S ARE HOAXES
O Carroll, Deceitful Medjugorje Defender
Vicka
jumps away from the man about to stab her in the eyes during a “vision”. She claims she is not aware of what is
around her when seeing the Virgin and that she jumped because Mary seemed to
be about to drop the baby Jesus and she wanted to catch him! Then why jump backwards and not open the
hands to catch the child? Also note
that these two visionaries are not looking in the same direction. It is as if they are only pretending that
there is a person only the visionaries can see in front of them.
Again
two “visionaries” looking in different directions and expressing different
emotions as if they are play acting
External
Link
OFFICIAL
CHURCH DOCUMENTATION REFUTING THE APPARITIONS
This book
The O Carroll Book
In 1981, on June 24th, a strange report heralded the
beginning of the Medjugorje industry.
Six children reported seeing a shape standing up a hill. The next day four of these with a few
others went back to the hill and they got a closer look at the figure who
said she was the Virgin Mary. Soon the
Lady began to appear to them in the
Medjugorians make out that the
bishops are acting in bad faith which justifies their ignoring them. But even then they have to be obeyed for
that is what the rule about obedience is for: making you do what you are told
even if you think the bishop is wrong or in bad faith for the sake of unity
and order in the Church. If you keep
thinking the bishop is wrong or deceiving and that entitles you to disobey, there
is no point in him asking for your obedience.
Jesus would then have been a fool for setting up the apostles and
bishops to lead the flock.
Fr Michael O Carroll who is a member of the
Fr O Carroll’s book is called Medjugorje,
Facts, Documents and Theology and was published by Veritas of Dublin.
He quotes the official
doctrine of the Church of Rome as expressed by Benedict XIV: “It should be known that the approval given
by the Church to a private revelation is nothing but permission granted, after
an attentive inquiry, to make known this revelation for the enlightenment and
good of the faithful. Even when these
revelations are approved by the Church they should not be given the assent of
Catholic faith. Nevertheless they
should be given an assent of human faith, following the rules of prudence by
which such revelations are probable or believable for pious reasons…Without
prejudice to the integrity of Catholic faith a person may withhold his assent
to such revelations and withdraw from them provided he does so with due
modesty, not without reason and without contempt” (page 9). In a Church decree issued in 1877 by the
Congregation of Rites in
Fr Karl Rahner is quoted with
approval on page 11 as saying that visions from God can be faked with telepathy,
mediumistic ability and telekinetic powers.
When such powers might explain Medjugorje it shows the unhealthy bias
of Fr O Carroll when he declares that the apparitions are true.
Chapter 3, has a transcript of
Vicka’s testimony. During the first
appearance, three children were seeing the apparitions and they were staring
at something and were frightened though they told Vicka it was the
Virgin. Fear is usually taken to be a
sign that something satanic is happening.
They were spiritually and emotionally disturbed by the vision. And why were the three able to know that
Vicka was present when the apparition supposedly puts them into ecstasy?
Ivan Dragicevic could not see
the Virgin clearly which is another indication of lying or non-divine origin. The Virgin would not half-appear.
Soon in imitation of
Vicka reported that they asked
Mary for a sign to stop people saying they were making it all up. And the hands of Mirjana’s watch began
behaving as if arrested by some magical force. The man taking the testimony, Bubalo, said
that that was no good for it was impossible to check. Here we have Mary giving a weak sign that
nobody could verify and one that was too insignificant. Also, she never chided them for looking for
signs. Jesus told the Jews off for seeking
signs except the resurrection and said in the latter days even the elect
could be deceived by the mighty wonders the false Christs and false prophets
will perform which makes it incumbent on us to be totally sure a miracle has
happened and that he will not do any there is any doubt about. He told his apostles to expect hardship and
embrace it but this Lady says nothing.
Correcting them later is no good.
The infamous incident where the
Virgin gets her veil trampled on and she disappears for a few moments is
reported in this chapter. Vicka said
that the Virgin was not annoyed at the rude crowd for she is not like an
ordinary person. The Virgin appeared
three times that day. Vicka said she
did not know why but the crowd were very bothersome. It seems that the Virgin was annoyed with
the crowd. This Lady comes down from
Heaven and finds she made a mistake and ends up trying to appear in peace
three times! This is absurd. Why could she not put the children in
ecstasy so that Vicka and they would not be complaining about the crowd? She was able to protect Bernadette and the
A little child who seemed to
be dying was once mentioned to the Virgin who was asked to intercede for the
cure. The Lady said that a lot of
prayers must be said and belief must be strong implying that lack of prayer
and belief will be responsible if the child dies (page 35). This insensitive idea has been employed by
countless faith-healers.
