On the question of Medjugorje, he highlights the difference between the phenomena there, and those at Gaudeloupe, Lourdes and Fatima, and makes the point that good fruits do not necessarily prove a supernatural origin. He mentions also negative fruits, saying:
One of those is the encouragement given to two Franciscan friars, who were urged by the seer Vicka in the name of the "Gospa" to set themselves against the canonically legitimate directives of the local bishop regarding their pastoral activity. At the repeated exhortations of the "Gospa" to disobedience (13 times), the ordinary at the time, Bishop Zanic, who had been originally inclined favorably to the Medjugorje phenomenon, reacted with very understandable rejection.He continues with a number of other instances of disobedience.
The concluding remarks in the interview are especially worthy of note:
If a new investigative commission reaches a recognition that certain characteristics indissolubly connected with the phenomenon of the apparitions speak against their authenticity, then the love of truth demands that this be made known with all clarity and that Catholic Christians be warned expressly against "pilgrimages". The principle is valid here: "bonum ex integra causa; malum ex quovis defectu" ("Good comes from an undamaged cause; bad from some kind of defect"). If a drink is mixed with rat poison, it's not sufficient to point out that it contains only two percent strychnine with 98 percent water: the whole drink has to be poured out. If the Church does not, herself, finally lance the boil that is connected with Medjugorje, then anti-Catholic groups will do the job and with pleasure. And then the patience extended to the enthusiasm of Medjugorje could become a boomerang that attacks the Church from inside, if the groups previously connected with the Bosnian "place of pilgrimage", finally disillusioned, should turn against the Faith and the Church. And that could also explain that the devil takes "good fruits" as part of doing his business in Medjugorje: if he can bring forth a vastly greater harm to the Church in the end. Pastoral love must not be separated from the love of truth.It is interesting to be able to discuss this with other priests at the theological symposium. There is a variety of views, one being that we should apply the Gamaliel approach.
24 comments:
This surely must be the most sensible thing to do - and what the Vatican is in fact doing?
Very interesting interview indeed, not least because it sheds a light on the phenomenon of apparitions in general - not a topic that your average Catholic tends to credit much or know much about.
I certainly learned a thing or two from it.
For those unfamiliar:
Then stood there up one in the council, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, high in reputation among all the people, and he said unto them: Take heed of yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men. For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves; he was slain, and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered and brought to nought. After this rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him; he also perished, and all, even as many as obeyed him, were dispersed. And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God. (Acts 5:34)
This approach was advanced by Fr. Ivan Dugandzic back in 1998.
The problem I have with this approach is that today, the Church has an abundance of things to draw on which can help her to "test the spirits".
If the Church does not know if something comes from God, and nothing is opposed to it from the phenomena, then this might be a good approach. However, if the Church has evidence to indicate that it is not of God, then love of truth must guide her in protecting the people.
Medjugorje is not the benign phenomena some dismiss it to be. I think Fr Hauke illustrates this well.
I think the local situation - the vast numbers of priests disciplined by the Holy See and Superior General of the OFM in Rome speaks volumes, especially when the "gospa" has said nothing in all these years about the invalid and sacriligeous sacraments taking place in other places within that diocese.
Over 700 children were "confirmed" by a fake bishop in one of several usurped parishes near Medjugorje, and the "gospa" has nothing to say about it?
I think the Gamaliel approach is no longer an option.
I like this article by Fr. Peter Joseph very much. I found it very helpful when thinking about Medjugorje.
I take it that by the Gamaliel approach you mean that we should hold off passing judgement and, if the matter is good, then the good will out. But, if the matter is bad, then it will collapse of its own accord.
It seems a good idea to me.
JARay
Having visited Medjugorye once and had the best confession of my life and mixed with some really devoted catholics, not fanatics, or stupic, I find Medjugorye a difficult subject. Thee are many scandals connected with the visions. I was not impressed with the seers, and it was all too airy fairy. Yet I would return again. I believe that the pilgrims are protected by Our Lady and only good sound doctrine was taught as well as the Catholic Mass and devotions. Could it not be a case of God turning good out of evil. I beleive so. If catholics went to Medjugorye and just got on with prayer and ignored the visions they would have the spiritual experience of their lives.
I would like to offer evidence on why the Gamaliel principle should not be used.
