Medjugorje - A True Confession

[Tominellay]

Here’s a scenario:

I claim now that the Blessed Mother appears to me. My bishop investigates my fairly normal life: he finds I have no call to holy orders, that in fact, I have perhaps married since the alleged apparitions began, and that nothing singular about what I am doing sets me apart in any way from anyone else, etc…I cannot prove to the bishop that Mary appears to me; and no miracles occur as evidence. In this case, the bishop will likely rule non constat. He doesn’t have to say I’m lying, he just has to say I can’t substantiate what I claim. It would be disingenuous for me, or any tour operator, to say that the alleged apparitions are not yet approved by the Church. Had I done a murder, or had the “apparition” blasphemed, then, the ruling would likely be constat de non; it does not follow, though, that the non constat judgement in my scenario is either non-binding or only temporary. Absent any forthcoming evidence in my favor, the bishop will have no reason ever to reopen investigations, as the non constat ruling is, in fact, a negative judgement.

 

[Tominellay]

Re post #275 by setter in response to the post by Diana quoting the French Bishops Conference:

This document by Msgr. Brincard, speaking for the Church Hierarchy in France, is really valuable to the discussion. In his first paragraph following the question put Brincard alludes to the Church operating necessary discernments to authenticate extraordinary happenings…

He then asks who has authority to speak in the name of the Church…

He refers to the 1978 norms…

He relates then the establishment of the diocesan commissions by Bishop Zanic, and then Zanic’s “Current non-official position” published in 1984.

It is then, in 1985, while the commission is still at its task and a year before the first judgement is officially given, that Archbishop Franic already is asking for the intervention of other authority.

In May 1986 the first non constat judgement is announced. Msgr. Brincard states: "It is therefore not correct to state that Bishop Zanic was relieved of the dossier."

In January, 1987, it was announced that the (then) Yugoslav Bishops Conference would form a new investigative commission. (The written announcement, signed by Cardinal Kuharic and Bishop Zanic, states that the diocesan commission of Bishop Zanic conducted its inquiry in conformity with the canonical norms; that on the basis of these norms it seemed fitting to continue investigations at the Episcopal Conference level; that the CDF was informed and that it expressed its appreciation for the work carried out by the diocesan commission under the responsibility of the local Ordinary.)

Msgr. Brincard treats The Criterion Of Fruits thusly: "The examination of the events must, consequently, precede the examination of the fruits. When this order is not respected errors of judgement can arise."

For the French Episcopate, Bishop Brincard is satisfied that the Church, having operated the necessary discernments, has not authenticated the events at Medjugorje.

 

[Tominellay]

setter,

Many on this thread who oppose Medjugorje are posting/quoting the documents of responsible Church authorities: The Ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar; the (former) Yugoslavian Bishops Conference; The French Episcopate taking a position in a spirit of collegiality with the aforementioned…

Antonio Gaspari’s magazine article, which you’ve cited, falls into the category of “spin”. He mixes just enough of what is verifiably true with just enough of what is not verifiable, to obfuscate, and to “keep it alive”…As an example, just the final paragraph of his article contains words and phrases such as “common knowledge”, “reportedly”, “would probably have”; mentions an undated meeting with an unnamed Superior General of an Order. Do you see what I’m getting at?

 

[setter]

setter,

Many on this thread who oppose Medjugorje are posting/quoting the documents of responsible

Church authorities: The Ordinary of the Diocese of Mostar; the (former) Yugoslavian Bishops Conference; The French Episcopate taking a position in a spirit of collegiality with the aforementioned…
Your point? My understanding is that Medjugorje has not been condenmed by any authoritative Church authorities.

By your logic then, you would have us believe that those many Church authorities who do not support your contention/belief that Medjugorje is a fraud parading as an authentic apparition must therefore be irresponsible. Is this correct?

I find this a weak and not very compelling argument.

Antonio Gaspari’s magazine article, which you’ve cited, falls into the category of “spin”. He mixes just enough of what is verifiably true with just enough of what is not verifiable, to obfuscate, and to “keep it alive”…As an example, just the final paragraph of his article contains words and phrases such as “common knowledge”, “reportedly”, “would probably have”; mentions an undated meeting with an unnamed Superior General of an Order. Do you see what I’m getting at?

