Catholic Church - Ecclesia Dei

Of Bishops & Obedience

2012-01-15T00:35:00.000-08:00

"Obedience" is highlighted in large letters in the Catholic Church - inspired in large part by the ultimate obedience demonstrated by Christ Himself. Many saints and mystics were unerringly obedient, even in the face of what seemed to be blatant injustice. They humbly complied despite immense suffering. And, in turn, God always seemed to find a workaround to any particular stumbling block they faced.

But, is obedience always demanded and is disobedience to a superior ever justified?

From http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/obediance.htm

It is the teaching of the Church that obedience is part of justice, one of the four cardinal virtues, which are in turn subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity.

Faith is greater than obedience! Therefore, if obedience acts to harm the faith, then a Catholic has a duty not to obey his superior.

And the following:

"Now sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God, therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things. - St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, Summa Theoligica II-IIQ. 104

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema - Galatians 1:8

These are harsh words. From the earliest times, there seems to be a zero-tolerance policy for any teaching, doctrine or decree that is "against God".

In recent times, 1975 to be exact, we read the following from a transcript of a prominent exorcism that involved some pretty big-name demons. Although, we are not obliged to believe this, nevertheless the transcript possesses an imprimatur. Here is what Akabor and Judas Iscariot said through the possessed woman, under the compulsion of the exorcist and the Blessed Virgin Mary, who was apparently ordering him to speak:

On the subject of communion on the hand:

A (Akabor): I have to say the Communion must not be received in the hand. The Pope himself gives Communion in the mouth. He does not want Communion to be given in the hand at all. That comes from the Cardinals.

E (Exorcist): In the name..., by order of the Thrones, tell the truth!

A: Then it went to the bishops and they imagined that it was a question of obedience, that they must obey the cardinals. Finally, it came to the priests, and they, in turn, imagined that they had to conform, because obedience is written in very large letters.

E: Tell the truth, you have no right to lie, in the name...!

A: Evil people should not he obeyed. The Pope, Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin are the ones who must he obeyed. Communion in the hand is not at all the will of God.

On the subject of obedience to modernist bishops:

A (Allida): Many priests make reference to obedience. But now, in these times, it is not necessary to obey modernist bishops. It is now the time of which Christ spoke: "There will rise up many false Christs and false prophets"

Those (modernist bishops) are the false prophets. But one ought not - nor has one the right - to believe them. Soon, one will no longer be able to believe them, because they... because they... have accepted so many novelties. We are in them; we from down there (he points downward) have stirred them up. Prior to that, we deliberated a great deal as to how to destroy the Catholic Mass.

On the subject of obedience to bishops who are not on the right path:

J (Judas Iscariot): I have to say that, today, many bishops are not on the good road, and those ones must not be obeyed. Obedience is of great importance. Even in Heaven, Obedience is written in large letters. But it is now the time of the howling wolves.

E: Continue, Judas Iscariot, in the name of the Immaculate Conception, in the name...! You have no right to lie, in the name...!

J: No lamb throws itself into the jaws of the wolf. One cannot give obedience to wolves.

E: In the name of Jesus, continue; continue, in the name.., in the name of the Saints who were not traitors and whose relics are placed on your brow, continue!

J: All men flee when the wolf arrives. Now, alas, it is the time of the wolves. Many bishops have become ravening wolves who no longer know what they are saying; and they must not be obeyed. In the eyes of Heaven itself, they can no longer lay claim to obedience.

E: Continue, Judas Iscariot, in the name of the Blessed Virgin!

J. One can make reference only to the Pope!

On the subject of bishops and priests who lack courage:

After a stubborn battle between the exorcist and the demon Beelzebub, the latter absolutely refusing to speak, here are the avowals which he was finally compelled to make:

Beelzebub: They (he points upward) say: Adore, adore more, have more veneration before the Most High, Infinite, Sublime, Universal Majesty of God. It is much greater than you believe. Never turn your back on the Blessed Sacrament (painful breathing) and exhort others also to adore the Majesty of God by bringing it to their notice without delay. Think how the greatest courage and even the greatest good will (gasps and groans) must appear compared with such Majesty; or think how everyone should prostrate themselves in the dust before such Majesty. And how much more should they grovel in the dust, and how repugnant to the Divine Majesty are those who are cowardly, like present-day superiors, bishops and priests who, in the name of God, have no courage at all and who turn more towards exterior things than towards that which is their duty: that which they are commanded to do by Those up there (he points upward), that which the impetus of grace inspires in them. Often they do not respond to the impulses of grace (because this is so difficult in our era) and take the road of so-called obedience, which is no longer obedience in the minds of Those up there (he points upward), as we have previously been compelled to say.

From these transcripts, the clear message is that the Pope must be obeyed in all circumstances, but this unequivocal obedience does not automatically apply to lower-ranked clergy, including cardinals and bishops.

These references also detail quite specific instances where obedience is not required and can be contrary to the faith. There are probably other specific instances. It is not to say that obedience loses even a smidgeon of its weight or importance. For it is surely important and often commanded, as in the following, where mystics were obliged to be obedient by Christ Himself:

The Example of the Saints

In the Diary of St Faustina Kowalska we read:

"...Jesus says; 'Obedience. I have come to do My Father’s will. I obeyed my Parents, I obeyed My tormentors and now I obey the Priests' ...I understood that our efforts, no matter how great, are not pleasing to God if they do not bear the seal of obedience.... I understand, O Jesus, the spirit of obedience and in what it consists. It includes not only external actions, but also one’s reason, will and judgment. In obeying our superiors, we obey God.." -Diary of Saint Faustina Kowalska

And elsewhere in her diary she writes:

"Satan can even clothe himself in a cloak of humility, but he does not know how to wear the cloak of obedience." (Diary, par. 939).

And St Catherine of Siena states

“Oh! How sweet and glorious is this virtue of obedience, which contains all the other virtues! Because it is born of charity, and on it the rock of the holy Faith is founded; it is a queen, and he who espouses it knows no evil, but only peace and rest.”

On one occasion, the Sacred Heart of Jesus made a request to St Margaret Mary Alocoque, but when she told her Superior this request, her Superior did not approve. Soon afterwards, when Jesus came to her again, she asked Him about this, and He replied: "…not only do I desire that you should do what your Superior commands, but also that you should do nothing of all that I request of you without their consent. I love obedience, and without it no one can please Me" [Autobiography of St Margaret Mary].

Elsewhere in her Autobiography, we read that St Margaret Mary was told by Our Lord: "Listen, My daughter, and do not lightly believe and trust every spirit, for Satan is angry and will try to deceive you. So do nothing without the approval of those who guide you. Being thus under the authority of obedience, his efforts against you will be in vain, for he has no power over the obedient" [cf. -Autobiography]

So, here are specific instances where a directive from Christ Himself overrides everything.

There is also an underlying idea that obedience springs from, and depends upon, the trustworthiness of superiors and their fitness to guide, and/or the amount of insight about the specific situation Christ has allowed the superior to have and therefore the most that can be expected from the superior. And it is the absence and loss of this fundamental trust that is perhaps being referred to in the examples of permissible disobedience provided earlier.

Can we apply this to modern day situations? I certainly think so. These are the times Christ spoke of when he said "There will rise up many false Christs and false prophets".

An obvious, though unlikely, scenario might be if the local Bishop says that abortion is OK and to go right ahead and do it. This is obviously not to be obeyed.

More subtly, a disparity might exist between the local application of a central Vatican decree or recommendation. For example, when a local bishop forbids holding hands during the Our Father or receiving communion while kneeling down or on the tongue, when the Vatican itself does not forbid it or even recommends it. Obedience is certainly not necessary in these instances.

Another example might be if a local Bishop forbade pilgrims from going to an apparition site when the Vatican says that they may go. This situation occurred in Medjugorje, where the local bishop, who was against the apparitions and officially declared them false, forbade pilgrimages and ordered the seers to stop their apparitions. Confused faithful sought clarification from the Vatican and were advised, through Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of the CDF, that pilgimages were allowed and that the opinion of the local bishop is, and remains, "his personal opinion". Today, supporters of the local bishop continue to fly the flag of obedience to the local bishop and the visionaries have made a point of complying despite the history, tensions and onerousness of the directives.

In conclusion, a rule of thumb to follow:

Always obey the Holy Trinity and the Blessed Virgin Mary
Always obey the Pope
Test everything any lower-ranking clergy decrees against what is decreed by The Holy Trinity, Mary and the Pope.

Seedy Aggression Against Medjugorje Followers

2012-01-10T23:23:00.000-08:00

Here is a comment, which appeared on an anti-Medjugorje website, which pretty much sums up the whole problem that Medjugorje believers have with this type of agressive anti-Medjugorje campaigning.

"Personally Diane, I sense that you are one who is promoting division. Thanks to Medjugorje, I and thousands of others are now devout Catholics who practice the sacraments and hold the Eucharist at the center of our devotion. Your blogs and aggressive journalism seek to destroy an effective avenue for many non-Catholics or non-practicing Catholics (unbelievers) to return to the Church. I feel so sorry for you and your continued cynicism that seeks to divide rather than unite. You and other Medjugorje cynics are the only ones speaking of division. Those who have come home to Catholicism through Medjugorje certainly aren't speaking of division but rather of unity with Christ."

There is a harvest underway as the poster rightly points out. The actions of certain groups will only spoil it. This comment was attacked as a pack of wolves on a rabbit. The attack was done in a pack way yet with feigned outward cordiality.

The aggression against Medjugorje is the first cause. It is the root of the division. It is quite evident from all available evidence that it has its roots with the communist government and the local bishops (whatever the machinations are there). It is not Medjugorje believers who started this whole thing. Diane posts elsewhere that she blogs about Medjugorje because of all the antagonism toward the local bishop because he didn't approve the apparition. How convenient. Sorry, but how can anyone not notice what travails the Bishop has endured at the hands of practically everyone, and it's almost as if he has brought it upon himself. Jozo stuck to his beliefs and went to jail for it. Simple. Zanic seemed to vacillate and opened himself up to rumour and the old adage that where there's smoke, there's fire. Pride may have been a factor - that Mary would never reprimand a bishop. If something the Bishop has said or done is pointed out in a negative light by practically everyone in the Vatican, the Yugoslav Bishop's Conference and Mary herself, what is to be done?

Here's what was tried by Medjugorje believers, in an effort to extract direction from the turmoil...

They wrote to Rome. They got a reply. The reply from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone was not favourable to the local Bishop stance on Medjugorje. Medjugorje believers had their answer. Since then, it has all been nothing but pre-emptive bluster and harvest-spoiling.

Medjugorje has never been condemned by the Vatican after two investigations and now into a third. There is no decree about speaking against Medjugorje on blogs, but surely one can see that this is a type of disobedience towards the Vatican, who already ordered Bishop Zanic to desists spreading his ideas. We see also that Bishop Peric has undertaken self-imposed silence on the subject of Medjugorje. We see subtle Vatican moves to stop this hooplah affecting a sane approach to Medjugorje with plans to create a separate diocese of Medjugorje, separate and distinct from Mostar. I welcome this.

I would like people like Patrick Madrid and Diane K to please consider taking a leaf from Peric's book, let it go, and let God's harvest continue. This is essentially what the original poster was yearning for, as I am.

Patrick is hosting a discussion on Catholic Answers about Mejjugorje in March. If this goes ahead, I hope he comes prepared. Because, I for one, am not going to stand by and watch even more of God's harvest potentially being ripped from His hands.

Patrick is a good man. A little proud perhaps. He doesn't need to get tangled up in this. He should show restraint. Aggression with a suit, tie and gentle demeanour is a particularly foul type of aggression in my book. This division has gone on long enough. Sometimes, we just have to let go and let God. Prayer is the answer! I, for one, have no issue letting go and letting God. I would love to get together with Patrick, Diane and anyone else and form a prayer group to PRAY for mutual guidance and wisdom and for God's will to be done, but I feel that they need to be moderated, and that is the only reason I keep going. Do we believe in the power of prayer? Do we believe that we should "be still and know that He is God"? Do we trust God? Let's put out beliefs to the test! Surely God knows better than we do. Let's pray!

Patrick Madrid Fails Again

2012-01-10T02:23:00.000-08:00

Oh how I hate writing negative things about people I look up to. Patrick, stick to apologetics.

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 [1987] 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.

Key Website for Medjugorje Apologetics

2012-01-09T20:12:00.000-08:00

Here is the best website I've found for Medjugorje apologetics. http://www.medjugorje-apologia.com/.

Ever since the early days when the communist government sowed its seeds of antagonism against the apparitions, the now vast ugly thorrn patch of confusion has gone viral with many websites and aggressors parroting the same lies to millions of eyes and ears already plumped up on a diet of conspiracy theory for the past few decades.

For a good number of years I've been answering these critics here and on marian-times.com, but it seems a new one is born every minute and its tempting to simply give up.

In answering these critics, with a view to letting God's harvest continue without unofficial interruption, I have often been rude and antagonist. Medjugorje Apologia has none of that, patiently, thoroughly and objectively putting to bed all of the common objections, backed up with documentation and references wherever possible.

So, next time you meet one of these people, point them to Medjugorje Apologia!

Sufferings and the Imitation of Christ

2011-11-12T21:46:00.000-08:00

An excerpt from a literal text of the revelations made by the demons Akabor, Allida, Judas Iscariot, Veroba and Beelzebub, during a series of exorcisms (from August 14,1975 to March 30,1976)
Source: http://www.catholicbook.com/catholicbook/warningsfrombeyond.htm

Imprimatur: + Archbishop Stanley Monaghan. Necedah, Wisconsin , January 4, 2003 A.D.
Nihil obstat: Rev. Mr. John R. Walsh, B.A. St. John's Seminary; Boston, Massachusetts USA

August 14, 1975

E= Exorcist
A= Akabor, a fallen angel, from The Choir of Thrones

E: Continue to tell the truth, in the name…! Say what the Blessed Virgin commands you!

A: ...above all, the world of today, even the Catholic world, has completely lost sight of the truth that suffering for others is necessary. The fact that you are all part of the Mystical Body of Christ, and that you must all suffer for each other, has been completely forgotten (he whimpers wretchedly like a dog). Christ did not accomplish everything on the cross. He certainly opened Heaven up, but men must make reparation for each other. The sects say that Christ has done everything, but this is not true. The Passion of Christ goes on: In His Name, it will go on until the end of the world (he groans).

SENSE OF SUFFERING

E: Continue, in the name of the Blessed Virgin, to say what she commands you to say!

A: It (the Passion of Christ) has to go on. People must suffer for each other, and offer up these sufferings in the name of the Cross of Christ and the sufferings of Christ. You must suffer in union with the Blessed Virgin and all the renunciations she endured during her life in order to unite her own sufferings with the terrible sufferings of Christ on the Cross and in His Agony in the Garden of Olives.

These sufferings were more terrible than men believe. In the Garden of Olives, Christ suffered in ways other than those that you perhaps know about. He was crushed by the Justice of God as if He had been the greatest of sinners, and as if He were going to have to go to Hell. He had to undergo this suffering for you men. Otherwise, you would not have been saved. He had to endure such terrible sufferings, that He was almost on the point of believing that He would go to Hell.

His sufferings were so great that He felt Himself totally abandoned by the Heavenly Father. He sweated blood because He felt Himself totally separated from the Eternal Father and abandoned Him (he weeps piteously). He was crushed as if He were one of the greatest sinners.

This is what He has done for you, and you must follow Him; these sufferings are worth so much; these sufferings, darknesses, these terrible feelings of abandonment when it seems that all is lost and suicide is the only way out... I would rather not say it, no (he sighs heavily).

E: Continue to tell the truth in the name of the Thrones...!

A: God's response is the greatest, and rightly so. When these sufferings make it seem as if all is lost; one feels completely abandoned by God, the least among men and the lowest of creatures. These terrible, terrible sufferings in darkness are the most precious there can he. But the young do not know that. Most of the young do not know that, and therein lies our triumph.

ACCEPTANCE OF SUFFERING (THE CALL TO SUFFER)

E: Continue to tell the truth, in the name...!

A: Many, the majority who commit suicide, do so when they feel abandoned by God and the least of men. They no longer feel that, however dark the night. God is always near them. It is as if God no longer existed, and, momentarily, His presence is no longer felt by them. But, in spite of this, it is necessary for men to imitate the sufferings of Christ; especially those whom He has called to suffer much.

There are many who believe that they are perhaps no longer normal - but the majority are - so they give in. They give in much too easily; they believe they should kill themselves because they are no longer understood by men. Therein lies our triumph. Most of them go to Heaven, but it is our triumph nevertheless because...

E: Continue, in the name...!

A: ...they have not fulfilled their mission. They should have gone on living.

E: Continue, in the name the message from the Thrones!

A. There are today, somewhere in the world, some extremely heavy crosses - it is She who makes me say that (he points upward). These crosses are often mounted on illness. Visible crosses, like cancer, infirmities, or other handicaps, are often easier to bear than the terrible anguish or darkness of the soul which many people are enduring today. She up there (he points upward) makes me say what She has said before through a privileged soul: "I will send my children sufferings, sufferings as great and as deep as the ocean". Those people who have to bear these terrible crosses and many are predestined to do so - must not despair.

E: In the name of the Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit - Akabor, say what the Blessed Virgin charges you to say!

A: By the way, the crosses of which I have just spoken are crosses which seem to be useless and pointless. They can lead on to despair. Often they become almost insupportable, but that is when they are most precious. I, Akabor, I am forced to say once again: She (he points upward) wants me to shout it to all the cross-bearers: "Courage! Do not be disheartened!" In the Cross lies salvation, victory is in the Cross. The Cross is stronger than the battle.

If you suffer in any way, don't despair. It may not feel that God is close to you, but He most certainly. Say this:

"Lord God, I offer these sufferings to you in the name of the Cross and the sufferings of Christ and in union with the Blessed Virgin Mary"

A New One Born Every Minute, it Seems

2011-11-11T03:31:00.000-08:00

Whew, something I almost feel out of breath keeping up with all the latest clueless bloggers with the wrong end of the stick with respect to Medjugorje. Here's another one that caused me to sigh deeply over my keyboard.

http://catholicism.about.com/b/2011/11/09/an-exorcist-looks-at-medjugorje.htm

Areas of failure for this blogger, Scott P. Richert:

Does not appear to understand the due process of Vatican investigations of this nature and, a la E Michael Jones, Donal Foley and all the other naysayers before him, attempts to cast the decisions of two successive official investigations in a negative light and without apparently knowing anything about the surrounding circumstances of those decisions, what actually led to them, under what circumstances those types of pronouncements are given and the full extent of their meaning.
Tries to make us believe that Bishop of Mostar = Vatican and, just like all the aforementioned naysayers, intimates that we should first and foremost follow the local bishop.
Takes no account of very obvious and widespread Roman gestures of acceptance of and faith in the Medjugorje phenomenon.
Shows little ability to read between the lines, e.g. probably dares not ask himself why Pope Benedict wants to establish a new parish of Medjugorje, separate and distinct from the parish of Mostar-Duvno which comes under the auspices of Bishop Peric. He probably would not like to broach in too head-on a fashion the reality that the judgement of Pavao Zanic after the initial investigation (constat de non-supernaturalitate or "proven to be false") was rejected by the Vatican, which subsequently placed the matter in the hands of the Yugoslav Bishops Conference, which simply stated in 1991 that we would need to wait before a final judgement could be pronounced on Medjugorje (non-constat de supernaturaltitate). Waiting is what we do best when it comes to the Vatican pronouncing the validity of much of anything. How long did we wait for Fatima or any of the other major apparitions? We can expect a similar wait in the case of Medjugorje.

Gosh, there's so much more I want to write on this subject. But, guys like this just have to do their own research and get the full picture all by themselves. You just can't tell them directly.

A Meeting With Bishop Peric

2011-11-11T02:47:00.000-08:00

Most people who have been following Medjugorje, even those who have been reading and believing the negative press, will likely have felt that something was amiss with the Bishop of Mostar as regards his attitude towards the Medjugorje phenomenon and the visionaries and Franciscans involved.

Denis Nolan of Mary Tv was granted authority by a senior Irish official, Major-General Liam Prendergast, to publish a sworn statement about the content of a meeting he and Fr. John Chisholm had with Bishop Ratko Peric, Bishop of Mostar-Duvno. For many, it may confirm what they already suspected and for others, it may open their eyes. Furthermore, it does seem that everything Father Chisholm discovered about Bishop Peric during this meeting is already well-known at the Vatican because after relating his experiences with Bishop Peric to a high ranking Cardinal in the Curia, the reply he received was "Everything you have just told me is already known in Rome!"

Read the testimony here.

Contraception, Abortion - What does Heaven Say?

2011-11-06T01:46:00.000-07:00

Message to Priests - Human Demon Verdi-Garandieu Forced to Speak

2011-11-06T01:32:00.000-07:00

The following is an excerpt from a literal text of the revelations made by the human demon Verdi-Garandieu during a series of exorcisms (December 8, 1977, March 25 and April 5, 1978)
Source: http://www.catholicbook.com/catholicbook/warningsfrombeyond.htm

Imprimatur: + Archbishop Stanley Monaghan. Necedah, Wisconsin , January 4, 2003 A.D.
Nihil obstat: Rev. Mr. John R. Walsh, B.A. St. John's Seminary; Boston, Massachusetts USA

MESSAGE TO PRIESTS - EXHORTATIONS TO RETURN TO THE LIFE OF THE GOSPEL

Verdi-Garandieu after having pointed out that he also has become "a demon among the demons", suddenly begins to cry out, saying): "What a stupid thing I did not responding to grace and leading the life that I led!"

(Then while uttering woeful cries, he exclaims, making the possessed woman jump to her feet): "Why did I let myself go that way, why? Why did I agree to being admitted to the Priesthood, this very heavy responsibility, since I was not equal to it if I was not prepared to take the trouble to lift myself up to the heights of this great ideal? Why did I give bad example as thousands and thousands of priests do today, by not acting in accordance with my priesthood? Why didn't I teach the catechism as I should have done?

I spent my time looking at the women's dresses, rather than in observing the commandments of God. The truth of it is, I was neither hot nor cold, I was lukewarm and the Lord vomited me from His mouth. In my youth, I was still good, I still responded to grace."

(While he was speaking, we heard his cries through the possessed woman.)

"It was later that I became lukewarm. It was when I entered onto the wide and easy road of pleasure and abandoned the narrow road of virtue, by not responding to grace any more; and from then on, I fell lower and lower.

At the beginning, I used to still confess my sins; I wanted to change myself, but I did not succeed because I no longer knew how to pray adequately. I did not respond to grace because of this tepidity, I went further down to the stage of coldness. Between this tepidity and coldness, there is only the distance of an onionskin. If I had been warm and ardent, I would not have known this wretched destiny.

If the priests of our time do not pull themselves together - Ah, well! They will experience the same fate that I have. At the present time, there are thousands, tens of thousands of priests in the world who are like me, who give bad example, who are lukewarm and who no longer respond to God's grace. All, if they do not change themselves, will have a destiny no better than that which I, Verdi-Garandieu, have had.

Ah! What a destiny for me in Hell! If, at least, I had not been born. If I were able to come back to life again! Ah! How I would love to return to earth in order to live a better life! Ah! How I would love to spend my nights and my days on my knees, in prayer, calling on the Most High! I would invoke the Angels and Saints of Heaven, in order for them to help me to leave the road to perdition, but I can no longer go back, I am condemned (he finishes in a woeful voice).

Alas, the priests do not know what it is to he condemned to Hell, and what Hell is. At the present time, nearly everyone on earth takes the line of least resistance. They want to enjoy the pleasures of life. They are convinced that practicing humanism, as they call it, being of the mentality of their time, is something that is now established forever.

Bishops, cardinals and abbots give an example that is no better than that given by their subordinates. Do they live according to the simplicity that Christ used to practice in his meals and the kind of food he ate? As the Gospel says, Jesus Christ did indeed participate in banquets, to which He was invited by various people, but at these meals, He did not eat very much. And if He did eat a little during the course of these banquets, it must also be stressed that, many times, He chose to suffer from hunger.

The Holy Family and the Apostles too, fasted a great deal. Otherwise, they would not have received all the graces with which they were blessed. And yet, Jesus did not need to acquire grace, since He was Himself the Author of grace, but He wanted to give an example: to His Apostles certainly, but also to all the cardinals. bishops and priests of all the centuries. But what good was that, since in our time cardinals, bishops and priests sit down to their meals in luxurious surroundings and enjoy delicious dishes.

They go so far as to ruin their health in following this way of life, but they imagine that this befits their position as bishop, cardinal or provincial. Poor cooks, who imagine that because they are serving bishops or important people, they must present complicated things on the table! They imagine, poor souls, that it would be a disgrace for them if they were not able to bring all these dishes to the table. They forget that by doing this, they are not helping the bishops to imitate Christ any more than the priests do. It would be better if these cooks could tell such personages that Christ (too) used to be alive, and that He lived much more simply.

Those from On High (he points upward) value whatever is in accordance with the imitation of Jesus Christ; and what is being done at the present time is completely contrary to the imitation of Jesus Christ. Many live in refinement, luxury, and abundance, to the point of excess, to the point even of sinfulness. Sin has often had its beginnings at the table. Sinning begins there where a certain asceticism should be practiced, but this asceticism is rejected.

The rejection of the spirit of sacrifice is not the sin, but the open door to sin through which it can enter. It is this lack of asceticism that slowly leads to sin. Between the two there is only an onionskin. If the priest does not follow the teachings of the Church, it is we who come along to pull him by the end of his robe in order to lead him onto our path. It is only a little end of his robe that we take hold of, just for a moment, but with the hope of carrying off the whole habit.