A doctor once asked the visionaries if she
could touch the Virgin who called her an unbelieving Judas and told the
visionaries to let her try and touch her.
The woman touched the Virgin’s shoulder and said nothing. But visitors in Vicka’s house claimed that
she said she felt nothing but a shudder in her whole arm (page 36). It was offensive of the Virgin to use language
like that and there was no need. And
especially after the Church said that it was not a sin to disbelieve in a
vision and especially one that was not authenticated or to take a lot of time
before making up one’s mind for that means apparitions cannot judge. The Virgin is contradicting the
Church. Moreover, Judas betrayed the
things that have to be believed so the implication is that the woman was
doing the same by wanting to feel the Virgin before she would believe. But we all shudder and the woman might have
been afraid she would feel something which could have caused the feeling. There was always a lot of emotion and
vibration in the air when an apparition was happening. We are told in the book that the doctor
never came back which is bizarre if she really felt the Virgin. What is her name? Did she exist? She was sent by the Communists (page 35)
implying she would never have admitted what the people in Vicka’s house said
she admitted. It would not have been
said to them. But it is strange that a
shudder was reported. The Virgin
evidently failed to make her feel her shoulder. We know plenty about Vicka and her
truthfulness and so how truthful the witnesses, her friends, would have
been. Bad company flocks together.
The Bishop has the right to
decide what goes on his churches.
Bishop Zanic would not have wanted the apparition to start happening
in the Parish Church when he regarded it as false and anyway no apparition
should be happening in a Church for the Church cannot decide if the
apparition was really from God until after the apparition finishes. Yet the Virgin began appearing there early
in 1982. No apparition however
credible should be appearing in the house of God until the Church has
declared that something is happening.
There is the risk of fraud and delusion. Moreover, Zanic gave out a ban against the
apparitions being held in the Church and despite this they were still held
there. From August 1984 to April 1985
they happened in the Church against the bishop’s express command. That was extreme defiance for they could
have had their vision elsewhere. Fr
Rene Laurentin strangely states that after 1987 the visionaries had visions
in the
The Virgin appearing in the
Many in the Roman Church who
claim to be able to discern if a vision is from Heaven accept the test of St
Catherine of Siena, who noticed it was getting hard to tell the difference
between true and false visions, that she got from Heaven in a vision. The test says that if you feel euphoric the
moment when a vision appears it is not from God. Satan likes to make you feel good – its the
only way he can dupe you.
Some mystics disagree and hold
that if your first sensation is fear then there is something amiss. It seems it is okay to be scared at the
first vision but if it still happens with successive apparitions then there
is something amiss. But this, like
Catherine’s test, presupposes a psychic link between the vision and the
witness. There is no need for this
link and it infers that the mystic has psychic powers and thus it denies that
the visions are really caused by an outside force such as a God. The mystic should not be living by feelings
but by getting to know the vision.
The visionary Anne Catherine
Emmerich saw in her visions that the earthly paradise was on a mountain near
Tibet, that Dionysus the Areopagite really wrote the heretical book ascribed
to him, and added that Mary died thirteen years after the resurrection contradicting other
visionaries, St Bridget of Sweden who said it was fourteen and Marie de
Agreda who says twenty-one and also that it is everybody’s duties to believe
in her visions and what she wrote about them!
Joan of Arc was encouraged by the voices of the saints she heard from
Heaven that she would have victory and she took it they meant she would not
be martyred. She was right for they
would have corrected her knowing what she was thinking. Some say the victory was her canonisation
but that was not her doing. It was not
her victory for canonisation depends on chance for there are many uncanonised
saints. The fact is that the
revelations even of saints are not reliable.
Deuteronomy 18 says that people who err in what God has said or who
give revelations that have been proven false are fakes and not to be listened
to and even stoned to death. Why then
should we trust the unsaintly and ordinary visionaries of Medjugorje?
