Should I accede to this demand (re Medjugorje)?

[DexUK]

I run the parish website (entirely under my control, at my own expense, etc) and today I have been asked to include on it links to sites promoting the Medjugorje phenomenon.

Should a parish website be in the business of making an official link to these sites, given that the apparitions of Medjugorje have not been approved by the Church (and, indeed, been often rejected by Mudjugorje’s local Ordinaries) ?

Basically, is it licit for the parish to make a formal connection to such things? Doesn’t it imply that the apparitions are approved and sanctioned by the Church?

 

[PatriceA]

Who made the request and have you talked to your priest about the matter?

 

[DexUK]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

I do know that Medjugorje is a controversial topic, therefore I don’t want to get into a discussion about the validity or not of the apparitions, just whether a parish website should be making official connections to sites that promote them.

 

[Miriam1947]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

I do know that Medjugorje is a controversial topic, therefore I don’t want to get into a discussion about the validity or not of the apparitions, just whether a parish website should be making official connections to sites that promote them.

Because of this particular request I think I would contact your bishop and ask his advice.

 

[PatriceA]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

I do know that Medjugorje is a controversial topic, therefore I don’t want to get into a discussion about the validity or not of the apparitions, just whether a parish website should be making official connections to sites that promote them.

I wouldn’t see it as an approval by the parish, any more than I think the parish is approving or endorsing the sponsors on the back of our parish bullentin. You could always make a disclaimer, that any links on the website are for information purposes only and in no way mean the parish is officially endorsing the sites.

 

[DexUK]

That’s a good plan.

I’ll put in a prominent disclaimer about all external sites and a note saying the link in question is for information purposes only.

 

[Fidelis]

That’s a good plan.

I’ll put in a prominent disclaimer about all external sites and a note saying the link in question is for information purposes only.

I would find a way to also diplomatically add the reminder that these alleged apparitions are not approved by the Church. People I know who are Medjugorje enthusiasts hate it when I remind them of that, but someone has to be the adult in the room.

 

[Sirach2]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

Here’s a link for you.

LONDON (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI has laicized a Franciscan priest who served as the spiritual adviser to the Marian visionaries in Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The pontiff, in a document issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative), returned Father Tomislav Vlasic to the lay state and dispensed him from his religious vows as a member of the Order of Friars Minor.

Vlasic was confined to a Franciscan monastery in L’Aquila, Italy, in February 2008 after he refused to cooperate in a Vatican investigation of his activities for suspected heresy and schism.

The article says in conclusion:

But three church commissions failed to find evidence to support the visionaries’ claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared in 1991 that “it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.”

In 1985, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the doctrinal congregation and now Pope Benedict, banned official, diocesan or parish-sponsored pilgrimages to the shrine. However, individual Catholics are still free to visit and have a priest with them.

You’ve probably already seen these types of reports, so your conscience is moving you in line with the mind of the Church. Best of luck with your pastor. Maybe he is not well-informed about this.

 

[robwar]

what does your priest think and contact the Bishop.

 

[pablope]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

I do know that Medjugorje is a controversial topic, therefore I don’t want to get into a discussion about the validity or not of the apparitions, just whether a parish website should be making official connections to sites that promote them.

My suggestion is…I would talk to your priest a second time, relay your concerns about what you had found out about Medjugorje…that it is not yet Vatican approved, and the local bishop has not approved the apparitions…just be honest and open and say your doubts and concerns to your parish priest…if he still says it should go…then put the disclaimers as others have suggested.

 

[Margy1948]

I run the parish website (entirely under my control, at my own expense, etc) and today I have been asked to include on it links to sites promoting the Medjugorje phenomenon.

Should a parish website be in the business of making an official link to these sites, given that the apparitions of Medjugorje have not been approved by the Church (and, indeed, been often rejected by Mudjugorje’s local Ordinaries) ?

Basically, is it licit for the parish to make a formal connection to such things? Doesn’t it imply that the apparitions are approved and sanctioned by the Church?

If I saw those links on a parish website I certainly WOULD assume that the links had been approved by the Church.
So if they are there a disclaimer should also appear right underneath.

 

[DexUK]

I have put this disclaimer immediately under the site in question: “Note that the Medjugorje apparitions are not officially approved by the Church. This link is provided for interest only”
and I have put it in a section of links entitled: “Other sites of interest” rather than ‘Church links’

At the top of the page above all the links, I have added “Please note that external websites, other than official Church ones, are not formally endorsed by the Parish and we cannot guarantee their accuracy or compliance with Catholic teaching.” - and I am clearly indicating which links are official church ones.

I haven’t uploaded the new page yet, as I’m still considering the exact wording.

 

[larsont7]

I have put this disclaimer immediately under the site in question: “Note that the Medjugorje apparitions are not officially approved by the Church. This link is provided for interest only”
and I have put it in a section of links entitled: “Other sites of interest” rather than ‘Church links’

At the top of the page above all the links, I have added “Please note that external websites, other than official Church ones, are not formally endorsed by the Parish and we cannot guarantee their accuracy or compliance with Catholic teaching.” - and I am clearly indicating which links are official church ones.

I haven’t uploaded the new page yet, as I’m still considering the exact wording.

