H/T to Father Z:
"His Holiness Benedict XVI made a public appearance during the consistory this morning, Feast of the Cathedra of St. Peter.." (continued)
Links:
Saturday, February 22, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Medjugorje and Authority - Michael Voris
So what's the latest on the whole Medjugorje visions?
By ChurchMilitant.TV
To discuss the whole phenomenon of Medjugorje objectively it is necessary to make important distinctions between 1) responses to Medjugorje and 2) the Medjugorje “apparitions.”. Far too often responses are used to validate the “apparitions” themselves in a post hoc ergo propter hoc method of argumentation. That one thing follows another does not make one the cause of the other any more than one’s rising in the morning is the cause of subsequent world events.
With Medjugorje we are dealing with two distinct phenomena: the claim of “apparitions” of the Mother of God and the responses to those claims. It is more than possible for wonderful fruits to be claimed from reading about the alleged “apparitions,” or making a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, and for these alleged “apparitions” to be totally fraudulent, deceptive and diabolical in origin. It’s also possible for those same good fruits to be the predictable consequences of a valid Marian apparition. The point is that no valid conclusions can be drawn from good fruits about the validity and reality of the alleged “apparitions.” They are separate issues that must be addressed separately.
By far the most important truth to be determined is whether the alleged “apparitions” are, in fact, from the Mother of God Herself. Given the supernatural character of valid Marian apparitions, the final determination of the truth of the alleged “apparitions” at Medjugorje are beyond the capacity of science and human beings using natural methods. This means that even the one claiming to have had a Marian apparition is unable themselves to demonstrate the truth of their claims. All they can do is report what they have experienced. This experience is capable of being judged as hallucination, mental illness, innocent error, diabolical deception, some combination of the preceding, or completely valid. If the individual claiming to have had an “apparition” is unable to judge the validity of their experience themselves, then no combination of other people studying their experience is capable of anything more.
Given the supernatural character of all alleged “apparitions,” only those charged with the responsibility of teaching, governing and sanctifying within the Catholic Church can render judgments regarding alleged supernatural phenomena. Shepherds must have the power and authority to protect their flocks from whatever may jeopardize their salvation, and it is to these shepherds that the validity of alleged supernatural “apparitions” must be submitted for judgment. Even though Church shepherds are always fallible human beings, they and their office are given whatever grace is necessary to teach, govern and sanctify their flocks. As fallible human beings, they may not always cooperate with divine grace. Even in such cases, however, the final judgment concerning the supernatural character of alleged “apparitions” is their decision alone and the only proper response to their judgments by the Catholic faithful is submissive obedience.
What, then, has been the judgment of those charged with discerning the validity of the alleged “apparitions” at Medjugorje?
Here is the most recent and comprehensive judgment of the Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, within which Medjugorje is located, Bishop +Ratko Peric, dated September 1, 2007:
The full statement of Bishop +Ratko Peric can be found on the diocesan web site at http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=101. It is a thorough and comprehensive report of the history of the phenomenon of Medjugorje and is far more than the statement of an individual bishop. Multiple studies are referenced, multiple decisions by multiple bishops are cited, even alleged but falsely attributed statements of support from Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II are refuted.
On the so-called supportive statements by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, in April, 1998, responded in writing:
Bishop +Ratko Peric quotes Cardinal Ratzinger after his election to the Papacy:
The alleged “apparitions” have been studied diligently for more than 30 years and have been judged consistently “Non constat de supernaturalitate!” i.e., not confirmed as of supernatural origin. This phrase occurs three times in the document on the diocesan web site.
More recently, in October, 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, +Carlo Maria Vigano, wrote to the General Secretary of the USCCB, Monsignor Ronny Jenkins, on behalf of the CDF, with instructions that his communication be distributed to every diocese in the United States:
This letter can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/m9st8a2.
All of the above has been well and thoroughly documented in at least two books: The Medjugorje Deception: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives by Dr. E. Michael Jones [LINK] and Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? by Donal Foley [LINK]. Professor Howard Kainz summarizes everything in a much shorter and accessible presentation online: “What is Happening at Medjugorje” [LINK].
These and many other books and essays documenting the history of the phenomenon of Medjugorje should be sufficient to provide discernment for faithful Catholics. The alleged “apparitions” have been judged not to be of supernatural origin. Therefore, no pilgrimages, conferences, retreats or lectures should be organized around any belief that these “apparitions” are valid and of supernatural origin. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who acts or speaks otherwise is guilty of sin against the Faith and of disobedience to due ecclesiastical and magisterial authority.
Unfortunately, such disregard and disobedience to Church authority has become “Legion” and is now a veritable industry unto itself. Pilgrimages, conferences, books, magazines, blogs and web sites have erupted like mushrooms in response to the “apparitions” and “messages” from Medjugorje. This leads us to the necessary discussion of the second of the two distinctions that must be made when discussing the phenomenon that is Medjugorje: the response of the faithful and the good fruits that have flowed from rejecting what the Church has declared to be “Non constat de supernaturalitate!”
Good fruits have been attributed to devotion to the Mother of God allegedly appearing at Medjugorje. How must we deal with that and what, if anything, does it have to do with the judgment of the Church? Can a “false apparition” produce good fruit? Apparently so, but it proves nothing about the validity of the judgment of the Church. All it proves is that God can bring good to those who seek Him with a sincere desire to find Him and do His Will, even when responding to an Angel of Light.