Mirjana urged the people to
be vigilant and say lots of prayers for the Virgin told her to in 1985 for
the fulfilment of the first secret is near (page 44). This prophecy proved false. Supporters will say the sign is postponed
because of the prayers but there is no hint that the prophecy of the Virgin
was conditional. The war took place
too long after the prophecy so it was not the first secret. Nor was it ever said that it was.
Bishop Zanic is put down on
page 50 for having the hallucination theory as his favourite. But the Bishop was using hallucination in a
broad sense. He does not think the
witnesses are all sick in the medical sense but may be seeing what is not
there. It may be a kind of
self-delusion or psychic delusion that they are having.
Laurentin is praised for being
scientific with regard to the visions on page 52 and looking at all
objections. But Laurentin only looked
at a few of them which is not much good.
There were plenty of things that he should have been disturbed about
that he pretended he did not see.
Laurentin and Zanic fell out
and he accused Zanic of slandering him in saying that he made a lot of money
out of his books on the apparitions and that he was used by the Franciscans
to defend these appearances and was influenced by the charm of a visionary
(page 53). But significantly, no proof
is given that Zanic is wrong. O
Carroll brags about Laurentin’s respect for authority. But it is the bishop and not Laurentin who
has to decide if the apparitions are what they claim to be. Laurentin is authenticating the visions in
spite of the bishop which is bad enough if the bishop is open-minded but a
scandal if the bishop does not approve.
If the bishop is unreasonable then Laurentin should not be
antagonising him which could only make him more stubborn. Padre Pio was badly treated by the Church
but he obeyed it nevertheless. St
Gemma Galgani and all the saints who had apparitions preferred their visions
to be in disrepute than for the Church to be disobeyed and their visions
commended them for that. The
Medjugorje Virgin never chastised Fr Laurentin.
Laurentin wrote to Zanic and
asked him to stop giving misinformation about him. He did not use the strong words like
slander. O Carroll, Laurentin’s mate,
bluntly accuses Zanic of slander. What
is going on? Laurentin would have read
O Carroll’s book. Laurentin would have
corrected him if he had been an honest person.
O Carroll accuses the bishop
of heresy for saying that belief in visions is optional for Catholics (page
107) even though O Carroll approved of what the Church officially taught as
we have seen earlier. He argues that
it is offensive to say that God could reveal anything and it is up to us to
believe it or not. It is O Carroll who
is the heretic for though belief in visions is optional if you have reason to
doubt them the message must be listened to whether it is from God or not if
it fits the revelation God has already given.
For example, you don’t have to believe in Fatima to say the Rosary
every day and beg the Church to consecrate
The Medjugorje Virgin cannot
criticise the bishop. She is only an
apparition that has no right to be believed unless the Church in the form of
the local bishop and whoever he designates decides if it is credible and
compatible with Catholic faith and morality.
Yet she criticised the punishment issued to the Franciscans Prusina
and Vego by the bishop. O Carroll says
the Virgin would contradict a bishop in the wrong for she would have called
for the bishop who sentenced Joan of Arc to death to be disobeyed. The Virgin would say nothing and leave it
to the sin-convicting power of the Holy Spirit to correct any injustice. O Carroll surmises she would have
corrected the bishop who condemned Joan and concludes that what she said
about Bishop Zanic by no means proves the Medjugorje apparitions to be false
(136). But even if Zanic were in the
wrong with the two Franciscans Prusina and Vego, these men could have
ministered elsewhere for the sake of peace and could have avoided trouble
with the Church. The bishop was not
sacking them but moving them. The
Church wants bishops to be obeyed even when they are wrong as long as what
they command is not sinful. The
injustice is a lesser evil in the Church than the bad example and results of
disobeying and condemning a bishop which causes more trouble and pain than
submitting. The purpose of authority
is to keep order for everybody has different ideas and you can’t have
chaos. Those who think you are wrong
have to be doing with it when you are in authority. The Virgin would have told the bishop who
had Joan murdered to kill her if that was what he thought he should do. And we must remember that in those days the
Church saw nothing wrong with having heretics and witches put to death. Joan’s alleged holiness did not become
apparent until much later. At that
time, she was killed for heresy and witchcraft. Even if the Virgin did oppose the bishop it
would not mean the Franciscans had the right to defy their bishop for it was
a less serious matter and it can’t be proved that the bishop is being
sinful. O’Carroll does not want to see
this. And if Joan’s bishop was being
evil and the Virgin corrected him it would not mean that the Med Virgin could
correct Zanic. Nothing Zanic did was
sinful. There is a difference between
a bishop unjustly moving a priest about a diocese and a bishop who asks a
priest to commit murder or to steal for him.