For a long time, I fully intended to become a good priest; but it must be mentioned that priests are attacked by us (demons) much more than the lay people are. Certainly, the lay people are also in danger, especially those who are doing their utmost to be among the just and those who have an important responsibility. But since the priest has a very great power for blessing, we give preference to attacking the priest First of all.

As far as I was concerned, I used to remember that I was a priest and, at the beginning, I used to exercise my Priesthood responsibly. And then, as time went by, I found that monotonous and, forgetting prayer, I also forgot about celibacy. I cut out prayer, firstly because I believed I was too busy, and then I used to take it up again occasionally, and then, finally, I abandoned it altogether. I used to think that those long prayers in the breviary were tedious and useless and, in the end, I lost the taste for prayer.

When I cut out the breviary, I fell into the sin of impurity, and from that moment on, I had no more taste for saying the Mass. This was a chain reaction. When I fell into impurity this was the chain reaction - I no longer said the Mass devoutly because I was no longer in the state of grace. In this condition, the reading of the Bible and of the Gospel, in particular, and also the sight of God's commandments, became a reproach to me.

There was a warning for me in that, and because I paid no attention to the warning, I resolved not to teach the children as it should have been my duty to teach them. How could I have been able to teach them about Good, if I myself was not practicing it? But those who, today, call themselves humanists and modernists, know all that just as well as I do.

How could they impose on lay people and children, things that they themselves do not believe and do not practice? How could they bear teaching them as they should, knowing that their teaching is not in accord with their interior life, and that they would therefore be telling enormous lies? Within many, in these times, the heart has become like an abyss of death. There are many more than one would think, who find themselves in this state. They are rotten apples; how could a rotten apple give off a good smell? It is only a priest who strives to attain virtue, who can touch souls and give them what they need.

If priests were to give an example of virtue, in particular to the young, we would have a world completely different from the one we know. You would have a world a thousand times and more better than the one you have at the present time. How can you want to spread Good if you do not have it in you? How can I speak of the Holy Spirit, if I myself am happy not to listen to Him? How can one point out the road to follow, when one has left if himself? It is a much deeper tragedy than you can imagine.

The tragedy is that it is at the very moment when the priest leaves the road of virtue, that he is tempted to draw many souls after him.

This begins with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is said from beginning to end without any taste for it. Consequently, no personal benefit is received from it. At all events, that is the way it was for me, and I developed an aversion for the Mass and for its sacred texts, which, for someone who is behaving badly, are a permanent reproach.

In my case, as for thousands of other priests, there was at least the Transubstantiation which allowed the faithful to assist truly at Mass, because these people cannot know the depths of a priest's heart; but woe betide priests who no longer say what they should say to ensure that the Mass is valid, and who no longer live by it.

Woe betide anyone who leads the faithful onto the road of error. These priests would do better to shout publicly from the height of the pulpit: "I have sinned. I am no longer capable of practicing virtue. Pray for me, so that I may be converted, and once again teach the ways of virtue." Speaking in this way would be much better, and we demons would no longer have this power to dominate these priests, because they would have made an act of humility.

Even if some people were going to develop a contempt for a priest who would speak this way, the majority of those hearing him would be edified by his humility and would be able to help him to pull himself together. The majority of the faithful would have respect for a priest who would express himself in this manner; this would be much better than continuing along the way of lying and hypocrisy.

What is the use of celebrating Mass facing the people, and telling them: "Come near! God pardons you all your sins. He understands you. Come to the Father of Light; and if you are in the darkness, He will bring you back into grace again." They all forget that something must be done beforehand, in order for the Father to take you back into His arms and bring you back into His grace.

It is true that the Father takes His children back into His arms, but before this happens, it is necessary for them to repent and to promise to change the direction of their lives. It is necessary to avoid the roads that lead to perdition.

The priest ought to think: "I must begin with myself. That would be the only way to be a model for each one, and to be able to preach the teaching of the Holy Spirit and of Jesus Christ to the whole community. That would also be the mission which the. Most High considers that I should preach and carry out among the people."

Much too much is said about the love of neighbor, while forgetting that this love results from the love which one has for God. How can one speak of loving one's; neighbor, of drawing nearer to one another, if one forgets the first commandment, the principal commandment: "You must love God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength." The directive to love your neighbor comes only in second place.

If the priest were to first of all make peace with Those from On High (he points upward), love of neighbor would immediately start to flow out. It is the freemasonic masquerade which says: "It is necessary to love each other, to help each other, to support each other." But where does all that lead to? Even if one speaks of charity, or of forgiving, or of mutual support, see the result, should this only be the number of present-day suicides.

It is true that there is a commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, but that comes after the one to honor and adore God first of all. It is necessary to begin at the very beginning of this commandment, and to love God first, which in fact, includes love of neighbor. It is in the first part that the whole commandment is found. If one were to love God truly, one would not talk incessantly about loving one's neighbor, supporting him, helping him.

But nothing like that actually happens. They chatter away about it all the time, in the parish rooms, at the bishops' conferences, and even in Rome. They chatter away, they discuss, they decide something, they forget about it, they want to accept everything in a way which Those from On High (he points upward) do not agree with.

Those from On High (he points upward) are not only Mercy, they are 'also Justice, and I, Verdi-Garandieu, know what I'm talking about! If I had exercised virtue, prayed, done penance, I would not have learned the hard way what I now know. I would have been obliged to ask for crosses in order to help my sheep to sanctify themselves and also to sanctify myself; but I forgot to ask for those things.

In our times, the majority of priests forget that it is necessary to put into practice the way of the cross, to make self-sacrifices, to pray for others, to forget about oneself. In our times, it should be proclaimed, from the height of the pulpits, to our faithful, that they must do penance to make reparation for and to raise up from the gutter all those who are wallowing there at the present time. This would be a way of practicing Charity in its true sense.

All that, to be sure, has its importance, but it all sinks into the dust, more especially as God Himself has promised to give us what we need to live, particularly in our era where material things are dispensed in a remarkably organized way. That is why they must not be the main goal of our charity, but the means which allow us to have access to the other, that of God.

Certainly, it is necessary to help him who is in need, but to proceed from that to over-rating it to the point of thrusting aside duty towards God is too much. It would be much preferable to give one's attention from the height of the pulpit, to leading the people:

to pray for so and so who finds himself in great spiritual difficulty, and therefore in great danger; to ask them to light a blessed candle, or to make use of the cross, the cross of the dead and of holy "water, not forgetting the Rosary in order to bring help from afar to this person.

All that brings blessings even when it is done by lay people; it flourishes in discretion and silence. And we (demons), when confronted by such things, have to withdraw our involvement in the affair.

Men should be reminded from the height of the pulpit, that it is necessary to take religion seriously, to sacrifice themselves for each other in order to keep up perseverance in each one's heart, and thus to keep men on the path of virtue.

The lay people should also be told that they must pray for the members of the clergy and for all their responsibilities, in order that they may be preserved in the service of God and not fall into the traps of the demon. They must pray for the priests to guide the faithful well. I, too, am a priest, and it is for that reason I suffer terribly in Hell because of the mark of my consecration.

The priests should also ask the faithful, from the height of the pulpit, to pray for themselves, because they should make it known to the faithful that the demons are attacking them much more strongly than they believe. They should pray for the priests in order that they may persevere in their ministry and in the right direction until the hour of their death. It is necessary also for the lay people to pray for each other, in order that they may continue on the road of virtue and of everything that is good, not just occasionally, but all of the time.

It is the tragedy of thousands and thousands of priests and lay people that they have grown like tender-weeds. Without warning, at the moment of temptation, they are trampled on by the demon, as Jesus Christ has pointed out to us in the Gospel: because they lack either sun or water, or because the sun has scorched them. This happens more and more as the lay people of our time are turned away from the right road by the priests themselves, who tell them that what used to be done previously has today been cast aside. Among them all (priests and lay people) there used to be some who practiced great virtue, then suddenly, they have wilted because they were not rooted sufficiently deeply in the good earth.

It is I, Verdi-Garandieu, who am telling you that it is necessary to pray constantly so that priests and lay people may continue in perseverance. It is necessary for priests in particular to know that it must be announced from the height of the pulpit, that prayer is more and more essential in our days. It is necessary to recall that perseverance along the road of the cross is the law of happiness, because he who knows how to bear (trials) is placing himself on the road to Heaven.

In particular, people who are poor must be told that they have to be content to bear their misfortune because it is later on that they will be profoundly happy in Heaven. Even if the poor have to bear (privations), these are, all things considered, still a long way away from the fastings and sacrifices which were accepted by, for example, the Curé of Ars, and other great Saints, right up to the very end of their lives. It is necessary to tell the poor that they should thank the Lord for the lot in which He has placed them, because acceptance of poverty can help them to imitate Jesus Christ more.

Thank the Good God, because in accordance with the kind of poverty that you have, you also have much less time when you could, be succumbing to temptations, since it is necessary for you to work all the time. Those who are endowed with a large family, and who, as a consequence, have much to do to educate and feed them, must thank the Good God three times a day, because in these circumstances, they have every chance of escaping from the pleasures of the world and of preparing themselves better for the Kingdom of Heaven where their place is reserved.

When the fourth child comes into some families, then there is a drama both for the people around and for the family itself. What is to be done? What is true for the fourth is true for the second or the third; and, unfortunately, the priests enter into a spirit of understanding when-these complaints are presented to them and agree that the faithful may make use of the pill to avoid the child. The faithful do not realize the danger into which they are putting themselves, because between the taking of the pill (already a serious fault) and abortion (an even more serious fault), the distance is short.

ABORTION IS MURDER and, consequently, a very grave sin. In our times, people are unwilling to accept as the truth, what has been believed for thousands and thousands of centuries beforehand. So, even if God does not punish onanism straight away, as He punished the crime of Onan, our God considers the means of birth control to be as serious as anything which is done. You just imagine then, what He thinks of abortion! FOR ALL THESE MISDEEDS ARE CONTRARY TO THE PLAN OF SALVATION CONCEIVED BY GOD.

So, therefore, I Verdi-Garandieu, see myself under an obligation to tell everyone, bishops, cardinals and priests, that they must, from the height of the pulpit, announce - what, then? - : "Follow the way of the Lord, for there where self-denial and sacrifice are found, there also is the possibility of grace."

Where there is neither sacrifice nor self-denial, no grace is possible. And where there is neither self-denial nor sacrifice, the very smallest chink offers us, with our guile, the chance of very soon becoming the masters. This little chink is enough for us to turn the whole house upside down, which is what has happened to all your churches at the present time.

It is necessary to give missions to the people again, and to preach to them again, not from the choir but from the pulpit, as we have already said before. There are even some churches where one must descend to the altar rather than go up to it and, immediately, the people are distracted because their gaze is not directed upward but toward the distractions which abound below, and sometimes a very long way below, right down to our place. These popular missions should be brought back in force, because when the road of virtue is presented in this way, it is a shower of graces that is being offered to the people.

The influence of a priest who lives according to the laws of the Lord is enormous, which is what can be noted in the life of the Curé of Ars of Ars. The Curé of Ars did not save souls by running off on trips, by eating very fine food, by attending all kinds of conferences, but by remaining in his room and in front of the Most Blessed Sacrament, which is, moreover, what I myself, Verdi-Garandieu, should have done. Instead of that, I neglected my pastoral duties with respect to my parish, and I led it in this manner, onto this path. In our era, there should be thousands and thousands of Curés of Ars, and if they do not still exist, then this man should be being thought of as someone to imitate.

This is what I, Verdi-Garandieu, am obliged to say: priests must avoid habitual contact with women and must recite the entire breviary. It is a fact that, if the priests do not say the breviary, they are in great danger of succumbing to temptation; on the other hand, if they do recite it, the Most High Himself helps them to overcome it, because the priests are subjected to great temptations in relation to this. It is noticeable that, even when the priest falls into sin, and in spite of that, recites his breviary, the Most High gives him the chance of continuing his ministry and being a profitable instrument for the faithful.

It must be said to all those who are subjected to great difficulties, that they must persevere in the hope of the Lord, because the Lord loves to put those who love Him to the test, particularly in an age where financial means allow men to protect themselves against suffering and trials. It must be repeated often, from the height of the pulpit, that they must first of all put their trust in the Lord in order to be able to wrestle against their trials and to bear them.

At the present time, this point should be stressed very much, because those financial means are an occasion of weakness, especially in parish communities, and because the easy and pleasure-filled (or free and easy) lives of the priests, and even of the bishops, do not lead in this way to the imitation of Christ, but rather to the loss of souls.

How could the Holy Spirit come into souls, if the priest fosters easy-going ways, by not giving the people the understanding of sin and by holding out bright prospects before them that God is merciful and pardons everything very easily, without their being asked to repent or to do penance. It must be shouted from all the rooftops that the Way of the Cross is required by Heaven. It is by following the Cross of Jesus Christ that one can best help one's neighbor to salvation, because the Good God makes use of this penance; or rather, the Good God makes use of this penance to help in the salvation of the neighbor. Because if one carries out the first part of the commandment of God, one also carries out the second part of the commandment of love.

Is it really practicing love with regard to God, to celebrate Mass facing the people, as if it were being addressed to the people and not to God? The priests must say their Masses in such a way that they are recognizing that it is uniquely the service of God and the honor of God that are being sought through this Sacrifice. All the rest is only complementary or supplementary; the priests preach far too much about the things of everyday life and about love of neighbor, in general or in particular, forgetting that it is the love of God that leads to the true love of neighbor and the true practice of charity. This manner of action and behavior would, through the practice of self-denial and penance, bring about the salvation of thousands and thousands of souls if people truly set about it. So many souls are falling like snowflakes into Hell, as the privileged souls have so often reminded you.

If the bishops and priests persist in maintaining this disastrous situation, thousands and thousands of churches will no longer be The Church, which situation has begun to happen even now. For thousands and thousands of the faithful, the present-day sermons in the churches are justifications for remaining perfunctory in the service of the Lord; consequently they are instruments of death, since they do not lead directly to Heaven and do not make people think about it.

All this happened because the priest himself has got into careless ways, and no longer lives the first commandment of love for God. Such a one is like an apple with a worm inside it, and he is no longer the guide in the way he ought to be. If the bishops, priests and abbots had lived following the laws determined by the Lord, you would not have this catastrophe that you now see in Rome.

IF IT HAD BEEN LIKE THAT, THE LORD WOULD NOT HAVE TOLERATED THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN POPE PAUL VI COULD PRETEND TO REIGN IN HIS NAME.

This state of affairs, which moreover has spread outwards from the Vatican, is the work of freemasonry. But if, everywhere in the world, millions of faithful had united through religious exercises to pray and do penance, and at the same time ask the Lord to bring us out from this situation, Heaven would have prevented, would not have allowed this catastrophe to happen.

IF THERE HAD BEEN CRUSADES OF PRAYER, ROME WOULD STILL BE ROME.

I have to say this too: I must say to thousands and thousands of present-day priests that women can become their downfall, and that this would not happen if they were to arm themselves with prayer. If the priests were to take up their breviary and to nourish themselves on the doctrine of the Doctors of the Church, who, as a result of prayer, have such great knowledge of men, things would go differently for them; whereas, if they do not do this, they belong among those thousands and thousands of priests who today are living in mortal sin.

Thousands of priests are living outside the state of grace, and they no longer say their breviary - just as I myself used to act. If only, at the very least, I had called on my Guardian Angel to help me; but no, I rejected every means which would have allowed me to pull myself together, and in following this way of life, I indeed neglected to teach the young people, and yet I was not nearly as bad as what is happening today with the priests and the young people. This warning should be a. light for the priests who are on the way to perdition.

Formerly there were still many priests who were watchful, for their own sanctification, but today they have adopted the wide road that is, at the same time, the road to perdition. If prayers are not said for them, if penitential souls do not rise to their defense and to obtain graces for them, they are lost. That seems incredible, it is tragic, but I am obliged to tell it the way it is.

It is all the more tragic because our God is not a God who resembles a "sugar daddy". He has created laws; these laws are eternal. They must be obeyed, and the faithful should not listen to those in the clergy who advocate change, because it is not the clergy who fix the laws, but the Lord, and His laws remain in force eternally. It is not for nothing that the Lord caused it to be noted in the Gospel that it is better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven blind in one eye, then to have both eyes in Hell.

It is indeed through his sight that the priest of our times is becoming more and more lost. These days. the priests do not mortify their gaze sufficiently. They receive into their hearts far too many images that are constraints on their interior life. This begins with television, and continues on in the activities of the parish where women are now numerous. Formerly the women in the church used to have their heads covered. In our times, that isn't done any more. Then why turn the altar to face the people? I, Verdi-Garandieu, used to say Mass with my back turned to the people, and even then I was still seduced by women; today's priests with Mass said turned towards the people, have more temptations than ever.

It is not for nothing that the Lord, in the Gospel, has said that it is better to enter (into the Kingdom) blind in one eye, or with only one hand, or only one foot, than to enter the terrible torment of Hell with both eyes, both hands and both feet. Could the priests believe that the Gospel has lost its value today, and they can change it about to suit their taste? Could they believe that the Lord Jesus spoke only for the men in whose presence He gave His message? In His time, they used to wear long robes.

It doesn't occur to the priests that perhaps He might have been speaking more for the people of our age, where perdition is being spread more and more through technical means, and where no one is capable of stopping what is happening. It is a burning furnace of perdition that cannot be extinguished by the rain of efforts, to which a certain number of good priests who are struggling here and there, feel themselves compelled.

The Lord always addresses Himself to the freedom of each individual. Besides, the Bible is there, the Gospel in particular; and also all THE MESSAGES WHICH CONSTANTLY RECALL THE DIRECTIVES WHICH HAVE BEEN DETERMINED BY THE LORD. If people refuse to listen to them, Heaven can do nothing about it, especially if people are amusing themselves by adapting the Gospel to their own taste.

If all these mercies are thrown to the wind, what can Heaven do about it? How will grace be able to act if holy books are no longer read, or books about the Saints, for example the life of Catherine Emmerich, or that of the Cure of Ars, or even that of Padre Pio who has given a great example to our times. Each of these Saints feels the same love for the same sacrifice, in the same self-denials, through love of others. The penance of these Saints has been acceptable to the Most High.

He would be just as prepared to accept still more reparations, still more sacrifices, made for the conversion of souls. The Good God would often love people to be capable of saying to Him: "I accept the sufferings You will send me. Give me the grace to bear them for the conversion of this one or that one." But on the whole, it must be said that when the Lord sends Sufferings, very often the Christians reject them with horror and with all their strength. Man too often does his best to avoid suffering. It should be up to the priests to live according to this way of seeing things and to preach it to the faithful.

All those who reject suffering and seek only to eliminate it are not living in conformity with the first commandment of God. The best way to conform to the Will of God is to say: "Not my will, but Thine be done!" This uniting oneself to the Agony of Christ would be the best way of honoring the love of God. If suffering was united with acceptance of the Will of God, it would take on a very great value.

Excruciating as certain sufferings may be, by uniting them with those of Christ, they would be the means both of sanctification and of reparation for the sins of others. I am thinking of all the sufferings which are sometimes inherent in the state of marriage and how they are rejected in the hope that one day, perhaps, one will be able to separate from one's partner, and yet, if they are borne, these sufferings would accomplish great reparations. Thousands and thousands of people would be able to suffer thinking of others and these sufferings offered up would not be in vain.

All that is completely forgotten in your Catholic Church of today. Very rarely is it mentioned from the pulpit, and that applies everywhere. The imitation of Jesus Christ and the solicitude for the salvation of one's neighbor are the things that are important. The rest is secondary, and this is what "Love you neighbor as yourself is all about.

If Christ were to come back into your midst, there would be thousands and thousands of people who would again look on Him as a revolutionary and a madman. All those who are pledged to following Christ today are looked upon as fools. Instead of raising themselves up to the heights, people are going down to the depths, and so many priests are no longer preaching these truths because they are for them a vivid reproach, because they are no longer living by them. If they themselves were to practice virtue, they would be able to ask much more from the people. How can I think that others might want what I do not want myself?

It is a truly tragic state of affairs in which you are living now in the Catholic Church. That applies from the priests right to the cardinals in Rome. If the priests were to live like Christ and the Apostles, they would be leading souls along a much better-lit and much safer road. As Saint John the Baptist and Jesus preached in their time, they must be converted and do penance.

So many priests nowadays are fighting against effort and good because they themselves have turned in the direction of evil. They are already on the broad highway which leads to the abyss. This is what the priests should be told straight to the face, but in a manner which respects the ways of psychology and which indicates that one is only concerned about their well-being. It is not a question of telling them that they are bad, but of MAKING USE OF PSYCHOLOGY, to bring them to the point of coming back (to where they should be).

It is necessary to ask questions in their presence, at all events very discreetly, to find out whether they have stopped praying or not, and to bring them to the understanding that the things of God become clear only through prayer, just as solicitude for the salvation of souls. As for those who are more capable of accepting criticism, one could make use of that with regard to them, and, perhaps, thanks to God, bring them back again. Natures are different. It is necessary to adapt oneself according to what one is faced with, in the same way that Padre Pio used to do.

Some among the priests are perhaps victims of ignorance, but the majority know very well into what a state of deficiency they have fallen; reminding them of their vocation could perhaps be a way of bringing them back onto the straight road and to the Lord. All, without exception, would lead the souls they have to be concerned with, much better, if they were to enter onto the road of self-denial It is very, very true that I would prefer to remain silent, except that Those from On High (he points upward) are ordering me to reveal and to recall to mind, although I am in Hell, into which I never thought I would fall.

What sufferings I would undergo, on my knees, for the defense of my flock, if I could come back on earth! I would accept even martyrdom to save my flock, and several times even. I would accept it voluntarily and with the greatest devoutness, if this were the Will of Those from On High (he points upward). My main goal would be first of all to carry out the first commandment, and to seek means of honoring it and making myself worthy of this commandment. I would ask the Good God to enlighten me about His Will concerning me.

There is a principle that says that, when in doubt, one should choose the way that costs the most. Are the priests and the faithful giving any thought to this principle? It is only a proverb. God did not say it, but it is quite suitable to the situation. Thousands of priests are on the road to perdition because they have chosen the easiest road. Yes, they choose the way of least resistance. This manner of action is not what is pleasing in the eyes of God.

It is necessary to know, paying heed to the Apostle Saint Paul, how to distinguish between the possible solutions, and to choose the best. It is essential to pray to the Holy Spirit, as Beelzebub, Judas and all the other demons have already said, before me. Everyone must strive to recognize his true vocation, because THE LORD HAS A PRECISE PLAN FOR EACH PERSON. Already highly regarded before the Lord, because of his priestly state, the priest should also present himself before men with a great authority. He must draw near men and make himself esteemed among them because he is truly following the way about which he speaks, which is in line with his vocation.

The faithful need to see before them someone who gives them example, and not someone who leads them to perdition, or who, at all events, in spite of the fact that he is a priest, lives the way of perdition. There should be a great distance between a priest and a layman. The Most High has always wanted that, because THE PRIEST IS A TREASURE-HOUSE OF BLESSINGS. The priest ought to make people think of this High Priest Who is Jesus Christ, and for this reason, should draw to himself the respect of the faithful. Throughout his life he must remember untiringly, what a great majesty the Divinity represents, and he must believe that we have the duty to adore It and to live It as It commands.

It is something which should be taught from earliest years. Children, even the very young, must be led into the churches in such a way that, when passing in front of the Tabernacle, they get into the habit of genuflecting with the greatest devotion; they must be helped to adore the Most Blessed Sacrament, by saying prayers such as this one: "Praised and adored be the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar." The children should then be invited to invoke the Holy Angels so that they can help them to praise the Divine Majesty and the grandeur of the Most Holy Trinity in the highest heavens.

What does a Church stand for which is no longer capable of raising hearts towards the Most Holy Trinity? What does a Church stand for which no longer presents God as being above men in every way, which no longer points out the sublimity of the Most Holy Trinity, which no longer recalls that it is absolutely essential to be pleasing to the Almighty in Heaven? If the priests don't do this any more, at least the parents should be doing it as far as their own children are concerned. One must never cease making it known that God must be adored, even if all around one, the state of souls is very bad and very distressing.

It should be known that, when suffering is accepted, it is necessary to thank God for the triumph which He will know how to extract for us from this difficulty. The Lord should be thanked on one's knees, for the sufferings that He sends to us in order to make us better and to lead us on the way of virtue. THOSE WHO FLEE FROM DIFFICULTIES AND SUFFERINGS ARE DOOMED TO LOSE VIRTUE. In past centuries, there were always priests who were at the heights of their vocation. But, in our times too, there are some who are living the same way, in very humble circumstances; because they carry the peace of the Lord in their hearts, they surpass everyone on earth.:'' What use is it if a man gains the universe, but ends up losing his soul?" I, Verdi-Garandieu, have to say that our era is very badly enlightened on this subject. It is in an age, where there is no love of neighbor, that the Church has set about preaching the love of neighbor, exclusively. The true love of neighbor begins with concern for his soul, and not with concern for his body. Isn't it better for men to perish through plague and war and all kinds of suffering, and, by saving their souls, to acquire the glory of God?

Furthermore, men who live in luxury and earthly pleasures are in great danger of losing their souls. CHARITY OF THE MASONIC TYPE HAS THE SMELL OF DECAY. It is the perdition of so many souls because it is not truly love of neighbor, but comes from hypocrisy. If they (the priests) knew into what perdition they are making their faithful sink, they would hurry away from this kind of talk and would speak completely differently.