Books, essays, short articles and blog postings can be and have been written documenting all the good fruits of Medjugorje. Since the Mic’d Up broadcast of February 12, 2014, Medjugorje Madness with E. Michael Jones (embedded video below), ChurchMilitant.TV has been inundated with emails from Catholics witnessing to the good fruits of Medjugorje in their own lives and those of others: stories of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, reversions to the Faith, healed families and marriages, growth in devotion to Our Blessed Mother and the Rosary, the emergence of a new or renewed sacramental and spiritual life, etc. etc. etc., all inspired by Medjugorje. Many have visited Medjugorje, and many have not. What they all have in common is the claim that their good experience validates Medjugorje, even though the Church has judged otherwise. It’s really a variation on “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right. Medjugorje was good for me. Therefore it is good.”
Some even say this while acknowledging that the alleged “apparitions” might, indeed, be false!
Let’s accept all these claims of good experiences and good fruits as valid and ignore, for the moment, that there are also claims of bad experience and bad fruits that could just as easily be advanced as evidence in judging the phenomenon of Medjugorje. Is an “argument from fruits” a valid argument?
No. It is not. Few forms of logical argumentation are more vulnerable to subjectivity and rationalization than the “argument from fruits.” Precisely how does one define a “good fruit”? While a renewed sacramental and spiritual life, or a religious vocation, might seem to be irrefutably “good fruit,” is that always so? Is a religious vocation inspired by a “false apparition” an unambiguously good thing? Is a spiritual life nurtured by the “messages” of a “false apparition” good without qualification? Is a person who leaves a “bad marriage” to marry a fellow devotee of Medjugorje with whom they then have a “good marriage” an example of “good fruit”? Is “whatever makes me feel good about God and Our Blessed Mother” automatically a working of the Holy Spirit? What about those who leave the Catholic Church altogether to be fed in a more “nourishing” Protestant setting? Is that “good fruit”?
No one can say that God isn’t at work striving to bring good out of evil. That is the very nature of God and the spiritual combat in which all souls are (or ought to be) engaged. But it is never permitted to choose or enable something evil so that God can bring good out of it. If the “apparitions” of Medjugorje have been judged false by the Church, which they have, then whatever “good fruit” is claimed for the phenomenon of Medjugorje must have some other explanation than the supernatural character of the “apparitions.” That explanation must be natural, or diabolical, or the power of God overcoming the forces of evil to bring about good. The “good fruit” of Medjugorje can only be judged to be a consequence of the grace of God IN SPITE OF those false apparitions! Knowing that the Church has judged these “apparitions” to be false means that attributing any credibility, much less devotion, to the “apparitions” themselves or the alleged “messages” is a defiant act of disobedience compatible with the “Non serviam!” of Satan himself when he fell.
Bishop +Ratko Peric, in the statement on his diocesan web site referenced above, alludes to the inherent dangers of “bad fruit” attached to the Medjugorje phenomenon:
When you depart from the clear guidance of the Church, you travel a very dangerous path. You have knocked down the walls of safety erected to protect you and enhance your freedom. You’re pretty much on your own in the land of private judgment and discernment.
Consider another example of “good fruits” flowing from something not just false but evil: the Legionaries of Christ. The history of that religious order is replete with evidence of “good fruit,” even more than what is claimed for Medjugorje, but the entire enterprise was founded and and presided over by a moral monster, Fr. Macial Maciel [LINK]. It should be obvious that Satan can and does orchestrate “good fruit" while reaping less obvious but even greater “bad fruit" that satisfies his utilitarian calculus. We are limited in our ability to discern this utilitarian calculus, so we must trust the Church to guide us.
The Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog [LINK] posted an excellent and thorough dismantling of the “argument from fruits” advanced by supporters of Medjugorje [LINK]. There is also an excellent Blog Talk Radio interview (0:00 - 33:00)[LINK] with a priest who has himself visited Medjugorje and confirmed the many “bad fruits” of the whole phenomenon.
John V. Gerardi provides interesting insight into a "scheduled apparition" event he attended at Notre Dame in November, 2012: A Medjugorje Evening [LINK]. And, generally, there is the chilling example of Sister Magdalena of the Cross [LINK] who, for 40 years, deceived the world, including very high ranking prelates, with preternatural manifestations later admitted and judged to be diabolical in origin, although she died repentant and penitent. “Good fruits” cannot be ignored, but they are neither definitive nor determinative of the validity of an alleged apparition or other spiritual phenomenon. Only the Church can make that judgment and, in the case of Medjugorje, She has done so: “Non constat de supernaturalitate!”
So what should we conclude from all this?
In 1991, the Bishops responsible for investigating the phenomenon of Medjugorje said the following:
This is the very citation noted in the October, 2013 letter from the Apostolic Nuncio of the United States to the General Secretary of the USCCB [LINK].
It should be clear from this that the Church recognizes that there has been “good fruit” from the Medjugorje phenomenon but that it cannot and will not affirm the validity and supernatural character of the alleged “apparitions” which have inspired this “good fruit.” It is, therefore, permitted to claim both “good experience” and “good fruit” from Medjugorje but it is not permitted to project that upon the alleged “apparitions.” In a sense, it appears that the Church is willing to encourage whatever “good fruit” has come from the Medjugorje phenomenon while, at the same time, insisting on a distancing of this “good fruit” from the clearly false character of the “apparitions.”