The "boomerang" Fr. Hauke speaks of is already airborne...
Here is a quote (near the end) which illustrates this.
It is very sad to see that some of the largest lies and distortions about Medjugorje are coming from a priest and a Mariologist, someone who should have the utmost responsibility in protecting the sacred, instead of vilifying it. The real question may be: what is the basis for Hauke's errors. In other words, is he lying about the facts or is he simply ignorant about the facts and, therefore, reporting on impoverished research and inadequate knowledge?
Of course, in this sense Hauke is not alone, also being highly influenced by Bishop Ratko Peric, whose anti-Medjugorje sentiments have been fervent since he replaced his (equally negative) successor Pavao Zanic. Such cases, of ill-intentioned Church authorities persecuting Catholic saints and mystics, are nothing new in our history. Bishop Cauchon in France was the Bishop who ultimately had Joan of Arc burned at the stake for experiencing apparitions. Needless to say, she was subsequently "rehabilitated" and made a Catholic Saint. Similarly, Archbishop Gagliardi in Italy hated Padre Pio, the great mystic and stigmatic, frequently slandering the friar's reputation with false rumors and claims against his sanctity. Notwithstanding, today St. Pio is one of the most prominent saints and mystics in Church history. There appears to be a rigid belief among those against Medjugorje that the local Bishop of Mostar is also "infallible." Clearly that is not the case.
This kind of trash talk about Fr. Hauke, and the Apostolic Successors in Mostar reveals a significant lack of catechesis and ignorance. It contains the kind of calumny leading others who are not catechized to have contempt for these people.
This is why the Church needs to intervene out of love for truth, and to catechize. The Bishops of Mostar have been attacked for decades. Now, they turn on this distinguished theologian who brings forth a reasonable set of thoughts and questions.
If that wasn't enough, here is more evidence for those who think Medjugorje is benign enough to continue under the Gamaliel principle:
Here are more shameful reactions to Fr. Haukes piece from Medjugorje supporters. Here is just a sampling:
What do we need an "expert" for, and how much of an expert is this Manfred Hauke really when he starts out quoting theologian Karl Rahner's (I'll save my thought-of adjectives) theory that "all apparitions are imaginative visions" - in other words: There never was an apparition as we know them. Not in Lourdes, not in Fatima, not in Medjugorje, nowhere. The Bishop of Mostar thinks the same, by the way, be it with of without the mind-spin of Karl Rahner.
and Mariology expert [with a *rolls eyes* smiley]
and The expert Mariologist is not a "liar" just misinformed which is inexcusable considering that his expertise weighs heavily in clerical circles. The man is not up in his field (therefore unprofessional) and should not be interviewed on the subject ever again.
[snip]
We are promised a great apostacy in our Church. Although no Catholic is required to believe any apparition, I think one of the issues in the "falling away" will be the authencity of Medjugorje. It would be a VERY divisive, issue between the faitlful and the bishops, especially for me, personally.
I, for one, will NEVER loose faith in Medjugorje or agree to abide by, "What ever the Church finally decides on Medjugorje we will follow", if that final ruling is anti-medjugorje
For one nasty moment I thought the picture was of the Ampleforth symposium!
Interesting but pretty biased in its own way of course..
Jackie - as biased as summaries done by pro-Medjugorje people? Fr. Hauke is in no way connected to the Medjugorje phenomenon and so cannot be accused of being either "for" or "against" the whole thing.
Also to add, it is not the Medjugorje phenomenon that the church has the duty to quell but also the likes of Vassula Ryden, who have an international gathering. Despite the fact, that her locutions has been judged twice by the CDF as not being of supernatural origin, there are those who insist on promoting her writings without warning!
It's about time someone said it. About time too that Catholics in NewChurch learn that their feelings are not the Faith.
Any person's faith built on Medjugorje is not building on rock, even if it proves true. I met a Catholic whose faith was based on the Turin shroud. We have the rock of Peter to build our faith on. I am not convinced about Medgugorje but as a Catholic it wil never be something I have to believe in. No seer has been given a vocation to holy orders but too many with holy orders connected with the apparition have been disobedient. My logic tells me very great caution is required. Cardinal Schonborn has in no way helped in acting against the wishes of the Ordinary and casting aside protocol. We should be concerned for the many good souls drawn to this phenomenon. I also find Garabandal a cause for great caution.