It is obvious that one should help others materially, especially if they are suffering much misery, but it is not the main thing. The main thing is to remain faithful to the Doctrine which one must defend, and not to sell one's soul. To practise love of neighbor is to lead the neighbor onto the straight road. Alas! Thousands of priests, directed by their bishops and cardinals, have imposed on the Church this way of living charity; by doing this, they have altered the shape of this virtue in a manner, which is not at all what God determined it should be.

This is because TRUE LOVE OF NEIGHBOR IS NEVER PRESENT WITHOUT SOLICITUDE FOR THE SOUL OF THE NEIGHBOR, because making him suffer by telling him and showing him the truth, is also practicing love of neighbor. Later on, he will recognize that this was, indeed, the right medicine.

The priest, from the height of the pulpit, should, in his language, make use of the stick and very determined words, because justice exists in eternity; and because Hell exists, which they never speak about any more, since they no longer believe in it. They no longer even believe in Heaven in it's supreme reality. If they did believe in it, they would not be leading thousands of people into error, people whom they should be leading towards Heaven.

What kind of priests are we up against today? I myself did not speak in my time as contemptibly as they do today. They are running towards perdition and their place in Hell is already prepared (the demon shouts this last observation). '

But what I am saying now, I am saying equally as much for the cardinals, the bishops, the priests, the lay people. If all these people knew the chaotic situation in which they are entangled, they would say a thousand times 'mea culpa' - a thousand times a thousand times. They would take themselves by the scruff of the neck and they would tear out these worms that are eating away their souls. They would not stop tearing these worms out in order to prevent them from spreading everywhere. They should use red-hot pincers to destroy these parasites that are working so much destruction in souls. They should immediately put into practice the first part of the commandment of love, and after that, the proper love of neighbor.

True love is not manifested only through gifts, because even with these gifts, the neighbor can still be being maintained on the road to Hell. That is what I have been obliged to say, and that is what explains why, for such a long time, I refused to say my name. But Those from On High (he points upward) have forced me to speak, because I have lived this destiny myself; because I myself did not carry out my priesthood as I should have.

The difficulties of the Sixth Commandment, I must say this, together with luxury, have become the means of perdition for many priests. If they were to recognize this immense tragedy they would sacrifice themselves to the last drop of their blood. They would have an immense sorrow for everything which has happened, and they would go right back to square one. They would call to their rescue all the Saints and Angels, so that they could help them to find the true road again, because in the eternity of Hell the fire is continuous, and the worm eats away at your soul for ever. This immense pain, this horrible tragedy of Hell, lasts for eternity, and I, Verdi-Garandieu, am forced to say these things."

Demons speak of the Early Church & Our Lady

2011-11-02T00:27:00.000-07:00

Betwen August 14 1975 and March 30 1976, speaking through a possessed woman in Switzerland, several of hell's most prominent demons were forced to speak, under the command of the Blessed Virgin Mary, many truths and warnings.

These demons were:

Akabor - a fallen angel from the Choir of Thrones
Allida - a fallen angel from the Choir of Archangels
Judas Iscariot - a human demon
Veroba - an angelic demon from the Choir of Powers
Beelzebub - an angelic demon, from the Choir of Seraphim

Among their testimonies, I found the following to be particularly meaningful and perhaps most surprising:

The Beginning of the Church & True Status of Our Lady

Exorcist: Continue to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth! By order of the Blessed Virgin, you must speak now and in the name...!

Beelzebub: During the cursed beginnings of the Church, I was kept quiet. The Blessed Virgin and the Apostles were responsible for this. Her role in particular (he points upward) was the determining one; it was crucial to an extraordinary degree. She subdued us. Often she prayed day and night for the Apostles, so that they might carry out their mission correctly. So that we would not be able to defeat the Apostles, she often prayed day and night. She frequently remained on her knees, day and night, without eating (anxious grumbling); that is why she now has such far-reaching power. These are lofty truths, which we are being forced to tell you now. We would prefer this little book to be published without this part (he howls like a dog).

E: You, Beelzebub, must continue to speak, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in the name of the Immaculate Virgin!

B: So she said she wanted to efface herself. It was entirely through humility that she wanted this. She did not want in any way to appear in the forefront, although she was a powerful creature. Even we have to acknowledge that. She was and she is far above us, far above your Angels. And when I say "far", that does not signify a distance (measurable) in leagues, but a distance that becomes lost in infinity; it means so far above that there is a gigantic distance between the Angels and her (he wails). She is a terribly majestic creature, and yet she wanted to withdraw herself. She wanted this in order to show men how they also should (he mutters), how they also should be humble. But men do not do it. What they achieve is not the least grain of sand compared with what she has accomplished, and with what has been done thanks to her.

Exorcist: Tell the truth, in the name...!

Beelzebub: Although men cannot accomplish anything and are nothing on their own, they still want to be talked about, much more than this creature, predestined from eternity, wanted to be talked about. Therefore she withdrew from the limelight. But that was a great advantage for us. From that moment on, the sects could be born (wicked laughter), and they would not recognize this creature.

If she had said, without reservation, what she was, and if the Apostles had written of the great miracles that took place through her intercession, and if that had been contained in the Gospels, then those sects would not have flourished like weeds (he wails).

Thousands of sects have appeared: there are among them many who attack the Blessed Virgin savagely, and who attack Catholics solely because they give recognition to this predestined creature. They attack this woman because they believe that with this course of action (by Catholics) Christ is overshadowed. However, she has done nothing but serve Christ. She praised her Son to the skies; everything that she has done has been done only for Him and for the Church. She excluded herself completely. This was a great thing for us. But by doing so, she gave a lesson in humility and this was a great shame for us. But only Catholics are aware of that. Through love of her Son she wished to exclude herself, so that her Son might reign supreme. Even in regard to her suffering, she accepted only a role in the background, and one that was no larger than absolutely necessary. Yet the Apostles were bound to have seen how humble she was, the extraordinary way in which she foresaw things, what she suffered, what she had to bear with and endure.

She is given much too little prominence in the Gospels. What if she had been less humble? However, we were in luck's way and the result was the birth of the sects. Nevertheless, their birth had to be allowed by God.

Exorcist: In the name of the Father... of the Immaculate Conception, of the Mystical Rose, you must now speak the complete truth, Beelzebub!

Beelzebub: From then onwards, the sects were born. They thought that Mary was only a character on the fringe, and that she had been chosen only in passing as a receptacle for Him up there (he points upward) and after that she could very well go away like an old... I am not permitted to use the word.

On the subject of the beginnings of the Church, I have to repeat that the Gospels contain very little about the Blessed Virgin. But later, great saints were inspired by Heaven, or received in visions and revelations, enlightenments on the life and work of Her up there (he points upward).

One of the greatest among these is Catherine Emmerich who has not even been canonized yet! (Laugh of evil joy). She is one of the greatest of Heaven's Saints.

And the second one is Mary of Jesus, from the town of Agreda. She lived in Agreda. She was an abbess. Her parents had previously retired to a convent (snarling)...they had made a vow to enter a convent. They obtained for their daughter, their favorite child, the grace of having these accursed visions.

E: Speak now, in the name... speak now about this central point that you announced!

B: Because the Gospels contain much too little about the Blessed Virgin, she wishes that now, particularly in the this time of confusion, reading the books of this Mary of Jesus of Agreda be recommended from the height of the pulpit.

No Catholic family should be without them. They should have all the volumes (terrible cry). Originally, there was one volume; now there are, to be strictly accurate, four blue volumes, and eight volumes in the edition with red binding (snarling).

E: Continue to speak, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity... in the name of the Immaculate Conception; you must speak, by her order!

B: So she wants the priests to say in their sermons that these books should not be lacking in any Catholic family and that they should even be recommended to Protestants. When the readers have become acquainted with all the richness of these books, it will not be long before they understand what a...

R: Continue, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity!

B: ...what a chosen and predestined creature she is, a creature of such grandeur as could never be attained by man, neither in deeds nor in thoughts. The priests should lot the people know that these books, which are so instructive, should be distributed throughout the entire world and everyone should read them straight away. You will also learn from them about our disaster in all its extent and totality, and about the grandeur and dignity of this creature (his teeth are chattering), who crushes our heads.

E: You must speak, in the name... of the Immaculate Conception, on this Octave of the Annunciation, you must now speak, Beelzebub, and also in the name of Saint Michael the Archangel!

B: She wishes (he utters a dreadful cry)...I am speaking against my will, against my will (he roars). For all that, I still cannot withstand That Woman from up there (he points upward) if I have to withstand what the Old One (Lucifer) wants. I do not wish to speak.

E: But you must speak now, in the name..., in the name of the Immaculate Conception, in the name of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin, in the name of Saint Michael the Archangel, for the Church! B: Besides, it isn't our job, it isn't our business. Our mission is to lead men astray. We do not want to direct them along the best roads. Through these books, men would indeed be rushing headlong along the best roads (he cries).

E: Continue! You must speak, in the name of the Immaculate Conception, in the name of Our Lady of Mount Carmel! You have no right to lie, continue!

B: Well in these books, you will learn what the Blessed Virgin has done in her life and death, and indeed before. These books are a reliable source from which to gain knowledge of God's eternal plans, as far as man can know them, and are worthy of belief. In these hooks, the faithful will see the full details and the outcome of everything.

E: Continue to tell the truth, in the name...!

B: They will see in That Woman (he points upward) a universal creature. They should bow down before so much humility and dignity. We ourselves fear her; we have to surrender before such humility and such dignity... Then how much more should creatures like you men, filthy muck that you are! You're not worth a red cent! We were far superior to you men...and how much more so is She (he points upward).

E: In the name... continue!

B: If you saw only a tenth of her dignity, you would immediately grovel in the dust - but I am saying that against my will. We have seen her, we were forced to see her, we had to. We don't want you to see her. We would rather you hurl yourselves down, and not up. Some of those educated men, actually those academics, should have been told about this Mary of Jesus of Agreda before they joined up with priests in opposition to the "Traditionalists".

E: Tell the truth now, in the name...!

B: Even the "Traditionalists" (no matter what their method of approach are a long way, a terribly long way, from being able to capture such dignity, even if they read these books. But you must read them, in the name of God. Neither you nor laymen can pass them by any longer. You priests must announce it to the people. I have to say it once more: You must proclaim it from the height of the pulpits. That Woman up there wishes these books to be carried to the four corners of the world.

Now comes the second one: Catherine Emmerich, this fawning expiator. She was always lying on her back because she was torn by pain and suffering. She didn't have much to say during her lifetime, and yet when she died, all Dulmen was ablaze. When everyone from the district came running with fire-pumps, it should have been seen as a sign from Heaven...but men are fools, men are crazy fools. What do men know? They know nothing...they are blockheads, fools to the tips of their toes...

E: In the name..., tell the truth!

B: Even a block of wood is more intelligent. Here and there, it produces a little green leaf. But men can produce, nothing but filth and chaff.

E: Continue, tell the truth, in the name... of the Immaculate Conception, in the name of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, of Saint Michael the Archangel!

B: This Catherine Emmerich had to speak for the Church. She made prophecies about the Church and prayed and suffered continually for the Church. She was suffering right from the time she was quite a small child. We used to get in such a rage against her. Even as a small child, she used to toddle around (making the Way of the Cross) and she used to imitate to the letter, the humility of That Woman up there...Ah! and the cross too, the cross, just like That Woman up there.

She was a great Saint. We had a great fear of her, which is why we wanted to destroy her, but we were never successful. She always survived, so that she might suffer mortal illnesses for others, in order that they might receive the grace of conversion. She died only when Those up there (he points upward) truly wished it, so that they could take her venerable, her holy soul...it was a holy soul...to Heaven.

There are many Saints in Heaven - I mean those Saints canonized by Rome - who are less holy and less great than she. Ah! How I was forced to say that!

E: Yes, continue to tell the truth, in the name...!

B: We considered that if she were canonized her books would be known. As long as she is not canonized, her books will not be so well received. That is also why the bishops don't want to hear about it. Perhaps one can be found who reads her, but that is of no consequence.

I have to say this yet once again she is a powerful Saint in Heaven (he weeps). Her books should have been distributed to the four corners of the world a long time ago. You must proclaim it from the height of the pulpits. But now, I am saying nothing more, nothing more! (He whimpers like a dog.)

E: Speak in the name..., in the name of the Immaculate Conception, of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and Saint Michael the Archangel, you must speak now!

B: Among her books it is particularly the volume "Life and Death of the Venerable Catherine Emmerich" which should be distributed among the people. These books should be strapped to the backs of children so that, they learn to walk with the cross which the Lord puts on their path. At the age of four years, this little Saint used to go, even at night, to make the Way of the Cross, with her small feet wounded and covered with blood, in honor of her crucified King. In the morning her mother used to have to bandage her feet. She did not know where she had been. The little one said nothing (he weeps).

Catherine was a great suffering soul. It used to be very cold in her room. She accepted this as part of her poverty. Even when her sheets were frozen stiff and she was shaking with fever in this coldness, she did not ask for them to be changed. She wanted to bear her Passion and to offer it up humbly. Where are such souls still seen? Some compassionate nuns then changed the sheets for her. Catherine had not even complained; she would rather be dead from the cold. She endured everything for her crucified Lord. What she did for Him is beyond imagining. She is a powerful Saint whom we have always feared. These people who renounce self and voluntarily follow their Way of the Cross, and suffer patiently for others, are very annoying for us. There are some great Saints, who perform many miracles and who are very great in the eyes of the Lord and who can even read into people's consciences - which, you must understand, she also did -but I am talking about those who do it very much more publicly, so much so that they attract the attention of millions, or at least thousands, of people. They are certainly great Saints also, but many, many of them cannot and do not equal her. She was a suffering, hidden, ardent soul of God. God has especially loved and glorified her and that is why He would like her to be canonized.

E: Continue, in the name...!

B: It is not just now, but a long time ago that she should have been canonized. It is essential that you inform people about her books and her numerous visions and revelations. It is essential that you do this through love of the bitter Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Also, she wishes it and God Himself, Jesus, wishes it. Of these books, you should give prominence to "The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ". This book too, should not be lacking in any family, above all in any family which calls itself Catholic (he sighs). But now, I don't want to speak any more!

E: Yes, you must! In the name of the Father... in the name of the Immaculate, in the name of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, of Saint Michael the Archangel, of all the Holy Angels, you have to speak now, Beelzebub!

B: Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin have given and allowed these great visions and revelations to these two great Saints, to this Mary of Jesus and this Catherine Emmerich, so that they would come to the knowledge of the faithful. They should accept them in their hearts, follow them, and tell others about them. This isn't bunkum, it is a treasure, a great thing which the Blessed Virgin foretold the Apostles in the past: "God will provide, Heaven will provide that my name, at the desired time, at the desired time... (he whines like a dog)...

E: Tell the truth, in the name...!

B: ...will yet be glorified and placed in the light, and what should be revealed about me will be revealed at it's proper time". Now, it is high time. Now we are already in the midst of the Apocalypse. And She (he points upward) is the Great Sign. That is why people must read these books, because it is in Emmerich, and more particularly in Mary of Jesus, that the Apocalypse, the Great Sign, the Virgin Mary are considered,

E: Continue to tell the truth, say what you have to say on behalf of the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate, Saint Michael the Archangel and all the Holy Angels and Archangels!

B: If they were to read these books (he emits plaintive sounds), they would soon understand that the hour has come. They would understand a great part of the Apocalypse and what is written about in the Bible. What fools you are! What super-fools men are! They allow such great treasures to get lost, squandered or neglected! (Noisy laugh of wicked joy.)

E: Tell the truth, in the name...!

B: They allow these precious treasures of infinite value to stagnate and remain hidden. And what ought to stay hidden, they publish and display in bold type (sarcastic laugh) such as, for example, bibles which are no longer bibles and lives of saints which contain absolutely nothing of a religious nature. This kind of work is guided more from down below than from on high (sneering laughter). They are all the work of "village idiots" Even a donkey or a horse is much more intelligent - it has some idea of what its master wants. But down here, on earth, they have no idea; it is only when it is far too late that they realize that there could still be something that ought to be done differently.

Ah! For us, those texts of Emmerich and Agreda are accursed books which we have feared for a long time and will fear forever. We, down there, pondered for I don't know how long to see what we could do to oppose them... and men don't even read them (sarcastic laugh). Even those who call themselves good Catholics do not have them in their homes! (Prolonged, sneering laughter.)

E: Tell the truth, in the name... of the Immaculate, of the most Blessed Virgin, Saint Michael the Archangel, Saint Joseph and all the Choirs of Blessed Spirits!

B: You should expound this to the world: All priests, all "traditionalists" and even the modernists, should proclaim from the height of the pulpits, that these books should be disseminated everywhere, as quickly as possible so that they might be read. If they were read and their contents followed, be it only in an approximate sort of a way, there would be a great number of saints (terrible howling).

E: Continue, in the name of the Most Holy Trinity!

B: For Emmerich had visions of the dolorous Passion of Jesus so that it could be known in a closer and deeper way, because the Gospels have recorded only fragments of it. Although the Apostles knew more about it, their accounts are very summarized.

In the visions of this great Saint, there are some condensed and summarized accounts which are frightfully drawn out as far as we are concerned. One can learn from them, for example, how to have a good contrition - which plays the main part in confession. One can also learn how not to offend the Lord so much any more - the Lord Who suffered so much. His sufferings are described there in a more profound way than in any other hook (he growls).

They should be displayed prominently on the shelves of all libraries, at all events, all Catholic libraries. They should be there in plentiful supply, not just a single copy.

Ponder This: Need a Self-Image Boost?

2011-06-19T00:19:00.000-07:00

It's the oldest and most poignant question - "Where did I come from?" There's no excuse for any Christian to have a poor self-image if we meditate on what God has revealed on this topic: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." (Jeremiah 1:5).

Imagine that! I mean....really imagine it. God thought YOU were worthy to be hand-crafted and placed on this earth, with the chance of spending eternity with Him in everlasting bliss. He planned you, He crafted you, He breathed His Spirit into you and watches over you every day of your life.

You're pretty special if you ask me!

Seeing Heaven, Hell & Purgatory

2011-01-01T18:50:00.000-08:00

I'm not sure if you've noticed, but there have recently been a flurry of testimonies from people claiming to have been "taken" to see the three principle after-life destinations our faith tells us people will wind up when they die. The three places, of course, are heaven, hell and purgatory. As an aside, I personally believe in ghosts, so I'm not sure how they fit into the scheme of things (perhaps a form of purgatory). But, that's another matter.

We can never be certain about the validity of these testimonies. However, I think we can at least try to ascertain the credibility of those testifying. Personally, I think I would tend to believe the story if it came directly from the mouth of Catholic priest more than from an average Joe on the street. The particular story I would like to relate was published in the December 2010 issue of the New Zealand Medjugorje News. The actual issue (pdf document) containing the article can be downloaded here.

The testimony was provided by Fr. Jose Maniyangat of St. Mary Mother of Mercy Catholic Church in Macclenny, Florida. He tells of his experience:

I was born on July 16, 1949 in Kerala, India to my parents Joseph and Theresa Maniyangat. I am the eldest of 7 children: Jose, Mary, Theresa, Lissama, Zachariah, Valsa and Tom. At the age of fourteen, I entered St Mary's Minor Seminary in Thiruvalla to begin my studies for the priesthood.

Four years later, I went to St.Joseph's Pontifical Major Seminary in Alwaye, Kerala to continue my priestly formation. After completing the seven years of philosophy and theology, I was ordained a priest on January 1, 1975 to serve as a missionary in the Diocese of Thiruvalla.

On Sunday April 14, 1985, the Feast of the Divine Mercy, I was going to celebrate Mass at a mission church in the north part of Kerala, and I had a fatal accident. I was riding a motor-cycle when I was hit head-on by a jeep driven by a man who was intoxicated, after a Hindu festival. I was rushed to a hospital about 35 miles away. On the way, my soul came out from my body and I experienced death. Immediately, I met my Guardian Angel. I saw my body and the people who were carrying me to the hospital. I heard them crying and praying for me. At this time my angel told me: "I am going to take you to Heaven, the Lord wants to meet you and talk with you." He also said that, on the way, he wanted to show me hell and purgatory.

Hell

First, the angel escorted me to hell. It was an awful sight! I saw Satan and the devils, an unquenchable fire of about 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, worms crawling, people screaming and fighting, others being tortured by demons. The angel told me that all these sufferings were due to un-repented mortal sins. Then, I understood that there are seven degrees of suffering or levels according to the number and kinds of mortal sins committed in their earthly lives.

The souls looked very ugly, cruel and horrific. It was a fearful experience. I saw people whom I knew, but I am not allowed to reveal their identities. The sins that convicted them were mainly abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, hatefulness, un-forgiveness and sacrilege. The angel told me that if they had repented, they would have avoided hell and gone instead to purgatory.

I also understood that some people who repent from these sins might be purified on earth through their sufferings. This way they can avoid purgatory and go straight to heaven. I was surprised when I saw in hell even priests and Bishops, some of whom I never expected to see. Many of them were there because they had misled the people with false teaching and bad example.

Purgatory

After the visit to hell, my Guardian Angel escorted me to purgatory. Here too, there are seven degrees of suffering and unquenchable fire. But it is far less intense than hell and there was neither quarrelling nor fighting. The main suffering of these souls is their separation from God. Some of those who are in purgatory committed numerous mortal sins, but they were reconciled with God before their death. Even though these souls are suffering, they enjoy peace and the know-ledge that one day they will see God face to face.

I had a chance to communicate with the souls in purgatory. They asked me to pray for them and to tell the people to pray for them as well, so they can go to heaven quickly. When we pray for these souls, we will receive their gratitude through their prayers, and once they enter heaven, their prayers become even more meritorious.

It is difficult for me to describe how beautiful my Guardian Angel is. He is radiant and bright. He is my constant companion and helps me in all my ministries, especially my healing ministry. I experience his presence everywhere I go and I am grateful for his protection in my daily life.

Heaven

Next, my angel escorted me to heaven passing through a big dazzling white tunnel. I never experienced this much peace and joy in my life. Then immediately heaven opened up and I heard the most delightful music, which I never heard before. The angels were singing and praising God. I saw all the saints, especially the Blessed Mother and St. Joseph, and many dedicated holy Bishops and priests who were shining like stars.

And when I appeared before the Lord, Jesus told me: "I want you to go back to the world. In your second life, you will be an instrument of peace and healing to my people. You will walk in a foreign land and you will speak in a foreign tongue. Everything is possible for you with my grace..." After these words, the Blessed Mother told me: "Do whatever He tells you. I will help you in your ministries."

Words cannot express the beauty of heaven. There we find so much peace and happiness, which exceed a million times our imagination. Our Lord is far more beautiful than any image can convey. His face is radiant and luminous and more beautiful than a thousand rising suns. The pictures we see in the world are only a shadow of His magnificence.

The Blessed Mother was next to Jesus; she was so beautiful and radiant. None of the images we see in this world can compare with her real beauty. Heaven is our real home; we are all created to reach heaven and enjoy God forever.

Then, I came back to the world with my angel. While my body was at the hospital, the doctor completed all examinations and I was pronounced dead. The cause of death was bleeding. My family was notified, and since they were far away, the hospital staff decided to move my dead body to the morgue. Because the hospital did not have air conditioners, they were concerned that the body would decompose quickly.

As they were moving my dead body to the morgue, my soul came back to the body. I felt an excruciating pain because of so many wounds and broken bones. I began to scream, and then the people became frightened and ran away screaming. One of them approached the doctor and said: "The dead body is screaming." The doctor came to examine the body and found that I was alive. So he said: "Father is alive, it is a miracle! Take him back to the hospital." Now, back at the hospital, they gave me blood transfusions and I was taken to surgery to repair the broken bones. They worked on my lower jaw, ribs, pelvic bone, wrists, and right leg.

After two months, I was released from the hospital, but my orthopaedic doctor said that I would never walk again. I then said to him: "The Lord who gave me my life back and sent me back to the world will heal me." Once at home, we were all praying for a miracle. Still after a month, and with the casts removed, I was not able to move. But one day while praying I felt an extraordinary pain in my pelvic area. After a short while the pain disappeared completely and I heard a voice saying: "You are healed. Get up and walk." I felt the peace and healing power on my body. I immediately got up and walked. I praised and thanked God for the miracle.

I reached my doctor with the news of my healing, and he was amazed. He said: "Your God is the true God. I must follow your God." The doctor was Hindu, and he asked me to teach him about our Church. After studying the Faith, I baptised him and he became Catholic. Following the message from my Guardian Angel, I came to the United States on November 10, 1986 as a missionary priest.... Since June 1999, I have been pastor of St. Mary's Mother of Mercy Catholic Church in Macclenny, Florida.

Fr Jose Maniyangat. St Marymacclenny.com

Mankind's Choice

2010-12-13T01:13:00.000-08:00

As promised in my introduction on Alan Ames, here is the first of Alan's writings I will be publishing with Alan's permission. This message, entitled "Mankind's Choice", is published in his 1995 book "Messages to Carver Alan Ames" - A compendium of messages Alan has received from God the Father, Jesus Our Lord, The Holy Spirit and Our Blessed Mother Mary.

These writings are truly inspirational, providing insights and answers to many of today's most poignant questions, including sin, abortion, substance abuse, evolution, the Church and more. Through Alan, the rest of the worlds can hear Heaven's views on these subjects!