Somehow those devoted to Medjugorje must cooperate with this separation of their devotion from its false foundations. They must do this by 1) acknowledging and accepting the judgment and guidance of the Church, and 2) renouncing the supernatural character of phenomena such as “rosaries turned to gold” and “seeing a dancing sun.” Given the judgment of the Church, such preternatural phenomena must be understood as spiritual deceptions and fraudulent. Any other way forward is movement away from the heart of the Church and, therefore, God Himself and Our Blessed Mother.
Almost all of the references cited above include abundant documentation of “bad fruits” as well as “good fruits.” These “bad fruits” should no more be ignored than the “good fruits.” The “good fruits” are evidence of the mercy and power of God, while the “bad fruits” confirm the nonsupernatural character of the events which have inspired the Medjugorje phenomenon. God is at work in Medjugorje, as He is everywhere, but not through the “seers” and their “apparitions.”
Addendum: For a significantly comprehensive although not exhaustive history and analysis of the Medjugorje history and phenomenon, this article from EWTN [LINK] is excellent.
Link:
Related:
By ChurchMilitant.TV
To discuss the whole phenomenon of Medjugorje objectively it is necessary to make important distinctions between 1) responses to Medjugorje and 2) the Medjugorje “apparitions.”. Far too often responses are used to validate the “apparitions” themselves in a post hoc ergo propter hoc method of argumentation. That one thing follows another does not make one the cause of the other any more than one’s rising in the morning is the cause of subsequent world events.
With Medjugorje we are dealing with two distinct phenomena: the claim of “apparitions” of the Mother of God and the responses to those claims. It is more than possible for wonderful fruits to be claimed from reading about the alleged “apparitions,” or making a pilgrimage to Medjugorje, and for these alleged “apparitions” to be totally fraudulent, deceptive and diabolical in origin. It’s also possible for those same good fruits to be the predictable consequences of a valid Marian apparition. The point is that no valid conclusions can be drawn from good fruits about the validity and reality of the alleged “apparitions.” They are separate issues that must be addressed separately.
By far the most important truth to be determined is whether the alleged “apparitions” are, in fact, from the Mother of God Herself. Given the supernatural character of valid Marian apparitions, the final determination of the truth of the alleged “apparitions” at Medjugorje are beyond the capacity of science and human beings using natural methods. This means that even the one claiming to have had a Marian apparition is unable themselves to demonstrate the truth of their claims. All they can do is report what they have experienced. This experience is capable of being judged as hallucination, mental illness, innocent error, diabolical deception, some combination of the preceding, or completely valid. If the individual claiming to have had an “apparition” is unable to judge the validity of their experience themselves, then no combination of other people studying their experience is capable of anything more.
Given the supernatural character of all alleged “apparitions,” only those charged with the responsibility of teaching, governing and sanctifying within the Catholic Church can render judgments regarding alleged supernatural phenomena. Shepherds must have the power and authority to protect their flocks from whatever may jeopardize their salvation, and it is to these shepherds that the validity of alleged supernatural “apparitions” must be submitted for judgment. Even though Church shepherds are always fallible human beings, they and their office are given whatever grace is necessary to teach, govern and sanctify their flocks. As fallible human beings, they may not always cooperate with divine grace. Even in such cases, however, the final judgment concerning the supernatural character of alleged “apparitions” is their decision alone and the only proper response to their judgments by the Catholic faithful is submissive obedience.
What, then, has been the judgment of those charged with discerning the validity of the alleged “apparitions” at Medjugorje?
Here is the most recent and comprehensive judgment of the Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, within which Medjugorje is located, Bishop +Ratko Peric, dated September 1, 2007:
| On the base of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations. … 30 chosen priests and physicians, working together in three Commissions for 10 years, in more than 30 meetings, dutifully and expertly investigated the events of Medjugorje and brought forth their judgement. And not one, but twenty bishops responsibly declared that there exists no proof that the events in Medjugorje concern supernatural apparitions. The believer who respects both principles: ratio et fides, therefore adheres to this criterion, convinced that the Church does not deceive. … The Church, from the local to supreme level, from the beginning to this very day, has clearly and constantly repeated: Non constat de supernaturalitate! This practically means no pilgrimages are allowed that would presuppose any supernatural character to the apparitions, there exists no shrine of the Madonna and there are no authentic messages, revelations nor true visions! |
The full statement of Bishop +Ratko Peric can be found on the diocesan web site at http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=101. It is a thorough and comprehensive report of the history of the phenomenon of Medjugorje and is far more than the statement of an individual bishop. Multiple studies are referenced, multiple decisions by multiple bishops are cited, even alleged but falsely attributed statements of support from Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope John Paul II are refuted.
On the so-called supportive statements by Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, in April, 1998, responded in writing:
| “The only thing I can say regarding statements on Medjugorje ascribed to the Holy Father and myself is that they are complete invention.” |
Bishop +Ratko Peric quotes Cardinal Ratzinger after his election to the Papacy:
| "During my official visit to the Holy Father Benedict XVI, I not only expressed my doubts but also my disbelief in the 'apparitions' of Medjugorje. The Holy Father, who prior to his election was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, replied with this thought: 'We at the Congregation always asked ourselves how a believer could possibly accept as authentic, apparitions that occur every day for so many years?' " |
The alleged “apparitions” have been studied diligently for more than 30 years and have been judged consistently “Non constat de supernaturalitate!” i.e., not confirmed as of supernatural origin. This phrase occurs three times in the document on the diocesan web site.
