Bishop Zanic was an honest campaigner against the lying "visions" of Medjugorje
The Bishop responsible for Medjugorje where six young people claimed to be getting regular messages from Jesus's mother in visions banned the claims. He received a lot of hate from people and disobedience from the visionaries in return. Disobedience to a bishop is against the Catholic faith except when the bishop starts to say the faith is wrong.
In 1981, on June 24th, a strange report heralded the
beginning of the Medjugorje industry. Six children reported seeing a shape
standing up a hill. The next day four of these with a few others went back to
the hill and they got a closer look at the figure who said she was the Virgin
Mary. Soon the Lady began to appear to them in the parish Church of Medjugorje.
The seers are: Vicka Ivankovic, Mirjana Dragicevic, Marija Pavlovic, Ivan
Dragicevic, Ivanka Ivankovic and Jakov Colo. She gave them ten secrets which
prophesy the future. Only some of the visionaries report seeing the Lady on a
daily basis. The Lady stopped appearing to the rest except on special occasions.
The visions have been condemned by two diocesan bishops, bishops of Mostar who
alone have been declared by Rome and “infallible” Catholic tradition to have the
authority to pronounce upon the vision. The bishop in the Catholic system is the
successor of the apostles while the pope is the successor of the apostles and
also one specific apostle, Peter. The authority of the apostles to run the
Church both in discipline and in caring for the faith has been transmitted to
the bishops in an apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles
which is why laypeople cannot ordain bishops.
Medjugorians make out that the bishops are acting in bad faith which justifies
their ignoring them. But even then they have to be obeyed for that is what the
rule about obedience is for: making you do what you are told even if you think
the bishop is wrong or in bad faith for the sake of unity and order in the
Church. If you keep thinking the bishop is wrong or deceiving and that entitles
you to disobey, there is no point in him asking for your obedience. Jesus would
then have been a fool for setting up the apostles and bishops to lead the flock.
Fr Michael O Carroll who is a member of the Pontifical Marian Academy and of the
French Society for Marian Studies is a promoter of Medjugorje. He has joined
with the devious Fr Rene Laurentin to do it and his praise for him knows no
bounds.
Fr O Carroll’s book is called Medjugorje, Facts, Documents and Theology and was
published by Veritas of Dublin.
He quotes the official doctrine of the Church of Rome as expressed by Benedict
XIV: “It should be known that the approval given by the Church to a private
revelation is nothing but permission granted, after an attentive inquiry, to
make known this revelation for the enlightenment and good of the faithful. Even
when these revelations are approved by the Church they should not be given the
assent of Catholic faith. Nevertheless they should be given an assent of human
faith, following the rules of prudence by which such revelations are probable or
believable for pious reasons…
Without prejudice to the integrity of Catholic faith a person may withhold his
assent to such revelations and withdraw from them provided he does so with due
modesty, not without reason and without contempt” (page 9). In a Church decree
issued in 1877 by the Congregation of Rites in Rome it was stated, “The
Apostolic See has neither approved or condemned such apparitions or revelations
but merely permits Catholics to believe in them – where they have the support of
credible witnesses and documents – with a purely human faith”.
[Note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church, article 66-67, reads: Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries...Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history...Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment." Comment: Medjugorje with its ten secrets is by default trying to surpass!]
Is Zanic a Liar?
Chapter 6 of Fr O Carroll’s book relates Bishop Zanic’s objections to Medjugorje
and attempts to refute them.
I find it impossible to believe O Carroll that the bishop really thought the
messages about conversion and peace were absurd (page 108).
The bishop disbelieved in the visions because the Virgin said that her last
appearance was to take place in 1981 but she kept on appearing.
The reply to this is that the visionaries were asked to move the apparition into
the Church and Mirjana said that there was no point for the visions were to end
next Friday which was the third of July 1981 (110). Fr Jozo Zovko asked her if
the Virgin said that and she said they assumed it for they read it in a book and
it happened in Lourdes. It is improbable that they all assumed such a thing and
did not ask the Virgin. Why didn’t the Virgin tell them they were wrong in case
enemies of the apparition would spread disbelief over it? They decided to end
the hoax and changed their minds after they announced the end. That is the
logical explanation. The Bishop is accused of being wrong when he said that a
number of priests were there during the allegedly last apparition but the book
says only Jozo was there. That is difficult to believe. There would have been
more priests than that especially when the bishop had no objection to the vision
at that time.