Alan's website is the place to begin to learn more about this amazing man, his story and his calling. There are also a number of videos of Alan Ames on YouTube.

Alan has an active ministry schedule (he accepts no fees for speaking) and his itinerary is on his website. During these meetings, Alan speaks about his experiences and his special calling, followed by a prayer and healing session where people are invited to come forward to receive prayer and laying on of hands. Many have been healed and their testimonies (a long and growing list!) can also be viewed on Alan's website.

Alan is in full communion with the Catholic Church and has the support of his local bishop, Archbishop B.J.Hickey, who has given him permission to speak and to pray for healing.

Mankind's Choice

God the Father, 2nd April 1995:

"It seems then that mankind is lost in sin, for most either sin, live in sin, accept sin or ignore sin. Most no longer see sin as sin but just see it as part of life or part of man's search for his destiny. Sin becomes a partner to many in life and becomes a chain to many in death.

Sin has grasped the world in its hands and the world in its weakness and blindness welcomes it. Mankind closes its hearts to love and goodness and opens its hearts to sin and suffering.

Over centuries, sin grows and grows, it never really changes. It is the same sin now as in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah; it is the same sin now as in the day of Moses; it is the same sin just under different names with different reasons for accepting it.

Sin is in the very air you breath, the food you eat, the drugs you abuse yourselves with, the so-called love you have in immoral relationship; the contraception and abortion you use to gain a better life on earth, the wars mankind has either in so-called justice or in hate; the killing of the young and the old, the killing of the disabled or infirmed, the killing of those who want what you have; the changing of creation to suit mankind's needs, the altering of God's design for the world, the denial of God and the rejection of God's commandments.

The world swims in sin, the world opens its arms and embraces the evil one and his servants. The world has been warned over and over again, it has been shown the results of sin with all the wars, famines, plagues and disasters that occur and yet still it embraces and welcomes sin. Many in the world become Satan's slaves knowingly or unknowingly.

The Lord your God now asks mankind to reassess how it lives, how it exists. Reassess what it accepts and what it denies, what it adopts as its laws and what it enforces upon itself. Mankind needs to think long and hard about what it invites upon itself and what it will do when payment is demanded.

Your God asks you to look to His Son, Jesus, look to your Saviour, your Redeemer and ask for His mercy.

Those who live in sin, live immorally, commit immoral acts, break God's commandments, spurn God, deny God and destroy themselves must take a moment and look at their lives; take a moment and look at their sins and take a moment and look at their future, then decide if they wish to live life eternal in joy and love or pain and suffering.

Those who make the right choice and turn to Jesus for His forgiveness will find it waiting for them. Jesus longs to help all of God's children, His children. Jesus longs to help, just ask Him, just ask Him.

Mary - Motherly Mediatrix

2010-10-01T12:14:00.000-07:00

One needs to take extreme care in the way one approaches Mary, the mother of Christ. Or, perhaps, extreme care is the exact opposite of what we need. After all, we are children of God, and what child ranks caution among its strongest traits? A child trusts and a child loves.

Let me explain.

To understand Mary's role in the Church and in our hearts, we need to divest ourselves of pride and become as little children (remember Christ's exhortation?). As self-sufficient, thinking, reasoning, strong, proud adults, we are often led astray and find ourselves confounded at the table of nourishment and gifts while babes and children readily and naturally accept and absorb all the juicy morsels of wisdom. Perhaps this is was the very reason for Christ's teaching on children and on becoming child-like:

Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 18:4

We, indeed, are children of God; and Heaven represents our guardianship as well as our destiny - a place of perfection which we have not yet attained. On the other hand, Mary, is now in full possession of this spiritual perfection, of the crown of heaven, fully cognisant of God and His will, and of us His children, and thus must also be representative of this heavenly guardianship, assuming we remain in the cell of our true self-image as children in the genuine spiritual sense of the word. "The flesh counts for nothing. But, my words are spirit and life". Heaven is a spiritual realm. We are spiritual children. Heaven, and all its inhabitants, are our spiritual guardians and superiors. Period.

As children, therefore, we should possess a child's deference and non-judgement towards our superiors. It is not something we would need to put on, but something that should come naturally. Adulthood often causes us to reject or block our eternal good and natural impulses. Imagine a child: innocent, lacking in judgementalism towards his superiors, accepting of his place and thankful for his protection and guardianship. For what child thinks he is better than his guardians or superiors? It never enters the mind of a child. All is trust and all is love.

And even though a child may recognise the authoritative superiority of the male figure in the Christian household, this does not result in rejection or scorn of the mother. Quite the opposite. Often the child is naturally drawn to the soft, warm, nurturing, understanding nature of his mother. Certainly, in any good loving Christian household, the child is constantly aware of the partnership and love between mother and father such that any insolence towards the mother is counted as insolence towards the father.

But, if we are not careful, our false sense of self-sufficiency and pride - things that attached themselves to us as we grew older - may cause us to fall into grave error.

Examples of this error can be found among the ranks of fundamentalists. Shoving aside the warm embrace of the mother in their haste to get to Christ, they justify scorn and indifference towards the mother on the grounds that it was said of Christ "There is only one mediator between God and man". In effect, they make themselves equal (superior in some cases) to the mother of Christ, who naturally deserves our respect, love and trust as a member of Heaven's guardianship, remembering our true self-image as mere spiritual children.

It is as if they consider Mary an obstacle to obtaining God. If they only knew, and would not reject, the Church's actual teaching: that Mary is a motherly mediatrix who can help us on our path to God and who, in fact, never claims to be more than this. Hence, we say "Mary, pray for us", reserving for Christ "Christ have mercy on us". Herein lies the key that would unlock the confusion surrounding mediation.

But, even if they cannot bring themselves to accept this role of Mary, the very least appropriate behaviour, as spiritual children vastly inferior in spirit and in every other way to Mary, would be to grant her respect and honour. There should be at least a smile of respectful love towards Mary - a deportment of humility, honour and admiration. And isn't Mary completely satisfied to see us walk in the direction of Christ? Absolutely! Mary, our superior in every way, is content to reflect Christ's presence and glory as a mirror.

However, it isn't Mary we need to be afraid of. In this loving heavenly partnership, it is Christ who takes scorn towards his mother as scorn towards Himself. Mary is our guardian, Mary is our spiritual mother and the Mother of Christ. The Christian Church is a family. Let us not lose our innocent child-like view of the family. Let us not be confused at the table of heavenly gifts, one of the greatest of which is Mary. Let us divest ourselves of adult stupidity and allow our true natures as God's children, children of Heaven, to shine through.

Medjugorje - Slippery Slope for Patrick Madrid

2010-04-16T15:09:00.000-07:00

Patrick Madrid must be feeling chuffed with all the buzz he has generated over Medjugorje on his blog. Now he's got a new banner which reads "Medjugore True or False?". These types of banners and headlines have appeared everywhere since the 1990's, invariably from people without day jobs who won't just leave it to the Vatican, whose daily business it is to sort the truth from the lie in regard to private revelation. The purpose is mischievious and uncalled-for. It is cleverly disguised as an invitation to question or even debate, but then begs the question with a negative verdict already clearly indicated in the premise.

There will be a price to pay. Certainly we are all entitled to our point of view. But, that doesn't absolve us from any spiritual mischief we cause in the process of airing that opinion to the world.

Patrick veils his obvious anti-M stance with such statements as:

If I am wrong about this, and if the Medjugorje phenomena are truly the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, then I will rejoice to have my error corrected.

Sorry, it doesn't quite work that way. If you don't believe in Medjugorje, and you still want to be able to rejoice in your error if proven wrong, better not burn your bridges by promoting only the anti-Medjugorje side of the story. That might be like Judas expecting Jesus to freely permit him to rejoice in his resurrection having handed him over to his enemies.

I have not seen any article on Madrid's blog which gives credence to Medjugorje. I haven't seen much in the way of a "on one hand...yet on the other hand" mediatory/conciliatory tone. I have only seen comments and articles that paint Medjugorje in various shades of dark grey, using quotes and articles from highly dubious sources. He sounds exactly like what we hear from the same tight-knit anti-Medjugorje group we keep hearing from on the internet and which is so obviously feeding him. He isn't doing Medjugorje, or himself, any favours. Why should he rejoice in the glorious sunrise of Medjugorje when scattered along the road behind him are confused wet-blanketed Catholics and unbelievers who never converted in time because they ignorantly fell for all the innuendo, half-truth and poor logic.

Speaking of poor logic......

A recent post on Madrid's blog (the very same article in which he added the disclaimer that he would gladly be proven wrong and join in the rejoicing) spotlights the error of judgment by John Paul II concerning Fr Maciel - a red herring which the anti-M promoters are calling "The Maciel Effect" and which they are using to poison the Medjugorje well. Madrid, now apparently having both feet planted in the anti-Medjugorje camp, displays a preparedness to abandon discretion for one of the weakest arguments I've seen and to allow this argument to propagate across the mega-audience that is the world wide web. Hardly discrete and hardly indicative of an openness to being wrong. And hardly something you would do right before hoping to rejoice if proven wrong.

Madrid summarises:

We might think of this as the "Maciel Effect," which applies to Medjugorje and can be expressed in the form of the following argument:
"If even a good and holy pope can be deceived and be utterly wrong in his sincere personal opinion about the character of Fr. Maciel, then how much more so is it possible that you could be sincerely wrong in your personal opinions about Medjugorje?"

I'm not sure if I should forward this argument to one of his long-time debating opponents, Dr James White, to give him hope that Madrid, without the support of other apologists, could be found rather wanting in the debating arena.

In strictly debating terms, this summary statement commits a number of logical fallacies, including poisoning the well, non-sequitur, begging the question, red herring and probably a few more. This false reasoning comes together and can be summarised in the following expression:

One pope made one error of judgement:
in a single case

which was unrelated to Medjugorje

concerning an invidividual

for which little contrary information was available

Therefore, because of this single error of judgement, we should question our belief in Medjugore based on JPII's approval of it, even though JPII's approval concerns an event (not a person):

which could be closely monitored over a quarter of a century

which was closely studied by three scientific teams and found to be inconsistent with hoax

during which he had many opportunities to meet, and establish the credibility of, a wide variety of involved individuals (including franciscans, seers and others)

about which literally thousands of other high-ranking officials, cardinals, bishops, priests and nuns have formed exactly the same opinion as John Paul II, compared to those genuinely opposed to Medjugorje, who can be counted on one hand.

about which all of the informed world had the same information and thus are in more or less the same position as JPII to make a judgement

about which by far the majority of JPII's colleagues have made the same positive judgement.

This is truly shameful. With very little foresight, this man, Patrick Madrid, whom we would expect to deliver more reason, logic and insight, has done Pope John Paul II an injustice and tainted many other Catholics' feelings towards him. Notwithstanding the fact that he has muddied the waters and poisoned the well of Medjugorje even further by attempting, via this flawed logic, to cast Medjugorje in a greyer light.

Come on Patrick. You can do better!

Carver Alan Ames - Modern Mystic

2010-04-04T22:53:00.000-07:00

We have quite an amazing individual in our midst.

In 1993, Carver Alan Ames (known commonly as Alan Ames) had a conversion experience that would rival that of some of our greatest saints. The Vatican has not made a pronouncement on his authenticity. However, his bishop, Archbishop B.J.Hickey, has given him permission to speak and to pray for healing. The Archbishop also appointed a spiritual director to investigate and watch over what was happening and to guide him in his work for God. Today, Alan enjoys the continued support of Archbishop Hickey who encourages him in his work.

In 2007, Alan was interviewed in great depth by famed mariologist René Laurentin. Click here for that interview.

Laurentin describes Alan's startling conversion:

Alan Ames, 54 years old, violent during his youth. He gets married very young to Kathryn at the age of 20 and have 2 children. He quietens down his life. He migrates to Australia where he becomes a talented sales manager. There he becomes more and more addicted to alcohol and drugs. This restarts his violence.
At the age of 40 an angel warns him: "Change your life, pray".
During the first months of his conversion he is physically and morally attacked by the evil one. At the beginning he asks himself if he is going mad but St. Theresa of Avila confirms to him what is happening and says: You are going to hell unless you change! He changes his life, his wife converts to Catholicism.
He receives messages from ... the Trinity, Our Blessed Mother and the saints. He published 16 books. He is supported by his archbishop from Perth. He travels all around the world where his conferences gather big audiences. He has the charism of conversion and healing. He lives painfully the Passion of our Lord, more often without visible stigmata but blood is shed rarely.

During the interview, startling details of his many and regular encounters with up to 100 saints came to light.

Here are some excerpts from that interview, any emphases mine:

Laurentin. You live in great union with God, but there are moments or lights where you feel the presence, have you also moments of night where you feel nothing?
Ames. No.
Laurentin. You are always in the transparence?!
Ames. From the first time I received the Eucharist never I have not experienced the presence of God. Never, every day since 1993/94, every day, all day.
Laurentin. Because this happens frequently, the night can be very profound. Don’t you suffer from ordeals and temptations of evil. In these moments what do you feel, don’t you feel that God is far away when you are attacked by the evil one?
Ames. When these attacks occur, I see them as a blessing because when they happen I turn to God, I ask for his help and give myself totally to Him and trust completely in Him. The evil one is stupid because every time he attacks me it turns more to God. There have been several times when I thought I would die. Once I was in Rome, I was in convent near St. Peter's. I thought I would be safe there, I was asleep and I was woken up in the middle of the night being strangled. I thought I was going to die, my back was arching, I could feel the veins in my neck were about to burst, I thought I would take my last breath: I am going to die, so I said: - Jesus if this is Your will, I accept it and I give You my soul. From the moment I said that, the attack stopped. And it’s always the same. So it’s why I say that the attacks turn me more to God even though at the beginning sometimes I am terrified because some of them are horrible, always it turns me to God and it’s a great blessing.

I will write more about Alan Ames and his many profound messages in upcoming posts.

Catholic-Bashing Media is a Painful Cause for Joy

2010-04-04T14:06:00.000-07:00

Chins up Catholics! Far from being disillusioned at all the recent negative media attention, we should be thanking and praising God at the top of our lungs!

Why?!

It's easy to forget, isn't it, that times of trial are indications of God's presence and love.

Hebrews 12:4-11

In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son."

Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it.

A recent article by Bill Underwood in The Examiner brought just these sentiments to my mind. The writer attempted to paint such a dastardly picture of the state of the Catholic Church that the only remaining question to be answered is why one would ever wish to remain in the Catholic Church.

The writer didn't even realise that he had pretty much answered his own question. The fact that the Church has been around for 2,000 years is the first indication of God's true presence. The second indication is the attempted infiltration and destruction of the Church by the evil one over those 2,000 years, attempts which have not stopped even today. The third indication is the fact that the Church is constantly being held publically accountable for its indiscretions. This public accountablity has inevitably led to correction and purification.

Dirty laundry aired - dirty laundry cleaned. This is God's work! We should celebrate!

And we already have history as our guide. Luther took the way prescribed by Bill Underwood. And what has the world learned about rebellion and running away as a way of life? It might work in other cases, but it doesn't work where Christ's church is concerned. For Christ's most fervent prayer is recorded in the Bible "That they may be one". But, instead of the unity Heaven desires, the "reformation" has taken shape over the last several centuries in 33,000+ denominations, none completely agreeing with one another - a juggernaut of chaos, confusion and disunity. And the more the disagreements, the greater this number becomes as each new self-styled leader cries "I protest!"

No, we will never abandon our beloved Church. God's will is being done here. Encouraged by this time of cleansing, graciously coinciding with this Easter season, stiffens our resolve to endure the pain and look forward to the next period of grace within the Church, according to God's great and Holy Will.

Leading Catholic Apologists Jump on the Anti-Medjugorje Bandwagon

2010-04-03T13:34:00.000-07:00

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 medjugorje.hr. 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 medjugorje.hr 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
matter.

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!

Medjugorje - Pope Benedict Sympathetic

2010-03-22T13:29:00.001-07:00

Finally, after all the he-said-she-said, we have something that appears to accurately reflect the current pope's thoughts and feelings on Medjugorje, leading up to this new investigation.

Medjugorje News has just run an article which states the following:

Archbishop Allessandro D’Errico, Apostolic Nuncio to Bosnia and Herzegovina, gave statement about Medjugorje on March 18th at the end of 48th Bishop’s Conference of Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the statement broadcasted by Radio Mir Medjugorje, he amongst other things said: “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. That is why he wanted to establish this Commission that is on really high level. He wanted to establish this Commission in order for him to have broad picture about this matter, but according to the people who have highest qualities and skills. That is why he invited Cardinals, Bishops and experts from different parts of the world to be part of this Commission.

Now, can we finally accept this, coming in an official statement from a high-ranking Vatican official, as truthful and valid? Let's see if this applies any kind of brake mechanism to the incessant forward shoving from Medjugorje detractors. Let's see if this silences the poison blogs of the likes of Richard Salbato, E Michael Jones, Robert Sungenis and the email pestilence from the likes of Mark Waterinckx.

The speech made the pertinent remark:

it is very difficult for him [Pope Benedict] to perceive that there can be so
many opposing information about the same matter

Well, if Pope Benedict had seen what I have from the gentlemen mentioned above, and many more of their cronies, he would not be so surprised. Each of these gentleman claims proudly to have a more or less direct link to Bishop Ratko Peric. This might explain a lot. We still don't know what Bishop Peric's problem with Medjugorje truly is, but I sincerely think it has very little to do with the visions themselves and is more likely something personal and culturally entrenched. I almost hope there is more to it than that because none of us wants to continue thinking poorly of an appointed bishop of Christ. I hope all his objections are thoroughly aired and dealt with. And if the new commission finds that any of his objections are founded, then all the better.

Medjugorje Haters

2010-03-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

What a strange and irrational breed is the Medjugorje hater. What an unnecessary clamour and din they create. Everybody, even the hardest Medjugorje believer, even John-Paul II, knew that caution should be exercised in the matter of private revelation.

But for people like Mark Waterinckx, Richard Salbato, E Michael Jones and a number of others, it goes beyond this, for some utterly unknown reason.

A recent article from Mark Waterinckx reminded me of another interesting article of about the same time - one from Christopher Hitchens - which doth protest far too much and far too irrationally for people to take seriously. Comments that just haven't been thought through properly. Pure I've-got-nothing-else-to-do bluster. These people are in some type of fantasy world all of their own fighting a cause of their own and all for their own benefit and justification. It really has nothing to do with the Church because the Church already has quite a good working system for dealing with these issues.

We should really see what is behind all this bluster and whether any of it should be taken the slightest notice of, as if we didn't already know the answer to that.

Mark doesn't believe what Christ told us about how we should discern if something is from God - i.e. by its fruits. By fruits, we are certainly talking about the "important" fruits, for we all know that where there are good crops, weeds will also spring up. Mark wants to create confusion (who else likes doing that? Satan, I believe) by calling the weeds the so-called "fruit".

And Mark has little faith in Almighty God, Who reaps where He does not sow and can make anything good from anything evil, such that, even if Medjugorje were the most evil incarnation yet witnessed on earth, God is certainly watching out for the Church isn't He by the look of the unmistakable fruits the church sorely needs at this time.

Indeed, nothing can happen without God's ultimate consent. If Mark's destructive intent weren't so obvious, one might almost forgive him for simply "panicking" out of a lack of faith in God. But, God told us to "Be still and know that I am God", not run around like a chicken with its head cut off, brandishing a machine gun which rattles off the same tired and unjust accusations of profiteering and con-artistry. Here's an example:

..the disobedience of the seers and of the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the rebellion against the bishops and the Pope, the fanaticism, the manipulations, lies, contradictions, the profiteering, the luxurious homes of the “seers”, the sex scandals of the Franciscans, the suspended Franciscan rebels involved in Medjugorje and their illegal sacraments.

Even the hardest Medjugorje believer, even John-Paul II himself, wouldn't try to deny there have been controversies surrounding personalities, but unfortunately, again, the magnifying glass has been focused on the wrong thing. In a freer, more transparent situation, we would probably be spared this lop-sided misreporting because the world would more clearly see the full picture which unfortunately involves the Bishops of Mostar themselves, in damaging light, having a direct bearing on civility and co-operation between clerics of different orders in this region (see the History of the Herzegovinian Affair).

Mark hesitates not the slightest in making accusations such as this:

The commercial believers earn a great deal of money from their "goldmine", e.g. the Franciscans of Medjugorje, the “seers”, the organizers of the pilgrimages, the sellers of videos, DVDs, books etc.

But, if you asked him to back up these claims that all the franciscans and seers are getting rich from these apparitions, you wouldn't get one single document, one single bank transaction, one single news report or expozee after nearly 30 years. The silence is deafening for people like Mark. Reality is not backing him up. Yet, he keeps repeating the same accusations. These people open their mouths and hatred and false witness spews out.

Mark continues:

Among the not for profit believers are those who naively accept everything and who only read books, periodicals and websites which are pro Medjugorje and who thus can be considered to be misled by their ignorance.

Far from being "misled by their ignorance", the more calm, faithful, thinking individual simply does not want to be misled by conspiracy theory, nor to be led into sin. Mark has broken the 8th commandment on numerous occasions with his false witness borne against innocent people. He must be feeling a little lonely in this sin because he would like the rest of us to join him. No thanks, Mark.

We just need to count the number of times any conspiracy has been proven completely wrong, and look at the types of people involved in perpetuating these theories, to know categorically that the wisest course of action is just to get the facts and wait for the Vatican and, if so desired, take a private pilgrimage and let the Lord speak in the stillness of your own heart.

Here's Mark calling the kettle black:

With both groups there are many believers who display a marked degree of fanaticism and obsessiveness. Medjugorje has become their all encompassing dogma which overrides everything else. This fanaticism overrode all common sense, critical evaluation, intellectual honesty, prudence and friendship. This attitude can only be explained by the influence of the “diabolos”, the evil spirit, the malign entity which everywhere sows enmity and disunity.

People have reacted to Medjugorje much as God would hope they would if past apparitions are anything to go by, such as Lourdes, Guadaloupe and Fatima. Such was the "fanaticism" at Guadalupe that the entire country of Mexico converted to Catholicism. 70,000 people marvelled with pure emotion at the miracle of the sun at Fatima. God's power and might doesn't leave much room for anything else but pure emotion. The same thing happens wherever God permits an apparition to occur. The whole idea is to elicit a strong reaction from the people. Yet, Mark has somehow managed to contort this natural and God-willed situation into a negative.

No, the only fanaticism we are witnessing here is modern and media-driven. It came along with the cult of conspiracy theory, who-dunnits, PI and reality TV shows. People are making money right now making movies and writing books and blogs talking about conspiracy at Medjugorje. It's what sells these days. But, wiser heads just aren't buying. We've had enough. We're waiting for the Vatican and we will obey the Vatican.

Mark talks about "intellectual honesty, prudence and friendship" as if he somehow possesses these things, unlike Medjugorje believers. There is no intellectual (or moral) honesty in accusing someone of being a fraudster without an iota of proof. There is no prudence in this. There is no friendship in this. Mark is blissfully unaware that he is one of Satan's starring pawns in the sowing of this enmity and disunity he accuses people who love Medjugorje of.

I will address Mark's further comments in a separate post.

Papal Nuncio - Archbishop Stephan Zurbriggen - in Medjugorje

2009-10-31T15:09:00.001-07:00

The following was blogged on "Our Blessed Mother's Children" on 30/10/2009:

The Vatican’s Apostolic Nuncio of Austria was in Medjugorje this week for four days with a large group of Austrian pilgrims estimated at more than 1,000.Last Sunday, Archbishop Stephan Zurbriggen told the congregation at the English-speaking Mass that his benediction carried with it a special papal indulgence (with the usual conditions attached) for all those able to attend the Masses at which he was the Celebrant while he was in Medjugorje.peace and blessings.

This is certainly a bright spot for followers of Medjugorje at a time when conspiracy theorists and anti-Medjugorje campaigners have been having a field day over such recent events as the laicisation of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic and a recent speech by Bishop Ratko Peric.

We sincerely hope that this is a strong indicator of the stance the Vatican will take when we finally receive the long-awaited official Vatican proclamation on Medjugorje, which is expected before the end of 2009, after some 3 years of a new investigation have been carried out since its announcement by Cardinal Vinko Puljic in 2007. [Note: The most we can reasonably hope for at this stage is that Medjugorje be granted International Shrine status until the visions have ceased and the promised sign materialises. But, that should keep most Medjugorje followers happy, given that the longer the apparitions go on, the better for the world. Certainly, nobody should be hoping for a fast conclusion to the visions as that would likely mean that Our Lady had not been able to hold back the just hand of God any longer and that the secrets are about to unfold.]

Because of the extremely clandestine nature of this investigation, at least one conspiracy theorist - Richard Salbato of Unity Publishing - who claimed to have intimate Vatican connections, was led to believe that the investigation was not going to happen.

To date, reports from the Vatican and over the grapevine have always been just vague enough to allow both sides of the fence to defend their respective positions. The often bitter split in the Catholic Church over Medjugorje has never healed. It's still too early to count our chickens, but it's difficult to see how this news could not change that situation. Coming just weeks before an expected conclusion, it is almost impossible to see this as anything other than a rather loud pre-emptive statement as to what we can expect in terms of the official Vatican declaration at the end of this year.

Bishop Peric at it Again

2009-10-02T15:56:00.000-07:00

Bishop Peric's latest activities echo loudly his activities during the Mostar Affair. His latest sermon, recorded here, could have been very similar to the sermon given by Bishop Zanic immediately after his inauguration as new Bishop of Mostar in 1980, when he announced his plan to carve up the Franciscan monastic parishes and essentially drive the Franciscans out of "his" territory.

