A PRIEST DEBUNKS MEDJUGORJE APPARITION CLAIMS
Has the Virgin Mary, under the title of Our Lady, Queen of Peace been appearing in Medjugorje in the former Yugoslavia since 1981? Six young people have reported these visions and have been subjected to tests.
One thing that is expected of real apparitions from God is the miracle cure. Lourdes reports many. Medjugorje is able to find none that matches Lourdes standard and that is saying something.
Here is an answer to Deacon Thomas Müller an avid supporter of Medjugorje.
Fr. Hauke responds to criticism from Medjugorje supporters (updated)
Apparitions and Mystical Phenomena
Sunday, 21 February 2010 12:33
Richard Chonak
(UPDATE 2/25: See the end of this article for an update on Thomas Müller’s
remarks. Theologian Fr. Manfred Hauke’s recent interview with the Tagespost
Catholic newspaper has drawn a lot of attention since it was published on
January 15.
The interview on the subject of Marian apparitions and the Medjugorje affair was
picked up by news sites in Germany, Austria, the U.S., and Argentina.
Recognizing the value of Fr. Hauke’s contribution in moving the debate forward,
Dutch- and Spanish-speaking sites translated all or part of the interview.
Outrage from offended followers of the Medjugorje visions was swift too: here
in America, a Yale graduate student titled his rant “Theologian Manfred Hauke
flunks Medjugorje 101“. That text was copied to other websites and offered
through the Google news service. Since then, the author seems to have felt some
shame at his insult and changed the title of the commentary.
Christian Stelzer, a member of the “Oasis of Peace” community which illicitly
operates in Medjugorje, countered the interview with a set of rather pat denials
[in German] about some of Fr. Hauke’s points. He pointed vigorously at the
medical studies of the seers, as if they could produce a theological proof, but
he did not even address the most critical argument against the messages: that
some contain false doctrine.
From Germany, where the interview first appeared, a transitional deacon by the
name of Thomas Müller attacked the professor on the news site kath.net, which
promotes the alleged apparitions, accusing him of “spreading lies and
half-truths” and of unscrupulously considering “any means correct”. Müller
writes:
It is frightening how lightly Prof. Hauke calls for the “love of truth”, but
spreads complete lies and half-truths himself in this interview, and silences
known facts. Through it all, he sets about to mix with Medjugorje negative
incidents which have nothing to do with it.
The high point, then, is the indirect conclusion that the fruitfulness of
Medjugorje, which has been unique in the world in relation to conversions,
vocations, the revival of the sacrament of penance, the rosary, and love for the
Eucharist, comes from the work of the Devil and that the messages represent a
spiritualistic phenomenon. This is an insult to God, since Hauke is thereby
saying that the Devil, in order to deceive the Church, is more fruitful than the
Holy Spirit.
[my translation –RC]
Clearly this is a man in high dudgeon, and not above putting words in other
people’s mouths.
(Here is a machine-generated translation of Müller’s denunciation, for those who
cannot read the original.)
But, as St. Paul teaches, all things work together for good, for those who love
God. These overwrought and reckless offerings have done a service for the
Church, by revealing the depth of illusion, of denial, even sometimes prelest,
if I may say so, generated by the false mysticism of Medjugorje.
Professor Hauke, in turn, has replied to this criticism with a statement that
backs up his assertions. In the face of outrage, he is calling for more
objectivity and scholarly prudence. The German original of his response is on
kath.net, and an English translation follows here:
An Appeal for Objectivity
A response by Prof. Manfred Hauke to Thomas Müller’s critique of his interview
on Medjugorje
For years there has been a contentious debate about the so-called “Marian
apparitions” of the seers who originated from Medjugorje. The current official
position of the Church is still the 1991 declaration of the Yugoslav Bishops
Conference, which emphasizes: “non constat de supernaturalitate”, i.e. it cannot
be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelation.
The local Bishop Ratko Perić goes beyond this affirmation and has emphasized his
conviction, according to which it has been established that the pertinent
phenomena are not of supernatural origin. Among Catholic Christians, it should
be possible to discuss the questions connected with this matter objectively. My
interview in the Tagespost, which has been propagated in various languages since
then, was a contribution to this very necessary discussion. If it should happen
that I have, in the process, repeated any false information, I am ready and
willing to correct these errors. Thus far I do not see any reason for
corrections.