If you’re going to go that far, you may as well include sites opposing the apparitions as well: catholicapologetics.info/catholicteaching/privaterevelation/medjugo.html

IF/Until the apparitions are approved, I would tread very carefully on what you put on your website. Being the webmaster for your parish actually carries quite a bit of responsibility, since anyone who attends/visits your parish could be influenced by what you put on the website. Granted, your disclaimers should be enough, but many people ignore those and go right to the links.

 

[LilyM]

I wouldn’t see it as an approval by the parish, any more than I think the parish is approving or endorsing the sponsors on the back of our parish bullentin. You could always make a disclaimer, that any links on the website are for information purposes only and in no way mean the parish is officially endorsing the sites.

So if Planned Parenthood wanted to advertise in your Church bulletin you’d be fine with it?

 

[DavidFilmer]

So if Planned Parenthood wanted to advertise in your Church bulletin you’d be fine with it?

I understand your question, but I think it is unfair.

I was the Bulletin Editor for my ultra-traditional Western-province Dominican Parish for six years. Each Tuesday, I picked up a “packet” of material which I formatted into a Word .doc file which I delivered by Noon the following Thursday for approval and publication.

I was assured that the “packet” material had been vetted by both the Prior and the Pastor. There were a few (VERY few) articles that made me a little uncomfortable, but it was not for me (the editor) to pass judgement on the nature of the content, which had been approved by those to whom I had pledged obedience.

I frequently (ie, almost always) reworded content for publication, and I occasionally added my own clarifications by my own initiative, but I never once completely omitted any article that was submitted to me, and I would have never done so without consulting the Pastor. My copy was always subject to approval by the Parish Office Manager and Pastor, who could add their own edits (but seldom ever did).

 

[Michael_Allen]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in.

I think if it is to be a parish website, and not your website about the parish, then I would follow the priest’s instruction as the leader of your parish. If you can’t let the parish priest decide what goes in then perhaps, and I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh, you shouldn’t be running a parish website.

 

[larsont7]

I think if it is to be a parish website, and not your website about the parish, then I would follow the priest’s instruction as the leader of your parish. If you can’t let the parish priest decide what goes in then perhaps, and I hope this doesn’t sound too harsh, you shouldn’t be running a parish website.

So, as LilyM suggested, if the priest wants him to put in a Planned Parenthood ad, he should just do it? I’m in no way equating Medjugorje with Planned Parenthood, but I definitely think one should be cautious on what places on a diocesan parish’s website (especially something as controversial as Medjugorje). If anything, he should speak with the bishop and follow his instructions.

 

[Sister_Terese]

A parishioner made the request and the priest said it should go in. However, this appears to go against the spirit of what the Vatican has said about appearing to give official approval of what it currently designates as ‘private revelations’.

So rather than just opposing the priest outright on the basis of my individual interpretation of what I’ve read, I want to find out if I’m even correct in my summation.

I do know that Medjugorje is a controversial topic, therefore I don’t want to get into a discussion about the validity or not of the apparitions, just whether a parish website should be making official connections to sites that promote them.

Rest assured, Medjugorje is false and is of the devil. The Church will NEVER approve this satanic cult no matter how many rosaries turn to gold, how many healings are claimed, or no matter how many people return to the faith because of it. (The devil will always sacrifice a few for in order to draw into error the many.) Popularity has absolutely nothing to do with authenticity. Only the Church can approve apparitions. BTW, why would our Blessed Mother tell a priest to disobey his bishop? Only if the apparition is NOT Our Lady.

 

[Sister_Terese]

I would find a way to also diplomatically add the reminder that these alleged apparitions are not approved by the Church. People I know who are Medjugorje enthusiasts hate it when I remind them of that, but someone has to be the adult in the room.

A simple question to pose to them would be: WOULD OUR LADY ADVISE A PRIEST TO DISOBEY HIS BISHOP? With either yes or no answer, they have destroyed their own argument. The medjugorje apparition told one of the Franciscan priests, when he was told by the local Bishop of Mostar to cease promoting this apparition, to disobey the Bishop. Never, ever in any authentic apparition of Our Lady or any other saint has there been an admonition to disobey Church authorities. Never.

 

[Sister_Terese]

Here’s a link for you.

LONDON (CNS) – Pope Benedict XVI has laicized a Franciscan priest who served as the spiritual adviser to the Marian visionaries in Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The pontiff, in a document issued “motu proprio” (on his own initiative), returned Father Tomislav Vlasic to the lay state and dispensed him from his religious vows as a member of the Order of Friars Minor.

Vlasic was confined to a Franciscan monastery in L’Aquila, Italy, in February 2008 after he refused to cooperate in a Vatican investigation of his activities for suspected heresy and schism.

The article says in conclusion:

But three church commissions failed to find evidence to support the visionaries’ claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared in 1991 that “it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.”

In 1985, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then prefect of the doctrinal congregation and now Pope Benedict, banned official, diocesan or parish-sponsored pilgrimages to the shrine. However, individual Catholics are still free to visit and have a priest with them.

You’ve probably already seen these types of reports, so your conscience is moving you in line with the mind of the Church. Best of luck with your pastor. Maybe he is not well-informed about this.

It was either this priest or another Franciscan in the same group who impregnated a young girl while still a priest in good standing. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” Indeed!