Peric carried on Zanic's legacy and, upon taking office in 1993, drew violent reactions from the local parishioners by his inflammatory comments and actions, which included refusing to allow Franciscan refugees, whose monastery was destroyed during the Bosnian conflict, to shelter in the suburb of Cim because it had become a secular parish. The reactions against Bishop Peric from the local community included physical violence and they did everything they could to stop this man from having his own way with their beloved shepherds, the Franciscans. Eventually, Peric, with an iron hand succeeded in driving the Franciscans completely out of the Mostar and indeed beyond.

People in Bosnia are probably used to Bishop Peric's antics by now and show a lot more restraint. The local Franciscans and visionaries are certainly dong their best to show obedience despite attacks that none should expect from a Bishop. The visionaries pray ardently for the bishop.

Bishop Peric said:

"Gradually we have been able to distance the 'apparitions' and 'messages' from
the parish church and church environs."

This type of talk sounds all too familiar and I, for one, feel extremely sorry for the Franciscans for what they have had to endure for centuries now, ever since the seculars arrived in the region.

We need not take much else from Peric's speech. He is reiterating only what is contained in the Zadar Declaration, i.e. that before the Vatican has had a chance to conclude its investigations, one should not spread the message that Medjugorje is approved.

It is unfortunate that the opposite doesn't seem to apply in the mind of the Bishop and his supporters, i.e. that one should also not CONDEMN the apparition before the Vatican has had a chance to conclude its investigations.

If we are to know a person by his fruits, let the intelligent unbiassed reader be the judge when someone like Bishop Peric is placed alongside someone like the visionary Vicka.

Cardinal Schönborn Speaks on Medjugorje

2009-09-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

Vienna's Cardinal Schönborn hosted Marija Pavlovic at a large Medjugorje Prayer for Peace at St. Stephen's, where he made some comments in favour of Medjugorje. The comments might be surprising to people who were not familiar with his history of affection for Medjugorje. Among many other tacit endorsements, in 2003, he said the following:

"On Medjugorje I don't want to express myself from the standpoint of an ecclesiastical judgment. But I only can ascertain one thing again and again, that this is a place where there is obviously an intense mission-station of heaven where thousands upon thousands of human beings find prayer, confession, conversion, reconciliation, healing and deeper faith."
(The complete German text of the Cardinal's Dec. 1, 2002 catechesis, titled, "Mary - Mission in Her Heart," can be found on the web at http://www.kath.net/)

The following speech, from this particular event in Vienna, was translated from German into English here:

It is a great gift that the Mother of all her children will be so close! She showed it in so many places in the world. And, for many, many years, it shows in a particularly close way in Medjugorje.

We must thank the Lord that He through His mother, so many people in this now almost 30 years ago led to the love God has shown them His love and that so many people have found healing, repentance and renewal. In the confession, they were allowed to discover the love of the Lord in the Eucharist and the love of his mother by his mother. The reconciliation in families, the healing of drugs, addictions and troubles are their concerns. It is a very great sign for our time that Mary as concrete and very close and easy, worries about her children and cares and is with them.
When I see how many of them today in the cathedral and how long they have to pray - a lot longer than me, then I can only thank the Lord and His mother with all my heart, and they all ask if they were witnesses, witnesses of His mercy. Witnesses near Our Lady to the people.

Show them what you're getting them here and by the grace of Medjugorje and have time and again, they show it to others and they continue to give. That is my request, also in view of the great diocesan mission. What does the diocese - Mission? She wants to invite us to your friendship with Jesus. "Do whatever he tells you!", The words of Mary at Cana were "Do whatever he tells you!"

So I invite you now realize that we will get it, who really is truly present in our midst in the Eucharist, worship, praise Him and thank Him that we can bring our needs to Him. To Him who wants to heal each of us and make healing. Thanks also to those who have designed this evening, have so used it. Special thanks to the Dommesnern. We give them a big round of applause.

E Michael Jones Responds

2009-08-28T14:10:00.001-07:00

The Robert Sungenis-promoted E Michael Jones' response to my article is critiqued below:

BAYLIS: Jones, lacking any direct quotes or statements from Ratzinger HIMSELF, attempts to
manufacture Ratzinger's opinion from something Zanic allegedly said.

JONES: I spoke with Cardinal Ratzinger on three separate occasions and on each occasion, he stated that he did not believe in the authenticity of the apparitions, and that he accepted the
judgment of Bishop Zanic on the matter.

BAYLIS: We'll need some dates for these alleged statements and preferably the actual quotes. Jones doesn't do himself any favours with his nasty habit of quoting in a vacuum. All evidence unmistakably points to Ratzinger not accepting Zanic's conclusions after the completion of his investigations. Zanic concluded "Proven not to be supernatural". The Zadar Declaration said "Not [yet] proven to be supernatural". That doesn't mean anything negative. It's the general classification used for apparitions when they are not concluded and further investigations are likely. The Vatican was waiting at this stage, for a whole number of reasons. So, clearly the pertinent point is that Ratzinger did NOT accept the judgement of Bishop Zanic. So, Jones has some explaining to do.

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

BAYLIS: He [Ratzinger] believed that Zanic could not be trusted to judge on the authenticity of the apparitions of Medjugorje. After Zanic gave Ratzinger the negative report on Medjugorje, Ratzinger removed the dossier from the hands of Zanic and placed the investigative task in the hands of the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference?

JONES: There is no evidence for this assertion. See my answer to statement 1.

BAYLIS: The evidence is ipso facto the dossier landing in the hands of the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference and ipso facto the Zadar Declaration, which was not Zanic's declaration, but the declaration of the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference! Nevertheless, the evidence is borne out later by this statement from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone in 1999, indicating how things transpire in these cases:

"The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has asked the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia Hercegovina to take over the dossier of Medjugorje and start again from the beginning. A team of experts will take part in the work."

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

BAYLIS: When you couple this with his forced loyalty to the Yugoslav communist government who wanted him to cease the apparitions immediately, it is highly unwise to paint Zanic as the most trustworthy of sources.

JONES: The late Bishop Zanic and his successor Bishop Peric are not “sources.” Bishop Zanic was the bishop of the Diocese of Mostar, which is to say, the final authority on the matter of the “apparitions.” He condemned the so-called apparitions as a hoax. Rome has never uttered a word of reproach against him. To deny his judgment is to deny the authority of the church.

BAYLIS: Jones needs to extricate himself from his rose-coloured vacuum. He sounds like a Protestant - once saved, always saved. Zanic WAS the final authority and was given the chance to investigate. Zanic then LOST his final authority, which passed to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference whose conclusions were accepted by the Vatican and codified in the Zadar Declaration. Zanic INDEED was reproached by the Vatican, officially. Zanic is the source of the letter containing his objections to Medjugorje, which the Vatican ordered him to stop sending. This letter became the source of every conspiracy theory we hear today. Peric continues Zanic's legacy and is the source of further out-of-context quotations which fuel the controversy at time when the Vatican needs all the objectivity and patience it can get. Peric appears to be silenced these days. I didn't deny his judgement or say anything against him. The Vatican did. I'm sorry he brought it upon himself.

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

BAYLIS: Žanić became so hostile to the events at Međugorje that he wrote a letter denouncing the apparitions and sent it publicly throughout the world [This is the same letter picked up on by E Michael Jones and every other conspiracy theorist you hear today. It is their ONLY source of material].

JONES: My book, The Medjugorje Deception, is based on material from hundreds of books and interviews.

BAYLIS: Jones overlooks Zanic's activities as if they mean nothing and continue to strap his arguments together with quotes from Zanic's illicit objections. Again, why would Zanic bother to risk the ire of the Vatican by spreading this letter if Ratzinger agreed with his views? His views were encoded in that document. They were rejected. And Jones' book promo just fuels my speculation that Jones profits from chaos, as most conspiracy theorists do. If you profit from it, why not fuel it, right?

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

BAYLIS: By disregarding official Vatican warnings, the Bishop himself appeared to show the same disobedience he accused everyone else of, but apparently that's OK if you're a secular Bishop in Bosnia.

JONES: The bishop cannot show disobedience. There is no authority in the church higher than the bishop.

BAYLIS: If this belief is sincerely held by Jones, then that explains a lot indeed. We have this loose cannon running around creating division in the Church based on absolute garbage.

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

BAYLIS: Jones puts himself in the league of people who are "familiar with the story". He isn't showing much familiarity at all. Firstly, Vlasic requested the laicisation (see here).

JONES: Did he say, “You can’t fire me. I quit”?

BAYLIS: Jones tacitly admits he twisted the report and/or allowed others' twisting to go uncorrected. The fact is that he requested laicisation. But, even if it was at the Vatican's instigation, something very interesting shows up - the Vatican allows even humble priests to save face. Imagine what face-saving measures were afforded to Zanic and Peric. Going by their activities here and during the Herzegoninian and Mostar Affairs, they might have considered themselves pretty lucky. The second interesting point is moot in this controversy, i.e. there are many who believe that Ratzinger is cleaning up Medjugorje in preparation for Shrine status. That would back up this comment by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith:

"For the moment, one should consider Medjugorje as a Sanctuary, a Marian shrine, in the same way as Czestochowa."

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

BAYLIS: Thirdly, and most telling, Vlasic's involvement with Medjugorje ended in 1985, more than twenty years ago, when the visionary Marija recanted and refused to acknowledge his claim that the Virgin endorsed his plan.

JONES: Since Vlasic has been on his own for years, no one can say whether his involvement ended or it didn’t. The dossier issued by the bishop of Mostar indicates that it did not. Beyond that, the incident mentioned needs elaboration. Marija Pavlovic issued a statement claiming that the Blessed Mother endorsed the co-ed religious community Tomislav Vlasic created in Parma with the German woman Agnes Heupel. Shortly after a reporter for Fidelity showed up at the palazzo housing the community, Marija Pavlovic issued a statement in both Croatian and Italian admitting that her alleged message from the Blessed Mother did not correspond to the truth and that she had made it under pressure from Tomislav Vlasic. That, according to the criteria for evaluating private revelations should have been the end of the story.

BAYLIS: If Jones can't say whether his involvement ended or not, then why does he keep reiterating as fact the accusation that Vlasic was in it with Zovko for the money. Jones feels that the apparitions should have been condemned on the spot based on these events. Again, this snapshotting of everything, "cherry-picking" as apologists call it. Imagine if Christ snapshotted Jones' life at its worst and used that for the basis of his eternal judgement. Anyway, I think we are generally agreed to stop bringing up Vlasic's name every time we want to tar other Franciscans, visionaries and an entire apparition with the same brush. Zanic has already been shown to lack trustworthiness, so the sooner Zanic quotes from the 1980's stop coming, the better. Medjugorje is cleaned of Vlasic. Expect to see perhaps more of this cleaning.

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

BAYLIS: It was Zanic who first referred to Vlasic this way. To say he was the "creator" implies he was around to see the actual creation - the illicit fruits - the "booty" as it were.

JONES: “Creation” means, “at the beginning,” not years later.

BAYLIS: The accusation was that an income stream was allegedly created from a scam, that income stream being attributable to Vlasic and Zovko, being the "creators" thereof. With Zovko in jail and Vlasic out of the country a year or so later, the "creation" part seems fuzzy as would the "collection" part. All Zovko needed to say to the police was "Yes, I will try to stop the apparitions" and he would have avoided jail and been free to pursue his "dastardly criminal endeavours". We all know that souvenir vendors scored big (as happened at Fatima, Guadalupe and elsewhere) and that Ivan probably gets a fee for speaking and the other visionaries take lodgers, but where is the real booty? Where is the reward that made it all worthwhile. NOWHERE! Vlasic obviously still has a conscience, otherwise he probably would accept a million dollars from Phil Kronzer or other rich anti-Medjugorje campaigner to do an expozee. Jones, here's your challenge: See if Vlasic is open to this. I can't think of a faster way to vindication and wealth for you. Put your money where your mouth is.

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

BAYLIS: Secondly, anyone who has taken the time to read the early testimonies will know the irony that Zanic originally wanted to approve the apparitions but that Zovko thought the children were lying.

JONES: Is this another way of saying that Bishop Zanic had an open mind at the beginning? If so, I agree. Secondly, it leaves out the fact that Jozo Zovko did in fact suspect the children of lying but asked them to have the apparitions in the church anyway, a sign that the Franciscans were eager to manipulate the “apparitions” for their own benefit.

BAYLIS: Zovko was already a believer right after receiving his locution to "Protect the Children". He willingly chose jail over freedom for this conviction. On that basis, how does allowing them to have apparitions in the Church indicate a desire to manipulate them?

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

BAYLIS: Zanic appeared to change his tune quite soon after that meeting.

JONES: By portraying Bishop Zanic as a tool of the communists, our Medjugorje defender commits the sin of calumny. There is no evidence to back up this charge.

BAYLIS: Some things just stare you in the face and you're forced to conclude the obvious. The facts are:

If you cross communists, there's trouble for you and for your flock, especially as the apparitions began at the height of disintegrating relations between Church and state.
Both Zanic and Zovko were called in for the same reason, i.e. call off the apparitions or face jail. Zovko went to jail but Zanic did not. 1 + 1 = 2.

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

BAYLIS: E Michael Jones needs to sit himself down in front of a mirror and ask himself where his hatred and irrationality comes from. He is apparently a Catholic who thinks the 8th Commandment does not apply to him. Does he think it's compelling racey "journalism" to create these fantasies at the expense of the reputation of innocent people? Save it Michael. But, if we were to bother to refute this accusation, it might go along the lines of this: After 28 years of apparitions, might it not be highly probable that at least one of the six visionaries, or thousands of others close to the visionaries, would expose the fraud. I dare say they have been offered handsomely to do so.

JONES: Our apologist needs to read my answer to point 10. He is calumniating a courageous bishop who has gone to his eternal reward and cannot defend himself against these lies. As to the “racey” [sic] journalism, does our Medjugorje apologist deny that Tomislav Vlasic fathered an illegitimate child by a nun? Does he deny that he was guilty of repeated sins against the Sixth Commandment as well as trafficking in spirits, as the bishop of Mostar’s dossier maintains?

BAYLIS: I have provided the facts, wherever I see them. Unfortunately, this unsavoury task has landed in my hands because of Jones' successful efforts to con everyone into believing that the only person with any authority is the local Bishop. Jones appears even to be anti-ROME in this assertion, denying the authority of all those superior to the local bishop, including the Pope himself. I have presented counter-evidence and provided further insight into why we should NOT necessarily rely on the local Bishop for anything official, but instead rely on the cool objectivity of Rome. And this isn't some personal anti-bishop crusade. This stance originated from the Vatican after the faithful felt bullied by the bishop and wanted clarification. This clarification came from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who said "Yes, you may pilgrimage to Medjugorje" and "No, don't consider the opinions of the local bishop as Vatican opinion"

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

JONES: Ivan Dragicevic has been banned from the Diocese of Joliet. That is a fact, no “belligerent craziness.” The letter has been posted on the Medjugorje apologist’s own website.

BAYLIS: The "belligerent craziness" refered to the shameless accusation that Ivan is a conman out to fleece everybody. Regardless, no, he wasn't "banned" in the sense Jones tries to create. This is another Jones twist. Readers are invited to read the actual letter in the comments section, at the bottom. Joliet is an example of a parish taking a very cautious approach to apparitions that are still under investigation, which they are entitled to do. The letter even indicates that it is not a reflection on the visionary or their message.

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

BAYLIS: Zanic cried and complained so much that they watered down the conclusion to allow Zanic to save face.

JONES: So our apologist admits that the Croatian bishops issued a negative statement on Medjugorje.

BAYLIS: Not at all. By "watering down", I mean going from approving the apparition to giving it the classification that leaves it open to further investigation, i.e. "non-constat de supernaturitate". But, what we have here instead is Jones' admission that Zanic's authority, as far as judging on the authenticity of the apparitions, was removed and handed to the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference.

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

BAYLIS: E Michael Jones has been at the forefront of twisting the Zadar Declaration into becoming something it never was intended to be.

JONES: There is no twisting. It said exactly what I said it said. See response to 14 for our apologist admitting the same thing.

BAYLIS: Jones has capitalised on the inconclusive nature of the Zadar Declaration. In just his last comment, he said "Croatian bishops issued a negative statement". The Declaration was not meant to be equated to "disapproval" or "condemnation", which is what Jones has been attempting to portray all along. The Declaration was limited in its negativity to the proven nature of the supernaturality of the apparitions. That conclusion was left open to further investigation. It's simply nothing Jones wants it to be. Simply hope for future resolution.

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

BAYLIS: Warning: If you have been a supporter of Zanic and Peric, be prepared to be disappointed, unless you are a lover of truth.

JONES: Who’s disappointed now in the wake of the defrocking of Tomislav Vlasic?

BAYLIS: Does he think I'm disappointed? On the contrary, all objective appearances are that Benedict is adopting John Paul II's opinion on Medjugorje and cleaning the house for imminent shrine status. I get this impression from official vatican communications and easily verifiable interviews with those whose opinions actually matter - e.g. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. I get that opinion also from the screeds of undeniable unofficial evidence from literally hundreds of cardinals, bishops and priests who believe Medjugorje to be true. I actually read reports properly with an open mind, not scan them for quotes I can pick out of context to serve my purpose. My analysis of the Herzegovinian and Mostar Affairs is testimony that I take both sides of the story. That would have been an easy one to sway completely against the Bishops.

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

The Herzegovinian and Mostar Affairs

2009-08-24T14:35:00.000-07:00

Many people would like to know what happened in the Bosnia-Herzegovina region that has caused such tension between the local Franciscan population and the relatively newly-arrived secular clergy.

I'll attempt to summarise it as briefly and objectively as possible. Brevity won't be easy because it is the long history of events that bring the important nuances which will help the reader fully comprehend the events. For example, I could simply jump in at 1980 with something like

"Zanic arrived in 1980 as the new Bishop and immediately told the community of his intentions to carve up the Mostar parish - four-fifths to the seculars and one-fifth to the Franciscans.

But, you would miss the fascinating history that lead up to why Zanic would make a point of saying such a thing in his inauguration speech as the new Bishop of Mostar.

Objectivity won't be easy either. It really is a sad story of long-lasting suffering for true men of God, no matter which way you look at it.

Is it possible for a bishop to dupe the Vatican? How could one bishop possibly be allowed to pressure the Vatican with threats? Could a secular bishop really seek dishonestly to take parishes away from the Franciscans? Could a secular bishop REALLY refuse to allow fellow priests to take shelter anywhere in their previously-owned parishes while their monastery stood destroyed? What caused emotions so powerful that the local parishioners could not contain the violence against their elected bishop? Oh, the saga, the injustice! Injustice raises emotions, prolonged injustice can result in violence. Please read on.

This article quotes and extensively summarises the very long and detailed document written by Viktor Nuiæ, OFM, Dr.

A New and Alien Church Heirarchy For the Franciscans to Deal With

The Franciscan Friars arrive in Bosnia in 1339 and adapted and flourished in the region. Then the Turks invaded Bosnia, but Austria and some other European countries began to ward them off, liberating Hungaria, Slavonia and Dalmatia. These events began at the end of the Seventeenth Century and spanned the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.
However, during this time, the Turks humiliated, detained, beat and murdered the Franciscans.

Despite the calamities to the Catholic population, who mostly fled, one section nevertheless remained in Bosnia thanks to God and the perseverance of the Franciscans. And so Catholicism was preserved in these regions.

With Austria now the dominant force in the region, a new Church hierarchy was born. Austria didn't want the Slavs and Croats unified into a strong local Bosnian population, desiring to keep them as separate and uneducated as possible. But, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Franciscans were considered a threat to the fulfilment of this plan because they stressed and promoted a Croatian belonging.
The Austrians thus felt is was necessary to diminish the influx and influence of the Franciscans. And so it came about that a succession of Austrian secular bishops came to the region to implement Austrian policy.

First, let it be known that from all my personal studies of these events, it appears that the Franciscans were always warm and hospitable at the arrival of new secular clergy and were ready to walk hand-in-hand with them in service of the local people. Indeed, they made many undemanded sacrifices to show their readiness to work as one. After all, through their previously trials and tribulations in the region, they had surely become extremely adaptable and, through being geographically and politically distanced from the trappings of monarchy and wealth prevalent in Europe at this time, they had retained a warm earthy humility.

But, right from the outset, it became clear that this was not a two-way street. And it began with the arrival of Archbishop Stadler - a conscientious man, who nevertheless was the main go-to guy for the Austrian plan for the Franciscans. Three main anti-Franciscan problems featured during his bishopric and that of his successor Šari:

the dispossession of parishes

the secularization of the Franciscans

the squeezing out of Franciscans from public life

The Dispossession of Parishes

On 10 December 1881, The Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastic Business determined that all parishes were to be placed at the disposal of the bishops if the Franciscans did not manage to claim their rights to them, except those parishes which were adjoined to Franciscan monasteries. Unsuccessfully claimed parishes were to be handed over to the bishop upon them being vacated.

It was not a difficult task for the Franciscans to claim ownership of their parishes. According to the Ecclesiastic law of the time, the Franciscans satisfied claims to monasticity and the right to own their parishes in the following ways:

Franciscan monks founded the parishes where there had not been one until then

Grants were obtained for the construction of the parishes

Franciscan monks administered the parishes for a period of 30-40 years

Ownership and care of the parishes were granted by the appropriate Church authorities or the Holy See.

Despite having valid claims, the Franciscans, in a spirit of co-operation, nevertheless expressed their readiness to withdraw from twenty-four parishes - sixteen parishes in the Vrhbosna and eight in the Banja Luka dioceses.

Archbishop Stadler, however, thought this number too low and also rejected a successive offer of an additional eight parishes, making a total of thirty-two parishes. Rather, he demanded that an additional twenty parishes to the original offer of twenty-four be handed over, a total of forty-four parishes.

Following this demand, the Franciscans sent an envoy to Rome to explain the situation. At the same time, Archbishop Stadler went to Rome to discuss his own requirements. As a result, Pope Leon XIII ordered an investigation by the Congregation for Extraordinary Ecclesiastic Business. The investigation was concluded with a decree issued by approval of the Pope on 14 March 1883. The Decree passed an order that the Franciscans hand over thirty-five parishes to the Archbishop while the remainder were to remain as monastic parishes in the ownership of the Franciscans.

All seemed settled. Archbishop Stadler initially accepted the Decree of 1883 as final. However, he later attempted and continued to deny the validity of that Decree.

As we shall see, this was an ongoing theme of a very long and painful period for the Franciscans - ever ready to compromise, but meeting determined, single-minded and uncompromising opposition at every turn.

The Secularisation of the Franciscans

"Secularisation", in this context, means movement from a monastic to a secular, or worldy, clergy.

Before he arrived in Bosnia, Stadler had already cultivated a negative opinion of the Franciscan clergy, often reiterating in his sermons that the secular clergy would be more successful in pastoral care than the Franciscans had been and "If the Franciscans become secular clergy, then they will be good priests!"

In 1883, in a bold and rather thoughtless move, he approached the Franciscan Provincial, recommending they come to an agreement regarding the secularisation of the Franciscans (as one might approach a father to suggest a discussion on how to break up his own family!) These attempts were repeated in 1896 and 1898 when he finally sent his proclamation to the Franciscan clergy, via the Franciscan Provincial himself, to join the secular clergy. At that time, there were only eleven secular priests. This was not going to be enough for Stadler to claim ALL the parishes!

Stadler, himself, went through the ranks of the Franciscans attempting to convince them to join the secular clergy. He may have felt these efforts were successful, or was possibly bluffing, because around February 1898 he sent a letter to the Holy Father requesting that he be assigned ALL the Bosnian parishes, justified by his claim that the majority of Franciscans desired this securalisation. He further requested that the Holy See furnish this authority to accept these Franciscans without the necessary papal approval.

As it turned out, despite the claims of the Archbishop, few Franciscans actually proceeded to be secularised. Consequently, on the 25 March 1898, Stadler issued Proclamation number: 322, which openly and publicly called on the Franciscans to renounce the Order and to join the secular clergy.

Squeezing the Franciscans out of Public Life

This activity was most prominent during Stadler's reign and took the following forms:

The diminishment of Franciscan reputation and position in society before government authorities.

The attempted exclusion from reputable and lucrative services, such as positions of catechists in large towns.

Prevention from participating in political life. During elections for the Bosnian Parliament, opponents of the Franciscans managed to convince Rome that the Bosnian and Herzegovinian Franciscans should lose their right to passive voting.

This final act was all too much for one Herzegovinian Franciscan, Friar Didak Bunti who was quite harsh in his reaction and he sent a letter to the Provincial of Bosnian Franciscans and later the Bishop of Mostar, Friar Alojzije Miši, "Thanks to this ban, we are certainly being thrown out like garbage. It is almost as if they are saying, 'Off with you Friar! Out of our parish! Away from public life Friar! Back to your monastery, Friar!' that is, 'Move out of this world, Friar!'"

Because of the Archbishop's attitudes and efforts, even the most humble of Franciscans rebelled against him. There was deep disappointment with such actions of a Church leader, and there was a concensus that Stadler's actions did not so much harm to them as Franciscans as it harmed Catholicism itself in Bosnia. And all in the name of an overriding concept of the power of the Bishop, which developed in the psyche of the secular clergy under a feudal Austria.

