian Cardinal (CWN)
Medjugorje: the message is unclear, but the differences are obvious (Phil Lawler, CWN)
Medjugorje and the Flow of Grace (Catholic Culture)
My Medjugorje homepage with a collection of various documents
Medjugorje without Mask (extensive English language section of Italian professor/author Marco Corvaglia's research on Medjugorje)

***Medjugorje FAQ's Home Page***

September 26, 2009 Statement of Bishop Ratko Peric - Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno

2009-10-21T05:34:00.003-04:00

On September 26, 2009, the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno (home diocese of Medjugorje) issued a three-part statement. These links will be replaced with links to the diocese of Mostar-Duvno once they are available in English. The sources for Italian and the original Croatian are at the bottom of this post. What is below was translated from the Italian release by Richard Chonak.

In Context of Medjugorje Phenomenon - Part 1 (discusses intricate involvement of the now laicized Tomislav Vlasic and the deceased fra Slavko Barbaric in the early years. The includes here, words of heresy attributed to the "gospa")
In the Context of Medjugorje Phenomenon - Part 2 (discusses how key players modified the Blessed Virgin Mary's birthday, undermining Church authority in the process, with the Medjugorje movement following, including the annual "Youth Festival")
Part 3 (partial) - June 2009 Letters from Bishop to Pastor of St. James and Parochial Vicar (reiterates a list of prohibitions, and iterating new prohibitions).

Italian at Mostar-Duvno Diocesan Website:

Original Source original Croatian in the Diocesan Journal

Službeni vjesnik, 2/2009. (PDF - large file)

***Home Page***

September 26, 2009: In Context of Medjugorje Phenomenon - Part 1 - by Bishop Ratko Peric

2009-10-02T04:35:00.001-04:00

The contents of this post originate from an unofficial translation by Richard Chonak at the Catholic Light blog under a post heading: Medjugorje Context: Vlasic's involvement -- or: why the "Gospa" is a heretic. My comments are bracketed in red.

Thanks to Richard's time and work, we have this translation. When the laicization of Tomislav Vlasic was reported by the media some months ago, some sources downplayed the involvement of Vlasic because he has been away from Medjugorje for many years. However, discernment process is concerned with facts and like any case, these facts are often found near the beginning of an event, not decades later. These facts have been there, but perhaps not as readily visible as they are now.

Keep in mind as you read this, that when the Holy See first sanctioned Tomislav Vlasic canonically a year ago - then, still a friar - he was silenced and sent to a monastery as his case was being investigated, "in the context of Medjugorje". This is what was downplayed, or entirely missed, by some media sources reporting on it. Now, the bishop puts together the puzzle so the picture may be seen.

*********************

[This is a translation of a recent document from Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno, from the Italian version on his diocesan website. Corrections to the translation are welcome in the comment box [make those corrections at the original blogpost and I will get them].

The web page begins with a bare statement of Mr. Tomislav Vlasic's laicization, and proceeds to the bishop's article. --Richard Chonak]

The bishop's view:

Vlasic's involvement in the "Medjugorje phenomenon"

Just as last year, when the Holy See sanctioned the Rev. Vlasic with interdict, warning him of more severe penalties if he would not obey, once again numerous comments have appeared in the mass media to proclaim the non-connection between the "Medjugorje phenomenon" and the "Vlasic case". If in both the letter and in reference to the two more serious penalties there is an explicit reminder of the "Medjugorje phenomenon",[1] in which Tomislav Vlasic in involved, why is there never any connection between the one and the other? We would like to recall just that undeniable connection, from the beginning.

Tomislav Vlasic, born at Socivi, 16 January 1942, was ordained a priest as a member of the Herzegovinian Franciscan province, 16 July 1969, at Frohleiten, Austria.[2] After ordination he worked for some time as a spiritual assistant at Humac[3] and starting in 1973 as superior of the residence at the Franciscan house in Jablanovac, Zagabria.[4] At the proposal of the provincial superiors, he was canonically named spiritual assistant in the parish of Capljina in 1977,[5] where he remained in service until 17 August 1981, when he moved to Medjugorje, on his own initiative, without any necessary warning and without the approval of the bishop.[6]

But, according to the Reverend R. Laurentin, the quasi-official historiographer of the "Medjugorje apparitions", the Provincialate gave Fr. Vlasic permission to reside at Medjugorje, all without the knowledge of the Bishop. Fr. Laurentin writes:
"Coming to know of the arrest [of the parish priest --RC] that same day, August 17, Tomislav Vlasic, parish priest from Capljina, went to Medjugorje in order to inform himself and take account of the situation. From there he went immediately to the provincialate, at Mostar, to inform them of the serious situation and the danger that weighed on the parish left without anyone to guide them. The provincial found his observations sensible and his visit providential. He immediately named him to replace the imprisoned parish priest. - Therefore, at the end of the next day, friar Tomislav settled into the presbytery of Medjugorje. For the second time, he contacted the seers, whom he had rapidly questioned on June 29. He became their 'spiritual director' and this would be the title he kept later in the parish....'[7]

Therefore, by the sixth day after the "apparitions" happened at Medjugorje, and after the arrest of friar Jozo Zovko, 17 August, transferred to the parish of Medjugorje, where the Provincialate "appointed" him parochial vicar. Obviously, the Provincialate cannot appoint him as a parochial vicar, but can only propose him, because it is the Bishop who canonically appoints a parish priest or a chaplain, but again such "appointments" are part of the tragic "Herzegovina case" and the "Medjugorje phenomenon".

The Provincialate did propose Fr. Vlasic as "spiritual assistant at Medjugorje", only a year later, 19 July 1982, although it could and must have known about the sad "Zagabria case", which had to be resolved in another way. Bishop Zanic, not knowing about Vlasic's moral life and the implications of the "Zagabria affair", sent the decree on 27 July of that year for his transfer and carrying out his activity at Medjugorje.[8]

Since the year 1981, Fr. Vlasic has been implicated in the events of Medjugorje, accompanying the "seers" and inseparably connected to the "Medjugorje phenomenon", from its beginnings and also in what followed. Or rather, the "Medjugorje phenomenon" was created in a sense , even before its beginning. Already in May 1981, over a month before the beginning of the "apparitions"
"Fr. Vlasic went to Rome for an international congress of leaders of the Charismatic Movement. During the congress he had asked some of those present to pray with him for the healing of the Church in Yugoslavia. A religious, Sister Briege McKenna, who was united with those in prayer, had a vision: she saw Fr. Vlasic seated and surrounded by a great crowd of people facing him, and from the place where he was seated, there flowed rivers of water. Another religious there, Fr. Emile Tardiff, OP, said in prophecy, "Do not be afraid, I will send you my Mother." After a couple of weeks, the Madonna began to appear in Medjugorje." [9]

And above all he has been involved in the "Medjugorje phenomenon" after having been proposed by his Superiors in July 1982 and having been approved and appointed by the Bishop as chaplain of Medjugorje. Here are written proofs.

Friar Tomislav Vlasic and Friar Slavko Barbaric tell the seers what they are to say to the people. In the Chronicle of the apparitions, prepared then by friar Tomislav Vlasic, we read:
21. VIII. 1982. (Saturday). In the morning friar Tomislav and friar Slavko spoke with the seers. The conversation turned toward the direction of the edification of themselves as persons, and toward indicating their role in the context of these events, especially in regard to their authority, which they must not put at risk in responding to all the questions, but direct the people to the way of conversion and waiting for the promises of God."

--Two Franciscans want to indicate the role of the "seers", that they must not put their own authority at risk in responding to all the questions, but speak of "conversion" and "waiting for the promises of God", because they won't make any mistakes that way; at least that is compatible with the real Madonna!

"The seers must not make statements without informing us." In the Chronicle of 12 April 1984. Vlasic wrote:
"Today I spoke with all the seers. I brought to their attention again the necessity of not releasing statements to anyone without informing us."

-- This means that he is to control, verify, approve, and announce what is true and what is false in the "messages of the Gospa". The censor of the "messages of the Gospa"! What an interference in the "Medjugorje phenomenon"!

A grave theological error. In spite of Vlasic, who was illicitly at Medjugorje, a notorious theological heresy showed up, which he had already written down in the Chronicle, 6 May 1982, getting it sincerely from the "seers":
"This evening the young people posed a theological question and received the answer. Are people in heaven present with their souls, or with the soul and the body? - they asked. They are present with the soul and with the body - that was their answer."

-- All of us profess the Catholic faith that the resurrection of the body (resurrectio mortuorum) will be at the Last Judgment, and Fr. Vlasic takes down the fable of the "seers" of Medjugorje: not only Jesus and the Madonna, as we believe in the Catholic Church, but also all the other saved persons in heaven "with the soul and the body"! And he leaves that in the official Chronicle, with no other observation! This means that even he is not clear about this Catholic dogma, and that after 13 years of preaching on the Nicene Creed at Humac, Jablanovac, Capljina, and Medjugorje. No wonder that last year the Congregation indicated he should take the elementary course on theology and pronounce the profession of faith, on the approval of the Holy See!

"The apparition" of Medjugorje praises the work of Vlasic. In Vicka's diary manuscript of 28 February 1982, the alleged apparition greatly praised the work of Vlasic as a guide to the "seers". Vicka's literal text:
"I and Jacov were there. The Gospa came at 6, 3 minutes, she looked kindly at us. Then the Gospa spoke about Tomislav, first she looked at him, and then said: "you can thank Tomislav very much because he is guiding you so well."[10]

-- The one who is illicitly at Medjugorje, and is directing everything so well, and -- directing everyone to follow him. And the "Gospa of Medjugorje" praises and approves it all!

"The apparition" recommends Vlasic as a spiritual teacher. He himself writes in the Chronicle of the apparitions, 5 March 1984, speaking of Ivan Dragicevic:
"The Gospa expressed the desire and recommended, after his request for advice, to finish his upper levels and after that she would show him what to do. She also told him to entrust himself to friar Tomislav Vlasic to guide him spiritually."[11]

The one who, furthermore -- either one of them -- have acted without regard to the "message" of the "apparition" of Medjugorje! Friar Tomislav talks to the "seer" Ivan, Ivan talks to friar Tomislav, and then the whole thing is attributed to the Blessed Virgin.

Vlasic accompanies the seers according to "divine providence". In the letter of 13.IV.1984, he presents himself to the Pope as the one who "through Divine Providence guides the seers of Medjugorje". He reports that "the Madonna continues to recount her life to the seers" and informs the Pope:
"I will be in Rome from 19 April to 10 May for an international meeting. I know that you are very busy, but if you can receive me for a few minutes, I will be able to tell you about the main points of the apparitions."[12]

--The Pope did not receive him.

Barbaric on Vlasic

On the role and the connection of Vlasic with the "Medjugorje phenomenon" even from the beginnings, how he "channeled" the apparitions and events, another disobedient person of Medjugorje has testified, in a better way, writing chronologically: the propagandist of the "apparitions" and myth-maker of the events, friar Slavko Barbaric.

Appointment by the bishop and then the request that friar Slavko leave Medjugorje. The Provincialate proposed Rev. Barbaric as parochial vicar of Medjugorje in the letter of 16 August 1984. Bishop Zanic approved the Tabula the same day and the transfer of Barbaric.[13] But the bishop, on 3 January 1985, writes to the Provincialate, "I ask you to transfer friar Slavko Barbaric from Medjugorje to another position. He at Medjugorje, on the very important questions regarding the alleged "apparitions" of the Madonna is making propaganda in a way completely opposed to the directions I have given many times orally and in writing."[14]

The desire of the "Gospa" for friar Slavko to remain at Medjugorje. The apparitional "phenomenon", however, intervenes, expresses the "desire" that friar Slavko stay at Medjugorje to guide things and collect the information so that after the visit of her "apparitions" a synoptic image may remain of what has happened. In the Chronicle of the apparitions friar Slavko personally wrote this "message" sent to himself:
"3 February 1985. (Sunday) The vision came suddenly. Shorter this evening than in some days, just 2 minutes. Marija, Ivan, and Jakov were present. The message was for friar Slavko, as promised in the vision yesterday. It was given by Ivan. It went as follows: "I would like that Slavko remain here, and attend to all the details and the notes so that at the end of my visit we will have a synoptic image of everything. I am praying especially for Slavko at this time and for all those who work in the parish." [15]

-- It is well known that such a "synoptic image" was a typical Medjugorean daydream of friar Slavko, because he died on 25 November 2000, while the apparition has not ceased to multiply, even nine years now after his death, and as things stand, the apparitions of Medjugorje will have no end! An image truly a-synoptic [a-sinottica], not synoptic.

Vlasic "channels" the "apparitions". Here is what Barbaric wrote in the Chronicle of the apparitions of 1984,[16], which needs to be read in the light of what the Holy See decided in regard to Vlasic during 2008-2009. After the departure of Vlasic from Medugorje, friar Slavko Barbaric wrote that he remained in Medjugorje in the hope that he too would be "chosen according to divine providence" to continue to guide what had become a "tradition".
"2.IV.1984 (Sunday) I cannot fail to mention what happened today. Friar Tomislav Vlasic has been transferred. He said his goodbyes during the high Mass. The whole church was moved to tears, and with reason. Tomislav remains a luminous figure in the history of these apparitions. He was truly prophetic and courageous to come after the imprisonment of friar Jozo Zovko and carry on his work. How much work and fatigue he invested, how much pastoral prudence and prayer, no one could count it all. The grace of God chose him and sent him. He responded and worked. With his pastoral and spiritual experience he channeled this great fountain which welled up on the day of the apparitions. Also wise, full of the Spirit of God he has guided the seers, the parish, and the pilgrims. Despite all the positive activity every day he had to combat the attacks and dangers ready to destroy what was happening at Medjugorje. He knew prophetically to foresee events, read the situation, and move ahead. I am a witness like no one else, because I was here 13 months with him together in this place. In his case, we speak of wisdom and dedication. And in the most difficult moments he remained calm.

And at the more serious attacks, coming from inside and outside, he responded with dignity. He was always ready to support more difficult sacrifices, so that the things of God could advance. Just when I recall all the attacks on the part of the Curia, I have sufficient reason to say: the deportment of Tomislav, the answers and the behavior in the face of the bishop, the prayers and fasting despite denigrations, are one of the proofs that she is - the Queen of peace.

He often repeated. if anyone is disturbed, I'll be ready to get out of the way, because that's for the glory of God. When he knew about the transfer he reacted with calm: I am ready, in humility, to accept every decision and every decree. All of us in the house reacted with emotion. And Tomislav knew, as we all knew, that our Superiors were moving him at the request of the Bishop. It is difficult to say how unjust this request is: one thing is certain - the intention is to punish Tomislav and shut down everything that happened here.

He is already at Vitina. We hope he will be able to come and continue to work in the extraordinary plan of God and collaborate with our Gospa, who is slowly but surely revealing her plan.

I am profoundly convinced, and this is also my prayer: that the Gospa, who in so many messages has made people know to count on her, with impart the grace of love and more profound peace!

With reason Fr. Laurentin said: friar Tomislav, the diligent gardener has cultivated and guided the new people of God.

I remain here, I hope to be chosen in the providence of God to continue what has become a tradition. If I am not sure that God is guiding these events, this evening I will be without fear and trepidation before the great responsibility. I will continue to labor with the groups of pilgrims and with individuals to inform them about the message and development of the events here at Medjugorje. I know that was much more secure while Tomislav was here continually. But may God's will be done. That's how the Gospa's plan will be fulfilled. That the thing will not happen without our sacrifice, prayer, and fasting, that is clear above all. I learned from my dear brother Tomislav and experienced concretely what it means to let yourself be guided and be ready to work as long as God wants. And as well, I know the other friars are ready as are the sisters.

Today friar Petar Ljubicic arrived. He loves Medjugorje, loves the Gospa, and that's enough.

Amen. So be it!"

-- From this statement and from the subsequent events some clear facts follow, in plain terms:

First, friar Tomislav Vlasic does not remain "a luminous figure in the history of these apparitions", but a shadowy figure, "a myth-maker [mistificatore] and charismatic magus" as Bishop Zanic called him.[17] and finally the Holy See dismissed him from religious life and reduced him to the lay state warning him of excommunication if he does not obey the precepts issued up to now. The gravest sanction for a priest.

Second, he spiritually and pastorally "channeled" all these "apparitions", as his colleague friar Slavko put it in his inspired and accurate way; he controlled it, he created myths. created fantasies, always glorified himself, and even perjured himself before the Bishop.

Third, the "attacks" of the Bishop are founded on facts and canonically justified. And the "denigrations" of which friar Slavko writes are the sad facts, easily demonstrable about T. Vlasic because of his double life.[18] All these sad truths were known also to the Superiors and to the same friar Slavko Barbaric, and yet he speaks of denigrations!

Fourth, the thought of R. Laurentin, quasi-official historian of the "phenomena" of Medjugorje from 1983 to 1997, according to whom Vlasic was a "gardener who cultivated and guided the new people of God", is shown to be completely out of place in the light of the statement of Holy See on Vlasic, accused of "spreading dubious doctrines, manipulating consciences, suspect mysticism, disobedience to legitimate orders, and violations against the sixth commandment." If you understand that this does not only refer to his time in Italy, since he regularly and systematically came to Medjugorje, to his big house whose construction the Franciscan fathers, through the parish priest of Medjugorje, approved in 1994, and where he directed retreats in which he not only "manipulated consciences", but also called upon spirits! The Curia of his community have received proof.[19]

Fifth, friar Slavko wants to continue the work of friar Tomislav, to "channel" things according to his own intentions. He too, like Vlasic, will be praised by the "apparitions of Medjugorje". He too is convinced of being chosen by the providence of God. And now: how can you prove to such fanatics that they are "false prophets"!

[NOTE: The titles in the references have been translated where possible. --RC.]

[1] The whole case has been presented in the Official Bulletin of the dioceses of Herzegovina, 2/2008, pp. 79-81.

[2] Ž. ILIĆ, The Church in Herzegovina, Duvno 1974, p. 82-83.

[3] General Overview of the Catholic Church in Yugoslavia, Zagreb, 1975, p. 398.

[4] The Christian people and the Franciscans in Herzegovina, Mostar, 1977, p. 202.

[5] Letter of the diocesan curia, no. 638/1977, 19 August 1977.

[6] Official Bulletin, 2/2008., p. 80.

[7] R. Laurentin, Reports and messages of the apparations of Medjugorje Brescia 1987, p. 90.

[8] Letter of the curia confirming the Tabula, no. 711/82, 27.VII.1981. In the accompanying note Bishop Zanic writes regarding the parochial vicar at parrocchiale di Međugorje, Fr. Vlašić: "You need to be attentive to the further development of events in the parish of Medjugorje You have shown the hope that the new vicar in the parish of Medjugorje will make, if things are clarified, purified, and overseen. It is necessary to sustain and pursue your work in this sense.".

[9] Official Bulletin, 2/2008, p. 80, quoting from Rooney - R. Faricy, Mary the queen of peace, Milano, 1984, p. 34. See also P. Žanić, Current (non-official) position of the episcopal curia of Mostar on the events of Međugorje, Mostar, 30. X. 1984, pp. 6-7.

[10] V. Ivanković, The third diary, handwritten manuscript, copy in the diocesan curia of Mostar.

[11] S. Barbarić (handwritten), Chronicle of the apparitions, p. 747. Copy in the curia.

[12] Letter from T. Vlasic to the Holy Father, 13 aprile 1984, in italian. Cf. Ogledalo Pravde, p. 56, with a photocopy of part of the letter.

[13] Letter of the diocesan Curia to the Provincialate, no. 857/84, 16 August 1984.

[14] Letter of the diocesan Curia to the Provincialate, nr. 1/85, 3 January 1985.

[15] S. Barbarić (handwritten), Chronicle of the apparitions, vol. III, p. 247. Laurentin changed this "message" of the apparition regarding the guide of the parish: :"I desire that Fr. Slavko remain here, he who is guiding the parish and keeping the records, so that when I am no longer coming, a more complete image of everything that has taken place. In this moment I pray especially for Fr. Slavko and for all those who are working in this parish" - R. Laurentin, Latest News, 3 (1985) in French: pp. 25-26; In Italian: pp. 29-30; Ogledalo Pravde, str. 59.

[16] S. BARBARIĆ (handwritten), Chronicle of the apparitions, vol. III, pp. 3-6.

[17] P. Žanić, Current (non-official) position..., 30. X. 1984, p. 22.

[18] It suffices to have a look at the "correspondence" of Vlašić, published several times; copies are already on file in the Curia From Zagreb, 7. XII. 1976; from Zagreb, 9. I. 1977; from Međugorje, 15. XII. 1981; from Krapanj, 15. V. 1982; from Dubrovnik, 15. V. 1983.

[19] Official Bulletin, 2/208, p. 81.

Additional Links:

- Two Letters made public on September 29, 2009 in Part 3 of the three-part statement: June 12, 2009: Prot. 648/2009 - 649/2009: Letters from Bishop Peric to Pastor and Parochial Vicar at St. James in Medjugorje

***Home Page***

September 26, 2009: In Context of Medjugorje Phenomenon - Part 2 - by Bishop Ratko Peric

2009-10-02T00:02:00.000-04:00

Taken from Catholic Light where Richard Chonak posted his translation.

[I'm continuing to present an English version of Bp. Peric's three-part article "The context of the Medjugorje phenomena". This translation is based on the Italian version of the article on his diocesan website. In this portion, Bishop Peric describes the episode in which the alleged "messages from the Gospa", written down by friar Tomislav Vlasic, spoke about the date of the Blessed Virgin's birthday.]

Vlasic's fantasies about the birthday of the Gospa

The Catholic Church, following the Liber Pontificalis, has celebrated the Birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary since the seventh century, in the times of Pope Sergius I (687-701); and in the East, at Constantinople, several decades earlier.

According to the Chronicle of the apparitions of the parish of Medjugorje, in the "visions" - as Vlasic regularly calls them - the alleged apparition says that the 2000th birthday of the Madonna was 5 August 1984. The chaplain at the time, friar Tomislav Vlasic, sent that invention to the Pope in Rome and to Bishop Zanic in Mostar. Here is how the matter reads in the Chronicle maintained by Vlasic. But let us turn back three years to see how the nativity was celebrated and how the date changed.

Birthday greetings, 8 September 1981. There are two different official reports, from Vlasic and Laurentin. Vlasic, in the Chronicle, writes:
"Visions: the seers had the encounter with the Gospa. Little Jakov wished her a happy birthday. She was overjoyed, saying it was one of the happiest days for her. She exhorted the seers to perseverance in faith and in prayer.

R. Laurentin, "historian" of the Medjugorje phenomena, reports differently on the same event.
Birthday of the Gospa. On 8 September, the feast of the Nativity, the Virgin appears with the child Jesus, and fittingly in Jakov's house. Again, Vicka speaks familiarly, extending her hand: "Dear Gospa, I wish you a happy birthday", The Madonna takes her offered hand, but Vicka does not dare to do the same, and Jakov, confused by her audacity, asks her not to speak about it.

