Leading Catholic Apologists Jump on the Anti-Medjugorje Bandwagon

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

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

A secular carmelite from Detroit, Diane M. Korzeniewski, not herself an apologist of any note, started the ball rolling after the much publicised statements of Archbishop Allessandro D’Errico were released by the official Medjugorje website 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

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

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.

E Michael Jones Responds

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

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

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

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 Bishop Zanic. Please note: We are not deliberately trying to criticise one of Christ's shepherds/representatives. Please, let us constantly pray for them and give them our love and support as far as possible. This is purely for the sake of balance and to specifically answer those who try to use the opposition of the Bishops as bullets for their own guns. 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:

1. 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.


2. 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