Anyone interested in considering your take that this veteran Vatican reporter is simply creating “spin” to “keep it alive” can check out the magazine’s link to help judge for themself.

insidethevatican.com/about-us.htm#pope

 

[irishgal]

I am here to defend Medjugorje and many of the inaccurate and misleading statements made by most of the posters on this thread with no substantiation.

I have been to Medjugorje two times, the first 16 years ago and it transformed my life. I have tried to be faithful by following the messages of:

1. Peace -which is necessary to save humanity. We have to begin by first creating peace within our own hearts. This can be done in the following manner:

Communication with God - Attend daily Mass and go often (at least once a month to Confession);

Faith

Prayer: Blessed Mother specifically called for daily prayer consisting initially of 7 Our Fathers, 7 Hail Marys, 7 Glory be(s) to the Father and the Apostle’s Creed; then the whole Rosary; reading the Scriptures and personal communication with God. (Adoration before the Blessed Sacrament)

Fasting on Wednesday and Friday - If possible fast on bread and water. If one is unable to fast in that manner, then there are many other ways to fast, restraining from various activies, watching TV, etc.

The messages are very simple and Our Blessed Mother only asks for a sincere desire to change your life. She only leads us to Jesus, always to Jesus.

I have known people who refuse to change and then find a way to discredit the messages. Have you searched your heart for your reasons? How can any Catholic be opposed to all she has asked us to do?

I do know that there is a very wealthy businessman who is very bitter and has spent thousands and thousands of dollars to villify those who support Medjugorje, its seers, priests, and the faithful remnant of the Catholic Church. It sounds like you have either been influenced by his propaganda or have not been totally open to Our Blessed Mother’s Messages and the grace that is outpouring daily from this holy place.

The Blessed Mother does not condem any Bishops, priests, or give false and misleading messages against the Church as some of you have claimed. It is man’s free will that has caused the errors and/or inaccuracies.

Regarding the visionaries awareness of their surroundings as stated previously in this thread:

*To give one of many examples, they said they were not aware of their surrondings during an appartition and then lied when someone tested this claim. *

This is utterly FALSE. Each visionary was tested and retested by all sorts of medical and technical equipment and it was agreed by experts, i.e. doctors, psychiatrists, etc. that they were not conscious of their surrounds. In fact, they were given tests that caused physical pain and they did not respond. If you will read any of the early Medjugorje books you will in fact see photos of this.

It is not necessary for one to believe in apparitions. However, it IS a grave sin to interfere with the workings of the Holy Spirit. I would suggest that if you do not believe, then pray for enlightenment and clearer discernment.

There is a saying which I am paraphrasing poorly but it goes something like this:

For those who believe, no amount of proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no amount will do.

Queen of Peace, pray for us!

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

irishgal:

I am here to defend Medjugorje and many of the inaccurate and misleading statements made by most of the posters on this thread with no substantiation.

Irishgal, welcome to the thread.

First and foremost, I appreciate your spiritual experiences. Fruits are certainly important in the discernment of authenticity. But as the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno has pointed out, and the French Bishops Commission, and the Vatican’s 1978 criteria on apparition discernment, good fruits alone are not a measure of anything. The sacraments alone can and will create such good fruits. The visible good fruits must be weighed against the more hidden bad fruits, as well as the visible bad fruits. But, prior to that, the events themselves must be judged. Bishop Zanic did this, using the 1978 criteria and yet supporters of Medjugorje claim he hasn’t spent any time studying the events. I can find this propoganda on many websites which promote messages which are getting out through an act of disobedience.

When you claim that we are making inaccurate and misleading statements, you need to discuss them individually, not in generalizations. All of your good experiences in Medjugorje cannot hide the examples of disobedience and personal attacks on the local Ordinary of Mostar, much of which is documented in official records held within that diocese. Those are facts. How can these be disputed? How can the recorded words of a seer in which the BVM protects a fallen priest, defrocked by the Vatican itself, ever be reconciled? In the same string, the seer claims the BVM says “the Bishop is to blame”. Not long after, said priest was defrocked by the Vatican.