A tape made of an interview with the visionaries has Mirjana admitting that the
Virgin told her the visions would end that Friday. The vision was unable to make
up her mind if she wanted to go to the Church instead of the hill Podbrdo (The
Medjugorje Deception, page 79). The real Virgin would have been able to make up
her mind. She would have known of the suggestion to appear in the Church before
it was mentioned to her so she would have had time to think.
The bishop stated that Fr Zovko was one of those who were behind the hoax and
the book says that Zovko was once strictly opposed to the apparitions
(Medjugorje, Facts Documents, Theology, page 111). That is certainly a lie for
when he is so supportive now of a false apparition it is hard to believe he
would have opposed a real one. His opposition would have been necessary in case
anybody would trace the origin of the apparitions to him so it was an act to
cover his tracks.
The bishop said that Fr Vlasic was one of the hoaxers who started the whole
thing too. The book simply gives the astonishing argument that he was thirty
kilometres away from Medjugorje at the start as a sufficient refutation! (111).
The bishop said first that nobody was influencing the children and later that
they were like robots. But the reason for this change of heart is not stated and
that is unfair. When the children began saying the Virgin was criticising the
bishop and taking the side of the suspended Franciscans it was clear to the
bishop that the children were being manipulated.
Page 114 argues that it was ridiculous for the bishop to say that the visions
were from Satan for there were so many prayers, confessions and conversions
because of them. Do the conversions and prayers and self-sacrifices of the Hare
Krishnas prove that they are right?
The same page confesses that the Virgin did not resolve the dispute between the
Franciscans and the bishop except how she has kind of resolved it by calling on
all to convert and live in peace (114). This is the answer to the fact that the
apparition promised that this would be fully rectified (112). But it is then
claimed by the book that it would have been fixed but for the bishop’s
impatience (113). So, much for not judging. Sometimes people in power have to be
impatient and can make mistakes and be misinformed. The Virgin made a promise
and it failed. And calling to conversion is no way of solving a dispute.
The bishop said that the blame for the religious division in his diocese rested
wholly with the Franciscans (115). O Carroll says that there was no problem when
the order served Hercegovina when their bishop fled from the Turks and set up a
diocese or when they allowed secular clergy in. He gets sarcastic and asks if
they are expected to wish they did not exist. That is his answer to the bishop.
But the past has nothing do with what is happening in Zanic’s time. If the
bishop is in authority the Franciscans have to be to blame.
Page 115, asks why the Virgin cannot accuse the bishop of being rash when that
is what he is. But she has her Holy Spirit. Why can’t he discreetly make this
seen? It is better for her to say nothing and not to judge and to let people be
guided by the Spirit and find out for themselves. There was no evidence for the
reality of the apparitions at this time meaning that she had no right to ask the
world to take her word for it. She was the one that was rash.
Page 116 responds to the bishop’s assertion that Vicka said in August 1981 that
a big sign would be performed soon and that they must be patient so that is a
lie for it never took place. O Carroll says that in prophetic style even a
thousand years can be described as one day and that soon could be a long time
for us. The only excuse for such a view is the fact that the Bible often said
that this and that was near and it never happened and hasn’t taken place yet.
God would not wrap up prophecy in such empty and confusing language. Christians
change the meaning of words when prophecies fail. The Bible never justifies this
practice. The Christians ignore the fact that when God speaks to us the purpose
is to make us understand. He talks to us as if he were looking at things from
our point of view. You interpret things according to how the audience understood
them for the speaker would be trying to make the audience understand. Soon then
means soon. The Virgin never explained that soon did not mean soon and she was
not reciting scripture but giving messages so why would she use soon in the
scriptural sense? There is no evidence that the visionaries knew at that time of
arguments like O Carroll’s. That is why O Carroll cannot give us a quote or
anything to justify his interpretation. The bishop is the intelligent one in
this matter. A woman called Mara Jerkovic made a statement about the sign and
the bishop had regard for her testimony for it was unfavourable. O Carroll
writes her off as a gossip (117). He gives no evidence that she really is one or
cannot be trusted.
The visionaries told the bishop that the Virgin confirmed that a story that a
bloody handkerchief would have brought the last judgment on the world had it not
been given to her was true (83). O Carroll makes no attempt to refute this so it
must be true. It refutes the apparitions for the story is silly in the extreme.
The apparition’s behaviour was bizarre. The Virgin was roaring with laughter one
time she simply said she would sort out the dispute between the Franciscans and
the diocese. There was nothing funny in it. The Lady then told the visionaries
to laugh. At least, that was their explanation to the people who saw them
laughing (81-82). This sounds like the vision was a joke or a hallucination.