The most Mary could have said to Zanic was to think very carefully and
perhaps take his time before making a final decision.
The Virgin does not need to get
involved in Church politics. All she
needs to do is advocate prayer and soul-searching and send the Holy Spirit to
give light. That way she can be asked
about Church politics and be right to say nothing. The Virgin would like to tell the bishop
who had Joan put to death that he was wrong but it is because apparitions are
optional for belief that there is no point in her saying anything. There is no doubt that O’Carroll is wrong and
proven how erroneous it is to believe that Our Lady of Medjugorje is a
Catholic.
O Carroll tries to approve
Medjugorje despite the disobedience.
It helps us and the anti-Medjugorje Catholics that he, the ardent
devotee of the fake Virgin Mary of Medjugorje and therefore an idolater, admits
the disobedience happened.
O Carroll fails to discern that
just like today it is regarded as offensive to talk about disabled people for
it should be people with disabilities which avoids the insult of identifying
people as people with their disability so it is offensive for this Queen of
so-called Peace to ask us to call ourselves sinners. “Pray for us sinners” in the Hail Mary
which is in the rosary which Mary has wanted prayed according to nearly all
her apparitions is totally insulting.
Words program the mind to exercise disrespect so she has caused a lot
of trouble. Jesus said that it is by
their bad fruits you shall know the fakes and this lady is either a demon or
a piece of make-believe. Despite Jesus
calling us sinners we are not sinners even if we commit sin. What we are is people who sin. The excuse that Jesus just spoke the way
the people around him did and did not mean anything by it is unacceptable. He claimed to be an expert on morality and
the man to break the mould and change society. He was not God or the Son of God but just
another man with attitude.
The lady does not condemn the
pope for the terrible abuses he has brought in. He tolerates the occultic enneagram in
seminaries – it was used in Maynooth when I was there – and he does not stamp
out communion in the hand. He does
many other things that do not fit Bible teaching. This lady is an accessory and should
chastise him like as she believes her Bible tells her that
Is Zanic a Liar?
Chapter 6 of O Carroll’s book relates Bishop Zanic’s objections to
Medjugorje and attempts to refute them.
I find it impossible to
believe O Carroll that the bishop really thought the messages about conversion
and peace were absurd (page 108).
The bishop disbelieved in the
visions because the Virgin said that her last appearance was to take place in
1981 but she kept on appearing.
The reply to this is that the
visionaries were asked to move the apparition into the Church and Mirjana
said that there was no point for the visions were to end next Friday which
was
A tape made of an interview
with the visionaries has Mirjana admitting that the Virgin told her the
visions would end that Friday. The
vision was unable to make up her mind if she wanted to go to the Church
instead of the hill Podbrdo (The Medjugorje Deception, page 79). The real Virgin would have been able to
make up her mind. She would have known
of the suggestion to appear in the Church before it was mentioned to her so
she would have had time to think.
The bishop stated that Fr
Zovko was one of those who were behind the hoax and the book says that Zovko
was once strictly opposed to the apparitions (Medjugorje, Facts Documents,
Theology, page 111). That is
certainly a lie for when he is so supportive now of a false apparition it is
hard to believe he would have opposed a real one. His opposition would have been necessary in
case anybody would trace the origin of the apparitions to him so it was an
act to cover his tracks.
The bishop said that Fr
Vlasic was one of the hoaxers who started the whole thing too. The book simply gives the astonishing
argument that he was thirty kilometres away from Medjugorje at the start as a
sufficient refutation! (111).
The bishop said first that
nobody was influencing the children and later that they were like
robots. But the reason for this change
of heart is not stated and that is unfair.
When the children began saying the Virgin was criticising the bishop
and taking the side of the suspended Franciscans it was clear to the bishop
that the children were being manipulated.
Page 114 argues that it was
ridiculous for the bishop to say that the visions were from Satan for there
were so many prayers, confessions and conversions because of them. Do the conversions and prayers and
self-sacrifices of the Hare Krishnas prove that they are right?