But she tells it all to Laurentin, and he tells it in his book! [1]

Birthday greetings,
8.IX.1982 (Wednesday). Mirjana and Ivica [Ivanka] are missing from the seers. The others have already met. They had a vision. The Gospa was particularly solemn. There were no particular messages.
Therefore on 8 September in 1981 and 1982 the "Gospa of Medjugorje" regularly celebrates her birthday as the whole Catholic Church celebrates the feast of her Birth into this world. She was even "overjoyed". The following year also, the recurrence will continue to be characterized by the splendor of the solemnity and the joy of the birthday. As we see:

The Gospa's birthday:
"8. IX. 1983 (Thursday). Four seers had a vision. They say that the Gospa was particularly solemn and happy. She did not have any special messages."
For the Nativity of 1983, the Gospa maintained the solemn clothing of the preceding year, but there were no wishes from the "seers". Evidently something is being prepared behind the curtain on part of the "apparition of Medjugorje" and on part of the "seers of Medjugorje" and on part of the "myth-maker" [mistificatore] Tomislav Vlasic. We can see what Vlasic writes:

The birthday of the Gospa is not the day of the Nativity, but the 5th of August, Our Lady of the Snows. Friar Tomislav writes:
"28. V. 1984 (Monday). Today father Bishop Zanic visited. He took with him the last part of the Diary of Jelena and of Marjana Vasilj. Also, he took the message of the Gospa given to Jelena for him, for the Holy Father, and for the Christian public, that the 2000th birthday of the Gospa is 5.08.1984. (See the document sent to the bishop).
Let us quickly recall that in that document of the same day, the following is written:
"She said:' Those who feel a little love for me on that day, let them not go to school, or work, or anywhere. They should take up the rosary and recite it."
Besides, what day was it: Sunday, and nobody had to go to school!

The Bishop rejected the message a priori; he doesn't believe in it. He forbade me orally to talk about it, and said he would also forbid it in writing. He would make sure the message went with the other material to the Congregation.

When I asked him to understand our pastoral co-workers could not be indifferent to the messages that asked the people to convert, he said approximately this: "The Gospa is not appearing here. I don't accept that duty... no one is obligated to believe in private apparitions...." The bishop had a thousand reasons to not believe. And no reason moved him to believe. That's how he acted.

I asked him to have someone from the Commission interview and study the phenomena about Jelena. (Jelena has been seeing the Gospa for a year and a half and neither the bishop nor any member has spoken with her!) He gestured with his hand, saying that there are hundreds of such seers. I asked him again to speak with all the seers. since they are making great events known soon. He responded that he has nothing more to discuss with them.

There is the solemn announcement of the Gospa's birthday, for the 5. VIII. 1984. If therefore the 2000th birthday of the Gospa of Medjugorje was in 1984, that means that she had 16 years before the beginning of the new era, i.e., before Christ. She would have been about 16 years old when she brought Jesus Christ into the world. And since according to the current historical documents, the birth of Jesus, the Birth of Jesus took place between the 7th and 6th years "before Christ", that means that we have to subtract those 6-7 years from the age of the Gospa. According to this fantasy of Medjugorje, the Gospa would have to have borne a son at the age of 9 to 10 years. But the fanatics of Medjugorje are ready to believe in even more incredible inventions!

We cannot overlook the very clear and decisive attitude of the local bishop Pavao Zanic, who absolutely does not believe in the "apparitions", who was quick to take upon himself the responsibility for what he declared, who had "a thousand reasons" to not believe, and no reason compelling him to believe in the fables of the "seers" and their myth-maker of Medjugorje. A truly courageous bishop![2]

But in regard to Vlasic here there is not one, but there are two points:

There is an expectation for the Church to approve the birthday of the Gospa or that Heaven will arrange for it.
14.VI.11984 (Thursday). 6. We are not proclaiming the declaration message of the 2000th birthday of the Gospa for now, as long as ecclesiastical authority does not approve it, or until Heaven provides that the day be evidently prepared.

However, ecclesiastical authority has not approved it , either then or now. Yet the apparition of Vlasic has already asked that the 2000th birthday of the Gospa be celebrated in a particular way.

The special preparation for the birthday.
27. VII. 1984. (Friday). The seers saw the vision together. There were no special messages. Ivan had the vision this evening in the place of the apparitions. The vision took place at 22:30. The Gospa said this: "I continue to wish to remain with my chosen ones in the church, to spread the Good News here through them..." (The desire of the Gospa refers to the intention of Bishop Zanic to remove the seers from the church). Be at peace in this time and do not be upset, since my son Jesus is working strongly in this parish and in the people who come here..." The Gospa, says Ivan, said that for her 2000th birthday, that is, 5 August 1984, we should prepare in particular. She asked that in these days people pray and abstain, that they receive Holy Communion on Sundays with a pure heart, because Jesus must work in people. Ivan reported that the Gospa said that there will be conversions and signs among the people.

The "Gospa of Medjugorje" goes directly against the directives of the bishop; both that the seers and their apparitions be removed from the church, and in that the fantasy about the change to the liturgical birthday of the Madonna was being spread. After the intervention of the Bishop, however, a week prior to the alleged birthday, no statement was made from the altar. The chronicler Vlasic writes:

Nevertheless, without the announcement.
"We did not announced the birthday of the Gospa (2000th) for the 5. VIII. since the bishop forbade it. We only exhorted the people so that the day, the first Sunday - Sunday of reconciliation, would be a true day of reconciliation."

The apparition of Vlasic obeyed the directive of the bishop, but only tactically. He said, "there is to be no mention from the alter on account of the bishop", in order not to irritate him.

No mention from the altar.
"30. VII. 1984 (Monday). Ivan had the vision again at the place of the apparitions at 22:00. The prayer group was with him, some Sisters, and people, and myself," writes Vlasic. "The apparition lasted 15 minutes. At one point, Ivan said that the Gospa said that everyone should present his problems and wants in silence. Everyone prayed in silence. After the apparition Ivan told me that the Gospa said that there should not be any mention of the 2000th birthday from the altar on account of the bishop, but that the people should be urged to conversion and prayer. He said that she asked the youth of the parish specially to pray more. She also said that her son Jesus was bringing people here by Himself.

Nonetheless, the "apparition" of Medjugorje and its myth-maker Vlasic, violating ecclesiastical directives, "privately" will celebrate the "birthday" of the alleged Gospa who was "unusually happy", and because of the private wishes, "bloomed with happiness".

The first non-liturgical 2000th "birthday" feast.
5. VIII. 1984 (Sunday) All five of the seers had the vision in common. They say that the Gospa was very happy, uncommonly so. She had particular words for the individual seers. To Marija: "Pray! Open your heart to me and ask. I pray to my son Jesus that he will grant graces. Pray with faith." We wished her a happy birthday. She blooming with happiness."

It is apparent also that Vlasic, the promoter, propagandist, and myth-maker of the Medjugorje phenomena, has formed his "apparitions" in the visions of the "seers" according to his contumacy, duplicity, and myth-making. Publicly no, privately yes!

Preparations for the non-liturgical feast of the "birthday". Friar Slavko Barbaric writes:
"30. VII. 1985 (Tuesday). This evening the vision was on the mountain. Present: Marija, Ivan, and VIcka. Marija says that the Gospa asked for much more prayer for the "birthday".

Evidently for the new invented birthday, 5 August.

Continue - at any cost! Friar Slavko continues:
"1. VIII, 1985. (Thursday). A lot of people are asking me for news about my transfer. So far none of us has a fitting response. We all feel that something should be done, but we don't know what to do. In any case we need to carry on with the work at Medjugorje, at any cost. We can't be unfaithful."

Even at the cost of ecclesiastical disobedience. Friar Slavko has personally demonstrated this to me, because he did not want to leave Medjugorje, even at the cost of losing his faculties for hearing confessions. He died in this stubborn disobedience.

The "birthday" is celebrated regardless. Fr. Barbaric notes in the Chronicle:
"2.VIII.1985 (Friday). According to the pilgrims the nearness of the feast of the Gospa. Last year the birthday of the Gospa was already announced. It was celebrated in prayer and fasting. This time nothing was said about it. The faithful are arriving."

Nothing was said from the altar, but in private it was spoken of, spread abroad, promoted. Why else would "the faithful arrive"?

The people have not forgotten!
" 4.VIII.1985. (Sunday). Today there are so many people and pilgrims because last year the Gospa said through Jelena, that it was her 2000th birthday. A year has passed, and we cannot say a word about it, and the people have not forgotten. They love their Mother, and this is moving!"

These are the moving words of friar Slavko Barbaric! "They could not say a word". referring to words "from the altar". All the other channels remained available.

The second "birthday" celebration. Fr. Barbaric writes:
"5.VIII.1985 (Monday). - 2001st BIRTHDAY. The vision was in my rooms.. Marija, Ivan, and Vicka were present. It lasted 4 minutes. There were no particular messages. They described the apparition as very solemn. She called for joy and happiness and blessed us solemnly. A fact to return to: it is the BIRTHDAY of the Gospa. We had nothing about it from the altar. Others spoke about it during the Mass. This was in obedience to the bishop. We are not sure if one day the history of the apparitions of Medjugorje will praise us. But, you see, we are justified in obedience, for the sake of not provoking worse consequences and attacks, which surely there will no shortage of. It's a sad fact, but so it is.Yet the people of God has responded in their way. Hundreds and thousands have arrived yesterday and today and for hours, they have prayed and sung, and made confessions. All just to wish their Mother a happy birthday. It is a consoling fact. Without announcements, publicity, or propaganda, the people hears and sees, feels and responds to the call. What a chance for the Church. But in this moment we are still blind men. At the end of the Mass three of the seers recited the Magnificat and we all responded with "Alleluia". Mary, thank you for being here for us!"

The "apparition" happened in Friar Slavko's rooms: a solemn apparition, solemn joy, solemn blessing! Both times he wrote BIRTHDAY in capital letters. Friar Slavko obeys the bishop! He doesn't speak from the altar, but other people speak from the altar! He justifies himself with "obedience" for the sake of not provoking worse consequences. "It's a sad fact!" And the people of God knows the response! Hundreds and thousands yesterday and today, give the Mother their birthday wishes" "It's a consoling fact!" Friar Slavko cheers himself up like a child because he is innovating the anti-liturgical birthday of the "Gospa of Medjugorje", because he is making a double play, because through the apparition he is manipulating human consciences! And he has left it all for us in writing.

No mention of the liturgical celebration of the Nativity, 1985,
"8. IX. 1985. (Sunday) Nativity of Mary. The vision was in the cellar. Marija and Jakov present. It was very brief, not even a minute. But some results were obtained." (This alludes to the experiment that was made.)

There is no mention that the Gospa was solemn for her liturgical birthday as in 1981, in 1982, in 1983. The "apparition" of Medjugorje has abolished the birthday of the Madonna by means of the fables of the "seers" and the fantasies of Friars Tomislav and Slavko.

What happened for the Nativity in 1986?
"8.IX.1986. (Monday). The apparition was in our rooms. Present: Marija Pavlovic and Jakov Colo. This evening the apparition was filmed by the TV team from the BBC. The leader of the charismatic renewal of the German protestant church was present."

The Nativity and the liturgical celebration of Our Lady's birthday are not mentioned, but the presence of the German protestant charismatic renewal leader is mentioned. Symptomatic!

The third celebration of the "birthday": The "Gospa" wants people to look forward to her birthday with her.
"3.VIII.1987. (Monday). Many pilgrims are here, especially Italians. They are arriving for the birthday of the Gospa."

And the next day?
"4.VIII.1987. Marija and Ivan were here for the apparition. It lasted about 4 minutes. They said that the Gospa wanted people to look forward with her to her birthday. A lot of people stayed on the Hill of the apparitions all night because of this."

And on the day itself?
"5.VIII.1987. Exactly at midnight between August 4 and 5, there was an apparition on the Hill of the Apparitions. Many people were there. The seers reported that the Gospa was very joyful on account of the multitude of the people and she called anew for holiness and for living out the messages."

"And yet it moved!" The paraliturgical birthday is being introduced. The people come together more and more. and everything is leading up to the youth festival on 5 August, to "give our Mother birthday wishes". We'll talk about that more ahead.

What about the Immaculate Conception? Bishop Zanic asked about this in 1984.[3] Here's what friar Tomislav Vlasic said about it:
"8. XII. 1983 (Thursday). The five seers had a vision in common. The Gospa was dressed solemnly, as always on the great solemnities."

If the "apparition" of Medjugorje is changing the birthday of the real Madonna, which is celebrated on 8 September, then this "apparition" would have to also change the date of her Immaculate Conception, and in consequence transfer it from December 8 to November 5, to agree in some way with the liturgical date of the birthday. She was born, supposedly, on the 5th of August, in the 16th year B.C., which means that she would have been born after less than 8 months' gestation.

The Church has not accepted any of the "apparitions" of Medjugorje, the messages, the birthday, the biography, the secrets, the great signs, and has officially proclaimed that on the basis of all the canonical commissions of inquiry, it is not possible to affirm that this is a matter of "supernatural apparitions or revelations."

It is worth noting that in the context of the invented "birthday", August 5, the "Mladifast" began to be organized, the Youth Festival at Medjugorje at the start of that month. Young people came from around the world to give the Gospa birthday greetings! Here is how it all happened, according to the Chronicle of the apparitions:

The youth festival in honor of the invented "birthday of the Gospa"

The "Mladifest" or "Festival of the young" was first organized 20 years ago without the knowledge or approval of the local bishop. Evidently it was first organized on the basis of the imaginary alleged birthday of the Gospa on August 5, and then on the supposed "message of the Gospa" in the "year of the young" (1988-1989), and then as an observance of the "Gospa's birthday"[4] at Medjugorje, of which friar Slavko Barbaric writes expressively, as wehave seen and will see in the following.

Let us start from the "messages" of the "Gospa of Medjugorje". Friar Slavko writes, as parochial vicar of Humac and chronicler of Medjugorje:

The first meeting of young people.
"5.VIII.1989. (Saturday). At 18:00 perpetual adoration was begun in the Kovacica cemetery chapel, organized by the youth. Tomorrow the novena to tthe Gospa starts with many young people, because the year of the young is ending, requested by the Gospa on the feast of the Assumption in 1988, at the end of the Marian Year."

What kind of abuse of the liturgy is it, that "perpetual adoration" is organized in the Kovacica cemetery chapel? Who got that idea into his head, and with what permission and ecclesiastical approval?

From the text we can deduce that this "adoration was organized by the young people"; that there were "many young people"; that this was at the end of the "year of the young"; that, at the end of the Marian Year (1987-1988), the "apparition" of Medjugorje expressly requested to undertake a "year of the young"; that, according to the Chronicle, it lasted from the Assumption Day 1988 to Assumption 1989.

The second meeting of young people, 1990. "Friar Tomislav Vlasic directed the whole week," we read under the date of 30 July 1990. At the end of the "festival" under the date of 6 August is written:
"At 14:00 the organizers met with Friar Tomislav Vlasic and Slavko. We decided to take the same week (next year). Some topics were proposed. We decided to publish a detailed program at the end of the year. We feel the need to continue with these meetings, because they are important. Seminars will be offered before the Festival by the organizers."

It does not make sense that Friar Tomislav, who has not been in Herzegovina since 1987, and who comes from Italy, not only is directly involved in the "Medjugorje phenomenon" again in 1990, but is so familiar with the Franciscan community of Medjugorje that he personally directs the whole week and the "youth festival".

The third meeting of young people, 1991. The Chronicle of the apparitions, maintained since 1991 by Fr. Barbaric, alias a chaplain at Humac, remained blank, without entries from 25 July to 5 August. Under the date of 6 August 1991 in the Chronicle is written:
"Many young people stayed all night attending the Mass. At 5:15 we began to sing litanies and "We have come to you, dear Mother". Friar Tomislav Vlasic presided at the Mass. He exhorted us about the Cross, peace, and transfiguration. Concelebrants: 21. Many of our people, and all together circa 1500-2000. Friar Leonardo again directed a word to all the young people, inviting them to live in peace and spread it to others. Then we all recited the Credo and seven Our Fathers. We distributed three large loaves, a sign of communion."

Again in 1991 Friar Tomislav Vlasic, participant in the events of Medjugorje, presides at the final Mass and takes the principal role in the closing ceremony.

The fourth meeting of young people, 1992. Friar Slavko Barbaric writes:
"5.VIII.1992. (Wednesday). The birthday of the Gospa. At 21:30 the festival in honor of the Gospa's birthday began. The church was packed. Everything in perfect order. individuals and groups participated. The youth from Medjugorje sang, Elvira's community, Pero and Mile who led the singing during the festival, sang two songs with the youth. The German group appeared also. The "singles" were Mirko from Citluk, Gino from Italy, Dajan from America, Cristina from Argentina. The sisters sang another song. All the songs were about the Gospa. Two religious brothers, French and Italian, members of the Community of the Beatitudes, sang in Hebrew, and a youth group from Ireland. At the end the band from Mostar kept everyone enthusiastic. They sang three songs, "To the Gospa", a Dalmatian song, and "In the combat". Enthusiasm from everyone. After the program we distributed flowers to everyone and sent them singing in procession to the statue of the Gospa. It was moving to witness it. At 11:30 we were done. Many of the youth went from the church to Mt. Krizevac."

From this written proof it is evident that the Franciscans of Medjugorje, at least some of them, firmly decided to celebrate the "birthday" of the Gospa on 5 August, apart from the whole orthodox Catholic world, following "apparitions" not recognized by the Church; to organize and bring here young people from around the world to hold a "festival in honor of the Gospa's birthday", to "give their Mother their birthday wishes", offering them admission and other presentations.

Conclusions

First, after the tragic case of Vlasic was published around the world last year, when Vlasic was punished with five sanctions, besides the deprivation of the faculty to hear confessions decreed by the provincial curia of Mostar, a statement appeared that Friar Tomislav had not been punished on account of the Medjugorje phenomenon or for his personal attitude in regard to that phenomenon.[5] And this year, when he was punished with the two final sanctions, dismissal from the Order and from the priesthood, by the Generalate Curia in Rome a statement appeared that Vlasic "had not acknowledged the charges placed against him, and for this reason he had not accepted the sanctions. Therefore he asked to be dispensed from the exercise of his priestly ministry and from the status of a religious."[6] Therefore he has shown himself to be contumaciously disobedient not only to the bishop many times, but also to the Holy See in the end, believing more in the "apparitions of Medjugorje" that praised his spirituality, his guidance, and his direction for people's lives.

In both cases, last year and this year, it was clearly stated, first, that his case was studied "in the context of the phenomenon of Medjugorje", and second, that he was absolutely forbidden to make statements, especially in relation to the "Medjugorje phenomenon". Prudent readers will draw the prudent conclusion, on the basis of all that has been presented, on his direct linkage, his involvement and influence on the "Medjugorje phenomenon".

Second, there is the often-cited statement of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State, appearing also in the communique of the Franciscan Curia of Rome in July 2009. In the book published by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of State of Benedict XVI and ex-Secretary of the Vatican Congregation, "The last seer of Fatima" (Ed. Rai-Rizzoli, 2007, pp. 103-104), it is stated that
"The statements of the bishop of Mostar reflect a personal opinion, and are not a definitive judgment by the Church. Everyone is referred to the statement of the former Yugoslav bishops at Zadar on 10 April 1991, which leaves the door open to future inquiries. Evaluation, therefore, must go on. In the meantime, private pilgrimages are permitted with pastoral accompaniment of the faithful. In sum, Catholic pilgrims can all go to Medjugorje, a place of Marian veneration, where it is possible to express oneself with all the devotional forms."

With reference to the "pilgrimages", it is worth noticing the entire statement written in the same page of the same book by the most eminent Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, immediately before the one quoted above:
"In sum, concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje conducted privately, this Congregation holds that they are permitted on the condition that they are not considered an authentication of the events in progress and which call for examination by the Church."[7]
In other words: pilgrimages to Medjugorje are not permitted if they support and authenticate and hold as authentic the "events in progress". And to date neither the local bishop, nor the Bishops' Conference, nor the Holy See has recognized or proclaimed authentic anything in the "phenomenon of Medjugorje".

----------------

[1] R. Laurentin, Reports and message of the apparitions at Medjugorje, Brescia 1987, p. 94.

[2] After Bishop Žanić preached his homily on 25 July 1987 at Međugorje, in September of the same year, he greeted Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the airport of Rome - we were going to the Mariological-Marian Congress in Kevelaer - after he was introduced to me, the Cardinal said to me, "You have a courageous bishop!"

[3] Current (non-official) position of the diocesan curia of Mostar on the events of Medjugorje, 30. X. 1984, p. 19.

[4]A. Luburić, „Friar Tomislav Vlašić 'in the context of the Medjugorje phenomenon'", in: Official Bulletin, 2/2008, p. 81.

[5] From the interview of the Provincial, Dr. Friar Ivan Sesar, in Večernji list, 28 September 2008.

[6] From the statement of Fr. Francesco Bravi to Zenit, 29 July 2009.

[7] Ogledalo Pravde, Mostar 2001, p. 278.

***Home Page***

June 12, 2009: Prot. 648/2009 - 649/2009: Letters from Bishop Peric to Pastor and Parochial Vicar at St. James in Medjugorje

2009-10-01T06:15:00.001-04:00

The full content of this post is from Richard Chonak at Catholic Light who provided an unofficial translation of the two letters contained in Part III of a three-part statement issued in Italian at the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno website. Those links are at the bottom. When it becomes available in English at the diocesan website, this post will be edited.

***********

[SUMMARY: Bp. Ratko Peric of Mostar-Duvno in Bosnia and Herzegovina has sent letters to the pastor and a parochial vicar at Medjugorje, with specific directives about how they and the parish are not to promote the alleged apparitions of the place:

that alleged messages and commentaries on them are not to be published;
that prayers from the apparitions are not to be used publicly;
the parish church is not to be called a "shrine", even privately;
that foreign priests may not give conferences or retreats without permission of the bishop;
foreign priests wishing to offer Mass must present a celebret from their diocese or order, and the information is to be recorded;
a privately-built church has already been closed and is not to be used;
unauthorized religious communities have no permission to set up residence;
and about regulating several other forms of promotion of the alleged phenomenon.

This is a newly published document from the website of the diocese of Mostar-Duvno. (Note: the web page contains three documents; scroll down to see the source for what follows.) Here I am presenting a translation based on the Italian version on the website, so I have to acknowledge the limitations involved in a derivative translation. Any mistakes are my responsibility; please inform me via the comment box of improvements or corrections. Thanks! -- Richard Chonak]

Letter of the bishop to Friar Petar Vlasic, parish priest of Medjugorje

Mostar, 12 June 2009.: Prot. 648/2009

Reverend parish priest friar Peter!

After having made the canonical visit to the parish of Medjugorje last Wednesday, 10 June, where nine other Franciscan fathers share the pastoral care of souls with you, according to the directive issued by this office, I wish to make reference now, by this means, to several points.

Inasmuch as you are the current parish priest, who have been working in that capacity since September 2007, I express to you my sincere thanks for maintaining transparent records in the books of registration and other matters. For a parish priest, as for a bishop - it is really essential to carry out not only the munus docendi et sanctificandi, but also the munus gubernandi entrusted to us.

Munus docendi:

The rule is still valid that in the parish of Medjugorje priests coming from elsewhere are not permitted to conduct retreats or spiritual exercises, nor to hold conferences, without the approval of this office. (Circular of 23.8.2001, #1290/2001)

Analogously, neither foreign nor domestic priests can promote alleged "messages" or "apparitions" which have not been proclaimed authentic in that church or on church property.

Munus sanctificandi:

It is praiseworthy that you require from every priest who wishes to celebrate the Holy Mass at Medjugorje the celebret of his ecclesiastical superior and that you record in a particular book all the concelebrants, from the beginning of this year.

As well, you have kept me informed about the "Oasis of peace", which, since the intervention of this office on 15 December 2008, no longer keeps the Blessed Sacrament privately in their chapel and no longer conducts adoration, which they had been doing according to their own account. They do not have permission as a religious association to reside in the territory of this diocese.

Munus gubernandi:

You have informed me that the church in Bijakovic, built by a foreign member of the faithful as his ex voto, without the necessary request and approval of the competent ecclesiastical authority, has been closed by now and that no services are conducted in it.

In the parish chronicle you have made sure to record, with the right terminology, everything that happens to this parish as a pastoral unit of this diocese, without regard to all the stories about "seers", "apparitions", and "messages" connected with the parish.

