Cherie Blair on Modernisation in the Catholic Church

Cherie Blair, wife of former British Prime minister Tony Blair and women's rights activist, fronted a programme on BBC Knowledge called "Christianity: A History". I am nearly always disappointed by shows having such titles because they end up NOT being a presentation of the history of the said topic but a crusade about some aspect of the history that the presenter did not like or agree with. And, needless to say, I was duly disappointed by this one.

Cherie focussed on women's issues and concerns within the Church - notably the issues of abortion and contraception.

I sent an email to Cherie to express my thoughts on her programme:

I understand how women have progressed and enjoy the feeling of having progressed. We have crossed many bridges thought impossible many years ago. And you appear to have done very well for yourself. and all power to you.

Or should I say "All power to God". Ah, there's a twist! After all, we believe in God don't we? That's why we're Christians. If God exists, surely we owe Him complete love and obedience. Surely, a starting point, therefore,  would be to discern His will.

There are certain timeless truths that are immune to "modernisation".

The sixties kicked off a period of "free-thinking" for want of a better word. What was God thinking then? As time progressed, more and more things have become acceptable according to how freely we can think and suited people very nicely. We have legal same-sex marriages now. What will be our next goal? Who's looking to God and wondering what HE thinks??

We will do all we can, like little children sometimes, to get what we want. We will squawk and wriggle until we are allowed to get that ABORTION, use CONTRACEPTION and never fulfil our God-given biological role. Damnit, we'll beg, bite and scratch till we feel things are "fair" and wholly suit us.

But, things are not always obviously "fair". Some of these things we can deal with and should be dealt with, as you have done successfully. But others cannot and should not.

Women of today do not like to feel they in any way "subservient" or "inferior". Did anyone actually ask God why he made male and female the way He did? We may not like many things God does, but that's because we don't understand, or care to understand, why He did them. We just want our own way.

Serious believers do not want modernisation. In fact, the less modernisation, the more conducive to genuine worship, which is God's first commandment. That's why there are cloistered monks living simply in silence.

People who say they want modernisation are simply saying "I want to live MY way, not God's way". But, how God actually wants us to live is outlined in the Bible. It needs no modernisation to live a pure lifestyle, for example.

People who say they want modernisation are all about THEMSELVES and their own gratification rather than in sincerely wishing to know God's will and DOING His will out of love. They want to compromise ancient truths over a restless itch or craving. It has nothing to do with modernisation. "Modernisation" is the smokescreen, a red herring, the con we use to get what we want.

People think they are so progressive and advanced. In fact, people today are flakier than they have ever been. If anything, we need to step backwards. Along the way, we've ditched many important things, which the Catholic Church seeks to preserve. The Catholic Church is the last bastion for considering what God's actually desires for us.

The Catholic Church is the unpopular strict parent in this world of screaming, selfish children.

Yes, we have a Father, who is God. We must love and obey Him. If that is not our view, then why even bother.

God has appointed a Church to administer His will. If we don't agree with His will or don't believe this or that is really His will, we have recourse to the Fathers of the Church, St Augustine et al, who faced, over the centuries, the various issues we may wish to debate. These men were filled with the Holy Spirit and fully capable to discern God's will.

My wife is a genuine Catholic woman. She has a degree and a mind of her own. However, she is completely happy to have Our Blessed Mother Mary as her role model. Mary sought to please God, first and foremost. Our Lady should be the role model for all women - from the simple to those who consider themselves on the cutting edge of modernity. Any professional woman would only add to her beauty and credibility by assuming the attitude, countenance and behaviour of Our Lady. A genuine, pure, humble woman is a thing to behold and has brought many a man to his knees.

Medjugorje Antagonists Cling to New Hope Via More He-Said-She-Said

Apparently an Italian news site, Correspondenza Romana, published a report claiming that Pope Francise spoke negatively about Medjugorje.

This report was unofficially translated by Richard Chonak as follows:

On Saturday September 7, in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae, Pope Francis apparently spoke during his morning meditation on the theme “there is no Christian without Jesus”, during which time he criticized “revelationist” Christians and expressed his strong reserve about the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje.

However, the official site of the Holy See and the Osservatore Romano purged their words of any reference to Medjugorje, referring to it only in these terms: “There is another group of Christians without Christ: those who look for rarities and curiosities that come from private revelations,” whereas Revelation was completed with the New Testament. The Holy Father warned about the desire of such Christians to go “to the spectacle of a revelation, to experience something new”. But the Pope addresses to them this exhortation: “Pick up the Gospel!”

We do not have anything more than this - no source, no witness, nothing to corroborate. So, we are led to believe that:

• The Pope expressed some type of explicit reservation about Medjugorje specifically, even though the likelihood of this would be extremely slim, given the delicate nature of an ongoing investigation. We have no idea exactly what that reservation was.
• The Osservatore Romano doctored the Pope's words to exclude the reference to Medjugorje.

