From Catholic and Enjoying It re: Mariologist Manfred Hauke on Medjugorje:
By Mark Shea
I learned a lot about Medugorje (and its more zealous partisans) last month when I made the mistake taking brief notice of the little hoohah that erupted after Cdl. Schonborn's injudicious visit. I'm not one who spends too much time fretting about apparitions whether false (as I am now persuaded Medugorje is) or approved. I've found Betania to be helpful, but that's about it.
And since I'm not super interested in such things, I haven't tended to follow the enthusiasm for (or against) Medugorje. However, Medugorje zealots in my comboxes did a fine job of stamping out any lingering doubts I might have had about the local ordinary's rejection of the "visions", as well as convincing me that die-hard Medugorje enthusiasts are as impervious to reason, evidence, facts, and logic as any fanatics I have run across. No, I don't think all Medugorje enthusiasts are as extreme as my combox zealots. But my combox zealots showed me how barren the case for Medugorje is by their abandonment of argument for shouting when presented with the clear facts of the case by reasonable people who themselves had once credited the tales from Medugorje.
My suspicion is that, as is usually the case with such things, many people who buy Medugorje do so not as zealots but as people who have heard a thing or two about it, like the message they hear, and pray to Our Lady of Medugorje assuming the revelation has been approved. Against such I have no quarrel, merely the hope that they find out more. But those who look straight at the obvious facts of the case (ably laid out by Manfred Hauke) and still go on insisting that there's no problem here are in serious denial.
Okay. Now I'm going back to my customary torpor on this matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment