Saturday, April 3, 2010

Leading Catholic Apologists Jump on the Anti-Medjugorje Bandwagon

It is rather trying time for the Catholic Church. At a time when Catholics need to be most united, crevasses keep appearing on the landscape, some widening to dangerous degrees. Medjugorje is one such case of a sore that just won't heal, mainly due to the co-ordinated and concerted efforts of those that seek to destroy it. It can be put no other way - destruction of Medjugorje is what they seek.

Recent news of the commencement of the work of the new Medjugorje commission and Benedict's positive statements about Medjugorje have done less than we hoped to silence the clamour coming from those who have made smearing the Medjugorje apparitions their mission. We are in the Easter season and I find the opposition to Medjugorje ironically reminiscent of the Good Friday baying of the Jews for Christ's blood while Pontius Pilate called for reason.

A secular carmelite from Detroit, Diane M. Korzeniewski, not herself an apologist of any note, started the ball rolling after the much publicised statements of Archbishop Allessandro D’Errico were released by the official Medjugorje website This news surely brought peace to many who had been confused by all the conflicting reports, but Diane was up for a little creative challenge. To this point, Diane could be found anywhere Medjugorje was being discussed, leaving comments which seemed to deliberately foresake truth for something embarrasingly far less.

I have personally exposed many of her untruths and unique angles on such things as the letter from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of the CDF which told confused, bullied pilgrims that indeed they could travel to Medjugorje and that they need not consider the "opinions" of the local bishop to be Vatican-held. Somehow, from this stance, she managed to scrape a defence of the local bishop, rather than acknowledge anything against him - not that having anything against the Bishop was the key point here, rather that his condemnations did not need to be heeded.

Another unique angle she adopted was to portray the passing of the Medjugorje dossier from the hands of the local bishop to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference as a necessity forced by the global nature of the apparitions, using a cherry-picked quote to support this, all the while ignoring the voluminous evidence that contradicts her stance, including damning interview comments by member of the Yugoslav Bishops Conference - Frane Franic, who said, among other things:

"The bishops do not wish to humiliate Monsignor, Zanic," Franic stated, "And
when it was brought to his attention.. that his opposition was unfounded, he
began to cry and shout, and the bishops finally stopped arguing."

More information on this matter can be found here.

She doesn't like it when positive things are said about Medjugorje. So, she puts a little spin to suit her purposes.

So, what was her purpose in attempting to create the illusion that we had all misunderstood the comments of Archbishop Allessandro D’Errico? I think it was to deflect attention from herself as a principle source of much of the "opposing information" Benedict was speaking of, thus allowing her to continue on her anti-Medjugorje crusade.

To this end, the totality of her efforts were to tell the world that D’Errico's statement, which was translated by as follows:

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

should actually be read as:

He knows about great deeds which are done in this territory by the priests,
religious, franciscans, lay people. [pause]

[new sentence] On the other side he asks himself how come
there are such opposed information about that phenomenon.

What's the point of this? To show that the second statement doesn't follow the first via the connector "therefore". Huh? Even if you divide the two sentences and omit the "therefore", it still says exactly the same thing. The second statement can still be readily understood as following inexorably from the first. The word "therefore" is not even needed, because the phrase "one the other hand" or "on the other side" does a pretty good job connecting the two statements.

Diane simply didn't like hearing that she's one of those Benedict was speaking of, causing all the surprising opposition. But, her solution was to vainly attempt to change what Benedict actually said, rather than change what she was doing.

Yes folks, there are actually Catholics in our midst as reprehensible as this.

Worse, she appears to have enlisted the support of major Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid. We all know what type of an influence he has in the global Catholic community. But, we absolutely do not need him to get involved, particularly as, from what I've seen and read from him, he has a very limited knowledge of Medjugorje. He appears to have been handed very select pieces of information, mainly from the website of the Bishop of Mostar which as everybody knows cannot possibly be objective, unbiassed information. Yet, on the basis of this, and what looks like little much else, he has unwisely decided to associate himself with Diane and others like her.