They would not have laughed with the Virgin if they saw anything but at her.
Perhaps they thought she was mad. O Carroll passes over that too. He ignores
anything embarrassing.
The bishop and the two Franciscans, Vego and Prusina, were in disagreement. The
bishop suspended them from their priestly duties. Page 89 says the Virgin said,
"The bishop has none of the real love of God for those two." This is quoted by
Zanic but O Carroll does not question its authenticity. Though an apparition
cannot criticise a bishop as an apparition cannot have the same authority as
Jesus gave the Church, she might have said, "The bishop lacks some of the real
love of God for those two." That was better than completely demonising the
bishop.
Page 119 says that the bishop regarded Vicka, Grafenauer and Vlasic as the
witnesses to the infamous diary of Vicka in which the messages were recorded
that she is so ashamed of now. All three claimed that there was no diary. Vlasic
swore on the cross that this was so and that he had never seen it. Was he a
perjurer? Grafenauer stated that he had not the courage to tell the bishop that
he never saw the book until much later (118). I would take this as proof that he
did see something. Why not correct the bishop immediately? The bishop is accused
of lying and saying that this man was a witness to the diary even after he was
corrected. But how do you know that Grafenauer did not see the diary and
regretted mentioning it? The man was a supporter of the apparitions.
Grafenauer is unreliable for he made a recording of a dialogue with Vicka in
which she says that the Virgin opposed the pope in banning Vego and Prusina from
hearing confessions. Still, he supported the apparitions after a strong initial
opposition to them.
The bishop is criticised for condemning the apparitions because of the number of
visionaries.
Apart from the six there are forty-seven other claimants. O Carroll says that
they might all be genuine but argues that the visions to the six are real so if
the rest are frauds that does not harm the case for the six (121). None of the
forty-six were tested by science.
The visionaries were proven to have lied to the bishop. The Lady stood up for a
priest who was accused of fathering a child by a nun and it was later found that
the accusation was true. The bishop of the diocese where the apparition happens
is the one who has to decide if anything supernatural is happening and if it is
from God and yet this Lady counsels disobedience. Catholic doctrine going back
to the time of Ignatius of Antioch at the beginning of the second century
insists that whoever disobeys a legitimate order of the bishop separates himself
from Christ and the Church. Catholics might say that the bishop is wrong and
should not be obeyed but apparitions are subordinate to Church authority. Mary
would not appear in a diocese if it would lead to trouble with the bishop. She
certainly would not threaten the bishop with divine vengeance as the visionaries
reported she had done on June 21st 1983 in which she said he has to convert to
belief in the events of the Medjugorje parish or else. That was an attempt to
bias the bishop in the apparitions favour by scaring him. The real Virgin could
not do that for the Church leaves it up to each person to decide even when it
approves of an apparition if that apparition really was from God.
FINALLY
The feet of the Virgin Mary have never touched Medjugorje.
The logic in this book should be applied to similar cases. Let it stand as a
warning that people can be so persuasive and seem sincere and still be leading
you astray. It shows the madness of letting religious figures like Jesus and
Mary have the final say in what you decide to do.
It is easier to prove that an apparition is false for only one mistake tells the
tale than to prove that it is true and has the hallmarks of a divine origin for
faith itself demands complicated evidence.
Medjugorje offends the Catholic faith and refutes it if it is genuine for it
demands belief and if the Catholic faith is true then Medjugorje is false. The
Bible says that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. It says that
Jesus was the perfect man and intercessor and saviour and there is no need for
the Med Virgin to be another mediator. Medjugorje is certainly more convincing
than the gospel accounts of the risen Jesus appearing to the disciples. Hoax or
not, it is clearly proof that something that is without authority from Jesus
though it uses his name has done better than he ever could. Evangelicals cannot
use the gospels to prove or give convincing evidence for Christianity when
something has went into competition with their Jesus and won.
A Christian writer tells us, "When one analyzes many of the alleged miracles that accompany Marian apparitions, they seem to be of a different kind than those found in Scripture. This is true of biblical miracles as a whole, as well as the miracles in Jesus' public ministry. When did Jesus ever make the sun dance or crosses spin? All of His miracles were done in the context of ministry. Biblical miracles had a strong practical aspect. Many of the miracles associated with Marian apparitions seem dramatic and sensational; attention-getting if you will -- the kind of miracles that Jesus consistently refused to perform (Matt. 12:38-39). This is a good reason to at least suspect the source of these miracles."