More recently, in October, 2013, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, +Carlo Maria Vigano, wrote to the General Secretary of the USCCB, Monsignor Ronny Jenkins, on behalf of the CDF, with instructions that his communication be distributed to every diocese in the United States:
| "[T]he Congregation [of the Doctrine of the Faith] has affirmed that, with regard to the credibility of the 'apparitions' in question, all should accept the declaration, dated 10 April 1991, from the Bishops of the former Republic of Yugoslavia, which asserts: 'On the basis of the research that has been done, it is not possible to state that there were apparitions or supernatural revelations.' It follows, therefore, that clerics and the faithful are not permitted to participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations during which the credibility of such 'apparitions' would be taken for granted." |
This letter can be viewed at http://tinyurl.com/m9st8a2.
All of the above has been well and thoroughly documented in at least two books: The Medjugorje Deception: Queen of Peace, Ethnic Cleansing, Ruined Lives by Dr. E. Michael Jones [LINK] and Medjugorje Revisited: 30 Years of Visions or Religious Fraud? by Donal Foley [LINK]. Professor Howard Kainz summarizes everything in a much shorter and accessible presentation online: “What is Happening at Medjugorje” [LINK].
These and many other books and essays documenting the history of the phenomenon of Medjugorje should be sufficient to provide discernment for faithful Catholics. The alleged “apparitions” have been judged not to be of supernatural origin. Therefore, no pilgrimages, conferences, retreats or lectures should be organized around any belief that these “apparitions” are valid and of supernatural origin. This is beyond dispute. Anyone who acts or speaks otherwise is guilty of sin against the Faith and of disobedience to due ecclesiastical and magisterial authority.
Unfortunately, such disregard and disobedience to Church authority has become “Legion” and is now a veritable industry unto itself. Pilgrimages, conferences, books, magazines, blogs and web sites have erupted like mushrooms in response to the “apparitions” and “messages” from Medjugorje. This leads us to the necessary discussion of the second of the two distinctions that must be made when discussing the phenomenon that is Medjugorje: the response of the faithful and the good fruits that have flowed from rejecting what the Church has declared to be “Non constat de supernaturalitate!”
Good fruits have been attributed to devotion to the Mother of God allegedly appearing at Medjugorje. How must we deal with that and what, if anything, does it have to do with the judgment of the Church? Can a “false apparition” produce good fruit? Apparently so, but it proves nothing about the validity of the judgment of the Church. All it proves is that God can bring good to those who seek Him with a sincere desire to find Him and do His Will, even when responding to an Angel of Light.
Books, essays, short articles and blog postings can be and have been written documenting all the good fruits of Medjugorje. Since the Mic’d Up broadcast of February 12, 2014, Medjugorje Madness with E. Michael Jones (embedded video below), ChurchMilitant.TV has been inundated with emails from Catholics witnessing to the good fruits of Medjugorje in their own lives and those of others: stories of vocations to the priesthood and religious life, reversions to the Faith, healed families and marriages, growth in devotion to Our Blessed Mother and the Rosary, the emergence of a new or renewed sacramental and spiritual life, etc. etc. etc., all inspired by Medjugorje. Many have visited Medjugorje, and many have not. What they all have in common is the claim that their good experience validates Medjugorje, even though the Church has judged otherwise. It’s really a variation on “It can’t be wrong when it feels so right. Medjugorje was good for me. Therefore it is good.”
Some even say this while acknowledging that the alleged “apparitions” might, indeed, be false!
Let’s accept all these claims of good experiences and good fruits as valid and ignore, for the moment, that there are also claims of bad experience and bad fruits that could just as easily be advanced as evidence in judging the phenomenon of Medjugorje. Is an “argument from fruits” a valid argument?
No. It is not. Few forms of logical argumentation are more vulnerable to subjectivity and rationalization than the “argument from fruits.” Precisely how does one define a “good fruit”? While a renewed sacramental and spiritual life, or a religious vocation, might seem to be irrefutably “good fruit,” is that always so? Is a religious vocation inspired by a “false apparition” an unambiguously good thing? Is a spiritual life nurtured by the “messages” of a “false apparition” good without qualification? Is a person who leaves a “bad marriage” to marry a fellow devotee of Medjugorje with whom they then have a “good marriage” an example of “good fruit”? Is “whatever makes me feel good about God and Our Blessed Mother” automatically a working of the Holy Spirit? What about those who leave the Catholic Church altogether to be fed in a more “nourishing” Protestant setting? Is that “good fruit”?
No one can say that God isn’t at work striving to bring good out of evil. That is the very nature of God and the spiritual combat in which all souls are (or ought to be) engaged. But it is never permitted to choose or enable something evil so that God can bring good out of it. If the “apparitions” of Medjugorje have been judged false by the Church, which they have, then whatever “good fruit” is claimed for the phenomenon of Medjugorje must have some other explanation than the supernatural character of the “apparitions.” That explanation must be natural, or diabolical, or the power of God overcoming the forces of evil to bring about good. The “good fruit” of Medjugorje can only be judged to be a consequence of the grace of God IN SPITE OF those false apparitions! Knowing that the Church has judged these “apparitions” to be false means that attributing any credibility, much less devotion, to the “apparitions” themselves or the alleged “messages” is a defiant act of disobedience compatible with the “Non serviam!” of Satan himself when he fell.