"The phenomenon of Medjugorje":

The "Shrine". The parish of Medjugorje cannot be called a shrine, neither privately, nor publicly, not officially, because it is not recognized as such by any level of competent ecclesial authority. And that wording cannot appear on the web site of "Medjugorje - place of prayer and reconciliation", where it is currently found in many places. In a statement on that site - where there is no indication of who is responsible for it - this message appears:

"To avoid any misunderstanding, we wish to underscore that the Shrine has not given the mission of representing Medjugorje to anyone. The Shrine has not given the mission to any community or person either in Medjugorje or outside of Medjugorje - of speading or interpreting the messages of the Gospa. All these initiatives are private and voluntary on the part of the faithful and the communities."

From that statement it appears as if the site is proclaiming itself as being a "Shrine". Then it seems in some way to be the only competent [source] to give instruction to the world. As the local Ordinary, in this present letter, I declare that the so-called "shrine" has no mission to declare itself a "Shrine", nor to present (the parish) with that title, because it has no ecclesiastical mission to present itself in the name of Medjugorje, nor to spread or interpret the "apparitions" and "messages" of Medjugorje.

Commentaries on the "messages": I have already discussed with you and with another vicar, with friar Danko Perutina, who writes and publishes the commentaries on the "messages" issued from the "apparitions" on the 25th of the month. It was said that he receives the "messages" of the "seer" Marija from Italy or from Medjugorje when she is in that location, and then he presents them there, comments on them and publishes them. This is contrary to the decision and request of this Curia, especially after the declaration of 10 June 2006, which was repeated in the parish church on 6 July 2009 (the accompanying homily).

The Cenacolo. After our intervention, on Christmas Day of last year, there are no longer private "apparitions" in the courtyard of the Cenacolo by the alleged "seer" Mirjana Dragićević, married name Soldo, on the second of each month.

The association "Queen of Peace..." I have been informed in our meeting that in the association founded by Tomislav Vlašić at Medjugorje, which equally has no permission to reside in the territory of this diocese, there are some members, men and women, who dress in lay clothes.

The number of prayers. In September 2007, on the occasion of your installation in the office of parish priest, I indicated to you that the so-called "seers" cannot present themselves on any occasion to promote their private "apparitions" and "messages", nor to preside, nor to have anyone preside in their place, at the recitation of a certain number of prayers "received" in an "apparition". Therefore, they cannot use prayers from scripture or those approved by the Church as a means of introducing "numbers" and "messages" from the private "apparition".

The intentions of the rosary. It is equally not permitted to introduce intentions received in an "apparition" or "message" during the prayer of the Rosary of Our Lady. We have sufficient official intentions (from the Pope, from the bishop, for the missions) and there is no need to arbitrarily have recourse to alleged apparitions and messages and mix them with the Church's public prayers.

Anniversaries. It is not permitted that the "seers" be invited and present themselves in the parish church or on any church properties at any time, especially on occasions related to the "apparitions" of Medjugorje, to promote their private "messages" and "apparitions". Therefore, we do not mix the unrecognized with what is recognized, the private with the official, the non-liturgical with the liturgical.

Grateful for what you, together with the other friars of the parish, undertake for the good of souls, and because you know how to clearly separate pastoral care from private "apparitions" and "messages", I greet you with devout respects.

And the second letter:

Letter of the bishop to friar Danko Perutina, parochial vicar of Medjugorje

Mostar, 12 June 2009; Prot. 649/2009

Reverend friar Danko!

After your priestly ordination in 1999 and at the conclusion of your studies, I appointed you, at the suggestion of your religious superiors, in 2000, parochial vicar of Humac. Then, again at the suggestion of your provincial governor, in 2001, vicar of Medjugorje, in 2005 again of Humac, and in 2007 at Medjugorje. In the meantime, you studied and obtained a degree in mariology at Rome.

I write to you in reference to your commentaries on the so-called "messages" and "apparitions" on the 25th day of the month. In an official visit to Medjugorje on the 10 June, I had a conversation with you, with the parish priest friar Petar Vlasic and another vicar present.

In the conversation it became clear that Marija Pavlović, married name Lunetti, daily "seer" who lives in Italy, and temporarily also at Medjugorje, sends to the parish office or to some one of your pastoral workers in the parish of Medjugorje, her "message" of the 25th day of the month, which is then published on the Medjugorje web site and in other mass media. And you regularly make commentary on the monthly "message", which is published in various languages.

When I asked how the "messages" of the 25th were published, and not the other "messages" said to be "private", I did not feel I received a clear and convincing answer. I do not know who has sent and authorized you to comment on them and publish them on the site. What sort of person is assuming the right to decide that some "messages" be omitted and others published, and that this is done through the parish office and the site connected with the parish of Medjugorje?

We are gradually succeeding in distancing the unrecognized "apparitions" and "messages" from the parish church and from church property, and the appearances of the "seers" before or after Holy Mass. In that conversation I reminded you of having asked in 2006, and reconfirmed in 2009 from the altar, that "No priest who works canonically in this parish of Medjugorje or who is here temporarily, is authorized to present his private opinion, contrary to the official position of the Church on the "apparitions and messages", neither at the celebration of the sacraments, or during the regular acts of devotion, nor in the Catholic media." (homily attached).

To avoid any misunderstanding, in this present letter I declare that you, according to my decree, are not authorized, either in the name of the parish office or as parochial vicar, to comment upon and publish the "messages" of the 25th or any other day of the month. These are private "messages" of private persons for private use. And we cannot permit that this is given the form of a message from the parish office, from the parish priest, or any parochial vicar, or even of the "Shrine" which is not recognized as such at any level: not diocesan, or the level of the episcopal conference, or of the Holy See.

Therefore I expect with trust, without any further admonitions, that from now on you will not publish your commentaries, either in the name of the parish office or in your own name, or under a pseudonym, not after the 25th of this month or at all, as long as things continue as is.

I greet you with devout respects.

***********

Links:

***Home Page***

What did Archbishop Bertone really say about the Bishop of Mostar's authority and opinion?

2009-09-29T21:55:00.010-04:00

Keep in mind, that the official position of the Church goes back to the 1991 Zadar Declaration which is non constat de supernaturalitate [the supernaturality is not proven], which is not an outright condemnation and leaves the case open to further investigation.

First, it is important to point out that Medjugorje supporters will often claim that the bishop was "relieved of the dossier", which is false. It is the first way in which they attempt to discredit his legitimate authority as Ordinary of the place. In a press release by Cardinal Kuharic in January 1987 in Glas Koncila, His Eminence explains why the decision was taken to the level of bishop's conference (and, I might add, Bishop Zanic was involved in the process! If he were truly "relieved", he would not be deeply engaged):

"During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops' Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose."

The cause of the change in who will get final discernment then is clear in the statement offered by Cardinal Kuharic: It affects more than just the diocese of Mostar-Duvno. With this now understood it is clear that the bishop alone will no longer be responsible for a final judgment on Medjugorje. Rather, it will be up to another commission, or some other body determined by the CDF. If you look carefully at each commission thus far, it always included the local bishop, and future commissions will undoubtedly do the same. This is protocol and is also proof that His Excellency is not in some kind of "negative light" at the Holy See on account of his now constant negative position as is alleged on many promoter sites. The case had developed such global reach by 1987 that it needed to be elevated. It's that simple.

Now we get to the actual letter by Bishop Peric to which Cardinal Bertone will later refer when he speaks about the bishop's "personal opinion".

On October 2, 1997 (Prot.: 1267/97), Bishop Peric in his letter to the Secretary General of "Famille Chretienne", states:

"...my conviction and position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate [the supernaturality is not proven] but also the other formula constat de non supernaturalitate [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje.

Hence, Bishop Peric, as an individual - not speaking on behalf of the Church changes his position from one that is somewhat neutral, to a negative judgment. He further clarifies in the same letter, that he does not have the final decision himself:

5) 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.

So, at no point did Bishop Ratko Peric attempt to pass a final judgment; rather, he communicated with great clarity, a change in his personal position. While it was not a final judgment, in the minds of many Catholics, it was a weighty opinion.

Now we can get into the letter by then Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone (now a Cardinal and the Vatican Secretary of State) which contains a line that has been taken grossly out of context by some supporters of Medjugorje and projected in all kinds of ways which undermine the credibility of the bishop of Mostar. You will find around the web ridiculous claims that "Bishop Peric was silenced", or that "Bishop Peric is being disobedient for speaking about the apparitions" because of what +Bertone said. Let's look at the relevant excerpt from the letter:

In 1998, Archbishop Bertone, responding to Mons. Gilbert Aubry (Pr. No 154/81-05922), was clarifying the Church's position on pilgrimages. In one paragraph, he refers to that statement above by Bishop Peric and writes:

What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of "Famille Chretienne", declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' but likewise, 'constat de non supernaturalitate' of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje", should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

Note: All of these communications on pilgrimages are in a single post where you can scroll and read here later: Are pilgrimages to Medjugorje permitted or not???

Why does Cardinal Bertone say this? It's simple. Bishop Peric no longer has jurisdiction to make a definitive final judgment because it belongs to a greater body now that it has such a global presence. In no way is Cardinal Bertone saying that Bishop Peric should not state his personal opinion, nor shepherd his diocese. Rather, he says he has a right to express it. In fact, +Bertone reasserts the authority held by the local bishop in pastoral matters in the same letter:

However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who are coming to Medjugorje prompted both by motives of belief and certain other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the bishop of the diocese and of the other bishops with him so that in Medjugorje, and everything related to it, a healthy devotion toward the Blessed Virgin Mary would be promoted in conformity with the teaching of the Church.

IMPACT OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS ON THE WEB
People use that statement by Cardinal Bertone to say that Bishop Peric is "disobedient" for speaking out against the apparitions, and even that "Bishop Peric has been silenced by the Vatican". These are common allegations rooted in that communication by Cardinal Bertone and they are disingenuous. Those making such claims need to re-examine their position and consider that they are making false claims against the apostolic successor of that diocese.

IMPACT OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS ON THE FAITHFUL

People, innocently seeking information about Medjugorje stumble upon pro-Medjugorje sites and in blog comment boxes which proliferate these false claims against the local bishop. It is sometimes taken at face value by those who do not take the time to examine all of the letters in context before they tell others. The damage to the Church is significant and it has caused great division. On the one side you have the Apostolic Successor (the Church), on the other side, the promoters and supporters who are pitted against him using disinformation.

***Home Page***

Fr. Tomislav Vlasic, OFM laicized by Holy See; leaves order

2009-07-26T22:26:00.004-04:00

ORDO FRATRUM MINORUM
MINISTER GENERALIS

Prot. N. 098714

To the Provincial Ministers of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, and Italy

Dear Brother Minister,

The Holy Father, accepting the request of friar Tomislav Vlasic, O.F.M, member of the province of friars minor of St. Bernardino of Siena (L'Aquila), responsible for conduct harmful to ecclesial communion both in the spheres of doctrine and discipline, and under a censure of interdict, has granted him the favor of reduction to the lay state (amissio status clericalis) and of dismissal from the Order.

In addition, the Holy Father has granted the petitioner, motu proprio, the remission of the censure incurred as well as the favor of dispensation from religious vows and from all the responsibilities connected with sacred ordination, including celibacy.

As a salutary penal precept - under the pain of excommunication which the Holy See would declare, and if necessary, without prior canonical warning - the following precepts are imposed on Mr. Tomislav Vlasic:

a) Absolute prohibition from exercising any form of apostolate (for example, promoting public or private devotion, teaching Christian doctrine, spiritual direction, participation in lay associations, etc.) as well as of acquiring and administering goods intended for pious purposes;

b) Absolute prohibition from releasing declarations on religious matters, especially regarding the "phenomenon of Medjugorje";

c) Absolute prohibition from residing in houses of the Order of Friars Minor.

For the execution of the serious measures imposed by the Holy See regarding Mr. Tomislav Vlasic, the same Apostolic See calls directly on the Superiors of the Order.

Therefore I turn to you, so that you make sure to instruct the Guardians and superiors of friaries about full compliance, by Tomislav Vlasic, with the pontifical measures regarding him, in particular relative to the prohibition of residing in any houses belonging to the Order of Friars Minor, under pain of removal from office.

Trusting in your full understanding and prompt cooperation, I greet you fraternally.
Rome, 10 March 2009.

Fr. José Rodriguez Carballo, Ofm
Minister General"

Thanks to Richard Chonak of Catholic Light for his translation of an exclusive at the blog of Marco Corvaglia (Italian), "Medjugorje senza maschera" (Medjugorje without mask) , in this blogpost.

***Home Page***

February 20, 1999: The Decree "Romanis Pontificibus" Definitively Implemented

2009-05-25T05:52:00.006-04:00

The Decree "Romanis Pontificibus"

Definitively Implemented

Mostar - The Vicar General, Br Stefano Ottenbreit and the Diocescan Bishop, Msgr Ratko Peric met in Mostar from 17 to 20 February to definitively implement the prescriptions of the Holy See’s Decree "Romanis Pontificibus". Msgr Mario Cassari, acting Charg_ d’Affaires at the Papal Nunciature in Bosnia Herzegovina represented the Holy See. The General Definitory of the Order and the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, in ecclesial communion with the local Bishop, confirmed their wish for complete agreement and unity of purpose. The 7 parishes indicated in the decree were handed over to the Bishop.

From 22 February the Franciscan Pastors were relieved of their pastoral responsibilities and were assigned to other duties in the Province. Br Stefano and General Definitors Br Kapistran Martzall and Br Peter Schorr concelebrated the Sunday Eucharist with the Bishop in the packed Cathedral of Mostar, in the presence of the national and Croatian media. The actual transfer of the 7 parishes to the diocesan Clergy did not take place on Sunday the 21st as planned, since there was organised physical resistance on the part of the parishioners, as well as serious written and verbal threats, occupation of Churches and Parochial houses and the removal of Parish registers and stamps.

Msgr Ratko Peric, together with the priests and faithful, publicly expressed his deep appreciation to the Order and to the Province of Herzegovina for their untiring work in favour of the local Church. He also reaffirmed the need for their continuing presence and pastoral collaboration for the future.
Following this decree’s implementation, the Province of the Assumption of the BVM in Mostar has pastoral responsibility for 30 parishes and the Diocese is responsible for 52.

COMMUNICATION

Following the joint letter sent by the Minister General of the Friars Minor, Br Giacomo Bini and by the Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, Msgr Ratko Peric, of 16 November 1998, and following the Communication issued by Archbishop Marcello Zago, Secretary of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples, by the Minister General and by the local Bishop on 14 December 1998,

The representative of the Minister General

Br Stephan Ottenbreit, Vicar General of the Order

And the Diocesan Bishop, Msgr Ratko Peric

Met in Mostar from 17 to 20 February 1999 to definitively implement the prescriptions of the Holy See’s Decree "Romanis Pontificibus". Msgr Mario R. Cassari, acting Chargè d’Affaires at the Papal Nunciature in Bosnia Herzegovina represented the Holy See.

The two co-executors affirmed and decided as follows:

1.The General Government of the Order, together with the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, in ecclesial communion with the local Bishop, confirms it desire to carry out what has been decreed by the Holy See and decided by the General Chapter of the Franciscan Order, in complete agreement and unity of purpose.

2.It is painful to note that it has not been possible to transfer the parishes mentioned in the Decree from the Franciscans to the Diocesan Clergy on 21 February 1999, as previously agreed, notwithstanding the good will of the Co-executors, for the following reasons: acts of organised physical resistance, serious written and verbal threats, occupation of parochial Churches and houses, removal of parish registers and stamps

3.As and from 22 February the current Pastors and those with Pastoral responsibility, cited in the Decree are relieved of the above-mentioned pastoral responsibility. They are:

Br Petar Vlasic of Blagaj/Buna,
Br Leonard Hrkac of Crnac,
Br Marko Dragicevic and Br Miro Sego of Grude,
Br Alojzije Bosnjak of Jablanica,
Br Tihomir Kutle of Mostarski Gradac,
Br Oton Bilic of Nevesinje,
Br Drago Skrobo of Ploce-Tepcici.

These friars, who have been appointed by their Minister Provincial with his Definitory to houses of the Province, will have pastoral responsibilities within the Diocese in accordance with the agreement that the Provincial Government will make with the Diocesan Bishop.

4.Until the situation is normalised as soon as possible, i.e. until the Diocesan priests can assume the canonical administration of the above-mentioned parishes, the Bishop of the Diocese, in keeping with his duty, is committed to ensuring the pastoral care of the faithful. These are requested to refer as follows:

- the Parishioners of Blagaj/Buna and of Nevesinje to the Parish Offices of St John the Apostle or to the Cathedral of Mostar;
- the Parishioners of Crnac and of Mostarski Gradac to the Parish Offices of Polog or Jare;
- the Parishioners of Grude to the Parish Offices of Ledinac or Raskrizije;
- the Parishioners of Jablanica to the Parish Offices of St Matthew the Apostle or to the Cathredal of Mostar.

The Bishop and Priests of the Diocesan Curia are also available to any of the faithful who have need of pastoral assistance.

5.In regard to the current situation in Capljina, the Co-executors draw attention, particularly to the Faithful, that the priests Bonifacije Barbaric and Boze Rados, were dismissed from the Order of Friars Minor, on 28 February 1998. The Holy See confirmed their dismissal on 23 March 1998. Consequently, they may no longer use the Franciscan habit. On 17 December 1998 they were suspended "a divinis" by the Holy See, such suspension being applied by the Diocesan Bishop on 30 December 1998; they are thus forbidden to celebrate all the sacraments. The process for the dismissal from the Order of the third disobedient priest residing in Capljina, Br Mile Vlacic is under way. The sacraments of Confession and Matrimony, administered by the three above named persons are invalid.

6.Similar canonical sanctions will be taken against those other Franciscans who do not adhere to the directives of the Holy See and the Minister General with his Definitory. In cases of extreme necessity, ecclesiastical law allows the local Bishop to place under inderdict Churches that have been occupied illegally.

7.The General Government of the Order, together with the Government of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina, publicly renews its dissociation from the "Association of the Catholic Faithful of Mir i Dobro". This association, which is not recognised by the Catholic Church, is therefore illegitimate.

8.In this time of trial, the Catholic Faithful of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, in keeping with their past, desire to strengthen their sense of communion with and fidelity to the Apostolic See and the Holy Father.

9.The local Bishop, with the priests and faithful, are deeply grateful to the Order of Friars Minor and the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina for their untiring work in favour of the growth and unity of the local Church and they reaffirm the necessity of their presence and pastoral collaboration for the future.

Through the intercession of the Most Blessed Mary, Mother of the Church, may this time of Lent, the favourable time of conversion, and the entire Year dedicated to our heavenly Father, be of spiritual assistance to us in the journey through the Cross towards the Resurrection.

Mostar, 20 February 1999

Br Stephan Ottenbreit,
Msgr Ratko Peric
Vicar General of the Order of Friars Minor
Bishop of Mostar-Duvno

Note: Croatian Original at the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno: http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=142

***Home Page***

Bishop Sartain of Joliet, Illinois on unnapproved apparition promotion

2009-04-30T16:45:00.002-04:00

The letter below is from Bishop Peter Sartain of the Diocese of Joliet, IL to his priests. In it he says:

FROM BISHOP SARTAIN

Dear Brother Priests,

From time to time we are approached by parishioners who would like to invite speakers representing various alleged apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, private revelations or locutions, or others claiming to possess extraordinary spiritual gifts. My purpose in bringing this to your attention is to ask that you not issue such invitations. Whether the speakers would make presentations on we1l-known a1leged apparitions, such as Medjugorje, or lesser known private revelations, we must be extremely cautious about inviting or promoting them.

As you know the Church takes great time and care before declaring that an apparition is worthy of belief, and even then it never says that a Catholic must accept the apparition as a matter of faith. We must avoid giving the impression that alleged apparitions about which the Church has not made a judgment are somehow already approved. It is our responsibility to see that our parishioners are not led down the wrong path. That is not to say that those who ask us to promote these matters are doing so out of bad faith, but we must be extremely careful not to confuse our parishioners. Our greatest spicitual treasures are the Word of God, the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, and the teaching of the Church, and our focus should always be there. Needless to say, these comments do not refer to apparitions such as Fatima, Lourdes orGuadalupe which enjoy the approval of the Church.

Thank you for your attention to this important spiritual matter, and I am grateful for your cooperation.

Sincerely in Christ,
Bishop Peter Sartain

***Home Page***

Outrageous Claims Against Local Ecclesiastical Authority

2008-09-11T05:01:00.017-04:00

There are some statements out there which reveal a systematic attempt to discredit and defame the apostolic successors of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno: Bishop Pavao Zanic and Bishop Ratko Peric . It exists on the websites of certain Medjugorje promoters and is taken as fact by ordinary people, innocently and legitimately trying to find information about the phenomenon and the Church's position.

These things, which amount to subjective ambiguities, are not backed by facts and are loaded with surmises. They are then propogated by some who copy and paste them into discussion lists, blogs, comment boxes, forums and more, without fully analyzing the information for objectivity. The facts are sometimes skewed to suit the author's errant conclusions.

We will examine some of these subjective ambiguities in light of objective facts and let you draw your own conclusions. [Edit 7-29-2009: Check back over the coming days and weeks and hopefully, I'll be analyzing some ridiculous claims about the bishop found on the web which do not square with facts.]

Individual claims will be examined in separate posts and a link-list of those will be edited into this post at the bottom as they are written, and added to the sidebar.

This is a good time to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church on rash judgment, detraction, and calumny.

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

This is also a good time to discuss the issue of obedience and and reverence for authority.

Fr. John A. Hardon gives us a good definition of obedience in the Modern Catholic Dictionary:

The moral virtue that inclines the will to comply with the will of another who has the right to command. Material obedience is merely to carry out the physical action commanded; formal obedience is to perform an action precisely because it is commanded by a legitimate superior. The extent of obedience is as wide as the authority of the person who commands. Thus obedience to God is without limit, whereas obedience to human beings is limited by higher laws that must not be transgressed, and by the competency or authority of the one who gives the orders. As a virtue, it is pleasing to God because it means the sacrifice of one's will out of love for God.

In his dictionary, Fr. Hardon also defines reverence in a context that should be considered (emphasis mine in bold):

The virtue that inclines a person to show honor and respect for persons who possess some dignity. There are four forms of reverence:
Familial reverence toward one's parents or those who take the place of parents.
Civil reverence towards persons holding civil authority.
Ecclesiastical reverence toward the Pope, bishops, priests and others in the service of the Church.
Religious reverence toward any person, place, or object related to God.

Obedience to, and reverence for ecclesiastical authority is an important consideration with respect to discernment of apparitions. The 1978 CDF Document on Apparition Discernment refers to it as "docility to ecclesiastical authority" (see A, b, 1).

When these things are seen in people involved with private revelations and apparitions being investigated, it is a sign of pure grace. Often times, the extraordinary level of virtue is not visible until decades later.

This was the case with Padre Pio who suffered with prohibition of celebrating Mass publicly and of hearing confessions for a period of years. He remained firmly obedient to legitimate authority, even when the sanctions against him seemed unfair. Such obedience and reverence for authority is what Christ exemplified when he submitted himself to the authority of Pilate, who would order him put to death. Pope John Paul II stated at Padre Pio's canonization:

Padre Pio made his journey of demanding spiritual ascesis in communion with the Church. The temporary misunderstandings he had with one or other ecclesial authority did not put a brake on his attitude of filial obedience. Padre Pio was a faithful and courageous son of the Church and in this situation he followed the shining example of the "Poverello" of Assisi

While obedience and reverence for authority on the part of alleged visionaries and their closest associates are criteria the Church uses for discernment (certainly not in isolation), we would hope that manifestations of such grace would also be exemplified in followers.

***Home Page***

Are pilgrimages to Medjugorje permitted or not???