Discernment of apparitions has nothing to do with how people feel. It has to do with how compatible the messages, actions of seers and even followers, are with Catholic teaching and virtue.

I would like to discuss further, the Bishop. Do you believe the bishop has not been attacked by the seers? Has he not been the subject of detraction or even calumny by any of them? The proof is in the transcripts.

I’ll repeat here that I am on a confessor imposed 20 minutes per day and just reading the posts from yesterday has taken most of that up.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Setter,

I think you are having difficulty understanding subjective from objective. The French Bishops area citing facts, which makes their statement objective. This was written in what, 2002 or 2004? The “Inside the Vatican” article you keep citing, repeatedly, was written 10 years ago. I believe they have more recent articles discussing Medjugorje, which may not be on the web.

Furthermore, you say:

setter:

I found the flavor of many posts less than objective in evidence presentation and willingness to argue from foregone conclusion beyond what has officially been declared. This despite not final ruling or exhaustive directive as to the approval/disapproval. IMO, this is presumptious, …I will stop here as I have already stated.

The aim of this thread is to get people to consider the position of the local Ordinary of Mostar first, and foremost. This is not being done on the vast majority of Medjugorje websites, nor in Medjugorje. Instead, this man is attacked at the worst, and disregarded at the least, which is equally as bad.

I am saddened to see that you likely have not spent any time investigating where my information comes from, nor that of other posters who are simply trying to point out to people the dangers associated with Medjugorje. I revealed my own fall from grace as I slammed a local Ordinary whose job Holy Mother Church gives to discern the events in His diocese. All of the Bishop’s commissions have followed his lead of not finding anything supernatural there after 20 years.

What is not factual about playing back conflicts in the testimony and diaries of “seers”? What is not objective about discussing how events and fruits compare to the 1978 Criteria on Apparition Discernment, especially when those events and fruits are cited by the local diocese?

It is subjective to talk only about fruits and how people “feel”. It is subjective to generalize and say that all that has been said is just “hearsay”. Is it?

Have you read all that the local Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno has asked us to read in order to balance out what we are getting on uncontrolled pro-Medjugorje websites which deliver “messages” obtained through an act of disobedience? Don’t you think it would be charitable and prudent to first seek out even the opinion of the local Ordinary? And, if you are going to blow him off, not respecting his wishes to disgest his speech at Maynooth Ireland, his latest statement and the Michael Davies book which he asks us to read, I would ask why? Is it because Medjugorje supporters have so convinced you that he is a bad man who won’t budge from his position? Have you read his conclusions to discern for yourself what he says, or have you taken it at the word of one, single Archbishop who clings to his view against 34 other bishops who sided with Bishop Zanic?

Here is your chance, and here is the chance for Irishgal to read what the Bishop wants us to read. If you refuse, then I would ask that you search in your soul and ask why you would blow off the man, who by apostolic succession has been given the job of discernment.

** From a talk given at Maynooth, Co. Dublin, February 17, 2004 **

The truth both frees us and binds us

mdaviesonmedj.com/fulltext.rtf

(the last one will open something like Microsoft word - it is all 217 pages of the Davies book, which Bishop Peric speaks of in “The Truth both frees and binds us”

Propoganda has stirred such resentment toward’s Bishop’s Zanic and Peric that people refuse to read and digest his opinions. If you disagree with him or any of his facts, please consider taking one issue at a time and discussing it. Once again, generalizations don’t work. That is subjective. It is objective to look at each item that is problematic and break it down into facts. Which are true facts, which are false? Who is promoting what is false and who bears the truth?

Out of love and charity, and respect for this shepherd, won’t you please read what he asks us to read? If not, please tell me why so I can understand your reasoning?

I can’t see anyone jumping into this thread to defend Medjugorje without first spending some time understanding the many concerns he and his successor have raised throughout the years. I ask all concerned to please do this and then talk about specific points you disagree with and why. Please be charitable in your response, not defensive.

 

[GoldenArrow]

However, it IS a grave sin to interfere with the workings of the Holy Spirit.