Bishop +Ratko Peric, in the statement on his diocesan web site referenced above, alludes to the inherent dangers of “bad fruit” attached to the Medjugorje phenomenon:
| Regarding Medjugorje, there exists a real danger that the Madonna and the Church could be privatized. People could start contriving a Madonna and a Church according to their own taste, perception and deception: by not submitting their reason as believers to the official Magisterium of the Church, but rather forcing the Church to follow and recognize their fantasy. |
When you depart from the clear guidance of the Church, you travel a very dangerous path. You have knocked down the walls of safety erected to protect you and enhance your freedom. You’re pretty much on your own in the land of private judgment and discernment.
Consider another example of “good fruits” flowing from something not just false but evil: the Legionaries of Christ. The history of that religious order is replete with evidence of “good fruit,” even more than what is claimed for Medjugorje, but the entire enterprise was founded and and presided over by a moral monster, Fr. Macial Maciel [LINK]. It should be obvious that Satan can and does orchestrate “good fruit" while reaping less obvious but even greater “bad fruit" that satisfies his utilitarian calculus. We are limited in our ability to discern this utilitarian calculus, so we must trust the Church to guide us.
The Unam Sanctam Catholicam blog [LINK] posted an excellent and thorough dismantling of the “argument from fruits” advanced by supporters of Medjugorje [LINK]. There is also an excellent Blog Talk Radio interview (0:00 - 33:00)[LINK] with a priest who has himself visited Medjugorje and confirmed the many “bad fruits” of the whole phenomenon.
John V. Gerardi provides interesting insight into a "scheduled apparition" event he attended at Notre Dame in November, 2012: A Medjugorje Evening [LINK]. And, generally, there is the chilling example of Sister Magdalena of the Cross [LINK] who, for 40 years, deceived the world, including very high ranking prelates, with preternatural manifestations later admitted and judged to be diabolical in origin, although she died repentant and penitent. “Good fruits” cannot be ignored, but they are neither definitive nor determinative of the validity of an alleged apparition or other spiritual phenomenon. Only the Church can make that judgment and, in the case of Medjugorje, She has done so: “Non constat de supernaturalitate!”
So what should we conclude from all this?
In 1991, the Bishops responsible for investigating the phenomenon of Medjugorje said the following:
| On the base of studies made so far, it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations. Yet the gathering of the faithful from various parts of the world to Medjugorje, inspired by reasons of faith or other motives, require the pastoral attention and care, first of all, of the local Bishop and then of the other bishops with him, so that in Medjugorje and all connected with it, a healthy devotion towards the Blessed Virgin Mary according to the teachings of the Church may be promoted. The Bishops will also provide special liturgical and pastoral directives corresponding to this aim. At the same time, they will continue to study all the events of Medjugorje through their commissions ... … [N]o pilgrimages are allowed that would presuppose any supernatural character to the apparitions, there exists no shrine of the Madonna, and there are no authentic messages, revelations nor true visions! |
This is the very citation noted in the October, 2013 letter from the Apostolic Nuncio of the United States to the General Secretary of the USCCB [LINK].
It should be clear from this that the Church recognizes that there has been “good fruit” from the Medjugorje phenomenon but that it cannot and will not affirm the validity and supernatural character of the alleged “apparitions” which have inspired this “good fruit.” It is, therefore, permitted to claim both “good experience” and “good fruit” from Medjugorje but it is not permitted to project that upon the alleged “apparitions.” In a sense, it appears that the Church is willing to encourage whatever “good fruit” has come from the Medjugorje phenomenon while, at the same time, insisting on a distancing of this “good fruit” from the clearly false character of the “apparitions.”
Somehow those devoted to Medjugorje must cooperate with this separation of their devotion from its false foundations. They must do this by 1) acknowledging and accepting the judgment and guidance of the Church, and 2) renouncing the supernatural character of phenomena such as “rosaries turned to gold” and “seeing a dancing sun.” Given the judgment of the Church, such preternatural phenomena must be understood as spiritual deceptions and fraudulent. Any other way forward is movement away from the heart of the Church and, therefore, God Himself and Our Blessed Mother.
Almost all of the references cited above include abundant documentation of “bad fruits” as well as “good fruits.” These “bad fruits” should no more be ignored than the “good fruits.” The “good fruits” are evidence of the mercy and power of God, while the “bad fruits” confirm the nonsupernatural character of the events which have inspired the Medjugorje phenomenon. God is at work in Medjugorje, as He is everywhere, but not through the “seers” and their “apparitions.”
Addendum: For a significantly comprehensive although not exhaustive history and analysis of the Medjugorje history and phenomenon, this article from EWTN [LINK] is excellent.