2008-09-10T20:06:00.012-04:00

This is one of the most discussed topics on the subject of Medjugorje: Pilgrimages.

Keep in mind as you read this, that the 1978 CDF document on apparition discernment used by bishops says (emphasis mine in bold):

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence(which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

With that in mind, you may notice two common threads in each of these communications out of the Bishop's conference and the Vatican.

All point back to the 1991 Zadar Declaration for the Church's current position on Medjugorje: Non constat de supernaturalitate.
All communications use a qualifier with regards to pilgrimages. There is no official outright ban. They are permitted conditionally, but may not be organized by any bishop, diocese, parish, or other group AND on condition they do not give authentication to the events at Medjugorje. This is because the cult following has not been granted, which can only be granted once positive and negative criteria have been assessed favorably.

With regards to that last part, it is also prudent to consider something that Msgr. Henri Brincard, the Bishop of Puy-en-Velay (accompanying Bishop of the Association of Marian organisations), said in a letter written on behalf of the French Bishops in 2000:

In conclusion, allow me to make the following reflection:
"I have no authority to pronounce any ecclesial judgement whatsoever on the events of Medjugorje. I am therefore the first to have to give an example of obedience, notably in respecting the pastoral decisions of my confrere of Mostar and in complying with joy to his wishes.

"I do not see how I can go to Medjugorje without giving my support, by the very fact of my having come there, to the events who's discernment and assessment rests henceforth with the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such support would fly in the face of a traditional teaching of the Church, recalled in Lumen Gentium and applicable to all the successors of the Apostles (11): "Individual bishops, in so far as they are set over particular Churches, exercise their pastoral office over the portion of the People of God assigned to them, not over other Churches nor the Church universal."

And now, for the communications we have to date on pilgrimages, in chronological order.

FEBRUARY 1987: Franjo Cardinal Kuharic on Pilgrimages

Franjo Cardinal Kuharic, President of the Yugoslav Bishop's Conference, noted in a 1987 press release in which he announced the new Commission which would eventually produce the Zadar Declaration in 1991, the following:

While waiting for the results of the Commission's work and the Church's verdict, let the Pastors and the faithful honor the practice of the usual prudence in such circumstances. For that reason, it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events. Marian devotion, legitimate and recommended by the Church, must be in accordance with the directives of the Magisterium, and especially the apostolic encyclical Marialis Cultus February 2, 1974 (cf. AAS, 66, 1974, p. 113-168).

APRIL 1996: Archbishop Tarciscio Bertone on Pilgrimages

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

Vatican City, March 23, 1996

Prot. No. 154/81-01985

Your Excellency,

In your letter of February 14, 1996 you inquired what is the present position of the Church regarding the alleged "apparitions in Medjugorje' and whether it is permitted to the Catholic faith to go there for pilgrimage.

In reference to that, it is my honor to make known to you that, regarding the authenticity of the apparitions in question, the Bishops of the former Yugoslavia confirmed in their Declaration of April 10, 1991 published in Zadar:

". . .On the basis of investigation up till now it cannot be established that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations.

However, the numerous gatherings of the faithful from different parts of the world, who are coming to Medjugorje prompted both by motives of belief and certain other motives, require the attention and pastoral care in the first place of the bishop of the diocese and of the other bishops with him so that in Medjugorje, and everything related to it, a healthy devotion toward the Blessed Virgin Mary would be promoted in conformity with the teaching of the Church.

For that purpose the bishops shall issue separate appropriate liturgical-pastoral directives. Likewise by means of their Commission they shall further follow and investigate the total event in Medjugorje."

The result from this, in what is precisely said, is that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, understood as a place of authentic Marian apparitions, are not permitted to be organized either on the parish or on the diocesan level, because that would be in contradiction to what the Bishops of former Yugoslavia affirmed in their fore mentioned Declaration.

Kindly accept, your Excellency, an expression of my profoundly devoted affection!

+ Tarcisio Bertone

AUGUST 1996: Vatican Spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls

Speaking on Aug. 21st 1996 in Rome Vatican Press Office spokesman, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, sought to clarify the status of pilgrimages to Medjugorje. He noted, after citing the 1991 Zadar Declaration,

"You cannot say people cannot go there until it has been proven false. This has not been said, so anyone can go if they want ... When one reads what Archbishop Bertone wrote, one could get the impression that from now on everything is forbidden, no possibility" for Catholics to travel to Medjugorje. But, in fact, "nothing has changed, nothing new has been said ... The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje ... This is different from people going in a group who bring a priest with them in order to go to confession ... I was worried that what Archbishop Bertone said could be interpreted in too restricted a way. Has the church or the Vatican said no (to Catholics visiting Medjugorje)? NO. ... The difference, in the terms of canon law, is that an official pilgrimage, organized by the diocese with the bishop, is a way of giving a juridical sanction to the facts; you are saying this is true."

MAY 1998: Letter from Abp Bertone to Bishop Aubrey (added emphasis in green)

CONGREGATIO PRO DOCTRINA FIDEI
Pr. No 154/81-05922
Citta del Vaticano, Palazzo del S. Uffizio
May 26, 1998

To His Excellency Mons. Gilbert Aubry,
Bishop of Saint-Denis de la Reunion

Excellency:

In your letter of January 1, 1998, you submitted to this Dicastery several questions about the position of the Holy See and of the Bishop of Mostar in regard to the so called apparitions of Medjugorje, private pilgrimages and the pastoral care of the faithful who go there.

In regard to this matter, I think it is impossible to reply to each of the questions posed by Your Excellency. The main thing I would like to point out is that the Holy See does not ordinarily take a position of its own regarding supposed supernatural phenomena as a court of first instance. As for the credibility of the "apparitions" in question, this Dicastery respects what was decided by the bishops of the former Yugoslavia in the Declaration of Zadar, April 10, 1991: "On the basis of the investigations so far, it can not be affirmed that one is dealing with supernatural apparitions and revelations." Since the division of Yugoslavia into different independent nations it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for.

What Bishop Peric said in his letter to the Secretary General of "Famille Chretienne", declaring: "My conviction and my position is not only 'non constat de supernaturalitate,' but likewise, 'constat de non supernaturalitate' of the apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje", should be considered the expression of the personal conviction of the Bishop of Mostar which he has the right to express as Ordinary of the place, but which is and remains his personal opinion.

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.

I hope that I have replied satisfactorily at least to the principal questions that you have presented to this Dicastery and I beg Your Excellency to accept the expression of my devoted sentiments.

Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone
Secretary

That statement I've highlighted in green, has been severely distorted by promoters of Medjugorje. It has been presented in such a way as to lead readers to believe he has been "stripped of his authority". The bishop made clear in that letter he was speaking for himself because in the succeeding paragraph, he invites the Church to take on the matter for further study. More these kinds of distortions in a later post which will be linked here.

1987 Press Release by Cardinal Kuharic on New Commission and Pilgrimages

2008-09-10T19:53:00.007-04:00

Several sources on the web have this text such as Catholic Culture and EWTN, but it is contained within a larger collection of communications on the same page (emphasis mine in bold; my comments bracketed in red).

On January 18, 1987, a press release dated January 9, signed by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, president of the Yugoslavian Conference of Bishops and by Bishop Zanic of Mostar, made the front page of "Glas Koncila" with the announcement of the formation of a new Commission of inquiry on Medjugorje [it then appeared in “L'Osservatore Romano” on February 14, 1987 -- dk]. Here is the text:

In accordance with the canonical regulations which treat the matters of discernment of alleged apparitions and private revelations, the Diocesan Commission formed for that purpose by the Bishop of Mostar, the local Ordinary, investigated the events of Medjugorje.

During the inquiry these events under investigation have appeared to go much beyond the limits of the diocese. Therefore, on the basis of the said regulations, it became fitting to continue the work at the level of the Bishops' Conference, and thus to form a new Commission for that purpose.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has been informed about it. It has expressed its recognition of the Diocesan Commission's work done under the responsibility of the local Ordinary, and it urged that that work be continued at the level of the National Conference of Bishops.

Thus the Bishops Conference of Yugoslavia will form a Commission to continue the investigation of Medjugorje's events. While waiting for the results of the Commission's work and the Church's verdict, let the Pastors and the faithful honor the practice of the usual prudence in such circumstances. For that reason, it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events. Marian devotion, legitimate and recommended by the Church, must be in accordance with the directives of the Magisterium, and especially the apostolic encyclical Marialis Cultus February 2, 1974 (cf. AAS, 66, 1974, p. 113-168).

Zagreb, January 9, 1987

+ Franjo Card. Kuharic

President of the B.C.Y.

+ Pavao Zanic Bishop of Mostar

July 25, 1987 Confirmation Homily of Bishop Pavao Zanic in Medjugorje

2008-09-10T17:55:00.013-04:00

Brothers and sisters, today here in Medjugorje the sacrament of confirmation will be administered, and probably you are expecting me to say a few words about those events which are the talk of the entire world. The Church watches all this, and especially what is of interest to her. This is confided to certain individuals and to commissions. As you know, at present, a Commission is mounting an inquiry on the matter. The said Commission has been established by the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference, for the Church cannot endanger her credibility in this 20th Century world. It [the world] keeps an eye on her to catch her off guard, to criticize her and be able to say: this is what you do with everything else in your faith, everything else is like that...this is the way it is with your Christ.

I can tell you that during these six years I prayed, studied and kept silent. Many others also prayed, and I am grateful to them for that. In each Mass I celebrated, I had a thought for Medjugorje; in every rosary that I recited daily, I prayed to the Madonna for God's and the Holy Spirit's enlightenment. This helped me to gain a strong and firm conviction about everything I have heard, read and experienced. Here people are praying and fasting a lot, inspired as they are, of course, by the belief that these events are indeed supernatural; and to preach untruth to the faithful about God, Jesus and the Madonna is worthy of the depths of Hell.

Through all my prayers, my work and research, I have sought one goal only: the discovery of truth. For that purpose, in 1982, I established a Commission of four members which later was expanded to fifteen, thanks to some bishops and father provincials. The larger body included people from nine theological faculties, seven dioceses and four provinces, as well as two highly qualified. psychiatrists. Consulting their colleagues in their respective fields, all these people worked for three full years. The Holy See was informed about their work and the events.

Today, the Commission set by the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference is studying the same problems. In the meantime, there were some who were in a hurry and wanted to go ahead, before the Church's verdict. They proclaimed the existence of miracles and supernatural happenings; from the altar they preached private revelations, a breach to Church regulations as long as those revelations have not been recognized as authentic. For this reason, various Church authorities kept warning against organizing pilgrimages and to wait for the Church's verdict.

On March 24, 1984, the Commission on the Medjugorje events also issued a warning. Unfortunately all this remained fruitless. Then, in the month of October of the same year, the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference issued an order prohibiting official pilgrimages to Medjugorje; and an official pilgrimage was defined as any group organized to come to Medjugorje. This did not help either. Later, on May 13, 1985, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith sent a special letter to the Italian Bishops' Conference asking the bishops to discourage organized pilgrimages... as well as all forms of propaganda. This did not bring any results either. Finally, when the second Commission was set up, His Eminence Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, and the Ordinary of Mostar, declared on behalf of the Yugoslavian Bishops' Conference in their January 9, 1987 press release: "For that reason, it is not permitted either to organize pilgrimages or to arrange other manifestations motivated by the supernatural character which might be attributed to the Medjugorje events." This was said by the highest authority in the Church, and this should not be overlooked as if nothing had been said.

At the outset, when the first news was announced about the extraordinary happenings in this parish, the Chancery Office of Mostar intently followed the news and collected everything that might be of help in the search for truth. The Bishop gave all latitude to the pastoral personnel and the children, he even defended them from the attacks of the news media and civil authorities. We taped all interviews, we gathered chronicles and diaries, letters, documents, and all this has been studied by the Commission composed of theology professors and physicians. The three-year research produced the following result: two members of the Commission voted in favor of the supernaturality and authenticity of the Medjugorje events. One member abstained from voting, another wrote that there was something supernatural at the beginning only, while eleven members of the Commission voted against the supernatural character of those events, and thus, that there were no apparitions.

I am deeply convinced that all the members of the Commission worked conscientiously and examined everything that might be of help in finding the truth. The Church cannot risk her credibility, and often in similar cases she carefully probed these kinds of events and banned crowds from gathering where it had been established that the events were not of supernatural origin.

The Madonna, they say, started to appear on the Podbrdo of the Mountain Crnica, but when the militia forbade going there, she came into houses, into forests, fields, vineyards and tobacco fields; she appeared in the church, on the altar, in the sacristy, in the choir loft, on the roof, on the church steeple, on the roads, on the way to Cerno, in a car, on buses, in classrooms, in several places in Mostar and Sarajevo, in monasteries in Zagreb, Varazdin, Switzerland and Italy, once again on the Podbrdo, atop Krizevac, in the parish, in the rectory, etc. It is certain that not even half of the places where the alleged apparitions have taken place have been mentioned, so much so that an earnest man--who venerates the Madonna--asked himself: "My Madonna, what are they doing to you?"

In this diocese, by divine decree, I am the shepherd, teacher of faith, and judge in the matters of faith. Since Medjugorje's events have created tension and division within the Church (some believe in it, some do not), and have evaded Church control, since the recommendations and decisions of the said authorities such as the Commission, the Congregation, and the Bishops' Conference have been ineffective, I, the Ordinary of Mostar, responsible before God for the discipline in the diocese, repeat and sanction former decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities. I do forbid the priests who organize pilgrimages or come here ascribing a supernatural character to these events, to celebrate Mass in the territory of my diocese, and this until the Commission of the Bishops' Conference ends its inquiry.

I turn to you, Immaculate Virgin and Mother, Mother of God and Mother of the Church, Mother of this congregation which is looking for you, prays to you and loves you. I am turning to you, as your servant and Bishop of Mostar, and before the entire world I proclaim my deep and unshakable faith in all the privileges that God has endowed you with, by which you are the first and the most distinguished creature. I also affirm my deep and unshakable faith in your intercession with almighty God for all the needs of your children in this valley of tears. I assert my deep and unshakable faith in your love toward us sinners, and that love you confirmed with your apparitions and assistance. I myself have led pilgrimages to Lourdes. Exactly through the virtue of that faith, I your servant, Bishop of Mostar, before the great multitudes which called on you, find and accept your great sign which became sure and clear after these six years. I am not in need of a special sign, but it is necessary to those who believed in the truth.

That sign to me is that for six years you steadfastly remained silent to all rumors about the sign: it will be, they said, on the hillside of apparitions, visible and permanent; it is going to be realized soon; it will be before long, in a while; be patient for a while, so they were saying in 1981... Then again: it will be realized on the feast of the Immaculate Conception, for Christmas, for the New Year. etc. Thank you, Madonna, because with your long silence of six years you have demonstrated that you have not spoken here, nor appeared, nor given any message or secret nor promised a special sign. Blessed Virgin, Mother of Christ and of us, intercede for peace in this restless region of the Church, in the diocese of Mostar, intercede especially for this place, for this parish, where innumerable times your blessed name was mentioned in words which were not yours. Make them stop fabricating messages in your name. Accept, Blessed Virgin, satisfaction through the sincere prayers of the devout souls who have no part in fanaticism and disobedience to the Church. Let us all reach the real truth. Dear Madonna, humble and obedient servant of God, let the faithful of Medjugorje follow with their firm steps the shepherd of the local Church so that all of us might together glorify and praise you in truth and love.
Amen!

+ Pavao Zanic, Bishop Mostar, July 24, 1987

***Home Page***

The Zadar Declaration (1991)

2008-09-10T17:47:00.013-04:00

Emphasis mine in bold [notes in red and enclosed in brackets]

The Third Commission (1987 - 1990)

In January 1987, upon the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Kuharić, president of the Bishops’ Conference, and bishop Žanić made a joint communiqué in which they announced the formation of the third Commission and in which they asked the faithful not to organize pilgrimages motivated “from above” which would ascribe to the events of Medjugorje (O. P., p. 196). The Commission was comprised of 11 priests (6 religious, 5 diocesan), 4 physicians and psychologists and one religious sister as secretary.

The Commission held 23 meetings in Zagreb at the Secretariat of the Bishops’ Conference. The first meeting was in April 1987 and the twenty-third in September 1990.

A characteristic of the third Commission was to work on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no statements 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 through a vote held in Zadar on 10 April 1991: 19 bishops voted for the Declaration while 1 abstained.

The Declaration states: “During the regular session of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia, held in Zadar from April 9-11, 1991, the following was accepted:

DECLARATION

From the very beginning, the Bishops have been following the events of Medjugorje through the local Bishop, the Bishops’ Commission and the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia for Medjugorje.

On the bas[is] of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed [non constat de supernaturalitate - see footnote²] that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.

Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through the commissions.

Zadar, 10 April 1991
The Bishops of Yugoslavia”

A few notes worth considering:

The non constat de supernaturalitate status clearly leaves open the room for further data to be considered, while at the same time also making clear, that nothing examined up to the time of this commission indicated anything of supernatural origin.
Since this did not receive an absolute negative judgment (constat de non supernaturalitate), the declaration comprehends that visitors will need pastoral care.
The declaration did not give permission for a cult following of "Our Lady of Medjugorje" to develop³, something which by right, belongs to the competent authority, in this case the Bishop's Conference of Yugoslavia. Rather, the pastoral care, in part, was intended to enable a healthy devotion to Our Lady according to the teachings of the Church (Encyclical Marialis Cultis).

1) Source: Međugorje: Secrets, messages, vocations, prayers, confessions, commissions, Bishop Ratko Peric, Diocese of Mostar-Duvno (address given in Maynooth, Ireland in 2004.

2) See post: Apparitions: Types of Decisions the Church can Hand Down

3) From the post: Who discerns apparitions and private revelations?, we see that the cult following is only permitted after the local Ordinary discerns that there is nothing contrary to established positive and negative criteria. There is plenty of evidence that the cult following was discouraged not only by the local Bishop, but by the Bishops Conference. In 1987, YBC President, Cardinal Kuharic declared, "it is not permitted to organize either pilgrimages or other religious manifestations based on an alleged supernatural character attributed to Medjugorje's events" In 1990, one year before the Zadar Declaration, Bishop Zanic listed 29 serious problems with Medjugorje. Bishop Zanic worked hard to discourage a cult following which is seen in a series of documented communications compiled by EWTN.

4) Subsequent clarifications on pilgrimages have been made by the Holy See (link forthcoming).

HOME: Medjugorje Documents Online and FAQ's

*

What is the Official Status of Medjugorje (as of this post)

2008-09-10T17:47:00.012-04:00

The Church's current position is that of the 1991 Zadar Declaration in which it was stated (my note in red, bracketed):

On the bas[is] of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed Non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural). that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.

There are three possible decisions the Church can make. This is not a wholly negative judgment, nor is it a positive judgment. It leaves open the possibility for further study.

The 1991 Zadar Declaration has been cited numerous times in Vatican documents with regards to the current status, such as on those pertaining to pilgrimages and Medjugorje. It was also referred to in 2006 by Vinko Cardinal Puljic of the now Bosnia-Herzegovina Bishops Conference (BiH) upon announcing a new commission was apparently being established.

In that 2006 comment by Cardinal Puljic, he says the new commission will study the original decision of the 1991 Commission, as well as the issue of pilgrimages.

What is Involved in Apparition Discernment?

2008-09-10T17:18:00.004-04:00

The CDF released a document in 1978 which had been available only to bishops¹. In that document, criteria was laid out for the discernment of apparitions. It is a process for bishops to follow since they are the first level of ecclesiastical authority with jurisdiction. It has since found it's way into the public domain. Apparitions since 1978 fall under this, as well as those still under investigation prior to 1978.

There is both positive and negative criteria that bishops and other authorities consider with the help of this document. First, the document offers some notes to put it all into context.

Preliminary Note: Origin and character of these norms.

At the time of the Annual Plenary Congregation during November 1974, the Fathers of this Sacred Congregation studied the problems relating to apparitions and supposed revelations, and the consequences which often result from these, and they arrived at the following conclusions:

1. Today more than formerly, the news of these apparitions is spread more quickly among the faithful thanks to the means of information ("mass media"); in addition, the ease of travel supports more frequent pilgrimages. Also, the ecclesiastical authority was itself brought to reconsider this subject.

2. Similarly, because of current instruments of knowledge, the contributions of science, and the requirement of a rigorous criticism, it is more difficult, if not impossible, to arrive as speedily as previously at judgements which conclude, as formerly happened, investigations into this matter (“constate de supernaturalitate, non constat de supernaturalitate”); and because of that, it is more difficult for the Ordinary to authorize or prohibit public worship or any other form of devotion of the faithful.

For these reasons, so that the devotion stirred up among the faithful by facts of this kind can appear as a disposition in full communion with the Church, and bear fruit, and so that the Church itself is able to ultimately distinguish the true nature of the facts, the Fathers consider that it is necessary to promote the following practice in regard to this matter.

So that the ecclesiastical authority is able to acquire more certainty on such or such an apparition or revelation, it will proceed in the following way:

a) Initially, to judge the facts according to positive and negative criteria (cf. below, n.1).

b) Then, if this examination appears favorable, to allow certain public demonstrations of cult and devotion, while continuing to investigate the facts with extreme prudence (which is equivalent to the formula: “for the moment, nothing is opposed to it”).

c) Finally, after a certain time, and in the light of experience, (starting from a particular study of the spiritual fruits generated by the new devotion), to give a judgement on the authenticity of the supernatural character, if the case requires this.

I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.

A) Positive criteria:

a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.

b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:

1. Personal qualities of the subject—in particular mental balance, honesty and rectitude of moral life, habitual sincerity and docility towards ecclesiastical authority, ability to return to the normal manner of a life of faith, etc.

2. With regard to the revelations, their conformity with theological doctrines and their spiritual veracity, their exemption from all error.

3. A healthy devotion and spiritual fruits which endure (in particular, the spirit of prayer, conversions, signs of charity, etc).

B) Negative criteria:

a) A glaring error as to the facts.

b) Doctrinal errors that one would attribute to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit in their manifestations (taking into account, however, the possibility that the subject may add something by their own activity—even if this is done unconsciously—of some purely human elements to an authentic supernatural revelation, these having nevertheless to remain free from any error in the natural order. Cf. St Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, n. 336).

c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.

d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.

e) Psychic disorders or psychopathic tendencies concerning the subject, which would exert an unquestionable influence on the allegedly supernatural facts, or indeed psychosis, mass hysteria, or other factors of the same kind.

It is important to consider these criteria, whether they are positive or negative, as indicative standards and not as final arguments, and to study them in their plurality and in relation with the other criteria.

Footnotes:

1)1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (unoffical English translation)

Who discerns apparitions and private revelations?

2008-09-10T16:36:00.003-04:00

From the 1978 document(unofficial english translation) from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on discernment of apparitions¹.

II. Intervention of the competent local Authority

1. As, at the time of a presumed supernatural fact, worship or an ordinary form of devotion is born in a quasi spontaneous way among the faithful, the competent ecclesiastical Authority has the serious obligation to inform itself without delay and to carry out a diligent investigation.

2. At the legitimate request of the faithful (when they are in communion with their pastors and are not driven by a sectarian spirit), the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene to authorize and promote various forms of worship and devotion if, assuming the criteria given above having been applied, nothing is opposed to it. But there must be vigilance nevertheless, to ensure that the faithful do not regard this way of acting as an approval by the Church of the supernatural character of the event in question (cf. above, Preliminary Note, c).

3. By virtue of his doctrinal and pastoral duty, the competent ecclesiastical Authority can intervene immediately of his own authority, and he must do so in serious circumstances, for example, when it is a question of correcting or of preventing abuses in the exercise of worship or devotion, to condemn erroneous doctrines, to avoid the dangers of a false mysticism etc.