The same page confesses that
the Virgin did not resolve the dispute between the Franciscans and the bishop
but has resolved it by calling on all to convert and live in peace
(114). This is the answer to the fact
that the apparition promised that this would be fully rectified (112). But it is then claimed by the book that it
would have been fixed but for the bishop’s impatience (113). So, much for not judging. Sometimes people in power have to be
impatient and can make mistakes and be misinformed. The Virgin made a promise and it
failed. And calling to conversion is no
way of solving a dispute.
The bishop said that the
blame for the religious division in his diocese rested wholly with the
Franciscans (115). O Carroll says that
there was no problem when the order served Hercegovina when their bishop fled
from the Turks and set up a diocese or when they allowed secular clergy
in. He gets sarcastic and asks if they
are expected to wish they did not exist.
That is his answer to the bishop.
But the past has nothing do with what is happening in Zanic’s
time. If the bishop is in authority
the Franciscans have to be to blame.
Page 115, asks why the Virgin
cannot accuse the bishop of being rash when that is what he is. But she has her Holy Spirit. Why can’t he discreetly make this
seen? It is better for her to say
nothing and not to judge and to let people be guided by the Spirit and find
out for themselves. There was no
evidence for the reality of the apparitions at this time meaning that she had
no right to ask the world to take her word for it. She was the one that was rash.
Page 116 responds to the
bishop’s assertion that Vicka said in August 1981 that a big sign would be
performed soon and that they must be patient so that is a lie for it never
took place. O Carroll says that in
prophetic style even a thousand years can be described as one day and that
soon could be a long time for us. The
only excuse for such a view is the fact that the Bible often said that this
and that was near and it never happened and hasn’t taken place yet. God would not wrap up prophecy in such
empty and confusing language.
Christians change the meaning of words when prophecies fail. The Bible never justifies this practice. The Christians ignore the fact that when
God speaks to us the purpose is to make us understand. He talks to us as if he were looking at
things from our point of view. You
interpret things according to how the audience understood them for the
speaker would be trying to make the audience understand. Soon then means soon. The Virgin never explained that soon did
not mean soon and she was not reciting scripture but giving messages so why
would she use soon in the scriptural sense?
There is no evidence that the visionaries knew at that time of
arguments like O Carroll’s. That is
why O Carroll cannot give us a quote or anything to justify his
interpretation. The bishop is the
intelligent one in this matter. A
woman called Mara Jerkovic made a statement about the sign and the bishop had
regard for her testimony for it was unfavourable. O Carroll writes her off as a gossip
(117). He gives no evidence that she
really is one or cannot be trusted.
The visionaries told the
bishop that the Virgin confirmed that a story that a bloody handkerchief
would have brought the last judgment on the world had it not been given to
her was true (83). O Carroll makes no
attempt to refute this so it must be true.
It refutes the apparitions for the story is silly in the extreme.
The apparition’s behaviour
was bizarre. The Virgin was roaring
with laughter one time she simply said she would sort out the dispute between
the Franciscans and the diocese. There
was nothing funny in it. The Lady then
told the visionaries to laugh. At
least, that was their explanation to the people who saw them laughing
(81-82). This sounds like the vision
was a joke or a hallucination. They
would not have laughed with the Virgin if they saw anything but at her. Perhaps they thought she was mad. O Carroll passes over that too. He ignores anything embarrassing.
Page 119 says that the bishop
regarded Vicka, Grafenauer and Vlasic as the witnesses to the infamous diary
of Vicka in which the messages were recorded that she is so ashamed of
now. All three claimed that there was
no diary. Vlasic swore on the cross
that this was so and that he had never seen it. Was he a perjurer? Grafenauer stated that he had not the
courage to tell the bishop that he never saw the book until much later (118). I would take this as proof that he did see
something. Why not correct the bishop
immediately? The bishop is accused of
lying and saying that this man was a witness to the diary even after he was
corrected. But how do you know that
Grafenauer did not see the diary and regretted mentioning it? The man was a supporter of the apparitions.
Grafenauer is unreliable for he made a
recording of a dialogue with Vicka in which she says that the Virgin opposed
the pope in banning Vego and Prusina from hearing confessions. Still, he supported the apparitions after a
strong initial opposition to them.
