A little more on Medj

Catholic Culture has a good summary article about Bishop Ratko Peric's reiteration of how the "messages" and "apparitions" at Medj are to be treated. The summary also contains two links for further information.

It is interesting to note that Bishop Peric "has emphasized that the alleged apparitions and messages of Medjugorje are not to be treated as 'worthy of faith' and that he "has imposed a series of restrictions on activities in Medjugorje, clearly designed to discourage interest in the supposed apparitions."

More on Medj

I am not an expert, by any stretch of the imagination, on the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje or apparitions in general. I have not been to Medjugjore. However, I have researched Medj and that, combined with discussions I've had with other people have made me a skeptic of the alleged apparitions.

It should also be noted that skepticism is not a bad thing, though it may become sour if it turns into simple bull-headedness. Such as if I were to continue to reject Medj even if the Vatican were to declare it legit. I have said though that I will accept whatever the Church decides on the matter.

Because I am not an expert on this topic (and even if I were) it is not my intention to prove or disprove the alleged apparitions. I am merely stating the case for my skepticism. Though this post is mainly in response to a comment left by Timothy, in no way am I attacking his position. I simply intend to answer his protests to the best of my ability. I should also apologize beforehand for the length that I fear this post will go too.

Let us start with this passage from an an excellent (and unbiased) article on Medj which can be found here, from the EWTN website:

Catholics may go to Medjugorje. Such pilgrimages may even include priests acting as chaplains, as opposed to officially sponsoring them. Also, the Church has not suppressed discussion of Medjugorje, therefore, it is allowed. Common sense, however, says that Catholics on both sides of the Medjugorje issue should exercise prudence and charity in speaking of others who believe differently. Medjugorje is not a litmus test of orthodoxy, though every Catholic will have a moral obligation to accept the judgement of Rome, in the manner Pope Benedict explained, should it ever be rendered.

Though I am skeptical of much of what is happening at Medjugorje, I do not doubt that something is happening there. Obviously there are many good things happening as a result of Medj - such as people finding their faith. Regardless of whether the apparitions are real or not, from what I understand there exists an aura of holiness around the site. My qualm is whether or not the apparitions are real, not whether good things are happening there or not, for surely they are.

Timothy, in your comment you bring up the "miracles" that have been occurring there. And as you say, how do we explain the "miracles" other than by saying that they are just that, miraculous. However, I think you are mistaken when you use the "miracles" as proof that Mary is appearing there. It may be proof that something is happening, but it does not mean that the apparitions are real or that they come from Mary. They may very well be from heaven (though not necessarily from God) and they may very well be angelic, but keep in mind, as the following EWTN article points out, demons are angelic creatures as well.

Mystical Phenomena. The presence of remarkable phenomena is for many sufficient evidence of the validity of an alleged apparition. For others the judgment by local Church authority that there is no evidence of supernaturality at a site suggests fraud, mental illness or the demonic. The Church for her part, however, takes great care before affirming the certain supernaturality or non-supernaturality of phenomena. . . There are likewise few examples of outright condemnation. When they do occur it is usually on the basis of doctrine which is contrary to the faith.

The reasons for such caution are rooted in the Church's common teaching. St. Thomas Aquinas and St. John of the Cross both assert that as a general rule mystical phenomena (whether in the lives of saints or in apparitions) are the work of the angels. Unless God Himself needs to act to immediately produce an effect (such as to create out of nothing or to infuse sanctifying grace into the soul), He works through creaturely instruments. Thus the intellectual lights granted in contemplative prayer, the visions and locutions of private revelations, the levitations of the saints, the ecstasies of mystics and visionaries, and most external phenomena associated with mysticism, are produced by the angelic nature. Since both good and evil spirits possess the angelic nature the presence of such phenomena alone is an equivocal sign of authenticity. This means that a great deal of unexplained phenomena can occur without indicating positively that the event is from God. This is why the Church looks, among other things, for evident supernaturality, that is, for effects beyond the ability of men or angels which can be attributed to God alone.

Theologians remain divided in judging which phenomena fall clearly into the category of strict supernaturality. However, the practice of the Church in the canonization process of recognizing as miraculous those cures which meet certain strict criteria is a standard that has been applied in approving apparitions, as well (e.g. Lourdes, Beauraing, Banneux). At Fátima the Miracle of Sun likewise fell into the category of a natural prodigy. It is clear, however, that the phenomena which many laity have experienced in connection with alleged apparitions in our days, and which they consider to be proof that they are authentic, do not in fact rise to the level of evident supernaturality. Angelic or demonic activity would be sufficient to explain them. Without a proof of the supernatural order there is little likelihood of the Church affirming an apparition as authentic.