In any case, I am shocked over the unobjective reactions of certain followers of
the Medjugorje movement, who ascribe bad intentions and “lies” to me. To “lie”
means to consciously state a falsehood. In my scholarly career of nearly thirty
years now I have fought out many battles and have had to bear many criticisms,
for example the polemics of a “woman priest” ordained somewhere on the Danube
between Linz and Passau, in the magazine Publik-Forum. But even in these circles
no one has ascribed a “lie” to me so far, or a presumption “that the end
justifies the means”. Such reactions are character assassination. Among these,
sadly, is the contribution of Deacon Thomas Müller, which appeared in kath.net
(18 Feb.). Deacon Müller, who has published a master’s thesis (“Diplom” in
German) on Medjugorje, asserts that I have spread “complete lies and
half-truths” in my interview and that I “set about” “to mix with Medjugorje
negative incidents that have nothing to do with it.” He speaks of “untruths and
distortions”. Because I, on the basis of the facts presented to me, consider the
possibility that the visions come from the workings of the evil one, I am even
accused of an “insult to God”. These accusations are very grave.
I have been to Medjugorje myself and, in the mid-’80s, believed in the
authenticity of the “Marian apparitions” there. Because of a great number of
indicators, which have increased with the passage of the years, I have reached
the conviction that the visionary experiences of the seers in Medjugorje cannot
be due to the working of God. This conviction has been shared in the meantime by
numerous Christians who have followed a similar path. In the meantime there is
an extensive international literature on the subject pointing in the same
direction. This literature, which I was not able to thoroughly cite in my
interview, has mostly appeared in the English and French languages. In contrast
Müller’s thesis, with which I am acquainted, limits itself to the narrow horizon
of titles then available in the German language. For example, it omits the
important work of the Franciscan Father Ivo Sivrić, born in Medjugorje, who
cites a great quantity of sources (over 200 pages), among which are
tape-recording transcripts of the seers’ statements from the first days of the
“apparitions” (La face cachée de Medjugorje, Saint-François-du Lac (Canada),
1988; in English: The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, Saint-François-du Lac (Canada),
1989). How can someone write a scholarly work on Medjugorje without reaching
back to these critically edited sources? In the face of such facts, the
accusation by a master’s-level theologian against a theology professor with a
post-doctoral habilitation, that he was not working in a scholarly manner,
leaves me astonished. I can document all my assertions sufficiently, but to
demand a full scholarly apparatus from a newspaper interview is to confuse the
literary genre of the newspaper with a journal article in which there is room
for footnotes.
Before I go into the individual accusations, I would like to establish that
Müller does not address the central problem points I mentioned at all. Among
these are the seers’ statements preserved in the tape-recording transcripts.
Prominently, on June 30, 1981, the last appearance of the “Gospa” was announced
to be on July 3 (cf. Sivrić 1989, pp. 346ff., 381; see also the critical
discussion in Donal A. Foley, Understanding Medjugorje , Nottingham, 2006, pp.
70-84; Joachim Bouflet, Ces dix jours qui ont fait Medjugorje, Tours, 2007, pp.
147-175). At the sixth “apparition”, on June 29, 1981, the “Gospa” announced the
healing of four-year-old Daniel Setka, which, however, never happened in fact
(cf. Ivan Zeljko, Marienerscheinungen …, Hamburg, 2004, pp. 69, 155, 310;
Bouflet, 2007, pp. 135-138). Müller also does not go into the theological
problems of many “messages”, and just as little into the differences from
Lourdes, Fatima, and Guadalupe, where obvious miracles, recognized by the
Church, confirmed the Marian apparitions. If false prophecies and erroneous
teachings can be found in the statements attributed to the “Gospa” by the
visionaries, those messages cannot come from God. If in the messages just one
“horse’s foot” is found, which can be traced back unequivocally to an external
reality which is provoking the visions, and not to the seers’ subjectivity, then
those errors stem from the evil one. It is, at basis, similar to a filename in a
computer: a single error in typing the filename makes it impossible to access
the file. Thomas Müller does not seem to have understood this problem.
Furthermore, the fruits of grace connected with pilgrimages cannot in any case
neutralize the “rat poison” that is contained in deceptive messages. The fruits
of grace experienced in Medjugorje are certainly not to be ascribed to the
Devil, but to the goodness of God, who hears the trusting prayers of human
beings. These good fruits (next to which there are also negative effects in
Medjugorje) cannot by themselves alone prove the supernatural origin of a
visionary phenomenon.