The bishop is criticised for
condemning the apparitions because of the number of visionaries. Apart from the six there are forty-seven
other claimants. O Carroll says that
they might all be genuine but argues that the visions to the six are real so
if the rest are frauds that does not harm the case for the six (121). None of the forty-six were tested by
science.
Bishop Zanic published a
booklet called Medjugorje in 1990.
This is a must for an examination of the apparition claims.
Important revelations in the
booklet are:
That Laurentin told Zanic to
keep the fact that Vicka had a diary recording that the Virgin incited
disobedience to Zanic under his hat because of the pilgrimages and
conversions at Medjugorje. In other
words, Laurentin wanted to make a pious fraud out of it.
Laurentin chose fifty-six
medical files allegedly verifying miraculous cures at Medjugorje and these
were sent to the Lourdes Medical Bureau which rejected the inexplicability of
the cures. This body decides which of
the cures at
Mirjana lied on tape and was
recorded taking an oath on that tape to speak only the truth. She claimed the visionaries were going to
the hill to care for sheep the first time they saw the Virgin whereas their
object was to smoke. When reminded she
was under oath she admitted the truth.
The first commission of
bishops was appalled by the absurd story of God going to destroy the world
over a bloody hanky which was recorded as approved by the Virgin in Vicka’s
diary. She was so ashamed that later
she chose to deny there was such a diary.
If she had been falsely accused of having this diary why did she not
appeal the commission for a transgression against canon law? Excerpts from the diary were published by
her devotees. She sometimes claimed
her memory was bad so she had to have had a diary.
In 1982, Vicka told the bishop that the Virgin
wanted him to know that he was too harsh with the Franciscans. She could not tell him in what way which
proves the Virgin never said it at all.
The Virgin would not be so vague.
There is a tape recording of
Marija and Fr Graufenauer in which the Virgin takes the side of disobedient
priests Vego and Prusina against the Bishop.
Zanic was never ever warned by
Marija Pavlovic got a
revelation from the Virgin approving of a religious set-up in which boys and
girls lived together in a commune which led to scandal. She later admitted that she never received
this revelation and announced that she made it up. She had to for the pressure was on for the
commune could have destroyed the reputation of the Virgin of Medjugorje. Vlasic wanted the commune approved from
Heaven which is evidence that he manipulates Marija.
The Virgin called for the
distribution of one of Laurentin’s books on Medjugorje. The real Virgin would not like his writings
for they have too many errors and untruths.
Ivan wrote down the first
secret for the first commission and it claimed that a shrine would be built
to Mary at Medjugorje in June 1982. It
was put into an envelope to be opened a few years later. The prophecy was false. Yet Ivan had been saying he put a plain
sheet of paper with nothing on it in the envelope which was a lie.
Ivan did write on the
sheet. He lied about it for the
visionaries started to say that the Virgin strictly warned that the secrets
were never to be told until the time was near for their fulfilment. So he lied when he found out about this
when it was too late. Obviously he had
been faking the visions. He would have
known he wasn’t allowed to do that if he had really been having visions. Secrets are secrets.
Laurentin claimed the sheet
was blank too. Ivan was present when
the envelope was opened and never denied that he wrote what was inside it.
The bishop has physical proof
on tapes and letters to support what he says.
There is no physical proof that he is wrong. The Virgin would have no right to ask us to
believe her.
Medjugorje: A Time for
Truth and a Time for Action, by Denis Nolan exaggerates the faults of the
tapes and accused anti-Medjugorje expert Fr Sivric of drawing conclusions
without talking to the visionaries themselves. None of this holds up. Nolan and Laurentin agrees that when the
seers were allegedly kidnapped on 30 June 1981 it was to prevent them having
a vision. But Vicka admitted on
Sivric’s tape that they asked the people to take them away from Medjugorje to
see if the Virgin would appear. She
committed calumny.
Fr Rupcic wrote with
Laurentin that Vicka had four diaries but years later he denied she kept such
a record in Nolan’s book page 313.
With all the lies and
slanders that have issued from priests associated with Medjugorje we feel
frightened to trust any priest who supports a miracle. Pious fraud is more common than Catholics
think.
