I'm referring to Patrick's latest blog entry here.
Diane M. Korzeniewski has obviously been in his ear again and he falls for it every time. I wish he would shake himself free from her. What does he owe her anyway?
Patrick's blog entry is entitled "DEBUNKING SIX UNTRUTHS PUSHED BY MEDJUGORJE PROMOTERS". There are five so-called "untruths" pushed by known Medjugorje antagonist and conspiracy theorist Louis Bélanger, which I, for one, would not bother pushing if I were promoting Medjugorje.
Here's what I responded on his blog (which probably won't make it through moderation).
Patrick, did you even read what the “untruths” consisted of? I’m actually sure you did, which makes it even more lousy than if you hadn’t.
Do you know who Bélanger is? This is the work of spin doctors who went to work with great haste after the book’s release, thinking to themselves “quick, untruths, how many can we drag up?”. I don’t want to use the word naive with you, but man oh man!
5 years of research swept under the carpet with a list of 5 “untruths” from a known Medjugorje antagonist? I must say I am very surprised and expected a little more from you.
Let’s examine the five “untruths” (where did you get the sixth):
1) “The day the seers met with the Gospa for the first time was the 25th June”.
This is not false. Our Lady first appeared on the 24th, but the children were so frightened that they ran away and never approached her and so never “met with the Gospa”. The 25th was the second apparition when the children did not run away and plucked up the courage to approach her. The loaded word “UNTRUTH” was used for this, which isn’t even a little mistake. It’s absolute truth. This should tell you something about the writer of the rebuttal.
2) “Žanić in the course of 1986 alone went to Rome 14 times”.
Apparently, it was only 7. How do we validate this? Does it matter in the larger scheme of things how many times he went to Rome?? Again, the word “UNTRUTH” was used about this, at best, irrelevant “mistake”.
3) “That Žanić had lost authority in the eyes of his diocesan priests can also be seen by the fact that in August of this year  he decreed a change, a transfer for ten priests, and none of them obeyed this decree from Žanić.”
This so-called “untruth” is merely a semantical issue over the word “decree”. Essentially, what Belanger is saying is “it wasn’t actually a “decree”, so there could be no “disobedience”, even though in one way or another no priest agreed to be transferred!!
4) “Kuharić attacked Žanić in his presentation regarding his positions on the case of the “apparitions”, which offended Žanić, who left the meeting in protest.”
Was Belanger present at the meeting? No, he relied on minutes and look at what he chose for his rebuttal! (Emphasis is mine) “The meeting PROCEEDED with a serene exposition on the part of the Cardinal and the Bishop; and of the 18 bishops present, 13, including Bishop Žanić, participated in the discussion. This is the truth.” I’m sure it is the truth, Mr Belanger, that the meeting PROCEEDED serenely. Most meetings do. But, how did the meeting CONCLUDE?
5) A letter supposedly sent to Kuharić, Franic and Peric by the Secret Police, designed to compromise Zanic in the eyes of the Vatican.
According to Peric, he never received the letter. But Belanger does not confirm whether Kuharić or Franic received the letter. Interesting as they were both part of the Bishops’ Conference for the second investigation. And WHY does Belanger think Peric would have passed the letter onto the Vatican? Tornielli didn’t say that. He simply said that, as per the documented minutes of the meeting, there were plans to compromise Zanic’s standing in the eyes of the Vatican. To this end a letter drafted was sent to UDBA superiors for approval. That seems to be as far as Tornielli goes. Belanger uses the fact that there was no action against Zanic, and in fact, apparent promotion, as a “nya nya..see there wasn’t any such letter”. But, why would the Vatican remove Zanic anyway? For a bad call on Medjugorje? I hardly think so. And was Zanic promoted? No. Belanger tries to paint “filling in at Dubrovnik until a new bishop was appointed” as “promotion”. NO UNTRUTHS HERE!
Come on Patrick.
CORRECTION: The five "untruths" were not drafted by Louis Belanger, rather than by Mgr Ratko Peric himself. Mr Belanger took it upon himself to spread these "untruths" and, in the confusion of he-said/she-said, the originator became confused.