Müller’s reference to the sensus fidei of the People of God does not bring any
solution for judging Medjugorje, because Marian apparitions, according to the
declaration of Pope Benedict XIV, do not constitute an object of the divine
virtue of Faith. In regard to the position of Pope John Paul II, let it be
recalled that he consciously avoided taking a public stand on the matter (cf.
Foley, 2006, pp. 175ff.). The remarks mentioned in the work of Slawomir Oder are
of a private nature and do not claim the authority of the Petrine office.
In seven points Müller claims to set right my “greatest untruths and
distortions”.
(1) The first point addresses the so-called “little war” in Medjugorje,
according to which there are said to have been 140 dead and 600 refugees during
conflicts among three family clans in Medjugorje in 1991 and 1992. This
information rests not only on press reports, but finds its confirmation in the
study by Mart Bax, now emeritus professor of political anthropology at
Amsterdam, Medjugorje: Religion, Politics, and Violence in Rural Bosnia
(Anthropological Studies, Vol 16) , Amsterdam, 1995 (cf. also his “Warlords,
Priests and the Politics of Ethnic Cleansing: a Case-Study from Rural Bosnia“,
in Ethnic and Racial Studies 23, 1/2000, pp. 16-36). For his studies, Mart Bax
spent several weeks each year in Medjugorje for many years and counts, if I see
things aright, as a serious scholar. By itself, that doesn’t settle the
correctness of every detail in his studies, but for me it seems hard to imagine
that the great amount of information on the “little war” which he has presented
should be mere invention. Müller’s assertion is not correct: “In 2008, this
untrue story was deleted from the Wikipedia article because, by the measures
indicated, it lacks any veracity.” Leaving aside the point that Wikipedia
articles do not fulfill the requirements of strict scholarship, the German
Wikipedia article before me states something different: “The credibility of this
passage of his [Mart Bax’s] book was called into question in August 2008 in the
Croatian and German press, and the conjecture was expressed that this report was
an invention or was based on false information.”
(http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mart_Bax, retrieved on Feb. 18, 2010). Here Müller
makes a “conjecture” by journalists into a historical fact. Besides that, it
seems quite naive to me to deduce the non-existence of a crime from an inquiry
of village residents: with that kind of search for truth, one will be able to
conclude, for many villages in Sicily, that there has never been a Mafia crime
there. Müller says to the contrary, “All the contemporary witnesses testify
unanimously that it [the ‘little war’] never existed.” Does Müller know “all the
contemporary witnesses”? If Bax’s historical study really can be disproved, I’m
ready and willing to accept such a disproof. Besides, for a positive or negative
evaluation of the Medjugorje phenomenon the existence of the “little war” is
only an incidental factor.
(2) Müller accuses me of two “false statements” about Fr. Jozo Zovko (to be
precise, there are three). 1. According to Müller, it is not true that Zovko was
“forbidden any contact with Medjugorje by his superiors.” Against this stands
the fact of a whole row of decrees by the Bishop of Mostar. The last decree is
from June 26, 2004. It contains a long list of preceding sanctions and
emphasizes that Zovko may not conduct any pastoral activities in the Diocese of
Mostar. In November 2009, the Provincialate of the Franciscans of
Bosnia-Herzegovina ordered the transfer of Fr. Zovko to Austria. The entire
proceeding can be read on the website of the diocese (www.cbismo.com), and in
Italian translation with numerous additional details on twelve pages of the
website of the Medjugorje specialist Marco Corvaglia
(http://marcocorvaglia.blog.lastampa.it/mcor/la-ver.html, cf. the published book
Marco Corvaglia, Medjugorje: è tutto falso, Torino, 2007). 2. According to
Müller, my reference to “grave moral accusations” against Zovko is “nothing but
a evil, slanderous rumor.” In the Bishop’s document of June 26, 2004, it is
stated: “You are not authorized to conduct priestly activity in any form in the
territory of the dioceses of Mostar-Duvno and Trebinje-Mrkan; in particular, you
do not have the faculty of hearing the confessions of the faithful. As diocesan
bishop, I invite you once again, to bring your priestly status into order…. Upon
your written request, I can show you here in Mostar the entire documentation at
hand which is available in the bishop’s office, even in connection with your
moral life.”[!] 3. Müller additionally writes: “Also, the claim that Fr. Jozo
was a spiritual advisor to the seers for years is, on closer examination, not
tenable”, because he has not been in Medjugorje since 1981. Against this is the
fact that the above-cited documents of the bishop refer, for example, to the
pastoral activity of Zovko in the parish of Siroki Brijeg, which is located in
the diocese of Mostar, about thirty kilometers from Medjugorje. Zovko maintained
contact with the seers very well through the intervening years, for example, at
the annual meetings in the Mazda Palace in Milan up to the year 2008. For this
reason, Fr. Zovko is regularly presented in the Italian-speaking area as the
“padre spirituale” (spiritual father) of the seers.