Thanks for writing about Fr. Hauke's interview on Medjugorje; I've posted a full English translation of it at the Catholic Light blog.
It is very encouraging to see the interest of priests in the interview and in the issues Fr. Hauke presents.
Fathers, your leadership is important in helping people to pull back from a mistaken belief in Medjugorje. A first step is that priests should simply stop endorsing the "apparition" by going there on "pilgrimages" and promoting them through parishes. Surely that is not too much to ask.
"If catholics went to Medjugorye and just got on with prayer and ignored the visions they would have the spiritual experience of their lives"
Herein the crux of the matter- what is "prayer"? Our separated brethren surely pray fervently. Where are the sacraments upon which our faith is founded? Are personal "spiritual" experiences to supercede the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as evidenced in the doctrine of the Church?
"malum ex quovis defectu"- I rather prefer "from whatever/ any kind of evil": it doesn't take much for Satan to get his claws in, to mix metaphors slightly
RC - many thanks. I meant to put in the link but was blogging in a hurry. Have put it in now.
There is a very interesting and little-known interview with Fr Benedict Groeschel on the subject of Medjugorje in Randall Sullivan's The Miracle Detective published by Time Warner books.
Universal Doctor. One thing Medjorje cannot be accused of is denying the Sacraments and preching the Catholic Faith. It is this very foundation that attracts the pilgrims.
"If catholics went to Medjugorye and just got on with prayer and ignored the visions they would have the spiritual experience of their lives"
But without the visions why go? You can pray at your local parish. It's too bad that Medjugorje was allowed to go on for so long. A lot of nice, decent people have been roped in.
So many people can't seem to separate the Rosary, frequent Mass & Confession, Eucharistic Adoration, and solid preaching from Medjugorje. This is the "Great Sign". It reads that not enough priests foster these distinctly Catholic expressions of our faith and people are flying to the other side of the world to get it.
These things are not a testimony of authenticity to an apparition, but a manifestation of what has been lacking in many parishes (I hope all of the fine priests out there who have been fostering these things (without promoting the unapproved) will not take offense because it is not aimed at them).
Does anyone know if the Traditional Latin Mass is offered regularly at Medgugore?
This would be telling.
Archbishop Lefebrve once said that when all sacredness has been sapped out of the liturgy, people will turn elsewhere for the transcendental. How true this is today?
I discovered long ago that discussions about the authenticity of Medjugorje lead nowhere. On another blog I have been described as a "modernist" (this will make some of my fellow diocesan priests chuckle) because I dared to question the writer's interpretation of something Our Lady was reported to have said, (using St. Augustine's meditation on time).
But I have also been called a "heretic" because I support Vassula Ryden. On that topic please may I correct a statement made by Hestor? The CDF did NOT say that Vassula's writings were not of supernatural origin. I refer anyone interested to a book which came out in 2007; "Christian Prophecy" by Dr. Neils Hvidt, which has a foreword by the then Cardinal Ratzinger. In the book - pages 111-118, Vassula is discussed along with the Notification and Cardinal Ratzinger's "mitigation" of the "condemnatory interpretions of the notification" (page 118 especially). I do not think the Cardinal - who knows Dr. Hvidt - would have written a foreword to a book which misrepresented him.
He said that the Notification is not a condemnation. He also told Bishop Terra, who at that time was with the Pontifical Biblical Institute and worked under the Cardinal,to "be at peace. Carry on as before. All is well" when the bishop asked him what he should do in Brazil because Vassula's writings were well known there and the Cardinal there was unhappy about the Notification. You can see Bishop Terra saying these things on video. I will happily give the reference to anyone who is interested.
In all such discussions about supposed or claimed private revelations etc, we must always be very careful of our information and our language. On one occassion when I admitted that I thought Medjugorje was genuine I was shouted down by three people - one of them a priest - and discussion came to an end. If the Vatican said a firm no to it, I would not be beside myself with grief. I always said that Fatima was of greater importance, but I think we should be able to discuss these things without losing our respect for each other and without falling into rash judgement and bad manners.
Fr Abberton - I am happy to confirm that I do not think you a modernist!
Also, I agree with you that Medjugorje, Vassula etc should be discussed rationally with accurate reference to the precise meaning of the Church's decisions in these matters.
Post a Comment