Link:
Related:
- Pope Francis: Don’t live your lives according to what seers tell you
- Medjugorje Ruling - "We are about to make decisions" says Pope Francis
- Medjugorje Madness with Michael Voris & E. Michael Jones
- Medjugorje (EWTN)
- Pope Meets Head of Medjugorje Commission
- Pope Francis: "Our Lady... is not a postmaster, sending messages every day"
- Father George Rutler: Medjugorje cult "has become an industry from which many have made a lot of money"
- Medjugorje - Clerics and Faithful Not Permitted to Take Credibility of "Apparitions" for Granted (CDF)
- Medjugorje "visionary" Vicka flinches while in "ecstasy" (video)
- Father Mitch Pacwa: Lack of any Spiritual Depth to the Messages May be the Unraveling of Medjugorje
- Our Lady of Medjugorje?: Very Serious Counter-Signs - By Father Jay Scott Newman
- What is Happening at Medjugorje?
- Medjugorje Commission to Present Final Report by End of 2012
- Medjugorje : "The pope wants a decisive conclusion made" - Father Salvatore Perrella, CDF Expert
- Medjugorje Commission Priest: Christian Who Bases His Faith in Apparitions is Not a Christian Adult, It's Not Mature
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Cardinal Brandmüller's Rebuke to Drifting, Secularist Germans
From Father B. Jerabek's blog:
In the past several months – but particularly in the last couple of
weeks – there have been several disturbing items in Church news that
should be cause for concern for us all.On the one hand, there was that questionnaire in preparation for the upcoming Synod on the Family, sent to all bishops of the world but also seeking lay collaboration in its completion. At the time, many took it to be a major shift in Vatican policy (even though, in effect, it was business as usual). And since then, there has been no shortage of agitation, in the media and in the Church: agitation that has as its goal to recast the survey as an indication that the Church is moving in the direction oUf becoming a democratic institution that will bend its teachings and its customs according to the fashions of the age. Sadly, and tragically, there have even been entire groups of bishops who seem to harbor such hopes. More on that in a moment.
On the other hand, there was the recent news of a report sent by the UN to the Vatican concerning its handling of the sexual abuse crises in different parts of the world. The document was problematic on various levels; in particular – and leaving aside the UN’s grandstanding – because it took it upon itself to tell the Catholic Church that it should change its teaching in order to conform with current moral fashions (among elite Western organizations, such as the UN): abortion, homosexual “marriage”, and so forth.
What followed was a very weak response from the Holy See. At first, there was an assurance given that the Vatican would very carefully study the document. But that first response was crucial. It rather took the impact out of any subsequent response – especially since the Vatican’s later condemnation of certain aspects of the document was not all that forcefully put.
So there was the UN telling the Church what to do and how to believe; OK, that’s nuts, but they are outside the Church and everyone has an opinion. But inside the Church, there has been, as I said above, no shortage of confusion either. As I have reported on several occasions here, some of Pope Francis’ words and deeds have given the impression – to some people – that suddenly everything is up for grabs: everything can be re-thought and re-invented – even things that were always understood as unchanging, such as the indissolubility of marriage. And this has emboldened all kinds of people whose voices, under previous Pontificates, were gradually being drowned out. They are rising up again. And there are even bishops in their number. Almost all the bishops in Germany, it seems. Almost all the bishops in Switzerland. Not a few in France. Etc. Confusion among bishops, confusion among priests, confusion among religious, confusion among laypeople.
Reflecting upon all of this, I was glad to see a fairly brief article (in Italian) that reports recent discourses of two different German bishops – one a Cardinal, and one a Cardinal-to-be. These men of the Church insist upon basic truths that we must never forget, and they also insist upon clarity in teaching. At a time like this, we need clear teaching. That is why I have recently begun to post excerpts on the indissolubility of marriage. That is why I have been talking about the domestic church. That is why I will also be posting on other themes in the near future that we all need to review.
The Catholic faith is not subject to the changing winds of the age, much less those of only a certain part of the world. It was given to us by Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
The Church is not a democracy nor can it ever be. Yes, there are some matters where the opinion of groups and individuals can and should have an effect. But there are also some areas (such as dogma and doctrine) where that approach is simply not possible, if we would be faithful to our Lord. This article, then, which I have translated and pasted below, is helpful in clarifying things. Please do give it a read. Its author is Matteo Matzuzzi, and it was originally published in the daily Il Foglio on February 15th.
CARDINAL BRANDMÜLLER’S REBUKE
TO DRIFTING, SECULARIST GERMANS
TO DRIFTING, SECULARIST GERMANS
Clash of Powers:
“Neither human nature, nor the Commandments,
nor the Gospel have an expiration date”
Against this last affirmation, Cardinal
Walter Brandmüller, also German, has inveighed: “Ethical teaching can be
modified only to the extent that man’s nature changes”; moreover, “the
Church’s ethics originate in the nature of man – a physical-spiritual
nature”. Thus explained the Cardinal, in an interview with Armin
Schwibach, published by the Catholic news agency Kath.net. And to those
who speak of the need to bring the Church’s moral teaching up to date
with new realities that were unknown until a few years ago, Brandmüller
recalls that “neither human nature, nor the Commandments, nor the Gospel
have an expiration date”.
Therefore, those who claim these things
find themselves “in contradiction with the Word of God”. This happens
because “a certain imprecision and haziness of language on the part of
Church representatives is repeatedly observed. Clearness and precision
are lacking. One hears things of which it is impossible to approve or
disapprove, thus each person can draw from them whatever he finds most
agreeable. But it is urgent and important that Church pronouncements be
founded upon clear concepts”, adds the President-Emeritus of the
Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences.