This is true. But it is also true that it is a GRAVE and MORTAL sin to knowingly disobey ecclesiastical authority.

Obedience is governed by the Fourth Commandment: Honor Thy Father and honor thy Mother. A subcategory of this is Holy Obedience, which means that we are obligated to obey the Bishops in union with the Holy See.

In application to the Medjugorje situation, the Local Ordinary of Mostar-Duvno has been granted authority over people and events within the geographical ecclesiastical region that he governs. A bishop derives this authority directly from God; that is, his authority is not derived from the Pope.

In three separate investigations two successive Bishops of Mostar-Duvno: Bishops Zanic and Peric, in union with a commission of Bishops from the Holy See have concluded that it cannot be determined whether any supernatural events have taken place in Medjugorje. Furthermore, the Local Ordinary, Bishop Peric, is quoted here: catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=317

An exerpt:
“My conviction and position is not only non constat de supernaturalitate [the supernaturality is not proven] but also the other formula constat de non supernaturalitate [the non-supernaturality is proven] of the apparitions or revelations of Medjugorje.”

Apparitions that have the ruling of either non constat de supernaturalitate or constat de non supernaturalitate are both technically under the nonapproved category. We are forbidden from spreading nonapproved messages, either through speech, print, video, audio or the Internet. Only private devotion is allowed under the former category.

To knowingly disobey these rulings and the rules with which we are to conduct ourselves under such rulings is a mortal sin against Holy Obedience.

To personally judge something as being morally “right” based upon the dictates of one’s own conscience, while knowing such a personal judgment is contrary to the Apostolic authority by which we are governed, is a form Modernism (declared by Pope St. Pius X to be a Heresy) called Moral Relativism. In plainer terms, to personally judge the events of Medjugorje as being valid works of the Holy Spirit based on the dictates of one’s own conscience in light of knowing the Holy See and the Local Ordinary are in disagreement (with your personal judgment) by union of judgement of non-approval is a form of Moral Relativism.

If you truly honor Our Lord and those that He chose to govern us you would obey the Bishop Ratko Peric and his predecessor. In fact, we are to obey them both in this matter as if they themselves were Pontiff.

The Will of God is expressed through the Apostolic successors and to disobey them is to disobey the Will of God and to do your own will. You can’t pick and choose what teachings of the Church you will follow. Holy Mother Church is not a buffet line. She’s all or none.

There seems to be a small seed of evil buried within a fruit that appears to look and taste good. Moral Relativism is this seed and its subtle promotion is the core outcome of the events of Medjugorje, in my opinion.

 

[GoldenArrow]

One more thing----

To those who consider Michael H. Brown’s opinion to be a greater authority than two Bishops and two Popes and three church investigations is folly.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Golden Arrow,

Thank you for your contribution and carefully laid-out explanation of Holy Obedience.

All that has been written, and as the French Bishops have pointed out in what I pasted above, how can one go there without giving credence to authenticity, which is expressely forbidden?

But, many people today are bent on “following my own conscience on the matter”. This is true whether it is contraception, pre-marital sex, and even homosexual unions and abortion. However, they miss the main point that conscience must be formed in light of the Magisterium, not in the absence of it.

The same can be said of how people treat Medjugorje. They follow their emotions and feelings, and ultimately their conscience, all the while ignoring the local Ordinary, who is the only one with jurisdiction in the matter. That jurisdiction, as you point out, comes from Divine Authority, not human.

With all of the “apparitions” and phenomena occuring worldwide since Medjugorje, shepherds need to inform their people how things like obedience and humlity on the part of “seers” plays a role in discernment of spirits.

People mistakenly believe that we can judge such phenomena on fruits alone. Yet, I make the example of Magdalen of the cross whose ecstasies, stigmata, and other such things brought forth good fruits. Even Bishops and Cardinals followed her. Then she later admitted having sold her soul to the devil for this ability some decades earlier. She had to undergo exorcism, and it was a difficult time. It was because of her that Teresa of Avila suffered much skepticism.