4. In doubtful cases, which do not involve the welfare of the Church, the competent ecclesiastical Authority may refrain from any judgement and any direct action (more especially as it can happen that, at the end of a certain time, the supposedly supernatural event can lapse from memory); but he should not remain less vigilant about the event, in such a way as to be in a position to intervene with swiftness and prudence, if that is necessary.

III. Other Authorities entitled to intervene

1. The foremost authority to inquire and to intervene belongs to the local Ordinary.

2. But the regional or national episcopal Conference may intervene:

a) If the local Ordinary, after having fulfilled the obligations which fall to him, resorts to them for a study of the event in its entirety.

b) If the event assumes national or regional importance.

3. The Apostolic See can intervene, either at the request of Ordinary himself, or at the request of a qualified group of the faithful, or directly by virtue of the immediate right of universal jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff (cf. above, IV).

(1) 1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (unoffical English translation)

Apparitions: Types of Decisions the Church can Hand Down

2008-09-10T13:29:00.010-04:00

To fully comprehend the status of an appartion in the eyes of the Church, an understanding of decisions is needed. Links with cited source info can be found at the bottom.

What kind of decisions can be handed down by the Church? There are three:

Constat de supernaturalitate (established as supernatural).
Non constat de supernaturalitate (not established as supernatural).
Constat de non supernaturalitate (established as not supernatural).

The first decision at the top of the list, Constat de supernaturalitate, is clearly favorable. There are clear signs of something supernatural, and nothing is found to contradict doctrine¹. Also, those receiving the private revelations have been cleared of mental illness or physical conditions which could explain the phenomena. In addition, there is honesty and upright behavior (immorality in the form of lies, deceit, promiscuity, etc., are absent).

What distinguishes the last two classifications?

Constat de non supernaturalitate is a negative judgment. Examples of private revelations which have received such a judgment include Bayside and Necedeh. Colin Donovan explains²:

The judgment that an alleged apparition has been shown to be not supernatural means it is either clearly not miraculous or lacks sufficient signs of the miraculous. Private revelation, for example, which is doctrinally dangerous or which manifests hostility to lawful authority could not come from God. It could even be demonic, especially if there are extraordinary signs accompanying it. The devil gladly mingles truth and lie to deceive the faithful, dazzling them with signs and wonders to give credence to his message. His purpose is to separate them from the Church, either by getting them to believe things contrary to the deposit of the faith or to act contemptuously of Church authority. An attitude of pride and judgment toward the Church is a clear sign of his presence. An alleged revelation may also only be a pious rambling, consistent with faith and morals, but lacking evidence of being anything more than the product of human effort. No fraud need be intended, only an active imagination. Finally, it may be that the doctrine may be sound and there may be phenomena, but insufficient to demonstrate supernaturality. In this latter case, there would seem to be a possibility of revision.

Non constat de supernaturalitate is not necessarily a neutral judgment. Nor is it likely a final judgment. Rather, nothing has been found which would be considered supernatural. It also seems to leave itself open for further discernment. People need to be careful with claims by promoters and supporters of any private revelation of things like, "healings" and "cures". Before such a proclamation can be made and associated with a person or place, it needs to be studied and verified. Anyone can make such claims, but will it stand up to the level of medical scrutiny worhty of the title, "miraculous"? Similarly, mystical phenomena (dancing sun, things changing in appearance, strange lights, visions, etc.,) must be examined for natural explanations first. If such explanations are ruled out, then there are two others possible sources: Divine and diabolic. Hence, even the presence of mystical phenomena is not proof of divine involvement.

Footnotes:

1) See Catechism of the Catholic Church #65-67

2) Apparitions/Private Revelations written by theologian Colin Donovan, STL, April 2001 Revision accessed on Sept 10, 2008

"The Truth Both Frees us and Binds us" by Bishop Ratko Peric (31 May 2004)

2008-09-03T18:30:00.000-04:00

The truth both frees us and binds us

There are a good number of the faithful throughout the world who strive for the purity of the faith, respecting the Church's magisterium and bearing witness to the spuriousness of the "visions" at Medjugorje. One of them is Michael Davies of London. When I assumed responsibility for the diocese of Mostar, I came to know Mr Davies, who is Welsh, and his wife Maria, who is Croatian. They were friends of my predecessor, the late Bishop Pavao Zanic, who died on 11th November 2000. I must thank Michael for the efforts that he has made to follow and criticise the unbelievable claims made about the events at Medjugorje, a theme that he develops in this book, Medjugorje after 21 Years.

Why do I as the local bishop not accept the "visions" at Medjugorje as worthy of credence? I begin from the premise that I would truly like to believe that the "visions" are authentic, and that Our Lady truly appeared there. Indeed, not only there. Yet the truth both frees us and binds us! As I followed the events at Medjugorje in recent years, I was driven to the following conclusions.

Firstly, the story dating back to 1981 of the so-called "visions" of the six "seers" of Medjugorje, half of whom still see visions on a daily basis, while the other half only see them once a year, has long since spread beyond the borders of the parish and the diocese both by rumour and by reason of the travels through the world of the "seers" and their supporters.

There can be no doubt that the "visions" have made converts in the ranks of commercial travellers, who had a "vision" of very tangible benefits for themselves, whence they spread to the ranks of religious enthusiasts, who travel thousands of miles to make their confessions and say the rosary at Medjugorje! The "visions" have not however been recognized by the Church, so no-one is any way bound to believe in them.

Secondly, some Franciscans in Herzegovina as well as a number of priests throughout the world promote the concept of Medjugorje as the site of "supernatural visions and messages". A number of the faithful moreover persist in visiting Medjugorje, not only so as to bear witness to how "Our Lady appears" despite the Church's cautious stance, but also to bring pressure to bear on the Church authorities, not excluding even the very highest, to recognise the events at Medjugorje as visions worthy of credence.

I have to ask how the Christ's Church could on the basis of such pilgrimages to a single parish, motivated by a range of emotions from mere curiosity to fanatical zeal, proclaim such "visions" to be supernatural, when three ecclesiastical commissions of inquiry into the events at Medjugorje lawfully constituted on the direction of Bishop Zanic, the local bishop, and the Conference of Bishops [of the former Yugoslavia] in 1991 confirmed that they could find no proof that there had been "supernatural visions and messages"? How could the Church, which is the pillar and support of the truth, recognize such more than questionable "visions" under pressure from such petitioners?

Thirdly, it is most puzzling why such priests and faithful as really thirst for visions and messages do not drink their fill from the sources of visions that have been recognized as authentic, for example, Lourdes and Fatima, though there are others besides, but instead turn to the unrecognised "visions" at Medjugorje, where "Our Lady" supposedly "appears" sine fine. The Church recognized some of the seers of Lourdes and Fatima as saints or as blessed after their deaths, but the champions of Medjugorje seem to be in competition with one another to see who can go the most times to a place where the Church has not merely declined to recognize the authenticity of the "visions" but has even forbidden private or public pilgrimages if they are based on the authenticity of the unrecognised "visions".

If indeed some bishops from other parts of the world come and stay at Medjugorje (some twenty kilometres from Mostar) for several days, yet do not even feel the need to make themselves known to their local counterpart, whether during or after the war [between Croatia and Serbia] then such servants of the Church show neither episcopal collegiality nor solicitude for the universal Church (1 Cor. 11, 28) but rather a strange curiosity to see what "visions" there might be to be seen on the stony hillsides of Herzegovina. Yet we bishops and priests constantly pray to God in the Canon of the Mass to confirm his Church in faith and charity on its way through this world.

Fourthly, the mere fact that many people, though they are believers, hold something to be true does not make it true, perhaps even the contrary. Christ the Lord stood alone, but for his Mother and one disciple, at Gabbatha and on Golgotha. He was the only Truth opposed by the nameless masses, the superior and inferior clergy, and the national and international establishment in Jerusalem.

When Christ proclaimed that He was the truth, Pilate gave their jesting answer "What is truth?" (John, 18, 38), which is to say, that for them personal advantage, political position and a temporary triumph were more important than any truth, human or divine!

Though the Truth died on that Good Friday, it rose again on the third day. Truth is not therefore necessarily in the greater number. So all the valid confessions, communions and rosary prayers at Medjugorje, though they confer grace as efficaciously as in other parishes, no more and no less, do not of themselves in any sense demonstrate the truth of the "supernatural apparitions" in that parish.

Fifthly, the "seers" who see visions on a daily basis and the endless apparitions themselves (33,333 to date, nor it there any risk of my being mistaken, for there is no end to the numbers or the "visions") are more in the nature of a religious show and a spectacle for the world than a true and faithful witness to the peace and unity of the Faith and love for the Church. Who can fail to see that these endlessly multiplying numbers should not be taken seriously? Shall we change our Catholic orthodoxy for fantastical superstition?

Sixthly, the many "messages" pronounced in the early years by the mouths of the so-called "seers", especially those that praised the disobedience of some Franciscan priests in Mostar, and berated the local bishop who conscientiously abided by Canon law, that belittled the highest decisions of the Church regarding the administration of the diocese, which as such were obviously inspired by worldly considerations and not by heaven, brought far greater disorder and conflict than true peace and order to the Church. This is a very particular chapter in the history of the diocese of Mostar and Duvno.

Seventhly, our Croatian Franciscans, who accept Medjugorje as a place of "supernatural apparitions" have never, alas, distanced themselves publicly from this bad and untruthful message to the Church in Herzegovina.

Some Franciscan fathers have performed many invalid confirmations. One of them, who falsely purported to confirm with a mitre on his head in the parish of Capljina in 1997, claimed to come from Medjugorje and openly supported schism in that community by his sacrilegious and invalid confirmations. Now that he has been expelled from the Franciscan order, he has forcibly occupied the parish of Grude, where, two days ago, on the feast of Whitsun, 2004, according to a photograph which appeared in the daily papers, he once again carried out invalid confirmations, but this time without a mitre.

If the "seers" with their "visions" tolerate such schismatic scandals, without in any way admonishing those involved, and likewise those who support the "seers" and act as their public relations men, without ever distancing themselves from or condemning such local schisms, then in the name of the Mother of God, the Queen of Peace, yea, in the name of the Holy Trinity, one God, might that not be a sign that those involved in propagandizing in support of the supposed credibility of such "visions" do not have the Divine will at the forefront of their thoughts?

A group of Franciscans (eight living, one deceased) who have been expelled from their Order for their notorious disobedience to the decisions both of their own superiors and of the Holy See with regard to matters of ecclesiastical administration in the diocese, have forcibly taken over a number of parishes in which for some years now they have been administering invalid confessions, and officiating at invalid marriages, some even carrying out invalid confirmations, and generally carrying on in defiance of Canon Law, all in the immediate or general neighbourhood of Medjugorje, as the place where tens of thousands of "visions" have occurred.

It is indeed astonishing that the "apparition", which has passed on messages to thousands of the curious, even including American President Ronald Reagan, and Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev, and its supporters, have not yet expressed concern, whether about the blasphemy perpetrated against Christ's sacraments, or the damage to the unity of the Church in the diocese of Mostar-Duvno. It is certainly remarkable that people come from all over the world to make their confessions in Medjugorje, but the expelled Franciscans and a few others who are in a state of disobedience to the Holy See, their Order and the local Church authorities, give thousands of invalid absolutions in the very neighbourhood of Medjugorje.

When this group of Franciscans, who even now wear Franciscan habits even though they have been canonically expelled from the Order of Friars Minor in 2001, blasphemously and sacrilegiously sinned against the sacraments of the Eucharist and of confirmation by summoning an Old Catholic deacon (!) a schismatic not in communion with the Catholic Church, to celebrate an invalid Eucharist and to "confirm" hundreds of candidates in three parishes, Grude, Capljina and Ploce-Tepcici, that deacon falsely held himself out to be a bishop, saying "both the friars and I believe in the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje".

Alas, we heard not a word and saw not a sign of disapproval of such pronouncements. On the contrary, some still defend the visitation of the uncatholic deacon who proclaimed himself to be a bishop. One of his colleagues, who lived in the same community for some time, tells how this deacon celebrated "mass" in honour of the BVM in a church in Switzerland on the feast of the Assumption, all dressed in black! A requiem for the Mother of God on the day of her Assumption into heaven! What folly! A man who cannot celebrate mass at all, since he is not a priest, so insults Our Lady, who reached a higher state of holiness than any other human being, yet he claims to "believe in the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje", and comes along to "confirm" Catholic children in Herzegovina. Yet that same colleague of his has given written testimony that this "bishop" does not recognize the sacrament of confirmation administered according to the Catholic rite, so he "confirmed" his friend a second time!

The scandal of disobedience, concerning which we have not heard a word of criticism from the "oasis of peace" at Medjugorje, has grown to such a level that some of the above-mentioned former Franciscans asked an Old Catholic bishop in Switzerland to consecrate one of them as bishop! So that the schism in the diocese should deepen?

The Holy Father John Paul II, who has never mentioned Medjugorje in any of his allocutions, has frequently summoned the superiors of the OFM to resolve the Herzegovinian question.

So, for example, on 16th June 2003, the Pope once again asked the members of the General Chapter of the Franciscan Order to carry into effect the decision of his predecessor, Pope Paul VI, going back to 1975:

"Your missionary activity will prove fruitful in so far as it is fulfilled in harmony with the lawful pastors to whom Our Lord has entrusted responsibility for his flock. Bearing that well in mind, I once again warmly remind you of the efforts that have been made to overcome the difficulties that have long existed in certain areas. It is my heartfelt wish that, with co-operation on every side, that understanding with the diocesan authorities sought by my worthy predecessor, Pope Paul VI, should be fully attained. It has become apparent that such an understanding is a prerequisite for effective evangelisation."

It would be desirable to have an unambiguous response from the Franciscan side to this exhortation by the Pope.

For my part, I have never publicized the immorality or the financial scandals associated with Medjugorje. There are other well publicized disorders and evidence that sufficiently disprove the supposedly supernatural nature of the "visions" and lead to the conclusion that it would be better to conclude "constat de non supernaturalitate" rather than "non constat de supernaturalitate".

This book seeks to describe chronologically, analyse logically, and explain faithfully the many facts connected with the more than questionable "visions" at Medjugorje. May the true Queen of Peace help the author by her intercession with the most Holy Trinity.

Mostar, on the feast of the BVM, Mother of the Church,

31st May 2004,

+ Ratko Peric, Bishop

Note: The book mentioned may be found in it's entirety for free download or viewing online at the site of author Michael Davies, deceased in 2004.

The Truth About Medjugorje by Bishop Pavao Zanic, 1990

2008-09-03T18:21:00.001-04:00

The Truth About Medjugorje
by
Msgr. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar

NOTE: Original english release now available on Diocese of Mostar website. (PDF)

1. The truth regarding the events in Medjugorje is being sought out by a Commission of the Bishop's Conference of Yugoslavia (kJ). Their work though, is progressing slowly. Therefore with this statement I wish to help the Commission in coming to a decision as soon as possible. Propaganda in favor of Medjugorje is being rushed in order to place the Church and the world before a "fait accompli". This has been the intention of the defenders of Medjugorje from the beginning. It must be admitted that they have succeeded, because the other side is either working too slowly or remaining silent. For these reasons and due to the motivation that I have been given from many from all over the world who realize that the truth has been trampled upon, I have decided to make another statement according to my duty and my conscience, and help the Commission.
With this statement I wish to awaken the consciences of those who defend Medjugorje. Their path is simple, wide and downhill all the way, while mine is difficult, thorny and uphill. The Church and Our Lady have no need of falsehoods. Jesus says: "The truth will make you free" (Din 8,32). "I am the way and the truth and the life" (Jn 14,6) "For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth, hears my voice" (Jn 18,37). For even a short description of the falsehoods about Medjugorje we would need 200 pages, but for now all I will give is this short summary without a scientific approach. I am somewhat uneasy because of the fact that in some statements my name is in the forefront, yet from the beginning of the "apparitions" I have been in the center of the events due to my episcopal position and duties. I am sorry as well for having to mention some "unpleasant things", but without them the arguments lose their strength. However, the most unpleasant things will be left out.

2. A characteristic attitude: Marina B., a tourist guide for Atlas travel, brought a priest from Panama to my office in August 1989. His name: Presbitero Rodriguez Teofilo, pastor of Nuestra Senora de Lourdes. With him came Carmen Cecilia Capriles - a journalist, Gerente General of the IATA agency, and Averrida Alberto Navarro, Apartado 1344 zona 7, Panama. Marina presented herself as a tour-guide, translator for English and a convert of Medjugorje. The priest asked me for the reasons why I do not believe in the "apparitions". I told him that I have at least 20 reasons not to believe, of which only one is necessary for those who are sober and well instructed in the faith to come to the conclusion that the apparitions are not of the supernatural. He asked me to please tell him at least one reason. I told him about the case of the ex-franciscan priest Ivica Vego. Due to his disobedience, by an order of the Holy father the Pope, he was thrown out of his franciscan religious order OFM by his General, dispensed from his vows and suspended "a divinis". He did not obey this order and he continued to celebrate Mass, distribute the sacraments and pass the time with his mistress. It is unpleasant to write about this, yet it is necessary in order to see who Our Lady is speaking of. According to the diary of Vicka and the statements of the "seers", Our Lady mentioned 13 times that he is innocent and that the bishop is wrong. When his mistress, sister Leopolda, a nun, became pregnant, both of them left Medjugorje and the religious life and began to live together near Medjugorje where their child was born. Now they have two children. His prayerbook is still sold in Medjugorje and beyond in hundreds of thousands of copies.

I asked Marina to translate this in English. Marina cannot be blamed for having fallen into a community which is concealing the truth. She spontaneously responded according to the practice in Medjugorje: "Do we have to tell them these ugly things?" I responded by saying that if you had not held back and covered these "ugly events" these people from Panama would have found out earlier and they would not have had to travel to Medjugorje for nothing. It is an injustice and a sin to hide this truth, even though it be unpleasant, it must be said.

3. The Marian theologian Rene Laurentin behaves in the same manner. He came to visit me around Christmas 1983, and I offered him dinner. He asked me why I did not believe in the apparitions. I told him that according to the diary of Vicka and the words of the other "seers" this 'Lady' has been speaking against the bishop. Laurentin quickly responded: "Don't publish that, because there are many pilgrims and converts there." I was scandalized by this statement of this well known Mariologist! This has remained Laurentin's position: to hide the truth, and defend falsehoods. He has written around ten books on the topic of Medjugorje and in almost all of them, the truth and bishop Zanic are under fire. He knows well what people like to hear. Therefore, it was relatively easy for him to find those who would believe him. "A veritate quidam auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur" - They will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths (2 Tim 4:4). The "seers" and defenders of Medjugorje led by Laurentin, from the very outset have seen that the modern believer in a communist country very quickly believes in everything "miraculous", in apparent miraculous healings and apparent messages from "Our Lady".

4. The main players on which Medjugorje rests are retired archbishop F. Franic, R. Laurentin, Lj. Rupcic OFM, Amorth, Rastrelli S.J., and some franciscans and charismatics from all over the world. Many books have been quickly published, as well as articles, brochures, films and souvenirs. On the move are tourist agencies, pilgrimages, prayer books written by two franciscans Vego and Prusina who were thrown out of the OFM Order, published in many languages in 600,000 copies, fanatical prayer groups that are inspired by the apparent messages of Our Lady and the great motivator of all - money. No one even mentions that which throws doubt on the "apparitions". The bishop has been warning everyone, but the 'machinery' has been breaking forward. There have been mentioned 50 miraculous healings, then 150, 200, 300 and so on. Laurentin chose 56 dossiers and sent them to the "Bureau medical de Lourdes". Dr. Mangiapan responded in their bulletin Avril/84, that these dossiers have no practical value, and they cannot be used or considered as serious proofs of the apparitions in Medjugorje. Much has been written about the healing of Diane Basile. I sent the dossier to Dr. Mangiapan who studied the case and then took the position: "opinion plus que reservee". It is a case of sclerosis multiplex. More will be written about this later in a book.

5. The credibility of the "seers" - Mirjana Dragicevic. One month after the beginning of the "apparitions" I went to Medjugorje to question the "seers". I asked each of them to take an oath on the cross and demanded that they must speak the truth. (This conversation and oath was recorded on tape). The first one was Mirjana: "We went to look for our sheep when at once..." (The associate pastor in the parish interrupted and told me that they actually went out to smoke, which they hid from their parents). "Wait a minute Mirjana, you're under oath. Did you go out to look for your sheep?" She put her hand over her mouth, "forgive me, we went out to smoke." She then showed me the watch on which the "miracle" occurred because the hands of the watch had gone haywire. I took the watch to a watch expert who said that the watch had certainly fallen and become disordered. After bringing the watch back to her I told her not to mention that a miracle occurred. Yet, on cassettes taped later on, she went on to speak of how a miracle occurred with the watch and that initially they had gone out to search for their sheep.

Later on, she spoke that Our Lady said that all faiths are equal. How much can we believe Mirjana?

6. Vicka Ivankovic is the main "seer" from the beginning and through her the creator of Medjugorje, Rev. Tomislav Vlasic OFM, has launched the main portion of falsehoods regarding Medjugorje. He presented himself to the Pope in a letter May 13, 1984 as follows: "I am Rev. Tomislav Vlasic, the one according to Divine Providence who guides the seers of Medjugorje." It would have been better for him that he withdrew himself into the 'desert' and that he remained silent, because his past speaks enough about him. Vicka spoke and wrote much, and in so doing she fell into many contradictions. Prof. Nikola Bulat, a member of the first commission, questioned her and wrote a 60 page study on her. He numbered all the illogicalities and falsehoods of her diary. Here I will only mention the bloody handkerchief. Word spread around that there was a certain taxi driver who came across a man who was bloody all over. This man gave this taxi driver a bloodied handkerchief and he told him to: "throw this in the river". The driver went on and then he came across a woman in black. She stopped him and asked him to give her a handkerchief. He gave her his own, but she said: "not that one but the bloody handkerchief." He gave her the handkerchief she wanted and she then said: "If you had thrown it into the river the end of the world would have occurred now." Vicka Ivankovic wrote in her diary that they asked Our Lady if this event was true and she said that it was, and along with this, "that man covered, with blood was my son Jesus, and I (Our Lady) was that woman in black."

What kind of theology is this? From this it appears that Jesus wants to destroy the world if a handkerchief is thrown into a river and it's Our Lady who saves the world!

7. On the 14th of January 1982, Vicka, Marija and little Jakov came to visit me. Vicka began to speak quite nervously because she was speaking falsehoods. She said: "Our Lady sent us to you to tell you that you are too harsh with the franciscans..." In what way? "We don't know!" Two franciscan chaplains in Mostar, Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina, which the bishop sought to remove from Mostar because of disorder and disobedience towards the faithful of the newly established cathedral-parish in Mostar, defended themselves before their superiors by saying that they would not leave Mostar because Our Lady through Vicka, told them not to leave. This was mentioned to me by a member of the franciscan Provincial council. I asked Vicka at our meeting: "Did Our Lady mention anything about the Mostar chaplains, Vego and Prusina?" "She did not, we don't know them" responded all three. Our conversation lasted 30 minutes and I taped all of it. I repeated the question of the chaplains of Mostar several times and they always responded: "We don't know them." Later on, I found from Vicka's diary that they knew the chaplains very well. It was clear to me that they were lying, yet I did not want to mention this to them in order to maintain their confidence during our conversations.

8. On the 4th of April 1982, Vicka and Jakov came to visit me "sent by Our Lady". The chaplains of Mostar, Vego and Prusina were thrown out of the franciscan Order OFM in January of that year by the superiors of their Order. Many followers of Medjugorje and "Our Lady" defended the expelled chaplains. During our conversation Vicka very excitedly began: "The last time we were with you we didn't tell you everything and for this reason Our Lady scolded us. We spoke of many things and therefore we forgot..." "What did you forget?" "Our Lady told us to tell you that those chaplains Vego and Prusina are priests and therefore they can celebrate Mass just as other priests." "Wait a minute. Did Our Lady tell you this before our last meeting?" "Yes, that's why she sent us to you. Last time I spoke of many other things and I forgot to mention this." During that previous meeting I asked her directly several times if Our Lady mentioned anything about the two chaplains. It was clear to me that Vicka was lying and this was proof enough for me not to trust her statements. Marija and Jakov also participated in this lie.