“What is needed is courage to articulate
the truth, even against current fashion – a courage that whoever speaks
in the name of the Church must possess, if he does not want to fall
short of his vocation”... (continued)Link:
Related:
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Father George Rutler: On Letting the Light Shine
By Rev. George W. Rutler
(Crisis Magazine) As a rather observant child, I made a mental note of the fact that my maternal grandmother would ask me to “make a light” instead of asking me to switch it on. When she was a child, no one switched lights on. At night, light was not had without effort, not in her English town nor in most places yet. She was born on the day that Gladstone introduced his Irish Home Rule bill in the House of Commons, the same Gladstone who gave a lamp to Newman who had “never sinned against the Light,” a lamp that still can be seen on his desk in Birmingham, and it certainly was not electric. Four years after my grandmother’s birth, Florence Nightingale recorded her voice on a wax cylinder patented by the Edison Company. My grandmother harbored a devotion to the “Lady with a Lamp” for her town’s regiment had fought in the Crimean War and some of them remembered the Lady visiting at night the wards in the Selimye Barracks of Scutari and it most definitely was not an electric lamp: that was the year Thomas Edison was born.
While eclectic in theology, and something of a Universalist, Florence Nightingale moved from Unitarianism to Anglicanism, and soon came to admire the slum work of the future Cardinal Manning who provided her with ten Catholic nuns to help nurse the soldiers in the war. They, along with fourteen Anglican nuns, nurtured the English custom of calling all nurses, mostly secular but usually veiled, “Sister.” A lamp, not electric, became the symbol of nursing organizations even in the United States. Then there was the friend of my grandmother, a very old lady, Granny Pye as I called her, who had been born in Scotland in the year that the missionary David Livingston died in Zambia. Although she belonged to the Old Kirk that did not allow ritual candles, she had a ritual of her own, for she read from the family Bible every night by candlelight, as though light bulbs were somewhat profane.
My point is that artificial light is so available now, at the flip of a switch, that we are losing a sense of wonder at the gift of light. The first creature was light itself “Let there be light….” It is hard to describe light without referring to its opposite. “The people who dwelt in darkness have seen a great light” (Isaiah 9:2). The first thing one learns in painting, after tackling perspective, is that colors seem bright only by contrast, and that principle of chiaroscuro was known well before the likes of Caravaggio and de la Tour. You don’t have to spend a winter in Lapland to know that: just spend a few dim days in February, or try selling an apartment without a view.
Light and life go together and there are countless “last words” that have to do with light as life ends. As he was dying, Goethe cried out, “Mehr Licht!—More light!” but in his case it probably had no spiritual meaning. He had also been a scientist who considered that his best book was “The Theory of Colors.” He most likely was just asking that the shutters be opened. To give him his due, anyone who has read his Faust, knows that he also knew of moral darkness and what happens in chambers of the mind that choose darkness over light. In retrospect, it is poignant, though not of any religious significance, that Theodore Roosevelt said as he went to bed for the last time: “Put out the light.” He was thinking of electricity and not mortality. That good man just wanted a good sleep, but he did not know how good it would be. Very different and far from prosaic, was what young O. Henry, abandoned by his wife Sara, said with his last alcoholic breath in the dim gaslight of his rented room: “Turn up the lights—I don’t want to go home in the dark.” However oblique his spiritual intuition may have been, it seems laden with an ancient appeal to One “in whom is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5).
Our Lord’s utterances stunned, enthralled and shocked the crowds, but none was more startling than this: “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12). As the light itself, his human decibels shouted to the sky that his essence is not a creature, but the divinity who creates physical light with the agency of “the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration” (James 1:17), and with their Spirit who will “enlighten the hearts of the faithful” with the fire of love. Frail human voices have the inestimable privilege of professing that mystery each Sunday in the Creed: Jesus of Nazareth is “Light from Light” from beyond Nazareth.
God offers the human race the light of life in order that it might “shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven” (Matt 5:16). Morally, the exercise of the free will can make that light beautiful or garish. On his visit to the United States which gave the world so many congenial quotes, G.K, Chesterton was entranced by the billboard lights in Times Square advertising soaps and cigarettes and hair tonic. He remarked, “What a garden of delights this would be if only one could not read.”
Our Lord dignifies the human race by enabling his own light to shine through his human creatures so that it might give “light to all the house” (Matt. 5:15). That house includes everyone’s own neighborhood, with its astonishing challenges and potential. In my own instance, that neighborhood, which is my parish, consists right now in the largest real estate development in the nation, besides some venerable older fixtures including the Empire State Building. It becomes a nightly light show of colors that would have got another book out of Goethe. The saints are an even more wonderful light show themselves. They are the “generation that seeks him…” (Psalm 24:6). To risk the rhetorical indecency of a pun, the generator that lights this generation up is not in Manhattan, for it is in the City that “has no need of the sun, nor of the moon, to shine in it. For the glory of God has enlightened it, and the Lamb is the lamp thereof” (Rev. 21:23).
Link:
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Federal Court Says ‘Good Cause’ Requirement for Conceal-Carry Permits Violates the Second Amendment
By Damon Root
(Reason) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego, California’s requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have a “good cause” to carry a concealed gun in public. According to local officials, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.” In his opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain rejected the local government’s approach as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
“In California,” the ruling observes, “the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.”