Despite all the hardship caused by Archbishop Stadler's administration, the Franciscans continued on with what they always did best - the development of their province with much construction activity:

5 completely new monasteries: Kraljeva Sutjeska, Petrievac, Sarajevo and Rama

26 Franciscan parish churches

A significant number of churches in diocesan parishes

31 parish presbyteries of which 17 were located in diocesan parishes

In these endeavours, the Franciscans were exclusively financed by themselves and their communities, not by any government assistance. And the Franciscans didn't see much, if any, of the money collected by the Christian world for the poor Catholics in Bosnia. Ironically, they were better off during the Turkish rule, when aid was sent from France and Germany to support the construction of churches and supply of church vestments. Now, wherever they knocked for financial support, people believed they were being supported by the Austrians and should no longer require their support.

Stadler's Administration Ends - Šari's Begins

Stadler's long and painful reign ended after 37 years, but the situation did not improve with his successor, Ivan Šari, whose reign lasted 20 years between the two major world wars (1919 - 1945), in what was now the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

Šari sent at least three separated requests to Rome that the Franciscans be dispossessed of their parishes: in 1928, 1931 and 1936.

Šari's novel angle was that the Franciscan parishes could not be "Franciscan" because the presbyteries and churches did not belong to them but were rather built by the people!

However, Cannon Law never demanded that a monastic church and presbytery be required to be in the ownership of the monastic community to which the parish belonged. Thus, the Archbishop's claims were groundless. The monks had earned a great deal of money through their own toil and used these earning to construct or buy these houses. Legal documents exist to prove this. Certainly, the people assisted in their construction, often voluntarily, but the construction of these churches was to serve the "people".

However, Archbishop Šari held that the Franciscans came to Bosnia with nothing and received all they had from benefactors, and as such nothing actually belonged to them. Such reasoning was indeed hard to defend, try as he might.

This was unfortunately a very tiny proportion of the troubles caused the Franciscans during the reign of Archbishop Šari.

The Decision of the Holy See of 1923.

The first half of the 20th Century saw visible advancements in the Herzegovinian Franciscan province, including numerous vocations and a well-organised study programme.

In the Mostar-Duvno diocese, the Franciscans were responsible for 40 of the 43 parishes in existence, including 15 which were at the free disposal of the local Bishop.

In the interests of best conducting and preparing their priests for pastoral care, the Province's administration came to an agreement with the bishops, Friar Alojzije Miši, a Bosnian Franciscan who had in the meantime become the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, to grant them by Cannon the 15 parishes which were already established and which they served in addition to a further 12 parishes which were to be established in the near future. The agreement was ratified by the Council of the Holy Congregation on 22 June 1923.

Franciscan Calamities During World War II

The Herzegovinian Franciscan province was almost but completely destroyed during the Second World War (1941 - 1945), during which time the communists had murdered 67 Herzegovinian Franciscans, with many fleeing for their bare lives. Following the War, some 70 Franciscans were detained and imprisoned in Communist dungeons.

Nevertheless, the Province once again revived itself, developed and strengthened from the blood of its martyrs.

The Decision of the Holy See of 1923 is Revoked.

Dr. Petar Cule, the new non-Franciscan Bishop of Mostar, nominated by Archbishop Šari, arrived on the scene in 1942. He immediately began to impose Archbishop Stadler's agenda on the Herzegovinian Franciscans and their parishes. In 1943, he instigated an official investigation regarding the issue of parishes.

Bishop Cule's goal was to invalidate the agreement between the Province and Bishop Miši on the grounds of "ob vitium subriptionis et obreptionis" (because of the disclosure of the truth and exposure of lies). He did not get the result he desired and visited Rome again in 1958 to instigate the same issue. Then, in 1962, he again initiated the issue regarding the parishes, complaining that he did not have anywhere to place his priests, even though there were nowhere near enough secular priests to cover the parishes he had already been granted and which were then being staffed by Franciscans!

The Franciscans initially knew nothing of these goings-on, which were done behind their backs. But everything came out in the open in autumn 1964 when the Holy See sent its Apostolic Visitator - the Archbishop Bukata (Archbishop of Belgrade) to Herzegovina to investigate the validity of Bishop Cule's request. Franciscan faith in Bishop Cule was immediately destroyed.

Bukata stayed a few days with bishop Cule, visited some parishes and conducted a brief visit to the Provincial of the Herzegovinian Franciscans. We have no records of what Bukata's report and recommendations consisted of, but the result was a Decree by the Holy Congregation for Spreading the Faith dated 18 March 1965, which revoked the Agreement signed in 1923, and contained a directive for Bishop Cule and the Franciscan Provincial come to Rome in autumn that same year and, before the Congregation, decide upon a new division of parishes.

Agreement was not reached regarding a new division of parishes, either during this meeting or during continued negotiations in Herzegovina. It indeed seemed impossible to come to an agreement given Cule's assertion that the revocation of the Agreement of 1923 meant, ipso facto, that all the parishes subject to the revocation automatically went to him, in addition to the 25 which, by the Decision by the Holy See of 1899, remained with the Franciscans. The Franciscans, on the other hand, claimed that the revocation of the 1923 decision simply meant that a new division was required (which after all stood written in the Decree itself), not an automatic placement of all parishes at the disposal of the bishop.

At this stage, people reading this are undoubtedly wondering what possible machinations are in existence that even entertain the types of goings on we are witnessing here. These questions may be somewhat answered later in this article.

The Franciscans put forward their suggestions for a new division of parishes, but Bishop Cule rejected them, counting on the Holy See to finally make the decision he was waiting for. On 21 April 1967, the Holy Congregation for Spreading the Faith issued a Decree which requested the Franciscans to consign five parishes to the disposal of the Bishop, as a sign of good will and prior to a final decision being reached. These parishes were Crna, Gradac-Blizanci, Grljevii, Grude and Mostarski Gradac.

The Franciscans submitted an appeal, requesting that a final agreement on parish distribution be reached before any parishes whatsoever were consigned. Nevertheless, the Apostolic emissary for the then Yugoslavia, Cagna issued a Decree dated 13 November 1967, which ordered that the handover of the said parishes be conducted within six months, that is, no later than 13 May 1968.

This decision was the cause of immense dissatisfaction amongst the Franciscans and their faithful who had now come to know about the agreement.

Aware of the unpredictable reaction of the Franciscans and their people, the Franciscan Provincial, Dr. Rufin Šili, commenced negotiations with Bishop Cule, seeking to reach a final parish re-distribution agreement which would be acceptable to the Franciscans prior to the deadline of 13 May 1968. Having reached agreement, he would then count on being able to calm down his friars and would then ask for a postponement of the execution of the agreement until the Franciscans had time to prepare their faithful for the handover/takeover.

However, Bishop Cule, sensing he was in a better position, dictated terms. He put the 25 parishes, which were guaranteed to the Franciscans by the Decision of the Holy See of 1899, together with the parishes which were to be redistributed according to the 1965 Decree, into the draft agreement, seeking to call their ownership into question, but under the guise of not wanting to presume the ownership of any parish, but rather leaving it to the Holy See to decide on ownership. Naturally, he counted on the Holy See deciding in his favour.

But, it appeared that danger for the Franciscans had been avoided after Provincial Šili, wishing to avoid what he perceived as a greater evil, accepted this condition and after secret negotiations, Šili and Cule came to a decision about the distribution of all the parishes in Herzegovina.

However, the plot thickened when Bishop Cule's secretary delivered the final text of the draft agreement one evening for signing. Provincial Šili asked if it was the same previously agreed in writing with Bishop Cule. When he received a positive response, he signed the document without even reading it. However, his own secretary read the document later that evening and realised that Bishop Cule had, at the last moment, thrown in a clause by which the Provincial could lose his own residency and parish in Čapljina. Šili revoked his signature in writing that same night because the Decision of the Holy See of 1965 had excepted the Čapljina and Itluk parishes (which were adjoined to Franciscan residencies) from the redistribution.

Provincial Šili was deeply disappointed and concerned. This event occurred at the 11th hour of the deadline to hand over the five parishes as a sign of good will. Out of time and options, he initiated the handover/takeover of the five parishes.

The Outbreak of the Herzegovinian Affair

At three of the five parishes which were the subject of the handover just described (Crna, Grude and Mostarski Gradac), the parishioners prevented the secular priests from taking over the church and presbytery. This was the birth of the Herzegovinian Affair, which would smoulder for another 30+ years during which time, among other things, church entrances were bricked up, secular priests driven out and massive public protests were held by the faithful. The Communist police were often called in to protect the Bishop from the parishioners. In 1995, a protest organised in Mostar resulted in violent incidents including against the Bishop. It would have been difficult to find any casual observer not torn between the repulsion of violence and sympathy for the Franciscans and their parishioners over the sorely apparent injustices they, and their parishioners, were being asked to endure.

Despite these events, negotiations continued, but agreement was still not forthcoming even after several years due to the uncompromising attitudes on both sides. The Franciscans continued to assert that it was necessary first to come to a general agreement about the parishes, which would be acceptable to them, such that the Franciscans would be given an opportunity to prepare their faithful for the transition to secular priests. The diocesan side placed a pre-condition to any further negotiations demanding that the Franciscans immediately enable the three parishes which were vacated, but were blockaded by the parishioners. And as for the remaining parishes which were to be redistributed according to the Decree by the Holy See of 1965, the diocesan side remained unbending in their view that these automatically defaulted to the Bishop by the very fact that the Decree was issued, and that the only issue remaining was the logistics of handing over these parishes. They also considered themselves very "generous" in considering to leave one or two parishes to the Franciscans.

The Arrival of Bishop Žanić as Negotiator

Bishop Žanić was assigned to negotiate with the Franciscans on behalf of the diocesan authorities, and from the very beginning demonstrated the hard core attitudes of the Bishop of Mostar. During the very first meeting he attended, he demanded that the Franciscans sign the following statement,

"Seeing that we were not able to come to an agreement, we have decided to let the Holy See decide and we will accept such a decision no matter what that decision may be."

This was not accepted by the Franciscans. Nevertheless, all the following meetings of the negotiation team which were attended by Bishop Žanić ended in the same manner. Naturally, he counted on the fact that the Holy See would decide in his favour. Later he bragged that this was the purpose for him to visit Rome on more than 70 occasions!

The Holy See's Decree "Romanis Pontificibus" of 1975

It was evident that the Holy See wanted a conclusion to this matter and accordingly in 1972 sent its Apostolic Visitator, Msgr. Stefan Laszlo, to Herzegovina to head further negotiations. While demonstrating more understanding towards the Franciscans, he was overly concerned with the diocesan side's inflexible attitude. This focus eventually resulted in the decree Romanis Pontificibus, dated 6 June 1975. The Decree satisfied all of the demands of the diocesan side presented during negotiations with the Congregation for Evangelisation of the People, except the demand that the Bishop, without prior approval of the Holy See, can establish a parish in Ljubuški and Radišii. The satisfaction of the latter would surely have resulted in the annihilation of the now largest Franciscan parish in Herzegovina - the monastery parish in Humac at the very edge of Ljubuški.

Dissatisfaction would be an extreme understatement in describing the Franciscans' reaction to this Decree. The pervading feeling was that this Decree had been founded on untruths and injustice. The Franciscans could scarcely be calmed down.

Franciscans Had Enough! Refuse to Actively Participate in the Implementation of the Decree.

After holding a survey amongst the members of the Province, the Provincial administration on 10 May 1976, forwarded a letter directly to Pope Paul VI in which, among other things, they stated their reasons for their inability to comply with the Decree.

This resulted in the harshest sanctions being imposed on the Franciscans: The Provincial administration was stepped down, while the Supreme General of the Order in Rome was given authority to administer the Province. Prohibitions were put in place from accepting new recruits to the noviciate, or to order new Franciscans and the taking of their final vows.

Bishop Cule issued his own sanctions: He did not issue any Cannon missions to the jurisdiction of Franciscans who did not apply for them to him personally. At the same time, he withdrew jurisdiction from all Franciscans within the diocese if indeed they had any, including the Deputy of the Delegate-General who was the administrator of the Province. He stated that he was not sure that any Franciscan whatsoever could be given jurisdiction from him or be assigned a Cannon mission.

That same year, 1976, the new Apostolic Visitator, Father Vladimir Vlaši, found no Franciscans remaining in the Province who were willing to accept the Decree and become part of its implementation.

Bishop Žanić Becomes New Ordinary of Mostar

Žanić arrived in September 1980, and immediately after his inauguration in the Franciscan monastic church in Mostar, announced that he was going to establish a cathedral parish in Mostar and that he was going to carve up the Franciscan monastic parish so that four-fifths of the faithful would belong to the cathedral parish and one-fifth to the Franciscan monastic parish.

His explanation for this decision was that the Franciscans had agreed to it. This immediately caused a negative reaction amongst the faithful in the church. While still in the church, the parish priest cautioned the Bishop that his statement (that the Franciscans had agreed to this) was not true. The Bishop's petulent response was to withdraw any jurisdiction and Cannon mission away from the parish priest, with effect throughout the entire diocese.

What happened here? All throughout the preceding negotiations, the Franciscans had always clearly cited the names of parishes which they had founded, served and had claims to, but were prepared to give up with the condition that they be left with the remaining parishes. In this context, there was often mention of parishes that were yet to be founded. The Franciscans believed that it would be simpler if the Bishop were to set up new parishes rather than confiscate already existing Franciscan parishes. This led the diocesan side to begin a habit of asserting that the Franciscans had agreed to give up some parishes and that these be founded as new diocesan parishes, while neglecting to refer to the established pre-condition that the remaining parishes rest with the Franciscans permanently.

This presentation of the argument was also used to dupe the Holy See in 1975 into adopting it. This is evident in the Decree Romanis Pontificibus, where on four separate occasions we read references to the "mutual agreement of both sides". But, there never was any such agreement. Nothing more than a proposal was put forward by the Franciscans which contained a specific pre-condition or consideration aspect. But, as mentioned, this was presented to the Holy See in the light of a gift with no consideration. The Holy See accepted this argument and ordered that the Franciscans hand over these parishes without the diocesan side being obliged to fulfil any pre-conditions. This was therefore the grounds for the letter of the Provincial administration sent to the Pope in 1976, noting that the Decree Romanis Pontificibus was contradictory to the truth.

The same thing occurred when the cathedral parish was founded in Mostar. The Franciscans at one time proposed that the Bishop take over the greater part of their parish under the condition that they be left the majority of their existing parishes. The diocesan side did not accept this proposal. Bishop Žanić nevertheless took over four-fifths of their parish with the explanation that they agreed to this, without once mentioning the pre-condition of the parishes that were to remain in Franciscan hands.

The people of Mostar and the Franciscans did not accept this division of the Franciscan parish in Mostar and Bishop Žanić did not succeed in implementing this division not even until the end of his mandate as bishop. This was the beginning of the Mostar Affair, which is continuing even now.

The Arrival of Bishop Ratko Peric

Dr. Ratko Peric inherited this unresolved state in Mostar when he took over the diocese in 1993. During the war of survival of the Croats in Mostar, he established four secular parishes within the intended cathedral parish.

The Franciscan monastery was destroyed during the fiercest battles and became almost impossible to reach. This led several Franciscans to seek refuge in an outer suburb, Cim, so that they could be available to serve their people. Bishop Peric however, prohibited them from living there because it was located within the area of a secular parish. After being threatened with the harshest of sanctions via Rome, and when in 1995 the situation had calmed down somewhat in Mostar, the Franciscans moved back to the demolished monastery.

But the people of Mostar reacted harshly against the Bishop and on occasion exuded violence against him. A great deal of Mostar was left without any regular pastoral care. This situation was reflected in the recent elections held in Mostar when in the most Croatian section of the Mostar suburbs of Ilii and Cim, as a sign of protest, the people only participated in the elections at a rate of less than 40%.

The Čapljina Affair

The Franciscans were eventually forced back to the very outskirts of Mostar. But, Bishop Pericc did not stop there, demanding the immediate retreat of the Franciscans out of Čapljina completely. He threatened the Franciscans with the harshest sanctions via Rome (in the same way as one might threaten sanctions on North Korea to achieve nuclear disarmament). Finally, the General of the Franciscan Order in April 1996, formally and legally handed the parish to Bishop Peric.

The Franciscans were ordered to hand over their residency and church to the newly-nominated secular parish priest on 12 May 1996, and to leave Čapljina. That day, the faithful parishioners blocked the path to the church and the Franciscan's residency and did not allow the new priest nor the Bishop's Vicar-General from Mostar, nor the Franciscan's Delegate-General from Rome nor representatives of the Franciscan Province in Mostar to enter nor the Čapljina Franciscans to leave.

After serious pressure and threats of the harshest penalties from Rome, on Sunday 14 July 1996, the Franciscans said their goodbyes to the faithful and six days later, on the Feast of St. Elijah, they left Čapljina. They were accompanied by several thousand of their faithful flock.

Since then the church bells have been quiet, the church door is bricked in and a sign above the main entrance to the church reads:

"The wall will be taken down when they who built the church return, that is, the Friars"

And the faithful gather in the church yard when mass is scheduled and only pray the Rosary.

The "Alleviated" Implementation of the Decree of 1975.

The Mostar and Čapljina incidents were to play a positive role in driving the factions to a solution over the redistribution of parishes in Herzegovina.

Even after the Decree Romanis Pontificibus was issued in 1975, the Franciscans never ceased with negotiations and discussions. Apostolic visitators continued to visit Herzegovina, as did delegates of the Franciscan's General in Rome. All tried to convince the Franciscans that it was unrealistic to expect that the Holy See would revoke its Decree. Nevertheless, they were, during the implementaiton of the Decree, prepared to alleviate some points of the Decree in favour of the Franciscans. Skeptical, the Franciscans waited to see how this "alleviation" would be felt upon the first partial implementation of the Decree.

The first phase of the partial implementation of the Decree was the division of the Monastic parish in Mostar of which the Bishop had seceded four-fifths as well as founding four new secular parishes. The "alleviation" in this phase would take flesh in that, for example, the Bishop would hand over one or two fifths back to the Franciscans. However, the Bishop did not even wish to consider this possibility!

The second phase of the partial implementation of the Decree was the handover of the Čapljina parish to the Bishop for his free disposal. In all the negotiations ever held, Čapljina was the hardest apple. Bishop Cule had insisted on Čapljina because (in his own words) "All the surrounding parishes are mine and so it would be handy for my parish priests to be able to gather in Čapljina at the regular meetings of the Deanery." The Franciscan Provincial's view on Čapljina was "With the loss of Čapljina, the already minute area of our province would be significantly decreased. The eastern border of the Province is being moved in the south to the Ljubuški - Veljaci line".

There were several opportunities to actually implement the Decree in alleviated form in this second phase regarding Čapljina. One possibility was that the Bishop found a second secular parish in Čapljina as it was large enough to support at least two parishes. At one time in 1968, Bishop Cule actually agreed to this proposal but then he feared that the Communist authorities would not allow the construction of a new parish (a church and presbytery) so at the last moment, as mentioned earlier, he threw in an extra clause in the draft agreement, i.e. that if he was not able to establish a new parish within five years in Čapljina then he would automatically be handed over the existing Franciscan parish. According to the draft then, the Franciscans still stood to lose Čapljina. For this reason this agreement, as was mentioned earlier, fell through.

As new circumstances had eliminated the danger that the civil authorities would not allow the establishment of a new parish, the Franciscans suggested to both Bishop Žanić and Bishop Peric that they found a new, second parish in Čapljina and with that leave the existing parish to the Franciscans. This was refused. A second proposal was put forward that the Franciscans remain in their residency as a monastic community without a parish in Čapljina and that the Bishop take over the entire parish and build a new parish church and presbytery. This was also rejected. The third proposal was that the Franciscans be allowed to remain in Čapljina as a monastic community without a parish in some other house which they would build and their current residency and church would be handed over to the Bishop as the centre of the new parish. However, Bishop Peric would not hear of this. He ardently demanded that the Franciscans not only leave their residency and church but to completely leave the territory of Čapljina. This displayed a complete lack of interest in implementing the alleviated Decree with regard to Čapljina but, worse still, was even harsher that the Decree itself in that Peric was demanding of the Franciscans that which was nowhere in the Decree, which ordered the Franciscans to hand over their parish at the liberty of the Bishop, but did not make any mention of the monastic Order leaving the territory of Čapljina!

And so, the Franciscan skeptism of the alleviated implementation of the Decree appeared justified. It was another wasted opportunity to resolve the "Herzegovinian Affair" or at least to move from a stale point towards a positive direction.

Who is Behind the Holy See's Decree of 1975?

The diocesan side continually asserts and repeats, even today, "That is how the Holy See determined!" Meaning, that no matter how the determination was obtained (or who wrote it), it should be implemented without criticism because it bears the seal of the Holy See. If that were the case, then anyone with the same sleight-of-hand used by the new breed of Bishops should surely be able to accomplish whatever they desired, by pulling the wool over the eyes of Rome, wherever and whenever possible.

So, who was behind this decree and who drafted it? It is evident that since 1943 until 1965 and in 1975, Bishop Cule, in his single-minded determination to get what he wanted from the Holy See, employed a variety of tactics, including placing a great deal of pressure on the Holy See, for example via threats to take "his" secular priests out of Herzegovina to the Zagreb Archdiocese! He often repeated this threat during negotiation sessions with the Franciscans. In a letter to Friar Dominik Mandi written on St. George's 1965, he admitted that he had made this "proposal" to the Holy See!

As mentioned before, Bishop Žanić had boasted that he had made over 70 visits to Rome regarding this issue. It begins to become clear who convinced the Holy See to adopt such a decision. How else would the Holy See even know where Crna, Grude, Čapljina and other small towns were, if they had not been receiving any information from Herzegovina itself? These towns are just as foreign to the Holy See as would be some remote African or Irish towns. The Decree was more than likely composed largely in Mostar and after much effort and pressure on the Holy See, finally obtained its signature to the Decree.

As such, this decision appeared to be masterminded by the Mostar bishops, Cule, Žanić and Peric. Naturally the Holy See is also responsible but this responsibility does not diminish the primary responsibility of the Mostar bishops. Let us call to mind how St. Augustine responded to the Jews who were stating that they had not killed Jesus but rather that Pilot was guilty, "He is guilty because he condemned him, but are you innocent, you who compelled him to do so?"

The Unquestionable Obedience of the Mostar Bishops Towards the Holy See?

The Herzegovinian bishops often stressed obedience as the supreme principle of conduct within the Church. Today, every anti-Medjugorje conspiracy theorist has adopted this same slogan. In practise however, the Mostar bishops themselves, at times, were not averse to foresaking this principle as it suited them. For example, when Bishop Žanić came to Mostar as the Assistant Bishop, he immediately tried to convince the Herzegovinian Franciscans to disobey their lawful Provincial Šili, hoping to better achieving his own aims. He was not successfuly in this, by the way. And when he took over the diocese in 1988, a group of Franciscans rejected transfers assigned them by the Provincial administration. Bishop Žanić backed them up in their refusal, even forbidding in writing that they be transferred! Those who were disobedient were allowed to keep their jurisdiction and Cannon mission yet he refused to issue these to those who were their lawful successors. This same practise was continued by the bishop's successor, Bishop Ratko Peric.

The Herzegovinian bishops demanded that the Franciscans hand over parishes which belonged to them in accordance with the Decrees of 1967 and 1975, yet he continually refused to take over the parishes of Glavatievo and Nevesinje, which were assigned to him in the Decree of 1923, and which the Franciscans had been offering for quite a while. The bishops were not prepared to implement the Decree of 1975 in its literal sense. The Franciscans offered Bishop Žanić that upon carving up the monastic Franciscan parish in Humac he found new secular parishes in Zvirii-Bijaa and Crveni Grm as determined in the Decree of 1975. Nevertheless he refused this and demanded that the heart of this same parish - Ljubuški and Radišii and that he be allowed to found a new secular parish in these towns even though this is the one thing that was explicitly forbidden in the 1975 Decree! Bishop Peric at all costs demanded that he be given Mostar and Čapljina yet he refused to take over the parishes in Jablanica and Blagaj which had been virtually completely ethnically cleansed by the Muslims but which nevertheless were to belong to him in accordance to the same Decree of 1975!

These few examples clearly show that the Herzegovinian bishops are not exactly marked by uncompromising obedience to decisions adopted by the Holy See even though they demand this same obedience of the Franciscans.

The following passages are quoted directly from the original document.

The "Goodness" of the Decision by the Holy See of 1975.

Nevertheless, if the Holy See did actually make a decision as is noted in the Decree is this necessarily good and just? Even though we are obliged to adhere to decisions made by the Holy See, they need not always necessarily be right and just.

There are a few examples in the history of the Church, which shall easily convince us that these decisions are not always necessarily right. In 1415, the Church Synod in Constanza decided to have Jan Hus burned at the stake. Today the Church is ashamed of this decision and rightly so, because this was an atrocious crime. A similar decision was made to burn Savonarole or the condemnation of Galileo's findings. The Church has in modern times, repented for its actions.

The supreme criteria to evaluate the ultimate goodness or ultimate evil in behaviour including decisions made by the Church according to the unanimous opinion of Church teachers, "the good of the faithful" or the "salvation of souls", as is noted in the codex of Cannon Law (salus animarum suprema lex in Ecclesia esto). Anything that is opposed to this must be denounced, as should anything that cannot be incorporated in this supreme law of the Church.

In principle, everyone accepts this rule. Whoever would bring it into question would immediately show that they were a "mercenary" and that they were not "interested in their own flock". It is not enough however, to just accept this rule for the sake of it. It contains something holy, something exclusive. It cannot tolerate other Gods around it. These other Gods are by the way wishes, which often oppose that "supreme law". Is not one of these wishes for example, the desire to expel the Franciscans from those regions where they are now? Can this desire be placed above the need to "save souls" and can both these issues be referred to in the same breath and same tone?