Very strange on many levels.  Not for those who hate Medjugorje though. A thimbleful is as good as a tankard to these types. And as you can imagine, very little time was wasted disseminating this rather useless information across the globe.

Are we "Promoters"?

I, and others who are known to speak out against the outspoken anti-Medjugorje sect, are constantly labeled "Medjugorje promoters". I have even attracted the term "uber promoter" by one such Medjugorje detractor. I would like to respond to that.

In 1991, as soon as the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference had submitted their findings of "Non constat de supernaturalitate" (not proven to be supernatural) and left the door open for future investigations, the media went crazy with slogans like "No miracles at Medjugorje", allowing those who had opposed Medjugorje to feel justified in their opposition. The source of this opposition was the Bishop of Mostar, Pavao Zanic and his successor Ratko Peric. For whatever reason, we know that the Vatican did not agree with Zanic's preferred declaration "Constat de non-supernaturalitate" (proven not supernatural). We also noted the subsequent removal of the Medjugorje dossier from the hands of the local bishop and the start of a new investigation under the auspices of the Yugoslav Bishops Conference. We also note that around this time, Bishop Zanic circulated a letter around the world containing the reasons for his stance against the apparitions.

Thenceforth, we constantly witnessed and heard stories about people, who were planning to visit Medjugorje, having wet blankets draped over them by these detractors. Even though the Vatican never forbade private unofficial pilgrimages, these pilgrims were constantly reminded of the Vatican's "opposition", which was never an opposition in the first place. We constantly had Bishop Peric's continued opposition thrust in our faces with the threat of dire consequences for disobedience to the local bishop. In short, the local Bishop's opposition became confused with official Church opposition and anything resembling opposition to the local bishop became confused with disobedience and opposition to the Church itself.

Such was the level of confusion among pilgrims that a letter was finally sent to the Vatican asking for clarification of the current status of Medjugorje. The answer was obvious  - the Vatican hasn't yet decided, the local bishop's opinion is not the Vatican's opinion, and anyone can go on unofficial pilgrimages to Medjugorje where they will receive the full extent of pastoral care. You'd think this would be an end to things. Far from it. Detractors seemed hell-bent on continuing a forum of debate and the dredging up of anything resembling support for their militant opposition. Some of the sneakier ones enlisted the support of unsuspecting prominent apologists.

This irked those who yearned for peace and unity on the subject and were prepared to wait for the final declaration, meanwhile appreciating God's apparent hand in reaping an abundance of good fruit from this phenomenon. Although the Vatican effectively had its hands tied, God appeared to be moving unencumbered. We all appreciated that, with one exception: the most vehement of detractors, who completely overlooked the good fruit, preferring to rifle through the barrel to find as much bad fruit as they could lay their hands on. The paucity of what they found was embarrassing, but well-promoted.

We never stopped hearing about a couple of alleged disobedient Franciscans, who were eventually exonerated by the Holy See anyway. We were constantly forced to listen to unfounded slander and calumny against the visionaries, who apparently had houses that were too large, were smoking at the time when Mary first appeared, and shouldn't be marrying certain people, if at all. Father Jozo himself was the subject of unfounded and later disproven personal attacks.

Mama Mia! I am not one to stand by and let God's fruit be stolen away by hearsay and slander!

As I looked, I lamented what these spiteful actions were doing to God's harvest while the rest of us were summoning our patience for the Vatican's final declaration. Souls were literally being snatched out of God's hands. Some of us took action - not to PROMOTE Medjugorje - but to DEFEND GOD'S HARVEST and to try to instill some sensibility and balance to the whole affair. If God called someone to Medjugorje for healing or whatever reason, and that pilgrim was being put off by some half-truth or innuendo from a Medjugorue detractor, I personally wanted to be on hand to correct their misconceptions and hopefully undo the damage that lies and hatefulness had done to God's harvest. That's the extent of my involvement.

I would particularly like to hear from others to speak out FOR Medjugorje and what their motivations are. Who are the "promoters" in this whole affair? Think about it.

The Cloudy Lens of Dianne Korzeniewski on Medjugorje and Franciscans

Dianne Korzeniewski seems, on the surface, to be an honest and good Catholic woman who, according to her self-description enjoys "sharing the faith as I see it through the lens of my camera".

The problem is her lens becomes decidedly cloudy on the issue of Medjugorje, and I don't know why. For some time now I have suspected that there is a type of dark stronghold that makes the minds of certain people completely and irrationally closed to some potentially powerful good, that God wishes to accomplish, and/or renders them incapable of just leaving things alone for the Vatican to figure out.