The real Virgin would not
appear in a diocese where the bishop was convinced nothing was happening and
certainly not for too long a time. She
would go elsewhere if she did rather than cause trouble or give anybody an
excuse for causing trouble. She would stay
if he were open-minded or if he approved.
Jesus stated that you can
tell when phenomena is not from God even if it seems to be, when the fruits
are bad (Matthew
It is myopic to argue that
Medjugorje brings people back to confession and Mass and prayer and fasting
and that that means it has good fruits for the vast majority of Catholics
doing these things do not understand Church doctrine and are consciously or
unconsciously holding to unCatholic doctrines. So their devotion to error is increased not
deadened. If Catholicism is the true
faith then it follows that to err as a Catholic and be devoted to that error
is extremely dangerous for you have so much of the truth and you will be
attached more to the error it has been mixed up in and because of the truth
so that you will find it too hard to give up the error and nearly always
won’t try. Error that contains a huge
portion of the truth is the number one enemy of the Church for it is a Trojan
Horse and very subtle and captivating.
The apparitions accepted by the Church and Medjugorje never made a
major point about being instructed properly in the faith which shows that
their fruits were as false as themselves.
No apparition is from God at
all because the Church cannot and does not check out the fruits
thoroughly. But it could check the
fruits out better but it does not.
This makes it a bad fruit to believe in any apparition!! It must be a sin to seek apparitions for
everybody looks for fruit in the visionary so the visionary is asking to be
put up on a pedestal as an example of humility and prayerfulness which Jesus
strictly forbade which makes one wonder if the apostles made the resurrection
appearances of Jesus up.
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
November 1996
Regarding
the circulation of texts of alleged private revelations, the Congregation
states:
- The Interpretation
given by some individuals to a Decision approved by Paul VI on 14
October 1966 and promulgated on 15 November of that year, in virtue of
which writings and messages resulting from alleged revelations could be
freely circulated in the Church, is absolutely groundless. This decision
actually referred to the "abolition of the Index of Forbidden
Books" and determined that --- after the relevant censures were
lifted --- the moral obligation still remained of not circulating or
reading those writings which endanger faith and morals.
- In should be recalled
however that with regard to the circulation of texts of alleged private
revelations, canon 623 #1 of the current Code remains in force:
"the Pastors of the Church have the … right to demand that writings
to be published by the Christian faithful which touch upon faith or
morals be submitted to their judgment".
- Alleged
supernatural revelations and writings concerning them are submitted in
first instance to the judgment of the diocesan Bishop, and, in
particular cases, to the judgment of the Episcopal Conference and the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Any apparition that breaks this rule, and the Medjugorje Virgin commands that her messages be distributed as they are received, is not a Catholic apparition or concerned about Catholic orthodoxy. The bishops are the official Catholic teachers not apparitions. The vast majority of modern visions break the rule and so are themselves disobedient apparitions.
CONCLUSION
The feet of the Virgin Mary have never touched Medjugorje.
The logic in this book should
be applied to similar cases. Let it
stand as a warning that people can be so persuasive and seem sincere and
still be leading you astray. It shows the
madness of letting religious figures like Jesus and Mary have the final say
in what you decide to do.
It is easier to prove that an apparition
is false for only one mistake tells the tale than to prove that it is true
and has the hallmarks of a divine origin for faith itself demands complicated
evidence. Medjugorje offends the
Catholic faith and refutes it if it is genuine for it demands belief and if
the Catholic faith is true then Medjugorje is false. The Bible says that Jesus is the only
mediator between God and man. It says
that Jesus was the perfect man and intercessor and saviour and there is no
need for the Med Virgin to be another mediator. Medjugorje is certainly more convincing
than the gospel accounts of the risen Jesus appearing to the disciples. Hoax or not, it is clearly proof that
something that is without authority from Jesus though it uses his name has
done better than he ever could. Evangelicals cannot use the gospels to prove
or give convincing evidence for Christianity when something has went into
competition with their Jesus and won.
When one analyzes many of the alleged miracles that accompany Marian apparitions, they seem to be of a different kind than those found in Scripture. This is true of biblical miracles as a whole, as well as the miracles in Jesus' public ministry. When did Jesus ever make the sun dance or crosses spin? All of His miracles were done in the context of ministry. Biblical miracles had a strong practical aspect. Many of the miracles associated with Marian apparitions seem dramatic and sensational; attention-getting if you will -- the kind of miracles that Jesus consistently refused to perform (Matt. 12:38-39). This is a good reason to at least suspect the source of these miracles.