9. Towards the end of January 1983, Rev. Grafenauer, a jesuit priest, came to me with the intention of searching out the phenomenon of Medjugorje. He listened to 20 cassettes and after having listened to them he said that he would not go to Medjugorje because he concluded that Our Lady is not there. Upon my insistence he went to Medjugorje and after a few days he came back as a "convert" of Rev. Vlasic. He brought some documents, threw them on the table and said: "Here's what Our Lady wishes to tell you!" I understood this as a plot to overthrow the bishop with the help of Our Lady. The documents he brought were a compilation of Vicka's diary, the parish chronicle and hand written documents. For this reason it is difficult to establish where they were first written. Vicka and those who defend Medjugorje hid this from the bishop for more than a year. Here are a few quotes:

Dec 19, 1981. "Our Lady said that the bishop is to blame for the disorder in Herzegovina. She also said that Rev. Ivica Vego is not to blame, yet that the bishop has all authority. Our Lady said that he (Vego) remain in Mostar and not leave.

January 3, 1982. All the "seers" together asked Our Lady about Rev. Ivica Vego. Our Lady answered: "Ivica is innocent. If they throw him out of the franciscan Order, may he remain courageous... Ivica is innocent." Our Lady repeated this three times.

January 11, 1982. We asked again about the two chaplains of Mostar and Our Lady repeated twice that which she mentioned earlier regarding them. Note: January 14, 1982 Vicka was at the Chancery office with the bishop and at that meeting she mentioned that she did not know Vego.

January 20, 1982. The children asked what Rev. Ivica Vego and Rev. Ivan Prusina were to do now that they were thrown out of the Order. Our Lady answered: "They are innocent. The bishop was harsh in his decision. They can stay."

April 15, 1982. Vicka asked Our Lady a question. "Could you generally tell me everything about Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina?" Our Lady smiled at the first and then she said: "They are innocent." She repeated twice that: "The bishop has made a mistake... let them remain in Mostar... they can say mass sometimes but may they be careful to stay away from attention until things calm down. They have no faults..."

April 16, 1982. Yesterday while we were with Our Lady we asked her if we could pray an Our Father for them (Vego and Prusina). She answered immediately: "Yes you can", and she prayed with them. When we finished the prayer she smiled and said to me: "Those two are constantly on your mind." I answered: "You're right". April 26, 1982. Our Lady: "The bishop has no real love of God in his heart. Regarding the bishop, may Ivica and Ivan remain calm. What the bishop is doing is contrary to the will of God, yet he can do as he pleases, but one day justice as you have never seen shall be revealed."

10. Vicka never denied that Our Lady said these things or that she wrote these things down in her diary. The assurance and authenticity of this can be best confirmed by a cassette taped by Rev. Grafenauer during his talks with Vicka and Marija. He left taped copies of the cassette in the parish of Medjugorje, with the bishop and he left one with the Bishop's Conference in Zagreb. The cassette should be heard!

A conversation with Vicka: "The bishop has the duty to judge whether or not this is Our Lady..." said Rev. Grafenauer.
Vicka: He can judge as he wants, but I know it's Our Lady.

Graf: The Church says that those who are confident in themselves, that this itself is a sign that Our Lady is not in question here.
Vicka: Let those who are doubtful remain doubtful, I'm not.
Graf: This is not a good sign... you once told the bishop that he should listen more to Our Lady than to the Pope.
Vicka: Yes I did.
Graf: This means that the bishop should listen to you more than to the Pope.
Vicka: No, not me.
Graf: But the bishop doesn't know what the phenomenon is and perhaps it is not Our Lady.
Vicka: Yes it is Our Lady.
Graf: You told the bishop that he is to blame and that those two (Vego and Prusina) are innocent and that they can perform their priestly duties.
Vicka: Yes I did.
Graf: Can they hear confession? Did Our Lady mention this?
Vicka: Yes.
Graf: If Our Lady said this and the Pope says that they cannot...
Vicka: The Pope can say what he wants, I'm telling it as it is!
Graf: See, this is how one can come to the conclusion that this is not Our Lady... when the Pope says no, they cannot celebrate Mass, and they cannot hear confessions, and then on the other hand, Our Lady says they can do both, this cannot be!
Vicka: I know what is right (What Our Lady said).
Graf: This cannot be true. I would put my hand into fire to testify that this is not Our Lady speaking. When a person has a greater gift there also exists a greater danger that the devil could be at work upon this person.
What a degrading humiliation of Our Lady! From these statements she is destroying obedience in the Church, obedience to the bishop, to the heads of the OFM Order, and to the Holy father. She is defending Vego!

11. The apparition in Cerno. Cerno is a village not far away from Medjugorje. The eighth day after the beginning of the apparitions in Medjugorje there was an "apparition" near Cerno. The "seers" told Rev. Jozo Zovko, the pastor of Medjugorje at the time, of this happening the evening of the event. They mentioned that Our Lady said four or five times that she would appear three more days, that is, on July 1, 2, and 3rd. This was taped on cassette and publicized by Rev. Ivo Sivric OFM. The cassette was reproduced. A few years later Rev. Janko Bubalo published a book titled: A thousand meetings with Our Lady. This is a book of conversations with Vicka. Vicka does not mention this event, therefore Rev. Bubalo asked whether or not Our Lady said "only three more days". Vicka responded that she does not remember!

It is evident that Vicka is speaking falsehoods and that Our Lady cannot say that which Vicka is saying. Vicka is fabricating these statements. Should this remain unknown to the rest of the world? Evil (such as speaking falsehoods about Our Lady) must not be done in order to obtain a good (such as pilgrimages, prayers, etc.)

12. "Seer" Marija Pavlovic. Here is a written account of the taped conversation between Rev. Grafenauer and Marija:
Graf: Did Our Lady say that the bishop is to blame?
Marija: Yes.
Graf: Did she say that Vego and Prusina were not to blame?
Marija: Yes.
Graf: When Our Lady says that the bishop is to blame this immediately appears suspicious and we could conclude that this is not Our Lady speaking. The seers are apparently spreading word around that the bishop is to blame.
Marija: Our Lady told us this.
Archbishop F. Franic, Laurentin and many others know all this, yet they remain silent. What kind of theology can accept these statements by Our Lady through the declarations of the "seers" that their Teacher, Pastor and Liturgist - the bishop, who has legally received his duty from Christ through the Church, has no love of God in his heart, that he is declared a sinner throughout the world, that he should convert and that prayers will be said in Medjugorje for this intention? There were even statements made that Jesus himself would pray for the bishop so that the bishop would believe and then take better action in favor of the events in Medjugorje. To say that the bishop is to wait for Our Lady's judgment is an absurdity. It is an offense against Our Lady the Mother of the Church. God knows that I am not without sin, and that Our Lady could criticize me, yet God alone is the judge. I have never been reprimanded or warned by the Holy See for my episcopal service.

13. The creator of Medjugorje, Rev. Tomislav Vlasic, amongst other things has published and distributed in many languages a seventeen page booklet titled: A calling in the Marian year, Milano, March 25 1988. This regards the founding of a prayer group for young men and women (from Medjugorje) who would live together (Parma, Italy - something which has been unheard of in the history of the Church!) They would be the ones who would save the world. Our Lady apparently gave Rev. Vlasic and Agnes Heupel (a German woman supposedly healed in Medjugorje) the inspiration to establish and to lead this community together in a manner similar to saints Francis and Clare, as described by Vlasic. In order for this action to succeed, Rev. Vlasic asked Marija to add "her witnessing" on three pages. She is a member of this community and on April 21, 1988 she wrote: "Sento il bisogno..." - I feel the need... As can be concluded, Our Lady has given a set program to this community of the "Queen of Peace" and she leads this community through Rev. Vlasic and Agnes who give messages to the community. "I have been in the community for a month and a half. I have apparitions and Our Lady leads me in the mystery of suffering which is the foundation of this community. I must write down everything and publish this once Our Lady tells me to. I have understood God's plan which he began through Mary in the parish of Medjugorje." This quote is taken from pages 15 and 16 of Rev. T. Vlasic's text. The defenders of Medjugorje quickly understood that this community of young men and women living, sleeping, working and praying together in the same house would eventually destroy themselves and Medjugorje. Therefore, they sent their Provincial, Rev. Jozo Vasilj to Parma. He went together with the bishop of Parma, Msgr. B. Cochi and Rev. T. Vlasic to the Congregation in Rome. They were told there that the Church cannot allow such a community to exist and then Rev. T. Vlasic was ordered to dissolve the community and to return to Herzegovina. Vlasic did not obey immediately, yet he returned later. This is what was explained to me by Rev. Jozo Vasilj regarding the community.

14. The same Marija Pavlovic made another public declaration on the 11th of July 1988. On a single sheet of paper, distributed in the same manner as the earlier statement, she mentioned: "I feel a moral obligation to declare before God, Our Lady (the Madonna), and the Church... from the text of A calling... it appears as if I gave Our Lady's answer to the question put forward by Rev. T. Vlasic, etc. I now declare that I never sought from Our Lady (the Madonna) a confirmation of the work of Rev. Vlasic and Agnes Heupel... my first declaration... does not correspond to the truth. Rev. Vlasic suggested to me a few times (N.B.) that I as one of the "seers" should write a declaration which the world expects... Everything I said does not correspond to the truth. This I declare before the Blessed Sacrament." Marija Pavlovic.

15. Marija does not deny that she gave her first statement. Rev. T. Vlasic sought statements from her many times and this obviously turns out to be manipulating with one of the "seers". So we can conclude that Marija has consciously spoken falsehoods on the first or second occasion. She has lied and this she attributes to Our Lady. It is evident that she (Marija) is a toy in Rev. Vlasic's hands. This was clear to me even earlier yet up till now, I didn't have material proof to back this up. Rev. T. Vlasic has manipulated with all the "seers" in the same fashion. Under this type of manipulation Marija saw how Our Lady cried when someone mentioned the bishop at a prayer meeting: "From Our Lady's eye flowed forth a great tear. The tear ran down her face and disappeared into a cloud under her feet. Our Lady began to cry and she ascended to heaven crying" (Aug. 22, 1984). An obvious fabrication by Rev. T. Vlasic intended to frighten the bishop.

Why don't the defenders of Medjugorje mention these two statements of Marija? Must these "ugly" things be hidden from the world because there are many "conversions" in Medjugorje? (Laurentin). Laurentin writes in his book Dernieres Nouvelles 3, on page 27, that a certain monsignor asked Marija to pray for a message from Our Lady for his priests. Marija answered: "Our Lady said that they should read Laurentin's book and spread it around"!

It is a terrible sin to attribute one's own lies to Our Lady. When the world learns of this, who will believe them anymore? They have been discredited. No one can destroy this material evidence. It will be reproduced and spread by word of mouth. I know well that there are many who disregard such material. They accept the events of Medjugorje irrationally, with great emotion and with personal interests. They are blind, but these documents will remain a part of the history of the Church and of Mariology.

16. The "seer" Ivan Dragicevic. Regarding the "great sign", Vicka mentions this 13 times in the diaries, 14 times it is mentioned in the Parish chronicle, 52 times on the cassettes, and innumerous times in talks with the bishop. In the spring of 1982, I asked the "seers" to write everything they knew about the sign without making the "secret" public. The way I suggested they do it was to write down information on paper in duplicate. Then this would be sealed in an envelope and a copy would remain with them, and one with the bishop. When the "sign" occurs, then we would open the envelopes and see whether or not the "sign" was predicted. Rev. Tomislav Vlasic, pastor of Medjugorje at the time, told the "seers" to say that Our Lady said not to write anything down for nobody, and so they didn't. Ivan Dragicevic was in the franciscan minor seminary at Visoko, Bosna at that time and he wasn't informed of this on time. Two members of the first Commission, Dr. M. Zovkic and Dr. Z. Puljic (now bishop of Dubrovnik), went to visit Ivan in Visoko. They gave him a sheet of paper which was somewhat greenish in color with questions typed out on it. Ivan wrote down the content of the "sign", dated the document and signed it in their presence without a word or any sign of fear. A few years later, Laurentin wrote that Ivan told him personally that he wrote absolutely nothing down on that sheet of paper and that he tricked the two members of the Commission. On March 7, 1985, three members of the Commission went to ask Ivan if what Laurentin writes is true. Ivan said it was true and that they could freely go ahead and open the envelope in the chancery office because in it they will only find a white sheet of paper. They came back to Mostar where the Commission was having a meeting and before all the members, they opened the envelope. In the envelope on a greenish sheet of paper they found written the content of the sign: Our Lady said that she would leave a sign. The content of this sign I reveal to your trust. The sign is that there will be a great shrine in Medjugorje in honor of my apparitions, a shrine to my image. When will this occur? The sign will occur in June.

Dated: May 9, 1982. Seer: Ivan Dragicevic.
After having heard this lie, the members of the first Commission wanted to end all further work, yet they stayed on. Within a few days of this event Rev. Slavko Barbaric OFM, took the "seers" somewhere and instructed them all, including Ivan, to write a declaration that Ivan did not disclose the sign!
Ivan sent messages from Our Lady to the bishop. On April 24, 1984 Our Lady said the following regarding the bishop: "My son Jesus is praying for him so that he (the bishop) would believe and therefore take better action in favor of Medjugorje." She added: "How would he react if my son were to appear on earth? Would he then believe?"
Regarding the Commission, Our Lady says only the following: "Pray, pray, pray! Think over and live the messages I have given and you will see why I have come." Ivan Dragicevic, Medjugorje.

17. "Tell the bishop that I seek a quick conversion from him towards the happenings in Medjugorje before it's too late. May he accept these events with plenty of love, understanding and great responsibility. I want him to avoid creating conflicts between priests and to stop publicizing their negative behaviors. The Holy father has given all bishops the duty to fulfill certain tasks in their respective dioceses. Among these, bishops are to solve problems and arguments. The bishop is the spiritual father of all the parishes in Herzegovina. For this reason I seek his conversion towards these events. I am sending my second-last warning. If what I seek does not come about, my judgment and the judgment of my Son await the bishop. This means that he has not found the way to my Son Jesus." Our Lady told me to give you this message.

With greetings.
Bijakovici June 21, 1983.
Rev. Tomislav Vlasic brought this document to me, which he more than likely wrote himself in a moment of exaltation.
18. Ivan kept his own diary of the apparitions for a couple of years. This has not been revealed as Vicka's has not, nor the writings of the others. These are original fonts of the events, yet they are full of naive statements, clear falsehoods and absurdities. They are good proof of the fact that the "seers" do not see Our Lady or receive messages from her. These messages were written by someone else and they were given to Ivan for him to sign as his own. When Rev. Grafenauer brought excerpts from Vicka's diary to me, I later on asked Vicka to bring her diary to me. She wrote to me on May 7, 1983: "I have found out that excerpts from my diary are being distributed..." This was a very important point which the Commission accepted as good argument that the diary was written by Vicka herself or that she considered it her own. Later on, Rev. T. Vlasic, also came to this conclusion, and therefore in 1984, he declared before the Commission and myself, that Vicka did not write that letter to me but rather, that a franciscan did (probably Vlasic himself) and that he gave it to her to sign! There are many similar examples of manipulation, but none have such clear cut evidence as this.

19. Secrets and secrecy. From the beginning of the "apparitions", the "seers", (obviously having been instructed in order to escape being controlled) have said that "Our Lady" speaks differently to each of them. When the "secrets" were fabricated, each was to have his/her own (60 in total) and no one was to reveal them to anyone. Mirjana and Ivanka received a letter from Our Lady which nobody was to read. In the beginning there were no moments of ecstasy nor avoiding the community. They spoke publicly and were spoken to. They only avoided the Commission. After having admitted that they were consulted, they asked "Our Lady" if they could write down the content of the "great sign" on paper and seal it in an envelope. "Our Lady" responded: NO! Ivan though, wrote down the sign and later on he said (which has been taped as well) that "Our Lady" did not scold him for doing this. The secrets were to be given to a priest (a franciscan). Why were they not given to the Commission, the bishop, or to the Pope? In the first months they often said that the "great sign" would come: very soon, quickly, and so on... When the first year ended, they changed their tone. Vicka wrote "Our Lady's life" for a year and a half, and this is a great secret which shall be published "when Our Lady permits." The Commission asked for this diary about Our Lady, yet "Our Lady" did not comply with their demand. Can the Commission just see the diary without taking it or opening it? No it cannot! This turns out to be a plot to make fools out of all those who are naive enough to wait for this sign until the end of the world. I have already declared earlier and now I repeat the same declaration that if Our Lady leaves a sign which the "seers" are speaking of, I'll make a pilgrimage from Mostar to Medjugorje (30 km) on my knees and beg the franciscans and the "seers" for forgiveness.

20. Slander against the bishop. "The bishop also believed in the beginning". This is not true! While the communists were persecuting the franciscans, the "seers" and pilgrims, I defended all of them and therefore I did not change my mind "because of threats by the Republic commission or because the diocesan priests sought this from me." This is simply fabricated slander by many. While I was publicly defending the imprisoned franciscans, Rev. Jozo Zovko said during the investigations that the bishop is a 'wolf' and a 'hypocrite'. These are the exact words written down in his sentence. Zovko's lawyer, Vukovic, asked through a colleague what I had done to Zovko to deserve such heavy accusations. Rev. T. Vlasic often put "Our Lady's" words into the mouths of the "seers", such as "Our Lady's" affirmation that satan (in this case the bishop) is out to destroy her plan. He wrote this more clearly in a letter to friends in the Vatican. I complained about this accusation that he has called the bishop satan, in front of Vlasic and his Provincial. He did not deny my objection but rather, he justified his words by saying that he wrote this while under the influence of extreme emotion. A person can say something while under emotion, but this cannot be written down and translated into foreign languages.

21. By their fruits. The most common argument of the defenders of Medjugorje is that the fruits of the events in Medjugorje prove that Our Lady is appearing there. Those who know a bit more than the pilgrims who come to Medjugorje say: the fruits of the staunchest defenders of Medjugorje show that they themselves do not believe in the apparitions. If all the "ugly things" could be made public then surely the answer would be clearly negative to everyone. Yet, Laurentin, Rupcic, Vlasic, Barbaric and others meticulously hide the truth. If the defenders of Medjugorje come across someone who is skeptical of the apparitions, they quickly isolate this person, accuse him of something or declare him mad (J.L. Martin). The majority of the pious public has naively fallen victim of the great propaganda, the talk of the apparitions and healings. These people themselves have become the greatest propaganda for the events. They do not even stop to think that the truth has been hidden by deliberate falsehoods. They do not know that not one miraculous healing has occurred that could have been verified by competent experts and institutions such as the "Bureau medical de Lourdes". No one knows of any healed from Herzegovina. Everyone knows that little Daniel, old Jozo Vasilj, Venka Brajcic and others cited in the first books about Medjugorje were not healed.

22. Promises of healings are characteristic of the events. When they don't occur as promised, then they are denied because they were never taped or written down on paper. There have been many promises that have ended tragically. What interests us is whether or not "Our Lady" is giving these promises, or whether or not they are thought up by the "seers". The tragic end of Marko Blazevic as described by the retired archbishop of Belgrade, Msgr. Turk, says much regarding "promises" of healing. The archbishop writes May 22, 1984, that he was received as a patient of the Cardiology clinic at the Belgrade hospital. The archbishop received the bed that was previously occupied by Marko Blazevic of Buna, near Mostar, who was to go in for an operation. Mr. Blazevic told the archbishop and many other patients, doctors and hospital staff that Our Lady had promised, through the "seers", that the operation would succeed. A nun who assisted in the operating room, wrote to me later that Blazevic's wife and his daughter spoke to her with a fanatical type of faith in "Our Lady's promise". A certain doctor was also convinced in this promise. The patient did not wake up after the operation. During the operation, a group of patients prayed fervently outside the doors of the operating room. Many spoke of this incident which left many very disappointed and ashamed before people of other faiths and atheists. Rev. T. Vlasic, in his typical fashion of hiding the truth, succeeding in convincing the daughter of the late Mr. Blazevic, to go to the bishop to tell him that Our Lady only told them to pray, not that she promised them that the operation would succeed!!! I told her not to make a liar out of her late father or liars of the others to whom he spoke to.

23. The franciscan and diocesan clergy. The relations between the franciscan and diocesan clergy regarding pastoral duties in the parishes of Herzegovina were established by a Decision of the Holy See in 1899 by the suggestions of the franciscans themselves and then bishop Paskal Buconjic OFM. According to this Decision the parishes were to be divided equally into two groups of 50% of the faithful between the clergy. Since there were no diocesan clergy at the time, the parishes that rightfully belonged to them were in 1923 left to the franciscans "ad nutum S. Sedis". Bishop Cule, the first diocesan bishop of Mostar, in 1948 was sentenced to 11 years and 6 months in jail. He served eight and a half years of this sentence before being released. After his jail term the number of diocesan clergy began to rise. In 1968, the Holy See ordered the franciscans to hand over five parishes to the diocesan clergy. They barely gave two parishes. In 1975 after many years of talks and consultations a Decree of the Holy See was issued regarding the division of parishes in Herzegovina. The franciscans publicly and collectively denounced this Decree even though they administer over 80 % of the faithful in the diocese of Mostar. In 1976, due to disobedience, the hierarchy of the franciscan Province along with then Provincial Silic, lost their authority and since then, the Province has been without its independence, and the General of the Order rules directly over the Province "ad instar". Another penalty was that in 1979, the franciscans from Herzegovina were not allowed to participate in the election of the General. The first point mentioned by the new General of the Order to his brothers in Herzegovina was: 'the development or creation of obedience to, and cooperation with the bishop in Herzegovina'. Disobedience prevails today as before, and "Our Lady" from the beginning has been defending disobedient franciscans. Vicka writes in her diary of the apparitions, that Our Lady said that the bishop is to blame for all the disorder in Herzegovina. (See no. 9). This is repeated many times. The franciscans themselves are divided. The franciscan opposition that defends Medjugorje succeeded in toppling their own "ad instar" superiors that developed good relations with the bishop, and they installed a group that defends Medjugorje. The new Provincial "ad instar", Rev. Jozo Vasilj, did not succeed in creating peace and order amongst his brothers so he escaped to the missions in Zaire and won't come back! (Fruits?!) He has been replaced by the Vice Provincial and the General has called for obedience from all or else the Province shall be abolished. "It is time that everyone take their own personal responsibility before judicial sanctions are made or the Province is abolished." (Acta Ordinis F.M. fasc. 1/89). The Province will not receive its own hierarchy until the Decree is completed. Three visitors of the OFM Order who came to the Province in 1988, said that there is not one franciscan in the Province who is in favor of completing the Decree. This opinion is exaggerated yet still important.

24. This is only a portion of the "good fruits" of the events. The pilgrims, though, only know that the bishop "hates the franciscans". There are a good number of franciscans in the Province who cooperate well with the bishop and these franciscans do not believe in the apparitions either. Some of them have never set foot in Medjugorje.

A number of good franciscans have begged me to write something so that together, we could start a battle against the lies of Medjugorje because they believe that "God will punish us franciscans severely because we have spread lies and falsehoods throughout the world and made money on them".