This is why the Church’s 1978 Criteria on Discernment of Apparitions carefully lays out a set of questions. The French Bishops walk right through many of these questions explaining how events stack up against it. Not only that, but the 1978 document also calls explicitly for bad fruits to be weighed against the good fruits. Yet, when one attempts to discuss the bad fruits, they are attacked vehemently by supporters - another fruit, and not a good one. In fact, the actions of the cult following are also to be measured according to the criteria.

I will begin a post by post review of this criteria and compare it to specific events and fruits. But, this review will take days as I am near the end of my 20 minute daily allotment.

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

Here is the document, found at Theotokos:

1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment (unoffical English translation)

I would invite all to participate in copying and pasting each of these pieces of evaluation and filling in the blank. It starts with a listing of positive criteria, so lets look at the positive things as guided by points “a” and “b”.

**I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.
**

                                     A) Positive criteria:
                                        

                                       a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.
                                        

                                     b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:

I’m at the end of my 20 minutes. Lets set aside emotional debate in lieu of focusing on walking through this 1978 criteria one issue at a time. Tomorrow, I will paste in the (B) Negative criteria.

It is not wrong to look at positive criteria, and it is far from wrong to look at negative criteria. The Bishop had to do this in order to come to his conclusion. However, I have found several Medjugorje websites actually stating that the Bishop has not done an investigation which is quite calumnous.

Can we do this execise?

 

[LukeQ]

Diane - Please continue with this exercise as the process will caste emotion aside and allow the evidence to speak for itself.

I just hope and pray that the Pro Medj. People stay with this thread and I suggest that we all as Catholics - Pro and contra, pray to the Holy Spirit to open our minds in Charity.

May I also suggest that all who post, stay on point. If specifics are being discussed, no general sweeping and unsubstantiated comments to counter the arguement.

Remember, the Truth will win, not a faction on either side of the debate. We are all part of the One, Holy and Apostolic Church.

Are there any other suggestions before we start?

Luke

Luke

 

[Tominellay]

setter:

Your point? My understanding is that Medjugorje has not been condenmed by any authoritative Church authorities.

By your logic then, you would have us believe that those many

Church authorities who do not support your contention/belief that Medjugorje is a fraud parading as an authentic apparition must therefore be irresponsible. Is this correct?

I find this a weak and not very compelling argument.

Anyone interested in considering your take that this veteran Vatican reporter is simply creating “spin” to “keep it alive” can check out the magazine’s link to help judge for themself.

insidethevatican.com/about-us.htm#pope

setter,
The points are that the Ordinary of Mostar, responsible for the discernment of apparitions in his diocese, spoke with the authority of his office in declaring that the Church does not believe that Mary appears or has appeared in Medjugorje; further, he instructed priests in his diocese that they may not proclaim the apparitions from the pulpit as though they were authentic. In the second place, the (then) Yugoslavian Bishops Conference, when so authorized, had the reponsibility to form its own investigative commission, with the result that its own declaration coincided with that of Bishop Zanic: that it cannot be affirmed that the apparitions are of supernatural origin. Thirdly, Bishop Brincard was authorized by the French Bishops Conference to formulate an official, authoritative response to the Medjugorje question on behalf of the Church in France, which response is a validation of the actions taken by the Church in Mostar and the Church in (then) Yugoslavia. Officially, the Church does not believe in Medjugorje…

I used the term responsible to denote competence: the competent authority is the one with responsibility. I’m sorry if that confused anyone here; I’m not always precise…The Ordinary is the competent authority in his diocese, and he is responsible for decisions in his diocese. This does mean that Bishop Peric today is a responsible voice regarding alleged apparitions in the Diocese of Mostar; Archbishop Franic or Cardinal Mahony or the St. Louis Cardinals simply do not have any responsibilities with regard to authenticating events in Medjugorje. Your suggestion that “those many Church authorities who do not support your contention…must…be…irresponsible” is an interesting one; but they certainly are not competent authorities where Medjugorje is concerned. In fact, no one responsible Church authority has ever claimed that Medjugorje is authentic.