As Brian Doherty noted on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether it will take up two other cases that also center on the Second Amendment’s reach outside of the home. This new ruling from the 9th Circuit makes it all the more likely that the question of gun rights in public will soon be addressed by the Supreme Court.
Today's ruling by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego is available here.
Link:
(Reason) The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed gun rights advocates a major victory today by invalidating San Diego, California’s requirement that conceal-carry permits only be issued to those gun owners who have a “good cause” to carry a concealed gun in public. According to local officials, “one’s personal safety is not considered good cause.” In his opinion for a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain rejected the local government’s approach as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
“In California,” the ruling observes, “the only way that the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen can carry a weapon in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense is with a concealed-carry permit. And, in San Diego County, that option has been taken off the table.”
As Brian Doherty noted on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether it will take up two other cases that also center on the Second Amendment’s reach outside of the home. This new ruling from the 9th Circuit makes it all the more likely that the question of gun rights in public will soon be addressed by the Supreme Court.
Today's ruling by the 9th Circuit in Peruta v. County of San Diego is available here.
Link:
How Pope Benedict XVI set the stage for Pope Francis
By John L. Allen Jr.
(The Boston Globe) Pope Francis is shaking things up in the Catholic Church to such an extent that many talk about a “Francis revolution.” Yet the single most revolutionary act committed by any pope in at least the last 600 years fell exactly one year ago tomorrow, and it wasn’t Francis who did it.
On Feb. 11, 2013, Pope Benedict XVI used a meeting of cardinals discussing new saints to deliver the stunning announcement that he planned to resign, effective 8 p.m. Rome time on Feb. 28. The news was a total surprise to everyone except a handful of papal intimates, and it set the stage for all the drama that’s followed.
One cardinal said afterward that he sat in the room well after the meeting broke up, still unable to comprehend what had just happened. He played Benedict’s Latin phrasing over and over again in his mind to be sure he’d understood.
Yes, a handful of popes had resigned before, most recently Gregory XII in 1415. The circumstances, however, were so wildly different as to make Benedict’s decision essentially unprecedented – a pope not facing foreign armies or internal schism who decided voluntarily to step aside, while continuing to live on Vatican grounds and pledging “unconditional obedience” to whoever might succeed him.
Francis wins plaudits for his humble nature, but Benedict’s act was arguably the zenith of papal humility. He’s gone from infallibility to near-invisibility, having been photographed just four times since the resignation, most recently at a Jan. 15 musical recital marking his brother’s 90th birthday.
In the immediate wake of the announcement, the game was afoot to identify the “real” reason Benedict quit. While the pontiff cited age and health, some observers wondered if he was so demoralized by the surreal Vatican leaks affair -- which ended in the arrest of his own butler as the mole -- that he couldn’t go on. Others speculated it was a nebulous “gay lobby” in the Vatican that had brought him down.
Most of that ferment circulated in the Italian press, where no conspiracy theory is ever too wild to get a hearing.
Whatever the reasons, we can see more clearly today how Benedict’s abdication prepared the way for the choice of Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina as the new pope.
First, making resignation a live possibility effectively took age and health off the table as voting issues. In the past, conventional wisdom had been that the cardinals would prefer a candidate in his mid-to-late 60s. Older, and they run the risk of a short papacy or one immediately submerged into a health crisis; younger, and the danger is being stuck with one leader for too long.
Resignation provides an exit strategy, either way. If an older candidate gets sick, he can step aside and end the paralysis that comes with a weakened pope. A younger candidate can resign after the creative arc of his papacy is over, making way for a new direction.
Without such a release valve, the cardinals might have hesitated before electing a 76-year-old missing part of one lung, especially after choosing a 78-year-old, in Benedict, who occasionally seemed to lack the energy to get the Vatican under control.
Second, the fact that the cardinals were electing a pope after resignation rather than death changed the psychology of the process.
There was no outpouring of grief and tributes to the deceased pontiff, for the obvious reason that the pope wasn’t dead. There were no vast crowds of mourners in Rome, no appreciative obituaries in the global press, no emotional crescendo of a funeral Mass – none of the forces that can make it more difficult for cardinals to opt for a break with the papacy that has just ended. Eight years ago, the massive “funeral effect” surrounding the death of Pope John Paul II was a hugely important factor in shaping a continuity vote.
Resignation allowed the cardinals to take a more critical view, which helps explain why the 2013 conclave was the most anti-establishment papal election of the last 100 years. In this case the cardinals weren’t rejecting the teaching of Benedict XVI, which most of them admired, but patterns of business management in the Vatican they believed had become corrupt and dysfunctional.
They wanted change and Francis is delivering, perhaps to greater degree than some of them anticipated.
Finally, resignation encouraged the cardinals to roll the dice on a Latin American outsider with no Vatican experience because, frankly, some had in the back of their minds that if the new pope turned out to be a flop, they could come back a few years down the line and pick somebody else.
Catholics traditionally believe the Holy Spirit guides the process of picking a pope. On a more worldly level, however, the prime mover in the chain of events that led to Francis actually was Benedict XVI, the improbable revolutionary, who set the wheels in motion one year ago.
John L. Allen Jr. is a Globe associate editor, covering global Catholicism. His e-mail address is john.allen@globe.com and his Twitter handle is @JohnLAllenJr.
Link:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)