In the case of Medjugorje the commissions found that nothing directly connected with the apparition met this strict standard. As the earlier quoted statements show, the Church remains open to new evidence of supernaturality should it occur and has not judged that Medjugorje is NOT supernatural, much less condemned it.

Timothy also brings up the point of the content of "Mary's" messages: "the Blessed Mother in Her apparitions focuses on being devout to Christ and His Church." I take you at your word on this as I have not personally read the messages. Obviously if they were anything but faithful, we would not be having this discussion. However, you have missed a crucial step. You are still assuming (I do not mean that to sound harsh) that the someone or something is actually appearing to the visionaries. If this is the case, then I believe you are correct, it is not of Satan. Here I think I must make my skepticism more clear: my doubt is as to whether there is anything appearing to the visionaries, not just whether what may be appearing is of heaven or hell. That being said, if the visionaries are "making this up" then the content of their message means little.

And as far as ecclesiastical obedience goes, there seems to be something lacking in that department as well:

Bishop Perić reminded his people of the restrictions that he has imposed on activities in Medjugorje. The parish church is not formally a "shrine," he said, and should not be characterized as such. Pilgrimages to the church are discouraged. Priests there are "not authorized to express their private views contrary to the official position of the Church on the so-called 'apparitions' and 'messages,' during celebrations of the sacraments, nor during other common acts of piety, nor in the Catholic media."

The bishops urged the "seers" of Medjugorje to "demonstrate ecclesiastical obedience and to cease with these public manifestations and messages in this parish." [They did not. -Me]

Some of the Franciscan priests assigned to the Medjugorje parish, he said, have been expelled from their order because of their refusal to accept Church authority. "They have not only been illegally active in these parishes, but they have also administered the sacraments profanely, while others invalidly," he said. As Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, he said, he felt obliged to warn the faithful "who invalidly confess their sins to these priests and participate in sacrilegious liturgies."

As I have mentioned previously, one of my biggest problems with Medj is the fact that it makes no sense (to me) that the visions do not stop, as that is the only way for the site to become approved. Would Medj not bear much more fruit if it became official? Timothy, I believe you gently rebuked me by saying "Who are we to question how the Blessed Mother chooses to appear?" I think it's a slippery slope when we start to say, "who are we to..." Should we question nothing merely because we are inferior to God? If that were the case I think we would live in a vastly different world. The fact is, Mary has appeared before, and based on those official apparitions She has set a precedent. And frankly, Medjugorje is very different from the other apparitions. Granted, that in itself is not much, Mary could decide to appear any way She pleases, but by doing so the way She allegedly has at Medj, much discord has been sown.

For example, at Fatima Our Lady appeared only six times from May to October of one year and at Lourdes She appeared only 18 times from January to July of only one year. But at Medj She has now allegedly appeared over 40,000 times over the span of almost 30 years! Again, this is not enough to "debunk" Medj but it is enough to add to my skepticism.

Timothy, you also made this comment:

If we as Catholics believe in the presence of the Lord in each of the millions of Eucharistic Hosts presented throughout time and throughout the world, how is it so difficult to believe that His Mother would appear and give us messages of hope, love and a path to Her Son?

To which I would say that I do not find it difficult that Mary would appear and give us messages. What I do find difficult to believe is that She is appearing at Medjugorje. I respect your position that the apparitions are real at Medjugorje, I just cannot bring myself to believe it - based on what I know. Though I can't say this enough, I will accept the Church's ruling.

One final question, Timothy. What was it about Medj that brought you into the Church? Was it the message of the seers or the atmosphere of the place, or some other aspect? And - please keep an open-mind - if the Vatican were to officially rule that the apparitions were not real, what would your response be, seeing as how you were brought into the Church because of Medj?


More Links to happenings at Medjugorje:

http://blog.newadvent.org/2006/10/results-from-medjugorje-litmus-test.html

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=29290

http://olrl.org/prophecy/medjugorje.shtml

Medjugorje

Ever since I first started to really hear about Medjugorje about five years ago I've been a skeptic. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not expert on the subject, but I have had intelligent conversations with people who know much more about it then I do and I have read various articles for and against. Catholic Thing has an excellent article today about Medjugorje and I believe the author has almost the exact same view/attitude towards it that I do. It is definitely worth reading. One piece of information that the author didn't mention - the one piece that above all makes me a skeptic - is the fact that the Church cannot make its final decision one way or another (yes, the visions are real or no they are not) until the apparitions stop. There is so much controversy over the alleged apparitions that I can't figure out why Mary wouldn't cease appearing so that the Church could make its decision. If She is appearing there then the Church could make it official and resolve the whole issue. I can't imagine that Mary would desire all this confusion and debate. For me, I will remain a skeptic and accept whatever the Church decides in the end.