I recommend source documents for facts; I recommend magazine articles and promotional web sites for spin…

 

[bones_IV]

Medjugorje is a false apparition and not even real. It’s basically a hoax, if the Church doesn’t recognize it why should I? Unless the Church recognizes it I refuse to recognize a crackpot apparition like this one. EWTN says its alleged, and Mother Angelica distanced herself from Medjudgorje when she found that Medjudgorje started to associate themselves with the Caritas of Birmingham.

 

[LukeQ]

Hi Bones,
Welcome to this thread.

I just loved your statement for its simplicity and punch:

“if the Church doesn’t recognize it why should I?”

Caritas of Birmingham is apparently across the road, so to speak, from EWTN.

For an interesting perspective of the Caritas of Birmingham “cult” and the Medjugorje “seer”, Marija Pavlovic’s involvement, go to this link which is an expose full of newspaper articles and personal accounts including stories on law suits:
rickross.com/groups/caritas.html

BTW - it is through the Caritas of Birmingham connection that Medjugorje promotes the “Poem of the Man God” which was condemned by the Church in 1950’s and placed on the Prohibited Book List even though the “Gospa” says its a true account of Our Lord’s life. The Church cannot contradict itself so to believe that the Gospa is 100% correct follows that the Church is wrong. I say the Church is right and the Gospa is wrong - it can’t be both ways as to “Poem…” Our Lady would never contradict the Church in a ruling or say that a Bishop working in Apostolic Sucession is wrong as is the case with the Medjugorje “Gospa”.

When Diane returns to the thread, can we work through the “1978 Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith document on apparition discernment” as suggested.

Luke

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

We once had a thread going on Poem of the Man-God and this generated nearly as many posts as this thread. Therefore, I hope we can isolate discussion of the Poem to one of those other thread where it has been discussed.

It seems I have no takers yet to list the positive criteria as laid out in the 1978 criteria on apparitions.

I think it is suffice to say there are good fruits, such as conversions, increase use of the sacraments, etc. However, as Bishop Peric pointed out, such things can be attributed to the increased use of sacraments alone. In other words, going to confession can make you want to go to confession more frequently. This happened with me at my parish in Detroit, which is very Marian. But, it does not promote or discuss apparitions which have not been approved. I go to confession weekly now, after not going for nearly 2 years and only once yearly or so. I didn’t go to Medjugorje. So, the bishop’s point is well taken that increased use of sacraments alone can and does create conversion… I underwent the greatest internal conversion of my life at this parish, which has a very rich sacramental life, and adoration, benediction, etc.

I stated in an earlier thread that it appears to me that the French Bishop’s Commission indeed walked through the 1978 criteria. They address the positive criteria this way:

If we examine the events of Medjugorje in the light of the fruits, what do we observe?

         It is first of all undeniable              that at Medjugorje there are returns to God and 'spiritual' healings.              It is no less evident that the sacramental life is regular there and              the prayer fervent. One could not deny these good fruits in situ.              We should even rejoice in them. But can we say that they continue              in our parishes? Difficult question, for we must note unfortunately              that the susceptibility, even aggressiveness, of some partisans of              Medjugorje towards those who do not share their enthusiasm is such              that it provokes, here and there, serious tensions which attack the              unity of the People of God.

         From where do these good              fruits, observed in an indisputable manner at Medjugorje, come? A              declaration of Bishop Peric, our confrere of Mostar, may on this point              usefully enrich our meditations:

                        "The fruits, so often                mentioned, do not prove that they flow from apparitions or supernatural                revelations of Our Lady. But in the measure that they are authentically                Christian, they may be interpreted as a product of the normal work                of divine grace, by faith in God, by the intercession of the Virgin                Mary, Mother of Christ, and by the Sacraments of the Catholic Church.                And this to say nothing of the negative fruits."**([9](http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2002/features_may02_bonus.html#9f)**)

 

[Lux_et_veritas]

I am going to throw out here, the entire section on positive and negative because of the fact that statements made by officials, such as the one above, will often include the positive and negative together.

I recommend that each person participating take one of the sentences below out of the negative or positive criteria (in no particular order), and provide something to address the criteria. I’m near the end of my time on the thread today, so I will have to end it here.

Once again, paste one of the questions below at a time, and add it to the thread with supportive information. Cite your source and provide links.