Of the one hundred diocesan priests in the dioceses of Herzegovina, not one believes in the apparitions. Of the 42 bishops of Yugoslavia (ordinaries, auxiliaries and retired), only one has been outspoken in declaring his belief and has defended the events. Of the 15 members of the first Commission, which was formed by the bishop of Mostar with the help of there(?) bishops and provincials from Yugoslavia, 11 of the members said that there is nothing supernatural in the events of Medjugorje, 2 (franciscans) claimed that the apparitions are authentic, 1 member said that there was something "in nucleo" (in the beginning) and 1 abstained. That which the Commission worked on for three years, the Holy See (contrary to what has been spread by the defenders of Medjugorje) never asked for, or saw, or gave a judgment of. Neither did the Holy See abandon the bishop.

25. From the beginning of the events I warned the franciscans that they must wait for the judgment of the Church, so that together we can search for the truth. The leaders of the events though, had as their aim to bring the masses as soon as possible to Medjugorje, obtain a lot of money for propaganda and use Our Lady for their battle against the bishop. They fabricated miracles regarding the sun. Many pilgrims damaged their eyes from staring into the sun. They cited 50, 150, 200 and 300 healings and they spoke of all sorts of things seeing that the faithful believed everything they said, especially when archbishop F. Franic and Laurentin were there to back them up. The faithful in Medjugorje look upon the events as they are instructed, as is the case in all other places of apparitions be they true or false. The marveling and excitement here has been regarded at times as leading to great blindness and fanaticism.

26. The Italians know well the "story" of Gigliole Ebe Giorgini, the foundress of the false order of "Pia Opera di Gesu Misericordioso". Separated and remarried civilly, she spent time doing quackery. She gathered young women for their order and she received and earned great amounts of money. She had two priests in her service and many houses. She led a double life and had false stigmata which she made herself. Her "sisters" followed her fanatically and they called her Mamma Ebe. She had male vocations as well, but some who left her later on, declared that she led an immoral life. She had many jewels and gold, two yachts, 32 furs, etc. Many in the Church objected to her way of life, while others fanatically defended her, citing good fruits. She even received praise from two bishops. Twice during the night police raided her room in the mother house and they found her in bed with one of her seminarians. A scandal broke out and she was sentenced twice to many years in prison along with a franciscan who was her confessor. The press wrote for years about this scandal. An illicit film was made as well, yet her followers fanatically and blindly defended her even when the order fell apart. According to them, she was a saint who attracted many vocations and this was argument enough for many that from the "fruits" she was obviously inspired by God! Religious blindness is extremely hard to cure. Fanaticism brought the beginning of the heresies in the church, today it's the foundation of sects.

The Protestant pastor Rev. Jim Jones developed a great charitable organization in southern Chicago and he gathered great sums of money and many fanatical followers of his sect. In order to be freer in their work, about 1000 of them, went to Guyana, South America where they established "Jonestown" as their new home. They established a dictatorship and fanatical obedience to their "Messiah". Much was written about terrible things that went on, about the immorality of Jones and how some tried to escape the community but were caught and killed. Then they were without money. Rumors spread that the American army would intervene, so Jones ordered them to retreat to the jungle. Seeing no way out, he called on everyone to give up their lives in order to travel to eternity. Over 900 of them came with cups to a huge pot in order to drink poison and then fell dead. What gave them the strength to commit suicide? Fanaticism! Yet when the Christian faithful hear of apparitions and miracles they easily accept these events as facts without being at all critical of the events. They are then caught up in their blindness and fanaticism. Whatever is spoken is believed automatically, such as, that ordinary rosaries in Medjugorje turn to gold! And people actually believe this!

27. This blindness towards the events in Medjugorje has also caught some priests and bishops. Many priests from Italy, (such as Amorth, Rostral and others), easily could have heard that the bishop, the Commission, the bishops of Yugoslavia, a portion of the franciscans and all the diocesan priests do not believe in the events. Yet, they avoided the truth, even though I received everyone who inquired about the events and gave them my time. I'm particularly surprised by the lack of collegiality by some bishops. Nobody has to accept my judgment, but everyone is obligated by conscience to study well the events of Medjugorje before taking a portion, especially if that person has a position of authority in the Church, as bishops do.

"What have they done to you Our Lady!" For nine years they have been dragging you along as a tourist attraction. They have been speaking with you whenever it pleased them, as if you were a bank teller. They have fabricated messages, and they say that you come and appear there, but beyond their own arguments they have nothing to prove that what they say is true. The whole world is in expectation of a "great sign" and the naive still wait and believe. Unfortunately this false sensation will bring great disgrace and scandal upon the Church. Those who lead the events are not converting even though the threat of the abolition of the Province by the General hangs over them.

This is only a small compilation of that which I would like to write about. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity to expand further, with precise documentation and publish a book on these events.

28. There are many prayers and pious activities in Medjugorje. Some say that there have been conversions as well. I have received indeed many truly touching letters, and I feel sorry for those who will sooner or later be disappointed. But there has also been fanaticism, superstition and misinformation in the events of Medjugorje. I have also received many rude accusations in the mail which I cannot mention, all in the name of the "Queen of Peace". That which is positive in these events cannot justify the falsehoods and lies that have been spread in order to win the world over for God. Jesus said: "I have come into the world to witness to the truth." The Church would easily be able to attract the masses if it dropped the sixth commandment, if divorce were allowed, if it let everyone believe and do what they wanted. But, Jesus went on the cross for the truth, and the martyrs gave up their lives for the truth. St. Paul writes to his faithful: "If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed." (Gal 1,9). Today, many prayer groups all over the world pray from Rev. Ivica Vego's prayer book and meditate over the supposed messages of Our Lady as it these things were more important than the Bible and the teaching Magisterium of the Church. I do believe despite these events, that Our Lady shall beg the necessary graces for the Church in order for it to live Christ's truth.

I know that there will probably be many sincerely pious souls that will misunderstand me and consider me an enemy of Our Lady. I have been to Lourdes many times and to other shrines that have been tied in with apparitions that the Church has recognized. What I am doing is defending the truth, defending the Church, and I pray to God that I be able to give up my life for this.

29. Those who have written favorably about Medjugorje have sold their books well and have made great profits. Unfortunately, those who have written critically about these events have not fared so well. Their work has come against such organized resistance from the promoters of these so-called apparitions that they have, in fact come against a boycott.

Msgr. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar, 1990

For the other side of this story, I suggest the following publications:

Dr. IVO SIVRIC, OFM (a franciscan born in Medjugorje now living in St. Louis, USA), La face cachée de Medjugorje, tome I, 1988, p.400 (French edition), Editions Psilog, C.P. 300, Saint-Francois-du-Lac, Quebec, Canada J0C 1M0. Tel. (514) 568-3036.

IDEM, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, volume I, 1989, Ed. Psilog, Saint-Francois-Du-Lac, Quebec (English version)

E. MICHAEL JONES, Medjugorje: The Untold Story, Fidelity Press, 206 Marquette Ave., South Bend, IN 46617, USA. 1988, pp. 133.

Idem, Medjugorje: The Untold Story II, Fidelity Press, South Bend 1989, pp. 144.

P. A. GRAMAGLIA, L'Equivoco di Medjugorje, Apparizioni mariane o fenomeni di medianita? Claudiana, Torino, 1987, pp.172

Msgr. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar

"Medjugorje: Secrets, Messages, Vocations, Prayers, Confessions, Commissions" by Bishop Ratko Peric (Feb 17, 2004)

2008-09-03T18:15:00.000-04:00

From a talk given at Maynooth, Co. Dublin, February 17, 2004 :

Medjugorje is a parish in the diocese of Mostar-Duvno in Bosnia-Herzegovina, with a population of about 4,000 persons, which has been entrusted to the pastoral care of the Franciscan fathers OFM. From 24 June 1981 onwards, some events have been occurring which many people, some Franciscans included, have attributed to so-called apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who has seemingly presented herself as the “Queen of Peace”.

I. How many so-called visionaries and visions are there?

1. Vicka Ivanković, born on 3 September 1964, in the parish of Medjugorje, has been receiving “apparitions” from 24 June 1981. Every day. There have been pauses, but there have also been days with up to ten “visions”. Vicka married Mario Mijatović in 2002 and now has one child and lives in the neighbouring parish of Gradina.
How many “visions” has she had till now? – According to a simple calculation of the days, it would be 8,270 including yesterday’s. These “apparitions” were with the other “seers” during the first years, yet for many years now she has been having them alone, separately, in the evening, regardless of her location. As if they were programmed.

2. Marija Pavlović, born on 1 April 1965 in the parish of Medjugorje, has been a “seer” from the second day of the “apparitions”, 25 June 1981, every day up till now. In 1993 she married an Italian, Paolo Lunetti. She has three children and is now living in Monza, near Milano, Italy.

How many “visions” has she had till now? Around 8,270 including yesterday’s, together with the other “privileged” few or separately. The “apparitions” are not tied so much to the locality of Medjugorje as to persons: wherever these persons travel in the world, the “apparitions” travel with them.

3. Ivan Dragićević, born in Mostar on 25 May 1965, has had daily “apparitions” from 24 June 1981 to this day. He married the former Miss Massachusetts, Loreen Murphy in 1994 and has four children. He lives with his family part of the time in Boston and the rest of the time in Medjugorje.

How many “visions” has Ivan had till now? About 8,270 with last night’s, together with the other “seers” or separately.

4. Mirjana Dragićević, born in Sarajevo on 18 March 1965, has had “visions” from 24 June 1981. Her last regular encounter was on Christmas day 1982. From that day onward, she has received an “apparition” once a year - on her birthday - 18 March. Along with this, from 2 August 1987, on each 2nd day of the month, she hears the Madonna’s voice and sometimes sees her. That would make it 17 years times 12 months, she either hears or sees the Madonna. Mirjana married Marko Soldo in 1989 and has two children. She is now living in Medjugorje.

How many “visions” has Mirjana had till now? All totalled: about 770.

5. Ivanka Ivanković was born in the parish of Medjugorje on 21 June 1966. The phenomenon appeared to her from 25 June 1981 to 7 May 1985. She now has a “vision” once a year, on 25 June 1981, on the anniversary of the “apparitions”. She married Rajko Elez and has three children. She is currently living in Medjugorje.

How many “visions” has Ivanka had till now? About 1,450 all together.

6. Jakov Čolo was born on 6 March 1971 in the parish of Medjugorje. From 25 June 1981 he received daily “apparitions” till 12 September 1998. From this date onward, he has only had one a year - on Christmas day. In 1993, he married Anna-Lisa Barozzi from Italy. They have three children and now live in Medjugorje.

How many “visions” has he had till now? Together with the others and separately, around 6,290.

The Madonna has been presumably “appearing” on a regular basis and at one and the same time, even if one of the “seers” is in America, another “visionary” in Herzegovina, a third in Italy or a fourth in Maynooth. Adding all this up together makes for 33,320 “apparitions” up till now. Please don’t ask me about the accuracy of these statistics, because a thousand “apparitions” more or less, have no role to play here! The hierarchical Church at various levels, diocesan, national and Holy See, hasn’t accepted a single apparition as authentic.
Let us now compare Medjugorje to two recognized Marian shrines:

At Lourdes in 1858, the Madonna appeared as the “Immaculate Conception”, 18 times to Bernadette. The Church accepted these apparitions and four years afterwards declared them authentic, in 1862.

At Fatima in 1917, the Madonna appeared as “Our Lady of the Rosary” 6 times to the ten year old shepherd children Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta. 13 years later, in 1930, the Church accepted these apparitions as authentic.

Three of the Medjugorje “seers”, who say they have daily “apparitions”, live most of the time outside of Medjugorje, while the remaining three that live in Medjugorje supposedly have only one “apparition” a year.

II. HOW MANY SECRETS HAS THE ALLEGED MADONNA GIVEN TO THE SO-CALLED SEERS?

Those who have daily “visions” have received nine secrets, while those who have “apparitions” once a year, have ten secrets. It is not clear if nine or ten secrets have been given and are known to each of the “seers”, or if each of the “seers” has his/her own number of secrets which differ from the rest.

If we compare this to the authentic apparitions, then one can see that at Lourdes there were no secrets for the world, while at Fatima one secret was divided into three parts. Yet at Medjugorje till now there have been 9 or 10, or even 57 possible secrets, which have been divided by three “seers” who have received 10 and another three who have received 9. To this day not a single secret has been revealed.

In the first years there was apocalyptic talk about a “great sign” to happen, yet to this day this “great sign” has not occurred, and the expectation of a sign has diminished.

III. HOW MANY PRESUMED MESSAGES HAVE THERE BEEN?

All the “messages” of Medjugorje can be summed up into five basic ones, as is usually the case, yet these “five” are actually the following “fourteen”: peace, conversion, prayer, fasting, vigilance, penance, adoration, witnessing, faith, call to holiness, Eucharist, Word of God, monthly confession, rosary…

Many authors greatly differ which five should be taken from these fourteen. Italian, French and Croat authors… all have their own interpretations. It’s important to mention here that besides the daily “messages”, there are also special monthly “messages” on the 25th of each month, which are given to Marija in Italy, which she then sends to the parish rectory of Medjugorje for verification and are then sent out into the world.

All these “messages” of the various interpreters of Medjugorje, are heard every Sunday in churches. For us, the novelty of Medjugorje would be that the “Queen of Peace” on the 25th of each month sends out a special communication with the message: “Thank you children, for responding to my invitation”. The Madonna thanks the “seers” for having the time, for wanting to, and deigning themselves to meet and talk with her. According to these words the “Madonna” is amazed and grateful to the “seers” who have responded to her invitation! This is somewhat like parents thanking their children for being born, or physicians thanking the infirm for seeking their health back! (Ogledalo Pravde=Mirror of Justice, Mostar, 2001, pp. 249-250).

IV. HOW MANY VOCATIONS HAVE RESULTED FROM THE “APPARITIONS”?

Of the six “seers” of Medjugorje, none of them have achieved a religious vocation. Three of them mentioned that they were going to enter and two even went on to follow this inexplicable voice, yet with time everything vanished.

Ivan Dragićević, became a candidate for the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina. In 1981 he went to the minor seminary of Visoko where he continued with
the “apparitions”. Due to the fact that he failed to pass his repeat examination, it was decided that he could possibly do better if he went to the minor seminary of Dubrovnik. While in Dubrovnik, he managed to pass his repeat examination and enter into the second year, but he didn’t show an aptitude for school as he did for the “apparitions”, and hence he returned home in January 1983.

Having said farewell to the seminary, Ivan continued not only with daily “apparitions” to this day, but at a certain point began imposing the harsh demands of this phenomenon of his upon the local bishop Pavao Žanić, that he accept the “messages” of Medjugorje. In 1994 he married an American woman in Boston and thereby irrevocably transformed his religious vocation into a marriage (O. P., p. 34).

Vicka Ivanković from the outset demonstrated enthusiasm for the religious life. In September 1981 she confided this to an Italian weekly: I would like to enter a convent and become a nun.

Even though she was an “enrolled nun”, Vicka never entered a convent. Twenty years later, she found a young man from the neighbouring parish of Gradina and the two of them were married in Medjugorje. Over two thousand invited and curious guests attended their wedding party. During the wedding festivities, the “seer” went to her new house a few kilometres away from the noise of the wedding party with husband alongside her and had a “vision”. Everything according to routine and regular programming. Afterwards they went back to the wedding party.

The “visionary” in the beginning announced Urbi et Orbi - “to Rome and the world” - that she is an “enrolled nun”, but twenty years later she travelled to Rome to buy her wedding dress. The “visionary” explained this to a journalist: the Madonna gave each of us our freedom to choose. Everyone can respond to the vocation they desire. Regardless of the fact that I’m now married, I shall continue to spread the messages of the Madonna, because Christian faith can be witnessed in marriage as well.

Regarding her religious vocation - she’s free, yet as regards “spreading the messages of the Madonna” - she’s obligated?!

Marija Pavlović. In response to an Italian journalist’s question Why haven’t any one of you decided to become a priest or nun? Marija in 2001 gave the following explanation: For many years I thought that I would become a nun. I began visiting a convent and my desire to go there was very strong. But the sister superior once told me: “Marija, if you want to enter, you are very welcome; but if the bishop decides that you must not speak about Medjugorje, you will have to obey”. At that moment I began thinking that my vocation might possibly be to witness to that which I saw and heard, and that I will be able to find the road to holiness outside the convent (O. P., p. 28).

Marija therefore came to terms with the demands of religious life in which she couldn’t obey the bishop if he were to decide that she shouldn’t spread the “apparitions” which the Church even to this day has not declared authentic. And hence, she decided to find the road to holiness “outside the convent”.

No God’s work. Yet things weren’t exactly that way. Marija did eventually attempt entering a mixed spiritual community, where she remained for several months. She then left the community with a written explanation that provoked not little public astonishment. First of all, it was written that the Madonna, through Marija, had said on 8 March 1987 that that community was God’s plan, God’s work. Later on, when she left the community with her boyfriend Paolo Lunetti, who helped her leave and write the letter, she denied everything in her own handwriting on 11 July 1988: before God, the Madonna, and the Church of Jesus Christ, she categorically denied that there were ever any “messages” through her for this community and for this work of God, in which she had lived for several months (O. P., pp. 30-31).

At that time, in 1983, Fr. Tomislav Vlašić OFM, who was the spiritual director of the “seers” of Medjugorje, wrote to the Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar: The children have decided to enter the religious life, but they are waiting for the right moment which only they know (O. P., p. 55). Today the whole world knows that these were only simple stories or children’s fairytales. Not all the “privileged” children of Medjugorje entered the religious life, while those that tried - quickly left. Only the mature won’t allow themselves to be misled by irrational “messages” and children’s stories! Is this some kind of “sign”, “secret” or “message” of Medjugorje?

Though I believe that it’s improper, I will nevertheless compare these “vocations” with the two best-known modern Marian shrines.

At Lourdes the 14 year old Bernardette once said: I must become a nun, but I don’t know in which Order. The Holy Virgin told me this and I’m waiting. She received her religious robes in July 1866. Though infirm, she held on to her death on 16 April 1879. Pope Pius XI canonized her on the Immaculate Conception in 1933.

Secondly, at Fatima, the seer Lucia became a nun in 1921 and a discalced carmelite in 1948. Little Francisco and Jacinta died as children and were both beatified by Pope John Paul II at Fatima in the year 2000.

There’s something strange in all of this: three “seers” who tried to “enrol” themselves into religious life, who later on dismissed themselves and were happily married, still have regular daily “apparitions”. The other “seers” though, who didn’t enter the religious life, receive an “apparition” only once a year. Can this be considered a reward for those who didn’t enter the religious life?

A grace of God. Keeping in mind the fact that many young boys from Herzegovina who entered the seminary and who later became priests and the numerous young girls who became nuns (from the parish of Medjugorje alone there are over 30 living priests and sisters) who from what I know, never had any apparition, message or encounter with any supernatural phenomenon; it’s indeed odd that not one of the “seers” in these 23 years, who have had between 770 and 8,270 “apparitions” realized a religious vocation. And this same phenomenon, in a threatening way, demands that bishop Žanić recognize the “messages” of Medjugorje as authentic without questioning them. Every true religious vocation is a grace of God and a serious matter. The manner in which religious vocations were handled by the “visionaries” has been shown to be irresponsible. Is this possibly a question of games without borders, regarding numbers, “visions”, “messages”, “revelations”, “secrets” and “signs”?

V. WHAT DO PRAYERS AND CONFESSIONS PROVE?

1. Prayer as a context. Prayer is an important factor in the “apparitions” of Medjugorje. It’s in the context of praying the Our Father that in most cases the “apparitions” begin for the “seers”. They even cease praying so that the “apparition” can be followed for a few minutes.

2. A Message not to pray. On 16 September 1981: “She also told them that they need not pray for themselves, because she has rewarded them in the best fashion. They should pray for others instead” (O. P., p. 111).

- The Biblical Madonna will never say that people need not pray for themselves and that the “reward of apparitions” replaces personal prayer. This is false teaching. Even Jesus prayed firstly for himself, then for his apostles and then for the entire world “that all may be one”(Jn 17).

3. A Message to pray for bishop Žanić. Concerning a prayer-group of Medjugorje “the Madonna has asked that they fast on bread and water twice a week. Three months later we are fasting on bread and water three times a week. The group is offering the majority of their prayers for him (bishop Žanić). We often offer our adoration, rosaries and visits to the place of the apparitions where we pray long into the night for him. God shall look upon our prayers and fasting” (O. P., p. 126). So wrote Fr. Tomislav Vlašić OFM on 8 January 1984.

The phenomenon established a prayer-group around Fr. Tomislav Vlašić OFM, who in a letter in 1984 presented himself to the Pope as the one “who through Divine providence guides the seers of Medjugorje” (O. P., p. 56). This group has been praying and fasting just so that the bishop would give in to their hallucinations. They also built a convent in Medjugorje with close to 100 beds and didn’t even think of asking the bishop for permission to do this. Then the “mystifier” Fr. Vlašić was recently removed from his guiding role in the prayer-group, after having mixed the spiritual with spiritism in Medjugorje during a retreat!

4. He could have but didn’t want to? In an interview in 1993, during the height of the war, the “seer” Jakov said: “The Madonna has asked me today, as every day during these last twelve years, that I pray for peace in the former Yugoslavia. The Virgin convinced me that I could stop the war with my prayers…” (O. P., p. 37).

- If this weren’t so naïve, a normal believer would ask himself: if the “seer” was capable of stopping the war in ex-Yugoslavia, then why didn’t he go pray and bring to an end? Yet during the war over 2 million people were displaced, over 200,000 were killed, thousands of religious sites and tens of thousands of homes were destroyed, and then the unjust Dayton accord was imposed upon us!

5. Can prayer be considered proof? There are people within the Church who say: If the people are praying to God, let them then go to Medjugorje, let them make their pilgrimages and pray. It’s better for them to pray than not to pray, better to venerate “the Madonna of Medjugorje” than not to venerate any Madonna at all!

For 2000 years now the Church has been teaching and suggesting to the faithful that they pray, fast, do penance, go to confession and convert. She doesn’t prohibit anyone from praying to God where they please. But she doesn’t allow “pilgrimages to the place of the apparitions” to be endorsed in churches from the altar, that have not been accepted as authentic. She does this so that the truth may be separated from falsehood, and true doctrine separated from false doctrine.

As if it were really necessary for someone to travel thousands of kilometres from Corea or Ireland to Medjugorje just to pray a rosary or to make a confession. Yet Jesus teaches us to go into your room and pray to your Father in heaven! (Mt 6:6).

Do those who say that they have travelled to Medjugorje over thirty times, really prove by saying this that they have “converted”? This could be a real sign that they haven’t converted (O. P., pp. 229-230). A truly converted person would never boast about this but would rather demonstrate it by his life!

If the faithful of the parish of St. James’s in Medjugorje sincerely confess their sins and pray, regardless of all the nursery rhyme “apparitions”, they thereby certainly receive the same Divine graces that other believers receive who pray and validly receive the sacraments in Catholic churches throughout the world. The local Church has always held this belief (O. P., pp. 268-269).

VI. HOW MANY CHURCH COMMISSIONS AND INTERVENTIONS HAVE THERE BEEN?

Towards the end of June 1981, the sensational news of the “Madonna’s apparitions” to children in Medjugorje started to spread in the mass-media. In mid-August of the same year, after having spoken with the so-called seers in Medjugorje on 21 July, in his first Statement, the bishop of Mostar-Duvno, Msgr. Pavao Žanić, emphasized that the most difficult question is whether or not this is a “subjective experience of the children or something supernatural?” (O. P., p. 192). Even though he had informed the Pope and the Holy See on many occasions regarding the diverse opinions regarding Medjugorje, the bishop felt it was necessary to establish a diocesan commission in order to study the events.

A – The Chancery of the Diocese of Mostar

The First Church Commission (1982 - 1984)

Bishop Žanić established the first Commission on 11 January 1982, which worked until 1984 (O. P., p. 43). It was comprised of four theologians, 2 diocesan priests and 2 religious.