Everyone needs to decide towards his or her own conscience - does one's behaviour serve towards that supreme goal. While trying to evaluate this response one needs to keep in mind one's "spite" and "uncompromising attitude at whatever cost" and then to admit one's own pride, selfishness, self-confirmation, desires and power. Everyone in Herzegovina is bound to ask themselves this question; the bishops, secular priests and the Franciscans.

The "Justice" of the Decision by the Holy See of 1975?

The question still remains - are matters to be left only to paragraphs on paper or should justice be involved. As followers of Christ, being decisively in opposition to legality, should not be considered a minor matter. If the diocesan side is in the right, if Church regulations support this, does this mean that everything has been resolved? We are aware namely, that law and justice do not always go hand in hand. The Romans expressed this by saying, "The highest law is sometimes the greatest injustice" (summum ius summa iniuria). This "Herzegovinian Affair" should be investigated to see if this is perhaps not the same case.

We are not referring to the violation of the paragraphs because they themselves leave provision for this, but rather the violation of justice and the violation of goodness. If this is the case, where is the violation?

When the Herzegovinian Franciscans in 1844, seceded from the Bosnian Province, they virtually came on bare ground. They did not have any houses, nor churches, nor any inventory what so ever. They found themselves in a new homeland and were almost like survivors after a shipwreck; they virtually owned nothing but the shirts on their backs. Also there was only a small number of them then in 1844, eighteen in all. When we look now and see what this small community has achieved in the past one hundred and fifty years, with its efforts, denouncement, art, love and apostolic ardour, we can be nothing but awed. If we look at the Schematism of the Province in 1977, we can see that the number of priests had grown to 200 as well as another 54 clergymen and 11 recruits and 5 holy brothers. This is all so despite all the calamities faced during the Communist rule. In Herzegovina alone these people have built a huge number of monasteries as part of parishes or subsidiary churches. During the period of 13 years (between the publication of two Schematisms - 1964 and 1977), they built 40 new churches and refurbished virtually all the old churches. They built several monasteries adjoining some churches, numerous presbyteries, schoolrooms for religious instructions and support buildings. They had their own Classical High School and Theology School, a printing house and several collections. The most renown is the museum in Humac, which is oldest known museum in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Another of these is their library in Mostar). Outside Herzegovina, the Province has two monasteries in Croatia (a wooden monastery in Slano and the newly built monumental monastery and church in Zagreb). There are monasteries located in Austria and Germany where they serve six German parishes and two Croatian missions. In Switzerland there are two Croatian missions with 12 friars. Especially significant is the Custody in America with one monastery, a residency and fifteen parishes and missions in the USA and Canada. And finally, the Province has five missionaries in Africa and two in Albania.

Has not the mustard seed grown into a large tree? Anyone who knows what it means to build just one house or church - especially during those times when our people had not gone to work abroad and when a peasants toil was frugally paid - they will understand the scope of what has been achieved. Many a builder while building a church built himself in it. The diocesan side has a habit of commenting (in typical Communist style), that these massive and numerous buildings were built by the people and not the friars and that these buildings were built for the use of the Church and not the friars. This is not entirely true, but even if it were true that the friars built these buildings together with their faithful. The huge efforts made by the friars however, is undoubted. The truth is that the people helped build the said buildings for the use of the "Church" but ask these same people did they give their donations and money so that they could be evicted from these same buildings and their gifts confiscated from those they were intended? It appears that the diocesan side is asserting that "we are the Church, the friars are not nor are the people!"

The Herzegovinian Franciscans were - and still are - valid pastoral workers expressed in their efforts and the quality of their work. It is enough to note just one detail from the Schematism of 1977, that the Franciscans held religious instructions in Široki Brijeg in 108 sections and in Mostar in 110 sections. Try and find a similarly large town served by whichever Croatian diocese where during the Communist regime, Religious Instructions was taught in so many sections! The same situation existed in smaller towns where the absolute number was not so high but was, if looked at relatively. This work was not rewarded in anyway. They did however receive an "award" to be prohibited from working in many towns, an award issued by the official Church.

In the past fifteen years, the Franciscans have been taking care of the pilgrimage in Meugorje. We are not concerned here with the issue of the validity of the visitations which are claimed to exist there. All we want to do is highlight the heroic efforts lodged in spiritually serving the masses of pilgrims, a number - which by some accounts - has far surpassed 10 or even 20 million. Can we turn a blind eye to all this work? Does this not have any weight as far as the Bishop is concerned?

Along their basic pastoral work, the Herzegovinian Franciscans have assigned themselves to their people in a multitude of ways. If we just look back a little in the past, we will see that during the Turkish rule, the Herzegovinian Franciscans educated the people and naturally all this without any payment. They saw to make premises for schools available as well as alphabet boards. We all know the wonders that Friar Didak Bunti conjured up in teaching peasant children to read and write when at the same time at the turn of the century, despite all its financial and other resources the State left most of the population of Herzegovina to be illiterate. It is a well-known fact but probably worth mentioning, because too often we forget Fr. Didak Bunti and his brothers saved thousands of Herzegovinian children from death during the First World War. Did he not along with his brothers try and economically advance their faithful? We have only noted a few of his efforts. The list goes on and on.

Is it right and just that a well-built and furnished building should be demolished when we are not even sure what the new building will even look like? In whose interest can it be to see that the Herzegovinian Franciscans be left to die out? This is surely not in the interest of the Croatian and Catholic being. The Province which produced Friar Petar Bakula, Friar Paškal Buconji, Friar Didak Bunti, Friar Dominik Mandi, Friar Rufin Šili, Friar Ferdo Vlaši (who are just a few of the most renowned), is the fertile mother of the greats within the Croatian people and Catholic faith. If it were not for them or the huge number of their brothers, the Catholic Church and Croatian people would surely to a large measure be poorer?

Pope Benedict, John Paul II, Medjugorje (..and E Michael Jones)

2009-08-22T16:07:00.000-07:00

The sustained length of the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje (since 1981) is getting people stir-crazy. Nothing new has come from the Vatican since the Zadar Declaration of 1991, when essentially we were told to "Wait, nothing has yet been determined. More investigations are possible".

To the sensible observer familiar with the Medjugorje story and Vatican procedure, this made sense even if it were only for the fact that the apparitions had not yet ceased as it is highly unusual for the Vatican to pronounce on an apparition that is still ongoing.

But, have people waited? A few have not. There are a number of self-styled pseudo-journalistic conspiracy theorists waving the flag of "Truth", who have been causing more damage and division in the Catholic Church than anything else. Furthermore, because nothing new has come from the Vatican, these conspiracy theorists need to either rehash the old stuff or create illusions, like what E Michael has done recently in this article - an interview by the Serbian newspaper - Politika, featured by Matt C. Abbott.

The fruits of this activity are vile and divisive, creating massive confusion. Here's an example of what I come across every day on YouTube from an obviously half-decent Catholic with the handle SAYYOURROSARY:

SAYYOURROSARY: Medjugrorje has been condemmed by even the New Order Cult "bishop" The fake "priest" has been defrocked ! The "p0pE" has said you are not allowed to go and that Medjugrorje is off limits ! What do you need to understand Medjugrorje is totally fake ?

Unbelievable stuff!

So, let's have a look at some of what these gentlemen said and get a feel for the kind of hearts and minds these conspiracy theorists possess:

E MICHAEL JONES: No, I don't think there has been any new information about Medjugorje for at least ten years. The main difference is the pope himself. When I met with then-ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, Bishop Pavao Zanic, in 1988, he told me that Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, was in complete agreement that the so-called apparitions of Medjugorje were a hoax orchestrated by the renegade order of Franciscans in his diocese. Bishop Zanic then told me that he presented the same evidence to Pope John Paul II. 'And what did the pope say?' I asked. 'The pope said nothing,' Zanic replied. This confirms what I learned in my meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger. He was convinced that Medjugorje was a hoax from the beginning. The main reason for the inactivity in Rome was Pope John Paul II. The main reason for recent activity is Pope Benedict XVI, not new evidence.

Jones, lacking any direct quotes or statements from Ratzinger HIMSELF, attempts to manufacture Ratzinger's opinion from something Zanic allegedly said.

Ratzinger was head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith during John Paul II's pontificate. Ratzinger was involved in Medjugorje from the beginning. What he believes now should not differ much from what he believed then. And what exactly did Ratzinger believe? He believed that Zanic could not be trusted to judge on the authenticity of the apparitions of Medjugorje.

After Zanic gave Ratzinger the negative report on Medjugorje, Ratzinger removed the dossier from the hands of Zanic and place the investigative task in the hands of the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference? If Ratzinger were in complete agreement that the visions were a hoax, as Jones reports, we would have perhaps expected Ratzinger to approve his conclusions or at least allow him to carry on? But, what sort of a response did we see from Zanic that hints at the REAL reaction he received from Ratzinger? A concerted media campaign, against the desires of the Vatican, as we shall see very soon.

Zanic had been at the forefront of bitter disputes between the Franciscans and secular clergy for many years during the Herzegovinian Affair. He was naturally biassed against the Franciscans. When you couple this with his forced loyalty to the Yugoslav communist government who wanted him him to cease the apparitions immediately, it is highly unwise to paint Zanic as the most trustworthy of sources. I will say no more, but allow readers to make their own conclusions by reading here. It doesn't make good reading for Zanic. The following is an extract from Wikipedia on Zanic with my comments in blue in square brackets:

Žanić became so hostile to the events at Međugorje that he wrote a letter denouncing the apparitions and sent it publicly throughout the world [This is the same letter picked up on by E Michael Jones and every other conspiracy theorist you hear today. It is their ONLY source of material]. The Archbishop of the neighboring diocese, along with other high dignitaries, urged Žanić restraint in the strongest possible language between bishops. Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote to Žanić: "My Lord, what a sorry document you have sent throughout the world! I have been deeply pained to see the episcopal office degraded in this manner." He went on to say that Žanić was "bring[ing] out accusations which have been refuted a hundred times over."[1]

The Vatican also stepped in. A communiqué from the office of the Vatican secretary of State of April 1985, told Bishop Žanić in no uncertain terms to suspend the diffusion of [your] personal declarations."[2]

Zanic did not heed this letter and continued spreading his letters and opinions.

The fact that he even needed to begin his viral campaign of destruction should speak volumes to any sensible, unbiassed person. If the Vatican agrees with you, you don't need to embark on a self-justification campaign. You just need to wait for Vatican due process.

Much has been made of Franciscan and visionary disobedience towards the local bishop. We cannot condone disobedience, but we can understand it. By disregarding official Vatican warnings, the Bishop himself appeared to show the same disobedience he accused everyone else of, but apparently that's OK if you're a secular Bishop in Bosnia. The document "The Truth about the Herzegovinian Affair" is a litany of bad blood between Franciscans and Seculars resulting from dishonesty, disobedience and downright hatred. This is MUST READING for anyone who wishes to comment intelligently on Medjugorje. In a perfect world it would be required reading for Medjugorje reporters.

E MICHAEL JONES: I think this [the laicising of Fr. Tomislav Vlasic] is the first step in the Vatican's campaign to de-legitimize Medjugorje. Anyone familiar with the story knows that the apparitions were the creation of two Franciscan priests: Tomislav Vlasic and Jozo Zovko. Children do not create world-wide movements generating millions of dollars a year in revenue.

Jones puts himself in the league of people who are "familiar with the story". He isn't showing much familiarity at all. Firstly, Vlasic requested the laicisation (see here). Secondly, those who are really familiar with the story can see that Ratzinger is most likely protecting Medjugorje, not de-legitimising it as Jones ludicrously states. Just look at how quiet Ratko Peric is these days. He has either been officially gagged or simply has nothing happy to report (for Peric, happiness is the complete condemnation of Medugorje). Thirdly, and most telling, Vlasic's involvement with Medjugorje ended in 1985, more than twenty years ago, when the visionary Marija recanted and refused to acknowledge his claim that the Virgin endorsed his plan. He basically disappeared until we hear recently in the news about his laicisement.

Here's the thing - Conspiracy theorists are desperate for information, ANY information. The Vatican refuses to play into their hands, perhaps more wiser these days after the Zadar Declaration left people confused enough for conspiracy theorists to gain a foothold. So, when a piece of information comes along that has any indication of being negative to the Medjugorje case, you can bet your house and children that they will jump on it like a starving hyena on a sick antelope.

But, take a look at the wild, crazy-eyed accusations and innuendo he makes:

E MICHAEL JONES: The apparitions were the creation of two Franciscan priests: Tomislav Vlasic and Jozo Zovko...Children do not create world-wide movements generating millions of dollars a year in revenue.

It was Zanic who first referred to Vlasic this way. To say he was the "creator" implies he was around to see the actual creation - the illicit fruits - the "booty" as it were. But, as I've stated, he was out of Medjugorje by 1985. Pretty much an outcast, he would have been a key figure if anyone wanted to target him for an exposee.

Secondly, anyone who has taken the time to read the early testimonies will know the irony that Zanic originally wanted to approve the apparitions but that Zovko thought the children were lying. The really interesting thing is how it came about that both changed their positions. According to Zovko's testimony, he was praying in the Church when he received an inner locution to "Protect the Children". Next moment, he heard loud banging on the Church door only to find the children trying to escape the police.

Both Zanic and Zovko were called in for a "chat" by the Communist Secret Police and, under threat of jail, ordered to stop the apparitions and gatherings. Zovko elected to spend 3 years in jail rather than try to stop the apparitions. Zanic appeared to change his tune quite soon after that meeting. We need to keep the environment firmly in mind: In communist countries, in order to save the Catholic population from persecution, the Vatican often agrees to let the communist government endorse bishopric appointments.

So, we had the so-called "creator of the hoax" in jail, where he supposedly was still able to mastermind his dastardly, clandestine plans. That wasn't very clever of Zovko was it, if we rely on Jones' character assessment of Zovko as a criminal mastermind.

E Michael Jones needs to sit himself down in front of a mirror and ask himself where his hatred and irrationality comes from. He is apparently a Catholic who thinks the 8th Commandment does not apply to him. Does he think it's compelling racey "journalism" to create these fantasies at the expense of the reputation of innocent people? Save it Michael. But, if we were to bother to refute this accusation, it might go along the lines of this: After 28 years of apparitions, might it not be highly probable that at least one of the six visionaries, or thousands of others close to the visionaries, would expose the fraud. I dare say they have been offered handsomely to do so. One of E Michael Jones' seedy friends Phil Kronzer, a wealthy California business man hell-bent on destroying Medjugorje after his wife chose to believe while he didn't, would undoubtedly have tried to pull a string or two. But, we have nothing...nothing...nothing. That irks people like E Michael Jones. He NEEDS something. ANYTHING!!!

E MICHAEL JONES: When the true story gets out, bishops across the world will begin to ban the 'seers' from their dioceses. This has already happened in the Diocese of Joliet, outside of Chicago. Ivan Dragicevic can no longer show up in parishes there and fleece unsuspecting Catholics of their money.

I've not found anything to date to back up what Jones said regarding the ban from Joliet. I invite anyone else to show me the evidence that this is true. But, anyway, I would expect to see hundreds of parishes on the list if anything Jones says is remotely true. We have only one in 28 years? And Jones again exercises his self-appointed immunity from the 8th commandment by trampling on the reputation of Ivan Dragicevic. That's like playing Russian Roulette. I mean it's just testosterone-laden, impulsive, belligerent craziness. If the Vatican approves Medjugorje, I expect Jones to either become humble or to begin a new Catholic Cult, flourishing in disobedience and becoming, essentially, another Zanic or Peric and eventually getting into serious trouble. The Medjugorje house is clean now. It's ready for shrine status. Lies told have been revealed. Apologies have been made where due. The vast majority of unofficial Vatican comment has been favourable (read here). What's missing in this picture? Humility and patience from the likes of E Michael Jones.

E MICHAEL JONES: The Croatian bishops in general will say that the findings on Vlasic confirm their verdict of 'non constat supernaturalite,' which was handed down in 1990. Bishop Ratko Peric will say that the defrocking of Father Vlasic will confirm what he and the late Bishop Pavao Zanic have said all along. Medjugorje was the invention of a renegade and rebellious group of Franciscan priests who have used this hoax to enrich themselves financially at the expense of unity in the Church and of good relations with the Orthodox.

Wow, that's some tale. Jones is an author of fiction, not a journalist. Just listen to his brazen judgements and accusations. What sort of man is this? I don't want this man representing me, as a Catholic, to the world. What the heck happened to the basic Christian tenet of "judge not lest ye be judged". If he wants to be a Christian only by name and not in action, then at least abide by the legalistic "innocent until proven guilty". Mr Jones, where is the evidence?

The Yugoslav Bishops Conference vacillated on their decision in 1991. We have reports that they initially wanted to approve the apparitions, but that Zanic cried and complained so much that they watered down the conclusion to allow Zanic to save face. That watering down would also fit with two other key factors:

The communist government would not have been happy to hear that Catholic bishops in their country, who are supposed to heed them, had double-crossed them.

The apparitions had not finished at the time of the investigation so it would have been a highly unusual move to approve an apparition that was still ongoing.

So, we have the Zadar Declaration, which essentially stated: "Watch This Space". In the meantime, it was permitted for pilgrims to go to Medjugorje as long as nothing official was organised that gave the impression that the Vatican had completed its investigations. Something falling into this category might be "Join our pilgrimage to the latest approved Marian apparition at Medjugorje".

E Michael Jones has been at the forefront of twisting the Zadar Declaration into becoming something it never was intended to be. This led to many confused pilgrims, who eventually wrote a letter to the Vatican, which netted an unequivocal response from none less than Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone of the CDF (read here), which finally relieved the consciences of pigrims who felt bullied by the local bishop.

Nothing much official has come from the Vatican since then. However, a treasure trove of unofficial interviews and comments have given Medjugorje supporters much to cheer about (read here). The following is an EXTREMELY interesting piece of unofficial support from the same man who wrote the letter describe above (Cardinal Bertone):

Source: Sister Emmanuel in her Medjugorje Report 15 May, 1999

Let me tell you about an interesting report, already published in the magazine "Maria" (March-April 1999) concerning Medjugorje.

(Remember that during Pentecost 1998, Pope Jean-Paul II invited the 'New Communities' to Rome. On this occasion, Cardinal Ratzinger expressed the confidence the Church has in those Communities, founded for the most part after Vatican II. He spoke of a "New Springtime in the Church".)

Among these communities, that of "The Beatitudes" is present in Medjugorje. It seeks to be of service to the pilgrims who flock there in great numbers. In order to be well in line with the Church, Dr. Fernand Sanchez, Moderateur General, and Father Francois-Xavier Wallays, a member of the Community's general council, went to Rome on January 12, 1999. They received from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith its directives in regard to Medjugorje. They were warmly welcomed by the Congregation's Secretary, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone.

Cardinal Ratzinger and Mgr Bertone know the Community of the Beatitudes and how it developed within the Church, after its recognition by Cardinal Coffy, at the time Archbishop of Albi (France) in 1976.

Moreover, their presence in Medjugorje having started in 1989, Archbishop Bertone was able to refer to something concrete, i.e 10 years of prayer life and apostolic work of this Community there. The conversation which took place was therefore based on the precise experience of the particular community. It should not be taken as a word systematically given to every Catholic group. Nevertheless, some elements give much light on the Vatican's position towards Medjugorje, and should cut short many rumours. Besides, they can easily be checked in Rome itself.

Dr. Sanchez - Can we remain in Medjugorje and continue our apostolate there of Evangelization with the pilgrims ?

Arch. Bertone - Not only can you do so, but you must remain in Medjugorje, at the service of the pilgrims ! (The answer was categorical.)

Dr. Sanchez - Can we continue to accompany private pilgrimages there?

Arch. Bertone - It is necessary to accompany private pilgrimages!

Archbishop Bertone stated:
"For the moment, one should consider Medjugorje as a Sanctuary, a Marian shrine, in the same way as Czestochowa."
He added:

"The Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith has asked the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia Hercegovina to take over the dossier of Medjugorje and start again from the beginning. A team of experts will take part in the work."

People like E Michael Jones appear to disregard anything unofficial when it suits them, but will quite happily spread lies, calumny and false witness over the whole globe.

POLITIKA: None of the pilgrims to Medjugorje have ever seen anything

Well, I'm not sure what he is talking about. He appears to simply not know much. Jones' response to this question, by the way, was to pinpoint an alleged occasion where a naked woman spirit was spotted and attempted to make a connection with alleged Franciscan sexual impropriety and paint a picture of demonic infestation. Very poor journalism. Regardless, the fact is that there are literally HUNDREDS and THOUSANDS of testimonies by pilgrims who have seen many things, including the Virgin Mary. Testimonies come from the most unlikely of places. Here is just the tip of the iceberg.

E MICHAEL JONES: Medjugorje is an operation of one particular group of Franciscans who have had a long history of rebellious behavior and who are a disgrace to the Catholic Church.

E Michael Jones either doesn't know the church history of the region or just doesn't want to tell anyone. A very bitter article against the secular clergy in this region was written by a Franciscan who lived through those terrible times during the Herzegovinian Affair. Readers are invited to come to their own conclusions after reading this article. Warning: If you have been a supporter of Zanic and Peric, be prepared to be disappointed, unless you are a lover of truth.

POLITIKA: What do we do with the fraud lasting for 28 years now?

This one question summarises the maverick attitude of conspiracy theorists who think they know better than the Vatican. Gung-ho, control freaks who need the Vatican's nice-and-easy-does-it approach more than anyone, yet are the least able to tolerate it. He says "What do WE do?". Well, here's what we do. We wait for the Vatican! Let the Vatican do what THEY do. And we resist the urge to indulge in character assassination, gossip and rumour-mongering.

E Michael Jones responds to this article and gets it right back again

Science and Evolutionism - Atheist Blockers

2009-08-16T00:13:00.000-07:00

Atheism demands perfect evidence, supposedly, when it comes to the existence of God, yet will settle for a scientific theory that requires unlimited man-hours, new best-sellers, websites and an army of atheists to defend strenuously even today, 150 years later, when it should all be done and dusted.

Scientists as a whole can generally be trusted to keep an open mind, but unfortunately it is the dishonest atheist, hiding behind science's lack of complete information, that gives scientists and everyone else a bad name. Science, in general, does not conflict with religion and will never do so unless and until science can categorically prove that there never was a first cause who is God. That is unlikely to ever happen, particularly as evidence for the supernatural refuses to go away, while science struggles to develop the tools to properly study supernatural phenomena.

Religion sees science as a tool that reveals as much of God's glory as God wishes to provide. So far, believers are enjoying the ride and what a great ride it is! Hubble..Wow! And so far, we have no conflict. Atheism is, as it has always been, the chaotic force that wishes science to remain distanced and non-committal in supernatural things and at the same time, for religion to disappear without a trace. And all for freedom to descend into nihilism, for freedom to do whatever they want, and most importantly, let's face it....hatred of God.

I wonder how scientists feel about being a shelter for atheism. It must embarrass science to know that atheism only exists because of science's inability to, among other things:

Find enough fossil evidence to support evolution.

Get the tools (and willpower) to properly study supernatural phenomena

Regarding the human eye:
Darwin himself realised the great stretch required to believe that such a complex structure could "evolve". So firstly, please forgive theists "arguments from incredulity" on the topic of evolution, when the very person responsible for this theory showed the most incredulity of all, although in his case we can more safely call it educated opinion, unless atheists would suddenly like to cast doubt on Darwin's qualifications, in which case we'd also be satisfied. So, ironically, that automatically makes the theist argument for incredulity scientific educated opinion at least.

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)".

Atheist evolutionists rush to the defence of atheism (not to the defence of Darwin or Science) with a contrived explanation that this expression of doubt is merely rhetorical and that solutions are subsequently provided in later paragraphs. It surprises no-one that atheists cannot bring themselves to concede, as the text clearly suggests, that Darwin had serious reservations about the theory of evolution and was forced to come up with a series of "plausible" explanations that "might" account for such things as the complexity of the eye.

Any perfect evidence so far? Nope, we have a shortlist of possiblities that Darwin came up with in the huge unmistakable absence of anything resembling fact and truth. So, any scientific basis for evolution so far? Nope...the theory should still be well and truly in the theory basket under lock and key, certainly not released as part of school curriculum.

The disturbing issues here, which atheists take full advantage of, is that Science constantly gets by on plausibility until someone comes up with a better answer. How many times has science come up with better answers to succeed what scientists previously thought? We could not keep count. Science, pardon the irony, is not an exact science.

Darwin, in no way, committed himself to his theories of macro-evolution. The eye and non-existent fossil record are but two of his major self-admitted concerns. So, how has it been possible, even though these same questions have not yet been fully answered with irrefutable evidence (remember, atheists demand perfect evidence for God, but conveniently overlook it as it suits them), for atheists to have managed to get so much mileage out of evolution, when serious doubt exists absolutely everywhere in science, not only in evolution. These are a couple of reasons:

People don't differentiate between micro-evolution (natural selection) and macro-evolution. Darwin is more famous for his theory of natural selection, pointing out his own serious reservations about the theory of evolution. But atheists have managed to sneak the theory of evolution into the same acceptance basket by bringing up even more theory, such as.... well...that evolution is just natural selection on a larger scale.
Science cannot substantiate, in a satisfactory peer-reviewed way, the evidence and claims for the supernatural. This allows atheists to dishonestly use the catchcry that there is "no evidence" for God and continue on their merry way. It's a toll they don't have to pay. The toll gates are wide open. And they dishonestly skip through with sneers on their faces.