BOOKS CONSULTED
“I BEG YOU:
LISTEN TO MY MESSAGES AND LIVE THEM,” Padraic Dunne, published privately,
Drogheda,
BIBLICAL
EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press,
LOOKING FOR A MIRACLE, Joe Nickell, Prometheus Books,
MEDJUGORJE, David Baldwin, Catholic Truth Society,
MEDJUGORJE HERALD, Vol 13, No 2, Feb 1999,
MEDJUGORJE, A TIME FOR TRUTH AND A TIME FOR ACTION, Denis Nolan
MEDJUGORJE, FACTS DOCUMENTS THEOLOGY, Fr Michael O Carroll, Veritas,
OUR LADY QUEEN OF PEACE, Tomislav Vlasic OFM, published by Peter Batty,
POWERS OF DARKNESS, POWERS OF LIGHT, John Cornwell, Penguin,
QUEEN OF PEACE (Newspaper), Fall, 1995,
SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL STUDIES ON THE APPARITIONS AT MEDJUGORJE Rene
Laurentin and Henri Joyeux, Veritas, Dublin, 1987.
THE APPARITIONS OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY TODAY, Rene Laurentin,
Veritas,
THE HIDDEN SIDE OF MEDJUGORJE, Fr Ivo Sivric, Ed. Psilog, Saint
Francios Du Lac, Quebec, 1989.
THE THUNDER OF JUSTICE, Ted and Maureen Flynn, MAXCOL,
UNDERSTANDING MEDJUGORJE, HEAVENLY VISIONS OR RELIGIOUS ILLUSION? Donal
Anthony Foley, Theotokos Books,
VISIONS OF THE CHILDREN, Janice T Connell, St Martin’s Press,
WORDS FROM HEAVEN, Anonymous, Caritas of
The following books are available from Militia Immaculatae Trust,
CRITERIA FOR DISCERNING APPARITIONS REGARDING THE EVENTS OF MEDJUGORJE
by Monsignor Peric.
MEDJUGORJE – AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS, Michael Davies, Remnant Press,
MEDJUGORJE THE UNTOLD STORY, E Michael Jones Fidelity Press,
MEDJUGORJE, Bishop Zanic, Mostar, 1990.
THE
THE MEDJUGORJE DECEPTION, E Michael Jones, Fidelity Press,
TWENTY QUESTIONS ABOUT MEDJUGORJE, Kevin Orlin Johnson, Ph.D. Pangaeus
Press, Dallas, 1999.
THE WEB
CHRISTIAN REFUTATION OF MEDJUGORJE
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0079a.html
CRITIQUE: POEM OF THE MAN-GOD
http://members.lycos.co.uk/jloughnan/critique.htm
SCIENTIFIC STUDIES DONE ON THE VISIONARIES OF MEDJUGORJE – 1998
SCIENTIFIC STUDY ON THE VISIONARIES
www.childrenofmedjugorje.com/medj/research.htm
THE WANDERER by Paul Likoudis, 1998
www.unitypublishing.com/wanderer.html
Unity Publishing has pictures allegedly proving that the messages from
Mary are being made up by the priests and that the visions are hoaxes. Ivan was snapped acting as if he was
guarding the door while the priest and a visionary were inventing the
message. This is however is a
pro-Catholic site.
AN OVERVIEW OF THE MEDICAL AND SCIENTIFIC TESTING OF VISIONARY
http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/science.htm#10
DISCERNMENT AND SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF VISIONARIES FROM THE MEDJUGORJE
STAR
http://members.aol.com/bbu84/biblicalstupidity/study.htm#11
Videos
VISIONS ON DEMAND, Network 5 International, 1997
DIVINE OR DECEIVED? COVER-UP, Network 5 International, 1998
Contact:
Network 5 International
L69 3EE
UNDERSTANDING MEDJUGORJE, HEAVENLY VISIONS OR RELIGIOUS ILLUSION? Donal
Anthony Foley, Theotokos Books,
To Order Understanding Medjugorje visit http://www.theotokos.org.uk or write
to Theotokos Books, PO Box, 8570,
Saturday, 26 January 2008