The bishop’s new discoveries. The Commission hadn’t even gathered yet when on 14 January 1982 something happened that marked the bishop’s position once and for all. That day, three of the “seers” came to Mostar with the “Madonna’s” message that the bishop, regarding the famous Herzegovinian Affair acted too hastily, because he sought the removal of two Franciscan associate pastors who were causing problems in Mostar. The bishop, who during his lifetime venerated the Madonna with numerous devotions and pilgrimages, upon hearing that the phenomenon in Medjugorje was accusing him of irreligious disorder in reference to the parishes; that it didn’t recognize in him a faithful son of the Church and the Madonna, the Mother of the Church, to whom a year earlier in September 1980, the Cathedral church of Mostar was consecrated; that the phenomenon was defending disobedient religious friars who were obstructing the normal functioning of the Cathedral, began to look with suspicion upon the “messages” and the “apparitions” in Medjugorje. Despite this, the Commission began its work.

Great sign.
The Commission held three conversations with the “seers”. In 1982, the third meeting brought some results. On the bishop’s request, the Commission asked the “seers” to write down in double copy, what kind of “great sign” shall appear and when it would happen. They were then to put their responses into two envelopes and then seal them. One of the envelopes was to kept by them while the other at the Chancery office. When the “great sign” occurs, then the envelopes would be opened and the truth verified. However, five of the “seers” refused to answer the questions, because the Madonna did not permit them to. Yet the seminarian Ivan did respond in writing to the questions. He even said that the Madonna did not forbid him from responding to the questions. His response was more than inappropriate. A good number of lies and tricks are tied to this “great sign” which to this day hasn’t occurred (O. P., pp. 102-108).

The Response to the Holy See. In November 1983, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith asked the bishop if the Commission has come to some conclusions. Bishop Žanić wrote a study on Medjugorje and the Herzegovinian Affair, which he sent to Cardinal Josef Ratzinger. In the conclusion the bishop puts forth the question of the “apparitions”:

Are they from God? - The “Madonna” of Medjugorje has brought more disorder and disarray here than there was earlier! Hence he doesn’t see how he can accept this as coming from God.

Is it from the devil? - He has difficulty accepting this hypothesis as well, even though the thought has crossed his mind.

Is it all a hoax? - From the outset one can notice that the children have sometimes lied. At times it’s clear that what they say is what they have heard from the Franciscans, especially regarding the “Herzegovinian Affair”. The bishop goes on to say that he awaits the judgement of the Commission and the cessation of the “apparitions”. The bishop waited 17 years and he saw the Madonna in heaven on 11 January 2000 (the day of his death) before seeing the “visions” of Medjugorje cease.

The Second extended Commission (1984 - 1986)

In 1984 bishop Žanić decided to extend the first Commission. He wrote to all the theological faculties in Yugoslavia and sought the permission of certain religious superiors to allow their experts to join the Commission.

There were 15 members in the Second Commission: 12 priests and 3 medical experts. They held seven meetings in all. The first was in Mostar in March 1984, and the seventh in the same city in May 1986, during which the Commission completed its work. The members of the Commission voted on the following conclusion: Non constat de supernaturalitate (11 voted ‘for’, 2 ‘against’, 1 accepted ‘in nucleo’, and 1 abstained). 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 (O. P., pp. 47-50).

The well-known negative position of the bishop which he summarized in 28 points in 1990, is significant since it speaks of the inauthentic nature of these supernatural apparitions (O. P., p. 196).

In August of 1993, bishop Žanić handed over the administration of the diocese to his successor who continued his work at a swift pace.

B - The Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia

The Bishops of Yugoslavia intervened twice, in 1984 and 1985, and asked both priests and faithful to await the judgement of the Church regarding the events of Medjugorje, which shall be given after intense investigations. Hence, no pilgrimages are to be organized as if “the Church has already given a positive judgement” (O. P., p. 193).

The Third Commission (1987 - 1990)

In January 1987, upon the suggestion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Franjo Kuharić, president of the Bishops’ Conference, and bishop Žanić made a joint communiqué in which they announced the formation of the third Commission and in which they asked the faithful not to organize pilgrimages motivated “from above” which would ascribe to the events of Medjugorje (O. P., p. 196). The Commission was comprised of 11 priests (6 religious, 5 diocesan), 4 physicians and psychologists and one religious sister as secretary.

The Commission held 23 meetings in Zagreb at the Secretariat of the Bishops’ Conference. The first meeting was in April 1987 and the twenty-third in September 1990.

A characteristic of the third Commission was to work on the findings and results of the previous Commissions and ex novo. Everything was done under oath and no statements 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 through a vote held in Zadar on 10 April 1991: 19 bishops voted for the Declaration while 1 abstained.

The Declaration states: “During the regular session of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia, held in Zadar from April 9-11, 1991, the following was accepted:
DECLARATION

From the very beginning, the Bishops have been following the events of Medjugorje through the local Bishop, the Bishops’ Commission and the Commission of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia for Medjugorje.

On the base of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.

Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through the commissions.

Zadar, 10 April 1991
The Bishops of Yugoslavia”

The Aggression.
In the years that followed, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina found themselves victims of a terrible aggression. With the formation of new states, new Bishops’ Conferences were established. Despite the Declaration of the Bishops’ Conference: Non constat de supernaturalitate, that is, that it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations in Medjugorje, the adherents of this phenomenon consistently claim that the “Madonna is appearing”.

If our Bishops’ Conference, despite numerous curious visitors to Medjugorje, notwithstanding massive publicity accompanied by charismatic inspirations, had the courage to declare on the base of serious, solid and expert investigations, that there is no proof in Medjugorje of any supernatural apparitions, this then is a sign that the Church even in the 20th century is still “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3, 15) - (O. P., p. 151).

C - The Interventions of the Holy See

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has intervened four times through two of its Secretaries, while the Prefect, Cardinal Ratzinger, also made an important intervention.

In 1985, Msgr. Alberto Bovone notified the Secretary of the Bishops’ Conference of Italy not to organize official pilgrimages to Medjugorje.

In 1995, Msgr. Tarcisio Bertone wrote to the bishop of Langres, Msgr. Leon Taverdet, and repeated the same to Msgr. Lucien Daloz of Besançon, France, who were interested in knowing the position of the Holy See on Medjugorje.

Finally, in 1998, the same Secretary wrote to Msgr. Gilbert Aubry, bishop of Reunion. All these letters emphasized that pilgrimages, whether private or public, are not allowed if they presuppose the authenticity of the apparitions, since this would be in contradiction to the declaration of the Bishops’ Conference of Yugoslavia.

Ratzinger’s frei erfunden. In 1998, when a certain German gathered various statements which were supposedly made by the Holy Father and the Cardinal Prefect, and forwarded them to the Vatican in the form of a memorandum, the Cardinal responded in writing on 22 July 1998: “The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention” - frei erfunden - (O. P., p. 283).

Conclusion. Not only are these statements ascribed to the Holy Father and Cardinal Ratzinger “complete invention”, but the numerous messages of Medjugorje, ascribed to the Madonna are also complete invention. If our faith is considered obsequium rationabile - rational service to God, true and healthy spiritual worship, as it rightfully is (Rm 12:1), then it cannot be any person’s private fantasy or illusion (O. P., p. 84). The Church is competent to say this. In her name, 30 chosen priests and physicians, working together in three Commissions for 10 years, in more than 30 meetings, dutifully and expertly investigated the events of Medjugorje and brought forth their results of study. And not one, but twenty bishops responsibly declared that there exists no proof that the events in Medjugorje concern supernatural apparitions or revelations. The believer who respects both principles: ratio et fides, adheres to this criterion, convinced that the Church does not deceive.

Regarding Medjugorje, there’s a real danger that the Madonna and the Church could be privatized. People could start contriving a Madonna and a Church according to their own taste, perception and deception: by not submitting their reason as believers to the official Magisterium of the Church, but rather forcing the Church to follow and recognize their fantasy.

Naïve believers could easily then leave the living fountains of grace in their own parishes to mosey on down to Medjugorje or follow the “seers” around the world, who by the way, thanks to the “apparitions” have good homes and a comfortable existence -at least that’s what the mass-media say.

There are at least 6 or 7 religious or quasi-religious communities, just initiating or already established, some of diocesan right, some not, which have arbitrarily been installed in Medjugorje without the permission of the local Diocesan authorities. These communities are more a sign of disobedience than a real charisma of obedience in this Church!

There exists a problem in this diocese of Mostar-Duvno which in recent years has practically precipitated into a schism. At least eight Franciscan priests, who have rebelled against the decision of the Holy See to transfer a certain number of parishes administered by the Franciscans to the diocesan priests, have been expelled from the Franciscan Order and suspended ‘a divinis’. In spite of this, they have occupied at least five parishes through force, and continue to exercise sacred functions. They invalidly assist at marriages, hear confessions without canonical faculties and invalidly confer the sacrament of confirmation. Three years ago they even invited a deacon of the Old-Catholic Church who falsely presented himself as a bishop, to preside at a confirmation and he “confirmed” about 800 young people in three parishes.

Two of these expelled priests sought after episcopal consecration from Swiss bishop of the Old-Catholic Church, Hans Gerny, yet without any result.

So many invalid sacraments, so much disobedience, violence, sacrilege, disorder, irregularities, and not a single “message” from tens of thousands of “apparitions” has been directed towards eliminating these scandals. A very strange thing indeed!

The Church, from the local to supreme level, from the beginning to this very day, has clearly and constantly repeated: Non constat de supernaturalitate! No to pilgrimages that would ascribe a supernatural nature to the apparitions, no shrine of the Madonna, no authentic messages nor revelations, no true visions!

This is the state of things today. How will things be tomorrow? We’ll leave them in God’s hands and under Our Lady’s protection!

Maynooth/Dublin, 17 February 2004

Msgr. Ratko Perić, bishop of Mostar-Duvno

Canonical Sanctions against Fr. Tomislav Vlasic

2008-08-31T22:17:00.002-04:00

As posted on the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno website:

The Canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM

The Bishop, 2008-08-31

The CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH with its letter prot. 144/1985-27164 of 30 May 2008, has authorized me as the local Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno to inform the diocesan community of the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, the founder of the association “Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu” – (Queen of Peace, totally Yours – Through Mary to Jesus).

The letter signed by the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, states the following:

“Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM, originally from that region and the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’.

On 25 January 2008, through a properly issued Decree, this Dicastery imposed severe cautionary and disciplinary measures on Fr. Vlasic.

The non-groundless news that reached this Congregation reveals that the religious priest in question did not respond, even partially, to the demands of ecclesiastical obedience required by the very delicate situation he finds himself in, justifying himself by citing his zealous activity in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and surrounding territories, in initiating religious activities, buildings, etc.
Since Fr. Vlasic has fallen into a censure of interdict latae sententiae reserved to this Dicastery, I kindly ask Your Excellency, for the good of the faithful, to inform the community of the canonical status of Fr. Vlasic and at the same time to report on the situation in question…”.

*****

This regards the fact that the same Congregation of the Holy See applied ecclesiastical sanctions against Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, through a Decree of the Congregation (prot. 144/1985) of 25 January 2008, signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, and by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation along with the “Concordat cum originali” of 30 January 2008, verified by Msgr. John Kennedy, Official of the Congregation.

The Decree was handed over to Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić in the General Curia of the OFM in Rome on 16 February 2008 and the notification was co-signed by the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order, Father José R. Carballo, the Ordinary of Fr. Vlašić.

The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order – the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’ and who is involved in the “phenomenon Medjugorje” – has been reported to the Congregation “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum.”

Having studied the case, the Congregation during its special Congress decreed the following sanctions against Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic:

“1. Mandatory residence in one of the houses of the Order in the region of Lombardy (Italy) to be determined by the Minister General of the Order and to be realized within thirty days from the time of the legitimate notification of this decree;
2. All contacts with the “Kraljice Mira…” community and with its members are prohibited;

3. Any actions involving juridical contracts and administrative organizations, whether canonical or civil, effected without the written permission ad actum of the Minister General of the Order and under his responsibility are prohibited;

4. A mandatory course of theological-spiritual formation, with a final evaluation along with a prior recognitio of this Congregation, and a solemn professio fidei;

5. The following are also prohibited: activities involving the ‘care of souls’, preaching, public appearances, while the faculty to hear confessions is also revoked up until the conclusion of the terms described in the previous number, barring an evaluation of the case.

An additional sanction of a latae sententiae interdict (can. 1332) reserved to the Apostolic See is adjoined in the case of the violation of the mandatory residence (n. 1) and the other prohibited acts mentioned in n. 3 and n. 5.

Fr. Vlasic is forewarned that in the case of stubbornness a juridical penal process will begin with the aim of still harsher sanctions, not excluding dismissal, having in mind the suspicion of heresy and schism, as well as scandalous acts contra sextum, aggravated by mystical motivations.

Fr. Vlasic remains under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Order of Minor Franciscans, who shall see to his vigilance through the local Superior or another Delegate”.

*****

All the priests, religious and faithful in the Dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebnje-Mrkan, as well as all those concerned “in the pertinent territories”, are hereby informed on the current canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić.

With the sentiments of my highest consideration,

+ Ratko Perić, Bishop
Fr. Ante Luburić, Chancellor

***Home Page***

Fr. Laurentin visits Bishop Peric - more on disinformations (KIUM - March 20, 1998)

2008-04-20T21:10:00.002-04:00

Catholic information agency - Mostar (KIUM)

Communiqué with footnotes

LAURENTIN VISITS BISHOP PERIC

On March 19th this year, bishop Ratko Peric along with his secretary received Rev. Rene Laurentin upon his request. Laurentin is a well-known French Mariologist, yet in our country he is better known as a propagator of Medjugorje "apparitions", "miracles" and other phenomena. Laurentin has written numerous books and brochures on the topic (something every year), in which he propagates the authenticity of the "apparitions" and "messages" of Medjugorje to such an extent that he himself has recognized that he has lost quite a bit of the scientific prestige he enjoyed earlier as a serious mariologist. The Bishop mentioned to Laurentin that he used to avail himself of his books on mariology while he taught the subject at the Theological School of Sarajevo, yet now he has some sharp criticism regarding his writings on the Medjugorje "apparitions".

In an open and honest exchange of thoughts, the Bishop turned Laurentin's attention to many of his imprecise and incorrect findings related to the events of Medjugorje. Here we present only a few of those touched upon during the meeting:

- In defending the "seer" Ivan, after his departure from the High School of Dubrovnik as a Franciscan minor seminarian, resulting from his failure in school (1983), Laurentin wrote in Glas Koncila (5/1984, 7) that Ivan experienced a "shock" due to the accentuated warnings of the Bishop and due to the suspicious questioning and the ridicule of his colleagues. When the superiors and the Bishop reacted by stating that this was simply not true, Laurentin, instead of publicly apologizing, made an unusual justification that his French text was not translated well, that he was not referring to the Bishop of Dubrovnik but to the Bishop of Mostar, and he even sent bishop Pernek (the late Bishop of Dubrovnik) an "original" text which was different from the one sent to Glas Koncila.1 What is at hand is a morally inadmissible deed.

- It is also morally inadmissible that in one of his books of 1985, Laurentin wrote that one of the members of the Diocesan Commission for Medjugorje, Rev. Nikola Bulat Lic. theol., a priest of the Archdiocese of Split (now deceased), "is one of those who is fighting for the early resignation of archbishop Franic so that bishop Zanic could replace him".2 In 1986 Rev. Bulat said that this is "objectively slanderous", "because I never sought this nor do I know of anyone else who would seek this. Twice I asked Laurentin to correct this, yet to my knowledge he hasn't done this up till now".3 Laurentin now says that he heard this from someone! The Bishop told him that the truth cannot be based upon hearsay but on sources!

- Laurentin appears naive in believing and writing that in December of 1984, the "seer" Vicka, who was earlier asked about the existence of a personal diary told him: "There is no secret diary with anything written against the Bishop".4 Bishop Peric then showed Laurentin Vicka's "diary" which contains many references against bishop Zanic, such as: "The Madonna said that bishop Zanic is the one most to blame for this entire disorder!"5

- A particularly frivolous point comes forth in one of Laurentin's books of 1985 where one reads that a pilgrim to Medjugorje sent a message to Laurentin saying that the Madonna was very pleased with his writings on Medjugorje. The "Madonna" of Medjugorje stated precisely the following: "Let priests read Laurentin's book and propagate it!"6 These are no longer "messages" of the Madonna, but an abuse of her name towards commercial ends which certainly do not provide "good favours" to the Blessed Virgin Mary! Despite all the polite distancing, it is also frivolous that Rev. Laurentin mentions this in his book at all!

- It is particularly sad and comical to see how R. Laurentin is getting involved in and yet how little he knows of the disobedience of some local Franciscans towards the Pope regarding the handing-over of eight parishes to the local Bishop according to the Papal Decree of 1975. In his fervour for Medjugorje and his naiveté towards the Franciscans, he wrote in 1985: "From Medjugorje, the Franciscans have come so far as to write to their General and Cardinal Ratzinger in order to ask how to proceed. I believe this to be a true miracle of Medjugorje!"7 If according to Laurentin, the "miracles" of Medjugorje are so notorious then nobody is revealing the phenomena of Medjugorje better than he is! He is informed that the Franciscan General Curia in Rome suspended the novitiate of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina last year due to their unbelievable disobedience! And this comes twelve years after he proclaimed their writing to Rome "a true miracle of Medjugorje!"

- Laurentin incorrectly wrote in 1997, that bishop Peric told Fra Jozo Zovko that he was "excommunicated".8 Fra Jozo Zovko had his canonical faculties to hear confession lifted, yet despite this, he himself fell into an "ipso facto" suspension by continuing to hear confessions.

- Laurentin also incorrectly wrote in 1997 that the Holy Father, upon returning from Sarajevo last year, authorized "a part of his retinue" to visit Medjugorje.9 Curious journalists and ambassadors do not comprise the Pope's retinue. Nor did the Pope authorize to go on such a pilgrimage!

During the two hour discussion, held in the spirit of a careful and documented settling of numerous Medjugorje falsehoods, the Bishop asked the 81 year old Laurentin to start writing his retractions on Medjugorje, so that the real truth on this controversial issue could shine forth. By discontinuing writings on the "phenomenon of Medjugorje" in his current fashion, he would be doing this Church a great service. Rev. Laurentin, the controversial supporter of the "apparitions" of Medjugorje and the accompanying events, said that a new book would be published in June this year and that he shall try to take note of the corrections. Next year he will consider putting an end to his writings regarding Medjugorje.

At the end of the meeting, the Bishop and the publicist Laurentin exchanged some of their books. (KIUM).

Mostar, 20 March 1998

Rev. Zeljko Majic

1The Documents at the Diocesan Curia of Mostar.

2R. Laurentin, Medjugorje a l'heure de la desinformation, Autopsie des fausses nouvelles, Supplement nº 2, O.E.I.L. 1985, p. 14: "L'expert choisi est un de ceux qui militent pour une démission anticipée de Monseigneur Franic et son remplacement par Monseigneur Zanic."

3N. Bulat, Neopouzdanost izvora o dogadajima u Medugorju, dactilographe, 1986, p. 24, Diocesan Curia of Mostar.

4R. Laurentin, op. cit., p. 40: "En décembre, Vicka déjà interrogée sur ce point, m'avait confirmé:
-Il n'existe aucun diaire secret où il y ait des paroles contre l'éveque."

5V. Ivankovic, Agenda 1983, Diary from 19 December 1981 to 29 September 1982: "Gospa je rekla, da je za ove nerede najkrivlji biskup Zanic (19 Dec. 1981).

6R. Laurentin, Ancora su Medjugorje, Ed. Queriniana, Ottobre 1985, p. 57: "Da parte di Medjugorje, i francescani sono arrivati fino a scrivere al loro generale e al cardinale Ratzinger per chiedere come si potrebbe procedere. Questo fatto io lo ritengo un very miracolo di Medjugorje."

7R. Laurentin, 16 anées d'apparitions, 2e ed., F.-X. de Guibert, Octobre 1997, p. 36: "Il (l'éveque) leur notifie que le Père Jozo serait excommunié latae sintentiae (sic), c'est à dire ipso facto".

8R. Laurentin, Tempete sur Medjugorje, in: Chretiens Magazine nº 103, p. 35: "Le Pape n'a pas insisté, mais durant son voyage à Sarajevo, il a autorisé une partie de sa suite à le quitter pendat une journée pour aller faire publiquement pèlerinage à Medjugorje."

***Home Page***

Fr. Rene Laurentin Disinformations by Diocese of Mostar-Duvno Chancellor, Don Ante Luburic (October 24, 1997)

2008-04-19T20:44:00.012-04:00

Disinformations from Rene Laurentin

At the request of Bishop Peric of Mostar-Duvno, the Chancellor of the diocese, Don Ante Luburic, gave the following update following an article by Rene Laurentin:

We read in Chretiens Magazine No.103, of 15th September 1997, pp34-35, the article entitled "Storm over Medjugorje" by Rene Laurentin.

Father Laurentin recounts some disinformations and certain things which are not true, in this way causing a real 'storm' over Medjugorje.

1. It is not true that the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura had issued a judgement of "six cardinals, among whom the Dean of the Sacred College, which rehabilitated the two victims" (Franciscans). The Dean of the Sacred College did not sign the document and no six cardinals signed it. One sees by this that Rene Laurentin did not have the text of the Signatura to hand, or else that he saw it but only read it superficially.

2. The two Franciscans are not rehabilitated as regards the abuses they commited, but one simply notes the error by omission of the Congregation for the Institutes of Consecrated Life. Also the interdict passed by Bishop Zanic on Brother Ivan Prusin retains all its validity, and he has no jurisdiction whatever nor canonical mission in the diocese of Mostar-Duvno. We published it in our official bulletin (Vrhbosna, 2/1996, p142). The other Franciscan, Brother Ivica Vego, left the Order and the priesthood in 1988.

3. It is somewhat strange that the Reverend Father Laurentin should write that the Holy Father asked Cardinal Kuharic, the Vice-President of the Republic of Croatia, and even President Tudjman, to go to Medjugorje, when not one of the organisers (the Nuncio Bishop Monterisi, Father R Tucci, SJ,) even raised the subject with the 'responsible local' of Mostar, notably at the time of the preparation of the Holy Father's journey to Sarajevo.

4. It is an invention of Reverend Father Laurentin that the Holy Father, during his journey to Sarajevo, "authorised a part of his retinue to leave him during the journey in order to go publicly on pilgrimage to Medjugorje: eleven persons, bishops and ambassadors, along with Vatican correspondents". (311) In reality, the Ambassador of Croatia to the Holy See, Mr Ive Livljanic, organised in his own capacity the journey of a group of ambassadors, bringing them from Rome to Medjugorje: these persons had nothing to do with authorisation by, nor with the retinue of, the Holy Father. Apart from this disinformation, one sees all sorts of things attributed to the Holy Father and to his "entourage", things which have no foundation in realityl

5. Finally, one must say that no pilgrimage, no cult, no shrine at Medjugorje has been recognised, neither at the diocesan level, nor by the Episcopal Conference, nor by the Holy See. These affirmations might be the inventions or the pious desires of Rene Laurentin but in no way the affirmations of the responsible Church leaders: if they have not recognised the "supernatural apparitions", how could they officially recognise the cult and pilgrimages?

Mostar, 24th October 1997

Don Ante Luburic, Chancellor of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno.

(311. In D.N, No16, 2nd edition, October 1997, Rene Laurentin speaks no longer of eleven persons but of some thirty persons! "While the Pope stayed in Sarajevo, this delegation of some thirty persons was able to make the pilgrimage to the shrine of the Virgin which the Pope had had to forego." (p.50)

***Home Page***