She pokes and prods and seeks and searches for the anything that can be found, alluded to, intimated or whispered which can be used against Medjugorje and the Franciscans. It seems to possess these people and they won't listen to any reason.

On the subject of Medjugorje, all I have ever asked of detractors like Dianne is this: Let the Vatican decide and stop making your own negative judgments. If you can't do that and if you are going to publicly condemn an apparition, against the wishes of the Holy See, and against wisdom and sensibility, at least provide a balanced report. Balance is so far from her reports on Medjugorje, you simply cannot tolerate it and must speak out in order to preserve the balance in the minds of those who are perhaps less educated about Medjugorje and easily swayed by such awful reporting.

Dianne's latest lens fog occurred on April 7, 2013 on her blog. There, she embarks on a creative exercise in rebuilding the Mostar/Herzegovinian affairs in such a way to make the Franciscans look like convicts deserving of death row and the local bishops as being on the brink of spontaneous canonisation. She summarizes her creation with:

Many Medjugorje enthusiasts...are left with the impression that this is a "Bishop vs. Franciscan" disagreement, often creating contempt for the local bishop. In reality, it is the Franciscans vs. the Holy See.

Do not be fooled. Dianne has apparently not fully versed herself on these affairs and probably has only read versions from the "dark side" shall we say. Indeed, she invokes Donal Foley - a known acrid Medjugorje antagonist.

The reason it came down to an issue between the Vatican and the Franciscans is when the Franciscans appealed to the Holy See to intervene in the abhorrent injustices that were occurring out of sight of the Holy See as the newly-arrived secular clergy carried out their policy of divesting Franciscans of their parishes in a way that would not have been approved by the Vatican if they had known about it. Indeed, the Vatican eventually realised what was going on and made token gestures at repairing the damage, but much was too late to be undone.

Diane cites the DECREE ROMANIS PONTIFICIBUS as the killer blow to the Franciscans, after which nothing more can be said. But, as usual Diane fails to provide the balance. Indeed, there is much more to the story.

Decree Romanis Pontificibus was essentially the result of, at best, a misunderstanding, at worst (according to the Franciscans)  an outright con, i.e. the Vatican was duped by misleading statements made by the seculars, including the use of the term "mutual agreement" and the overlooking of certain preconditions whereby certain parishes were to be retained by the Franciscans. This resulted in a letter from the Franciscans to the Pope in 1976, noting that the Decree Romanis Pontificibus was contradictory to the truth. The Franciscans henceforth never ceased with negotiations and discussions, resulting eventually in an "Alleviated" Implementation of the Decree of 1975, whereby parishes were to be redistributed by negotiation between the parties. These efforts appear to have been blocked at every turn by the secular Bishop and nothing was ever resolved.

I encourage all readers to familiarise themselves with these affairs and particularly to read the Franciscans' side of the story. My blog has information here, which should open a few eyes, hopefully. It is truly fascinating stuff. You'll see the full progression of events and motives. It won't open Dianne's eyes. If she reads it, she'll probably stop right at the beginning where it says.

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.

What was that policy? Divest the Franciscans of their parishes and send them into exile.

She needs to rebuke her own irrational hatred towards Medjugorje as a starting point. But, I'm hoping I can save a few from being conned into viewing things through her dirty lens and to see it freshly through their own.

Please understand that I do not wish intentionally to speak against any bishop or any clergy. God placed them in their positions of authority, including the Bishops of Mostar in all their imperfect glory. We owe them our love, prayers and support, but at the same time we are not asked to jump into the mouths of wolves in our quest to be obedient. If I am proven wrong about anything, I will certainly heed it.

Pray for our Shepherds, and do not Judge

Our Lady's July 02, 2012 message through Mirjana contained yey another exhortation to pray for our shepherds. It also contained a caution against judging them.

"...Pray as I do for your shepherds. Again I caution you: do not judge them, because my Son chose them. Thank you."

This nudged my own conscience as I have been personally guilty on this blog of having criticised certain bishops involved in Medjugorje. So, I am making it my personal goal to not again speak critically or judgementally of any member of the clergy.

Instead, I will simply pray and let God's will be done in all circumstances. 

Indeed, they deserve and greatly need our prayers. 

Heavenly Father, I bring to you in prayer every one of your holy shepherds, whom You have personally chosen to lead your Church. How easy it is to criticise and judge them. Yet, we know so little of the trials and temptations they endure daily. Lord, forgive us and help us to love and help our shepherds as much as we can. Strengthen them daily with Your Holy Spirit as they rise in the mornings and relieve them of all burdens as they retire at night.  Safeguard your shepherds Oh Lord - the pillars of your Church on earth - the ones whom you have entrusted to guide and nurture your people. Thank you Lord, Amen.

Of Bishops & Obedience

"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:

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

Seedy Aggression Against Medjugorje Followers

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!