Keep in mind, this is what the Bishops of Mostar used in their discernment process. It is not sufficient to judge authenticity on good fruits alone.

**I. Criteria of judgement, concerning the probability at least, of the character of the apparitions and supposed revelations.
**

									 A) Positive criteria:
										

									 a) Moral certainty, or at least great probability, as to the existence of the fact, [revelation] acquired at the end of a serious investigation.
										

									 b) Particular circumstances relating to the existence and the nature of the fact:
										

									 1. Personal qualities of the subject—in particular mental balance, honesty and rectitude of moral life, habitual sincerity and docility towards ecclesiastical authority, ability to return to the normal manner of a life of faith, etc.
										

									 2. With regard to the revelations, their conformity with theological doctrines and their spiritual veracity, their exemption from all error.
										

									 3. A healthy devotion and spiritual fruits which endure (in particular, the spirit of prayer, conversions, signs of charity, etc).
										

									 B) Negative criteria:
										

									 a) A glaring error as to the facts.
										

									 b) Doctrinal errors that one would attribute to God himself, or to the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit in their manifestations (taking into account, however, the possibility that the subject may add something by their own activity—even if this is done unconsciously—of some purely human elements to an authentic supernatural revelation, these having nevertheless to remain free from any error in the natural order. Cf. St Ignatius, Spiritual Exercises, n. 336).
										

									 c) An obvious pursuit of monetary gain in relation with the fact.
										

									 d) Gravely immoral acts committed by the subject, or his associates, at the time of the facts, or on the occasion of these facts.
										

									 E) Psychic disorders or psychopathic tendencies concerning the subject, which would exert an unquestionable influence on the allegedly supernatural facts, or indeed psychosis, mass hysteria, or other factors of the same kind.
										

									It is important to consider these criteria, whether they are positive or negative, as indicative standards and not as final arguments, and to study them in their plurality and in relation with the other criteria.

 

[setter]

irishgal:

There is a saying which I am paraphrasing poorly but it goes something like this:

For those who believe, no amount of proof is necessary. For those who do not believe, no amount will do.

I have offered this same observation on this thread. I find it very presumptuous on the part of those posters who adamantly oppose this alleged apparition would have us all believe as fact that this alleged apparition has been condemned by proper Church authority – which it has not been condemned. I wonder why is this? I wonder what agenda drives these folks to vehemently persist in having objective, curious observers believe a projection that exceeds what has been declared by proper Church authorities?

Originally Posted by setter
This whole thread can be boiled down to a “he said”, “she said” argument and who can supply the greatest preponderance of evidence for their belief, conviction or personal preference; each side claiming to adhere to the criteria for spiritual discernment. One side will ultimately be disproved.

 

[setter]

bones_IV:

Medjugorje is a false apparition and not even real. It’s basically a hoax, if the Church doesn’t recognize it why should I? Unless the Church recognizes it I refuse to recognize a crackpot apparition like this one. EWTN says its alleged, and Mother Angelica distanced herself from Medjudgorje when she found that Medjudgorje started to associate themselves with the Caritas of Birmingham.

To offer counterpoint to this emotionally toned post: Since you cite Mother Angelica “distanced herself from Medjudgorje” as substantiation that this alleged aparition is a “hoax” and “crackpot apparition”, can you provide source documentation regarding the same? Also, can you please explain why many of the documents offered, as counter balance against the artificially extrapolated restrictions posed by con-Mej posters, source from the web page of EWTN? Otherwise, as the pro-Mej posters will remind you, this is simply your *personal opinion * and skewed *personal experience * and does not contribute to the debate at hand.

 

[thistle]

setter:

I have offered this same observation on this thread. I find it very presumptuous on the part of those posters who adamantly oppose this alleged apparition would have us all believe as fact that this alleged apparition has been condemned by proper Church authority – which it has not been condemned. I wonder why is this? I wonder what agenda drives these folks to vehemently persist in having objective, curious observers believe a projection that exceeds what has been declared by proper Church authorities?

Three Bishops Commissions have declared there is no evidence of anything supernatural taking place in Medjugorie. The Bishops are the competent Church authority. Do you deny this??