(3) In relation to Fr. Tomislav Vlasić, Müller also accuses me of “half-truths
and slander”. He states that Vlasić did not work in Medjugorje until 1988, but
only until 1984. Against this I would point out that Vlasić only lived in
Medjugorje from August 1981 to September 1984, but he stayed there often in the
following years, until he transferred his residence to Italy. Evidence for this
is available, among other places, at
http://marcocorvaglia.blog.lastampa.it/mcor/tomislav-vlasic-era-il-padre-spirituale-dei-veggenti-le-prove.html.
Anyway, Müller himself admits that Vlasić then set on “a strange and lamentable
path.” About the “mystical marriage” with Agnes Heupel, he says: “but to connect
[it] with the Mother of God or the seer Marija Pavlović, is shameless and
borders on character assassination, since the seer has repeatedly made clear in
response to queries, that she had nothing to do with it.” Against this I would
point out: Marija Pavlović issued a declaration in the Croatian and Italian
languages on July 11, 1988, according to which she retracted her statements of
April 21, 1988. She said that her first statement did not correspond to the
truth. “I never asked the holy Virgin for her blessing for the undertaking begun
by Fr. Tomislav V. and Agnes Heupel. I personally did not have approval to issue
any kind of written statement. But Fr. Tomislav V. suggested to me again and
again and pressured me again and again, that I as a ‘seer’ should write the
declaration that the world was waiting for.” (E.M. Jones, The Medjugorje
Deception , South Bend, 1988, p. 144.) In other words, the “seer” is publicly
admitting to having lied in the name of the Mother of God.
(4) Additionally, Müller accuses me of “dishonest conflations”, on the ground
that the suspension of nine Franciscans in the Mostar diocese had nothing to do
with Medjugorje. To the contrary, the disobedience toward the Bishop presents a
continuation of the disobedience of two Franciscans from 1981 and 1982, who
appealed to the repeated statements of the “Gospa” reported to them by Vicka,
according to which it was not necessary to carry out the Bishop’s directives
(cf. the texts from the episcopal archive of Mostar in Michael Davies,
Medjugorje after Twenty-One Years, 2002, updated version 2004, pp. 214-218:
http://www.mdaviesonmedj.com).
(5) What Müller means with the accusation of “mixing up mysticism and
charismaticism” is not clear to me. I did not treat the two realities (mystics
and charismas) as identical.
(6) Müller asserts that I called for “psychological” investigation of the seers,
in order to investigate their mental condition. These investigations have
already taken place, he says. To the contrary, my interview expresses no doubts
about the psychological health of the seers and also does not call for any
corresponding investigation. The reference to psychological health relates to
the question from the Tagespost about the criteria for Marian apparitions in
general. Müller then mentions the medical investigations of the seers during
ecstasies and gives the opinion: “These scientific results are flatly ignored by
Hauke.” It is correct that my interview does not name the works he mentions,
which are very well known to me (cf. my contribution on Medjugorje in Sedes
Sapientiae. Mariologisches Jahrbuch 9, 1/2005, pp. 159-174, in particular
166ff.), but they do not suffice for the evaluation of the Medjugorje
phenomenon. Those investigations can at best ascertain that the visions are
dependent on an extra-mental factor: this factor can be the Mother of God, or
also a deceptive spiritual being. For example, there are ecstasies and visions
in spiritualism. Besides the extra-mental explanation, the relevant literature
on the subject also includes indications of a psychogenic dimension of the
ecstasies (cf. the discussion of the works of Joyeux et al., in Foley,
Understanding Medjugorje, 145-155; Corvaglia, 2007).