Another well-known Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis, has also been promoting the anti-Medjugorje cause and writings of E Michael Jones, who wrote a book called "Ghosts of Surmanci" in which he attributes the Medjugorje apparitions to a ghostly personification of the collective guilty conscience of a nation involve in muslim genocide. Conspiracy theory gone haywire in the United States.

Benedict has already expressed his surprise at the opposition of people like Diane M. Korzeniewski. I think patience and prayer is needed all the more as the evil one crouches at our door, invoking us to impatience and unwise judgement and plain old human stupidity. I never thought I'd put Patrick or Robert in that category. Nevertheless, may God's will be done in all things. May nothing happen in regard to Medjugorje that is not in accordance with His perfect and holy will. Amen!


  1. That "therefore" makes ALL the difference. I don't understand how anyone could question its linguistic import. In fact, your entire article is devoid of any logic on all the points you make, which makes me believe that your notion of having "personally exposed" the "untruths" of anyone is at best - delusional.

  2. Are you simple? Replacing "therefore" with "on the other side/hand" doesn't make the statement any more advantageous to anti-M promoters. Read it again.

    Simple is too kind. Irrationality and delusion practically ooze from you and your kind.

    I have exposed Diane well and truly. See Patrick Madrid's blog, though on my last visit he appeared to have removed the article and all its comments. Her rancid objections have been answered and/or are easily answerable.

  3. I believe, based on the evidence I've seen to date, that Medjugorje will be approved finally. And if and when that happens, you people that have actively promoted Medjugorje as a hoax and a scam and passed your judgements on people involved can expect me to contact you personally as I would love to get your reaction. And I will follow your progress thereafter with keen interest as something tells me the disappointment and discontentment you will feel will lead to something further. see Diane as a schismatic as a result of this.

    As for me, I welcome whatever final judgment the Vatican arrives at. I don't need apparitions. I will still walk away happy that God got a great harvest out of Medjugorje over a 30 year stretch, with the conversion of so many atheists and unbelievers!

  4. Hi Paul,

    The "therefore" was one small piece of it. "Therefore" is a word that leads us to a concluding thought. There was no conclusion.

    I have a new post up on this with a pure translation by Fr. Philip Pavich, OFM. Having spent 13 years in Medjugorje, he is certainly qualified to translate the text in question.

    It's interesting that according to the Croatian which appears at (and on the Bishop's Conference website), there were other problems with what presented in English.

    You can see the comparison in my new post: Update on translation variations of Abp D'Errico's interview regarding the Medjugorje commission

  5. I am an Australian journalist who has had many dealings with Fr Philip Pavich in past years, particularly in relation to a crisis he endured at Medjugorje.

    Having spoken and corresponded with him numerous times especially on the topic of Medjugorje I have no doubt that he considers the alleged apparitions fraudulent.

    My advice is to avoid Medjugorje for your own good.

  6. Diane,
    Most of us have heard of Philip Pavich. I understand he was known in Medjugorje as the "Grumpy Franciscan". He had an issue with the "Poem of the Man God" or some such thing (see

    You see, there is a certain difficulty you will always face when asking us to listen to people with a poor reputation - such as Fr Philip Pavich or even the Bishop of Mostar. Your best bet, while working with such persons, would be to ask them if they could provide any evidence that would add credibility to your claims that everything is just a big hoax. Failing that, why not ask the allegedly "de-frocked" Tomislav Vlasic? Surely, such people who had been in the thick of Medjugorje for so many years would have something for you.

  7. @Philip Maguire
    My advice to you would be to ignore the peanut gallery and wait and wait for the Vatican to decide.

  8. Diane,

    Despite your most vigorous wriggling (I still do not know why you do it. Perhaps more time is needed in humble prayer), most people can clearly understand the intent of Pope Benedict's statements. Your tweaks do nothing to conceal the true meaning we can all clearly understand.

  9. Ignore the people who speak negatively about Medjugorje. They haven't taken the time to go there so they basically haven't been invited by Our Lady.


Share This