Another favourite atheist saying is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Well, evolution is an extraordinary claim ("we came from primordial ooze") and there is even less evidence than, say, the supernatural occurrences at Medjugorje, which science has studied on at least 3 separate occasions. Science only gets so far but stops short of proof, not having the tools to advance further. THAT is the imperfect evidence Dawkins et al rely upon.

Who wins? Science? Nope. Religion? Nope. Atheism? Indeed! Atheism is a cowardly practice that relies on absence of information, chaos. Yes, it all sounds like a Maxwell Smart episode doesn't it. Atheism is that dark, dishonest shadow that hangs around, never quite gets to do anything, but cleverly learns to love and profit from the chaos and misinformation it creates. Richard Dawkins and Christoper Hitchens are laughing their way to the bank.

Luther Went Too Far

2009-08-13T02:08:00.000-07:00

The following has been quoted extensively from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther

Luther started off OK...

Hans Hillerbrand writes that Luther had no intention of confronting the church, but saw his disputation as a scholarly objection to church practices, and the tone of the writing is accordingly "searching, rather than doctrinaire." Hillerbrand writes that there is nevertheless an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses, particularly in Thesis 86, which asks: "Why does the pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build the basilica of St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own money?"

Then he got carried away...

Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz and Magdeburg did not reply to Luther's letter containing the 95 Theses. He had the theses checked for heresy and in December 1517 forwarded them to Rome. He needed the indulgences revenue to pay off a papal dispensation for his tenure of more than one bishopric. As Luther later noted, "the pope had a finger in the pie as well, because one half was to go to the building of St Peter's Church in Rome".

Pope Leo X was used to reformers and heretics, and he responded slowly, "with great care as is proper." Over the next three years, he was to deploy a series of papal theologians and envoys against Luther, which only served to harden the reformer's anti-papal theology. First, the Dominican theologian Sylvester Mazzolini drafted a heresy case against Luther, whom Leo then summoned to Rome. The Elector Frederick persuaded the pope to have Luther examined at Augsburg, where the Imperial Diet was held. There, in October 1518, Luther informed the papal legate Cardinal Cajetan that he did not consider the papacy part of the biblical Church, and the hearings degenerated into a shouting match. More than his writing the 95 Theses, Luther's confrontation of the church cast him as an enemy of the pope. Cajetan's original instructions had been to arrest Luther if he failed to recant, but he lacked the means in Augsburg, where the Elector guaranteed Luther's security. Luther slipped out of the city at night, without leave from Cajetan.

In January 1519, at Altenburg in Saxony, the papal nuncio Karl von Miltitz adopted a more conciliatory approach. Luther made certain concessions to the Saxon, who was a relative of the Elector, and promised to remain silent if his opponents did. The theologian Johann Maier von Eck, however, was determined to expose Luther's doctrine in a public forum. In June and July 1519 he staged a disputation with Luther's colleague Andreas Karlstadt at Leipzig and invited Luther to speak. Luther's boldest assertion in the debate was that Matthew 16:18 does not confer on popes the exclusive right to interpret scripture, and that therefore neither popes nor church councils were infallible. For this, Eck branded Luther a new Jan Hus, referring to the Czech reformer and heretic burned at the stake in 1415. From that moment, he devoted himself to Luther's defeat.

Luther went from raising a discontented hand to all-out rebellion. The former was his right; the latter when the devil dragged him away.

The Fruits of Luther

2009-08-13T01:23:00.000-07:00

Matthew 7:16 "By their fruit you will know them".

Isn't life funny. Medjugorje has done more for the Catholic Church than all the other major approved apparitions put together. Unprecedented numbers of healings, conversions, religious vocations, people repenting and turning back to God have come from a tiny village in Bosnia since alleged apparitions began in 1981. Cardinal Shonborn from Vienna once told Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) that if the Vatican were to shut down Medjugorje, it would have to shut down his seminary too, because most of his new seminarians received their call through Medjugorje. While conspiracy theorists and gossip-mongers have tried to highlight some of the bad fruits, such as some Franciscan disobedience and other human error, the good fruits stand out like an Everest. Yet, to this day, Medjugore has still not been officially sanctioned by the Church. I, for one, live in eternal hope that this will change soon.

Shifting our gaze from such a glorious scene to the general Christian landscape, our senses are suddenly assaulted. Not merely our senses, but the depths of our very souls. For what we see are over 33,000 flavours of non-Catholic Christian churches, increasing unchecked, despite Christ's fervent prayer that there be ONE flock and ONE shepherd.

Instead of fighting as one against the enemy, debates and arguments rage endlessly between Christians of different denominations - reminiscent of the "brother against brother" warnings of the Bible.

Anti-semitism raised its ugly head and pervaded the fabric of life right up until its summit of expression in Hitler's exterminations during World War II.

Our Blessed Mother Mary is being insolently deposed to the status of a mere wench-in-waiting while Christ Himself watches on sadly.

Abortions are mainstream - hundreds of thousands of innocents murdered daily.

Divorce has reaked havoc on the fabric of family life.

What are we talking about here - nothing less than the fruits of Luther. Isn't life funny. 33,000 Churches say Luther was onto a good thing. People obviously just don't care what Christ wants. Thanks Martin Luther, you king of idiots!

More Sun Miracles at Medjugorje

2009-08-12T02:15:00.000-07:00

Source: http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje-today/headlines/675-mirjana-reveals-something-further-about-her-apparition-on-august-2-2009.html

Medjugorje's famous miracle of the sun put on a new display during the August 2, 2009 apparition of Medjutorje seer Mirjana Dragicevic.

Mirjana gave evidence after the apparition that every time Our Lady mentioned the name of her son Jesus, the sun behind her became very bright. The meaning attributed to this was that Christ's love envelops us all like the sun.

And while Mirjana was herself in ecstasy, many pilgrims around her witnessed the sun performing, as in the following testimonies:

Max from Slovenia-

“I have been here to Medjugorje about forty times but I have never seen such a miracle as I saw at Mirjana’s apparition. After Mirjana’s apparition I looked up at the sun and it became like a ball and was spinning, very fast. People could look at the sun without any sun glasses, or protection over their eyes. And there were many circular waves around the sun like ripples from a stone thrown into the water, which were changing colors from blue to grey. I saw that for about a minute, but some people for much longer. This experience probably was different for each person, I think. After the finishing of this miracle I looked at the cross on Cross Mountain and around it there was like clouds rising up and they were green and yellow and they looked like columns and then some of the people began to cry, many were praying. It was very beautiful. Inside me was a very strong and powerful feeling of God’s love and peace. It was a great experience for my heart and for our fight.”

Malgorzata Milowicka from Austria-

“Today during Mirjana’s apparition I saw in the sky, stars around the sun and then I saw bright colors and they began to flash red and then green and blue and purple and yellow and orange, coming and going, coming and going. And all around bright rays of light would shine out from the sun from different parts of the sun. I don’t know how long I saw this for if it was seconds, minutes, I don’t know but it seemed for a long, long time. And then it’s coming peace, peace. My mother saw similar colors in the sun but for a shorter time. But all the people around us had seen the sun dance, or a cross in the sun, or something similar to this, it was a miracle.”

Thousands of others could give their testimonies, as
another young man told us that he clearly saw a cross in front of the sun and
another woman saw the Host over the sun.

Absence of Evidence - The Atheist Copout

2009-08-11T00:08:00.001-07:00

It still galls me that atheists require perfect evidence to believe in God, but will settle for a half-ass theory to believe in evolution.

From Richard Dawkins to Johnny A. Theist down the road, the catchcry is "There is no evidence for God". When asked exactly what type of evidence they require in order to believe, of course they would not settle for anything less than perfect evidence, the type of peer-reviewed evidence demanded by science. But, there are way too many problems with this, including that peers can only review based on their current level of knowledge and understanding. Given a few more decades, chances are that the same peers would review somewhat differently. So, pardon the irony, but science is not an exact science.

A relevant question would be: What kind of evidence would it take to go from being an atheist to, let's say, an agnostic or simply one who shuts up and reserves judgement until clearer evidence is produced? The Catholic Church abounds with such evidence. It will never be scientifically peer-reviewed because science does not yet have to tools to deal with anything supernatural. And if a scientist believed some of this evidence, chances are they wouldn't want their peers to know about it.

A dog has more sensory perception than man, but we have to accept that the tools of science are wielded by mere men. It may take centuries before science can seriously study supernatural phenomena.

So, what evidence can we gather from the Catholic Church that supports the existence of God. The question is: where to begin? Here are a few starters:

Incorrupt bodies of saints (the genuine ones, yes we know there have been hoaxes)

Stigmata (again, the genuine ones), e.g. Padre Pio

Marian apparitions - e.g. Medjugorje, where seers still see the Blessed Virgin Mary today and which has been studied by three teams of scientists since 1981

Eucharistic Miracles - there have been too many to count and YouTube even has videos of them.

Sun miracles, e.g. at Medjugorje

I've tried to include modern examples such as Medjugorje, which are subject to even greater and knowledgable scrutiny than those of past eras. I could have included the Fatima miracle, during which 70,000 people simultaneously witnessed an awesome solar display, but the older something is, unfortunately the more easy it is to dismiss.

I fear the problem with atheism is that its participants are generally a dishonest bunch, willing to find anything to absolve them from the necessity of studying these evidences. If they studied the scientific reports on the visionaries at Medjugorje as much as they studied their "Popular Science" magazine, there would no longer be any sensible reason to be an atheist. In fact, you'd be a fool to still call yourself an atheist.

Click here for information on the scientific investigations carried out on the Medjugorje visionaries.

What if Non-Catholics are Right?

2009-08-10T01:50:00.001-07:00

Catholic apologists spend a lot of time debating apologists from the other 33,000 Christian denominations. Is it really necessary? Yes and no. No, because Catholics really know they are in the right place. Yes, because just as with the crusades, at some point you're going to have to face what's right in your face and won't go away.

But, I think God allows the Catholic Church to face criticism. Occasionally, valid points are raised and errors uncovered which help steer the Catholic Church on a straight course. Certainly, few would argue that the Church has needed to be brought back from error on many occasions. Christ, after all, did intimate that the gates of hell would try to prevail. But he also promised that hell would never actually succeed.

How much of the conspiracy theory is true, I'm not sure, but among other things, we've supposedly been infiltrated by the Freemasons, culminating in Vatican II. We got it wrong with Gallileo (though Robert Sungenis thinks the Vatican had a good case). We went on crazy witch-hunts and murdered a lot of innocent people. We had abominable Popes who fathered illegitimate children and sold indulgences.

That leads us to one of the many who had a pretty good case against the Catholic Church - Martin Luther. We all feel for him in a way. His heart seemed to be in the right place when he nailed his protestations to the door. And more than likely, his protestations had the desired effect as we see none of those sorts of shenanigans in the Catholic Church today (I hope).

The sweet Lord knows the Catholic Church has been at the centre of controversy after controversy. Granted, we've had two thousand years to accumulate all those controversies. Give the protestant churches another 1850 years and they'd probably achieve something similar. We've had to apologise on numerous occasions for atrocities and a multiplicity of other misdemeanours. We've had to eat humble pie on many occasions and I think we're still doing that even today. An example of this would be gradual softening of the Church's attitudes to other religions, promoting tolerance and dialogue and acknowledging the "seeds of truth" that exist in all religions, rather than condemning them automatically to hellfire.

Is any of this surprising though? Not if you cast your mind back to the early Church post-resurrection. Peter and Paul, filled so full of the Holy Spirit that they were fearless, could drive out demons and heal the sick. Yet, they could not agree whether to allow the gentiles to be part of the Church, and if so, whether they should be required to follow Jewish traditions.

Yes, Christ is still leading his beloved Church and I dare say we need to swallow our pride (something we've been used to doing recently anyway) and listen to.....yes, even to....shock horror...Protestants!

But, what of those who correct us, shape us, re-align us, not themselves being within the Catholic Church. What about James White or any other apologist from any of the other 33,000 Christian denominations? What becomes of them? They provide a good service to us. They keep us on our toes. Their arguments are food for thought. They might actually be right and we might actually be wrong on some issues. Don't worry! God can use that, even as he has used so many others over the millenia - saints, mystics, Judas Iscariot, even atheists. For God loves all His children and will give each and every one a time to accept His mercy.

But, Christ's primary desire was that there be one flock and one shepherd. While God can use these people to guide the Church, that is not to say that they are automatically acceptable to Him. After all, Judas provided a great service too. A very great service if we pursue that line of thought long enough. The issue is of "authority" and of "where does the Holy Spirit reside?" Even the most hardened atheist can make the occasional good point about spiritual matters. But following up that good point is likely to be a good number of bad points. Some might argue that I've just described the Catholic Church in a nutshell - bad mixed with good. But, this isn't the point. The old testament gives us a hint as to what I'm talking about.

God loved his people - the Jews. He gave them prophets to lead and guide them. One day, the people decided they wanted a king, like all the other peoples. God said "You don't know what you're asking for...but OK, if you insist". He anointed Saul as the first king. He must have know the sort of guy he would end up as. He warned the people. Then David took over. He was a great King, but even he had his weak points. Solomon too began full of promise, but succumbed to idol worship in the end. Then, we had a succession of really awful kings. How God must have cringed for His people. But we learn a lot about God from these times. We learn that God doesn't just abandon His people because of those that lead them. This is something Luther would have done well to remember.

And so it is with the Catholic Church. Yes, we show the weaknesses of the apostles. Our heart is on our sleeve. We're hated and maligned. We're even downright WRONG sometimes. But, we're still the Church that Christ built. We're still where the Holy Spirit resides. We're still the legitimate authority. And the best that the most scholarly and astute non-Catholic can do is provide assistance to us, but never supercede us and never lead us. They just don't have any integral authority we can rely on. They don't have history on their side. There isn't a point at which we can be sure we are touching base with the Lord Jesus Christ who took great pains to set up a physical church. Among the good points are many errors, just like the Catholic Church I suppose. But, the difference is this: God's response to Catholic errors is to send guidance and correction. For God corrects those He loves.

James White Gets Silly With Numbers

2009-08-08T17:30:00.000-07:00

James White's article entitled "The 33,000 Denominations Myth" deserves singling out. I'm not sure why he bothered writing this article. I sense it is simply to have "something" written, so that his followers who don't actually read the article can at least believe that, if James White wrote a response, then it's a good bet the Catholic side is up to no good.

Let's have a look at exactly what all the fuss is about. It is simply this: The claim used by Catholic apologists that there are 33,000 protestant denominations is incorrect. It refers to Tim Staples' and others quotation of the World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press, 2001), pg. 10. White's article simply disputes this figure and asks Catholics to stop using it and to stop blaming sola scriptura for it.

But unfortunately, James White is guilty of his own accusation - not researching properly. Sure, he did a slightly better job than Tim ... because he HAD to. He had to respond. But, as we shall see later, he tripped over himself in his haste to get his article out.

We could probably gloss over this simple mistake, except that one of James White's main weapons of attack against Catholic apologists is lack of scholarliness. Much loud-mouthed boasting of his debating prowess and scholarliness can be heard from his corner. An example:

There was a time when Catholic Answers tried to put forward a serious face of scholarship. They sought to utilize at least semi-scholarly sources (though even then without much serious effort to use them in context..). But over the past few years it seems the bottom of the barrel has come into clear view, and the pretense of scholarship has become glaring.

Irrespective of the errors, White's article doesn't give us any plausible justification for there being even just MORE THAN ONE Christian church, let alone three, three hundred or thirty-three thousand. Would James White admit that Sola Scriptura is responsible for ten protestant denominations? One Hundred? It matters not the number. If only ten, that is nine more than enough for James White to pull the eject lever from protestantism and return home to the Catholic Church.

And White's article does nothing to exonerate Sola Scriptura from blame for this abhorrent situation. Absolutely, and without possible confusion, the refusal to submit to the authority of Rome, hand in hand with the belief that the Bible is the sole authority, can have no other possible result than the conflagration of Christian churches. I do not see how this can be avoided. Conversely, if one remained in filial communion with Rome, trustfully suppressing one's own ideologies and preferences, one simply would not participate in the building of new churches. It really is a simple as that.

So, here are the numbers.

James tries to defend protestantism by pointing out that the 33,000 figure is not a listing of "denominations" arising from the Protestant Reformation. He points out that the Protestant denominational figure is actually 11,830 and asks us to please remember that the denominational number includes Roman Catholics, Orthodox as well as Protestants! Is 11,830 more than one? Yes, even I can do that math.

He gleefully asks us to note that there are 242 Catholic denominations!

Catholic Answers board carried the following post, which should assist James White with his understanding of these numbers.

"David Barrett, et al, does indeed refer to "over 33,000 distinct denominations in 238 countries..." (Table 1-5, vol 1, page 16). This refers to his unique definition of a "Christian denomination" but does not include small ones (congregations of a couple hundred or less), which would dramatically increase this number beyond all imagination. Barrett also states there are 242 total Roman Catholic denominations (year 2000 numbers). So I looked into what he believed these denominations were.

Barrett breaks down his encyclopedic reference by country. So I looked up how many Roman Catholic denominations are within the U.S. according to Barrett. Much to my surprise, Barrett shows ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination for the United States.

So I wondered where the heck are these 242 denominations? I looked in Barrett's reference for Britain, and again he listed ONLY ONE Roman Catholic denomination. I thought surely that of the 238 countries within his encyclopedic reference there must be a country that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination. There wasn't. I could not find one country listed by Barrett that had more than ONE Roman Catholic denomination.

So, what does Barrett mean when he states there are 242 Roman Catholic denominations? It seems Barrett is counting each country as it's own denomination. So, for Barrett, the Roman Catholic Church of the USA is a different denomination than the Roman Catholic Church of Canada. I don't know how he got 242 denominations from 238 countries listed, however. Some numbers from Barrett's...

Denominations / Paradenominations:
1970: 26,350
1995: 33,820

Under U.S. Country Table 2, of the 6,222 US denominations, there's only ONE Roman Catholic denomination listed, and there's 60 Orthodox denominations. Barrett labels the rest of the denominations: Protestant, Anglican, Independent, and Marginal. The more commonly accepted classification of Christianity used even by Protestant scholars, such as Leslie Dunstan in his book Protestantism, Christianity consists of: (1) Catholic, (2) Orthodox, and (3) Protestant. So, using this more commonly understood classification....

Number of U.S. Denominations
Catholic 1
Orthodox 60
Protestant 6,161

Remember, the above numbers are derived using Protestant sources only. Barrett differs from other Protestants such as Dunstan as to what constitutes a Protestant denomination. What Dunstan would call Protestant, Barrett describes as:

Barrett's classification:
Protestant 660
Anglican 1
Independent 5,100
Marginal 400

That's just for the U.S. Yet, there's but ONE Catholic denomination in the U.S., either by Dunstan or Barrett's standard.

Another way of looking at it is not to use Barrett's fuzzy understanding of denominations at all. What does Webster call a denomination? Let's see... Webster calls a 'denomination' a "a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body." The category called "Protestantism," since it does not actually "unite" any local congregation into a "single legal and administrative body," is more accurately a grouping of denominations rather than a denomination, according to Webster's definition. How does one know if their "denomination" is of the Protestant kind?

You might be a Protestant if....
(1) You believe the Bible consists of only 66 books
(2) You believe authority rests with Scripture Alone (Sola Scriptura)
(3) You believe justification is by Faith Alone (Sola Fide)

How many of the "denominations" listed by Barrett fall into this category? I'm betting over 33,000. Let's look at it this way, of the 33,000 that Barrett classifies, which ones refute the pillars of Protestantism shown above? (a) Catholic Church, (b) Oriental Orthodox (5th century schism), (c) Eastern Orthodox (11th century schism). Any others? Perhaps I've missed a few. Even if you break apart the Orthodox Churches into separate Patriarchates (Bishops), that doesn't reduce the BIG number of 33,820 by very much, does it? Some would say, "well that number is completely inflated" based upon Barrett's fuzzy definition of "denomination." On the contrary, I would say that it is a MUCH LARGER NUMBER of denominations using Webster's definition of "denomination."

Even within the Catholic Church, the most diverse forms of Catholicism, the Latin and Eastern Rite, share the same government, the same "religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body." In other words, Canon Law for the Eastern Rite and Canon Law for the Latin Rite come from the same single government, chaired by the same Vicar.
In the U.S. the next largest so-called "denomination" after the Catholic Church is referred to as "Baptist" according to http://www.adherents.com/

Is this a single denomination by Webster's use of the word? Can the Baptist denomination rightly be called a "religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body?" I don't believe so.

I suspect the label 'Baptist' is yet another grouping of denominations like the word "Protestant," since according to one Baptist scholar, every "local Baptist parish church is a law unto itself. Its relations with other Baptists churches, its compliance with recommendations from national church headquarters, its acceptance of any resolutions formulated at regional , national, or international conventions -- all these are entirely voluntary on the part of the parish church." (Religions of America, Leo Rosten, ed.)

If it is true that every Baptist parish-church is a law unto itself, then isn't every individual Baptist parish-church, according to Webster, its own legal and administrative body, its own denomination? I wonder how many Baptist parish-churches are in the world? I know there are too many to easily count here in Colorado Springs.

Are there any major denominations within Protestantism, for example Lutheranism, which can be correctly called a denomination by Webster's usage? If so, I'm not familiar with them. Missouri-Synod Lutherans want nothing to do with the World-Lutheran-Federation Lutherans, for example.

Therefore, I believe 33,000 is a tragically conservative number of Protestant denominations IN THIS COUNTRY (U.S.) let alone in the world.

Anti-Catholic Evangelical apologist Eric Svendsen is quoting from an earlier edition of the same encyclopedic source. Unfortunately, if you've read Dave Armstrong's article on the subject, you know that Eric Svendsen's polemics fall flat upon its face (as usual). The beauty is, Svendsen still has not faced up to the fact that there is ONE Catholic Church listed for every country Barrett lists. Nor has he addressed the fact that all those "denominations" that use a 66-book Protestant Bible, and uphold the pillars of Protestantism (sola scriptura and sola fide) are PROTESTANT even if they claim otherwise. Calling themselves "non-denominational" may be a clever marketing technique, but the world (including Protestant authors) knows them as Protestants.

We REALLY Don't Worship Statues

2009-08-07T19:17:00.000-07:00

At least James White has some saving graces, i.e. he's a solid convincing debater and most of his debating opponents have to work for their wins. The yawning chasm between he and the rest of his crew is given flesh by the latest article from TurretinFan entitled "We Don't Worship Statues" http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3432. I can almost see White's pursed lips and raised left eyebrow as he agreed to allow this article to go live. Here are some extracts from that article with my comments following:

How many times have I heard the line, "We don't worship statues"! It seems that whenever one brings up the subject of idolatry with a Roman Catholic, they invariably think it is a defense that they are not venerating the statue itself, but the thing it represents. My intuitive response has typically been: do you think the pagans think that the statue is actually the god itself?

Just in case they think that, I happen to have found an interesting article that makes the following claim: P. Sivaraman, the chairman of the temple's board of trustees, explained to the 80 [Roman] Catholics that Hindus do not worship the images -- they are only there to help devotees focus their minds on an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient God.
Now, where have we heard that before?
Nevertheless, despite the obvious propaganda nature of the piece, it is simply intuitive. When a Hindu looks at a statue of Brahma, or Vishnu, or Shiva, the Hindu doesn't think that the statue is the god, any more than the Greeks thought that the statue of their gods were the gods themselves. But the true and living God is not worshiped with the works of man's hands, as though he needed anything, as Scriptures teach. Therefore, whether your idolatry is Roman Catholic or Hindu, flee it. Keep yourselves from idols.

Well, TF, I think we have a pretty clear example from the Bible of what God meant by idolatry. Clearly, when Moses' followers built a golden calf with God Himself not but a few miles away up the mountain with Moses, they never intended their statue to help them focus on God. They were disappointed with God. They were in rebellion against God. And there's a big difference between that and what Catholics, or Hindus for that matter, do.

When God ordered statues of angels to be placed in the new temple and on the Ark of the Convenant, it was already established in the minds of His people that He was their God. Otherwise, why build a temple to Him and why build an ark for Him. In this context, statues of angels were never likely to serve as so much lurid temptation ready to draw the Israelites away from worship of God. On the contrary, these angels would have served as reminders of the service of God.

Idolatry, in the context of the golden calf built by the exodusing Israelites, is the worship of something that is a SUBSTITUTE for God - what God referred to when He said "Thou shalt have no other Gods before Me". That could be fast cars, women, money or, indeed, golden calves.

Should God deign to display His physical aspect to the world as a whole, certainly every religion serious about their worship would quickly fall into line. We might see Ganesh disappear instantly. On the other hand, those who never had any intention to worship God but rather, in rebellion, wished to worship a substitute, would not.

If an elephant helps Hindus envisage God in a friendly, kindly light, and their elephant was not built as a rebellious act against God, and when they worship it they truly intend to worship God, then I for one don't detect idolatry. That would be sincere worship of God. That's the beginning of holiness. God can lead them from there.

As for Catholics, if their statues of saints help them remember and seek to emulate the courage and fidelity of their predecessors in their service of God, while also being capable of interceding directly for them to God in three persons, then again, nothing to see here except sincere desire to worship and serve God.

One simply MUST be able to make these distinctions. They are not particularly difficult distinctions to make. Shame on you TurretinFan and, vicariously, Alpha Omega Ministries.