The Medjugorje Illusion: Harmful to the Church

[Denise]

I received this from Mark this morning.

Hereby a very interesting study about Medjugorje by the well known Dutch psychologist Gerard van den Aardweg, author of “ Fatima 1917”.

M.W.


The Medjugorje Illusion: Harmful to the Church

Notes by Gerard van den Aardweg, April 25, 2008, occasioned by a dubious article in Studi Cattolici, April 2008.

Personally, I am sure the whole of “Medjugorje” (M.) is big nonsense, either a fake or –which seems the most likely hypothesis after all- something with a good dose of demonic involvement. Anyhow, a telling example of modern pseudo-mysticism or false mysticism.

The issue is not altogether interesting to me by itself; these days, there are so many false apparitions around that you cannot delve into them all and have better shrug your shoulders about them, waiting for the candle to burn out.

However, in view of the publicity of M. and the confusion it creates with good meaning faithful Catholics, and in view of the determinate, curious emotional tensions it creates in some “charismatic”-minded or “enthusiastic” groups of the faithful (namely, a curious kind of emotional elation or euphoria, not unlike the euphoric tensions in Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, or Pentecostals, and which makes many of them inaccessible to sober reasoning and sufficient critical judgment), it is necessary to spread critical information on the M-movement.

In 1951 Card. Ottaviani warned in an article in the Osservatore Romano (Febr. 7) against a wave of false Marian apparitions in Europe and across the Atlantic, which threatened to blur the few real ones. That is exactly the danger of M. and of its kin (Garabandal, San Damiano, Heroldsbach, Amsterdam, and a host of less known
”apparitions”). Ottaviani’s warning has lost nothing of its value, on the contrary.

The Cardinal implicitly points to the only right methodological approach in case an apparition is proclaimed: first check the hypothesis that it is false mysticism (either psychopathology or demonic activity, or a mixture of both), and only if no “negative” signs of it can be found, and, on the contrary, much evidence, collected during a longer period of time, suggests a heavenly origin (“positive” signs), then give it credit.
One of the indispensable positive signs is holiness of the seers (at least during the years after the events) and another complete, exterior and inner obedience to the ecclesiastical authorities, whatever their decision and behavior.

In the case of M., there is absolutely no such sound methodology. Advocates skip over the first and most important phase of examination: checking the presence of negative signs. Instead they loosely assert that the “seers are pious and reliable”; that the clear and unequivocal rejection of the two Bishops (and the official Committee of Investigation) is wrong, even the result of malicious intrigue or personal vindictiveness; that other apparitions, too, were initially not accepted by the authorities and called “demonic”; and that “the fruits of the apparitions are great: conversions, etc.”.

This kind of arguing is typical in all cases of rejected and false apparitions, and not only in the beginning, but perpetually, even after decades (e.g., Heroldsbach). In other words, they highlight some signs that in their eyes are positive, but neglect to first investigate soberly and critically, not in a hurry but during several years from the start of the events, the presence or probable presence of negative signs. The rule of thumb here is: one negative sign is enough to down the whole thing.

The fact is that around M., negative signs abound. The reports of the apparitions are in large part composed by the (self-willed) Franciscans with whom the seers were in contact and by whom they were guided; the reports vary and sometimes contradict each other in details as well as in important statements; also the seers were and are a strangely varying lot; about more than one of the Franciscans’ and of the seers’ concrete and demonstrable behavior and ways (their integrity) serious doubts have been raised; and as a whole, the seers and their directors were and are stubbornly disobedient to ecclesiastical authority, not only in their own country, but also abroad.

Every real supernatural apparition is characterized by dignity, and if Mary really appears she says but few words, which however are very deep, compact, and loaded with meaning. In M. we see an apparition who comes back daily, for decades, to several seers, independent of where they are, and who repeats all the time the same kind of superficial pious, lovely-sounding statements. This personality doesn’t match with the personality of Mary we know from the Bible and from Lourdes and Fatima. The M. Mary is a fake, in fact a chatterbox. The similarity with many “guiding ghosts” in the spiritual world is too striking to overlook. Cheap “beautiful words” on peace and love should not take us in. No one talks more sweetly and piously than the devil, or confused people inspired by him.

The content of the messages of M. is either trivial or “secret” (an abundance of secrets!). Many predictions “she” made did not come true (in fact no prediction can be shown unambiguously to have been made and fulfilled); and like in the case of Jehovah’s witnesses (when one of their end-of the world predictions failed), silly explanations are offered (“the disaster was avoided because people prayed”, etc.). Nothing solid at all, nothing that differs from the predictions of a “visionary” like the Dutch Jomanda and lots of others.

Regarding the contents of these many apparitions (tens of thousands!) much nonsense should be immediately clear for everyone: at one time, the apparition said the Bishop of Mostar had to “convert to the apparitions”; at other times, Mary, Christ, and some saints very “cheerful”, “laughing” (flower power atmosphere)- and one will find much more of this kind of silliness in the various publications.

This ought to be enough to shut up the M. shop. Because, after having established such negative facts, it has become irrelevant to the issue if one would think this or that seer is a good person (maybe, but also naive and misled persons, or hallucinating persons, may be good persons; and maybe not: there is too much in the reports about various seers and other directly involved persons which does not look edifying). It is a wrong “positive” argument that “also in Fatima, etc.” the events were thought demonic, and that the demonic explanation should not be used too soon. As said, the demonic explanation must necessarily be tried out first, so: as soon as possible! –Otherwise, in Fatima it has been tried out only very briefly, by the parish vicar, the mother of Lúcia, and by a few ecclesiastics: this was quite all right, and in conformity with prudence. According to the old tradition, every apparition must first be handled very skeptically: “All good spirits (ghosts) praise the Lord”, and even then, if they do praise Him, demonic falsity is not infallibly excluded. But in (e.g.) Fatima, the official Committee of Investigation, working on the hypothesis of “fake”, after detailed research of all aspects, rejected that explanation of demonic or otherwise false mysticism. Apart from these formal aspects, moreover, there is a world of difference between nearly every aspect of “Fatima” and M.: persons involved, attitudes towards church authorities, attitudes of the believing multitudes, holiness of the seers, contents of the message, behavior of the Madonna, and so on.

Good fruits of M.? Again, if that would be true, it is not relevant to the issue in question. It is actually a demagogical argument, which dodges the real question. But even these alleged “good fruits” are not so good as they might look to some.
In many people, M. produced a kind of emotional religious bigotry, as if “M.” has all the answers, their whole religious life is M.-centered, many “also” experienced strange or (again), “silly” “miracles”, saw all kinds of peculiar or sensational things, etc. This is best described as a more or less collective hysteria (not differing from the reports of experiences at the meetings of Saï Baba in India, during the 80s). Not a good fruit.

More than one person who was initially, or even for long years, completely taken in by M. and the seers, have eventually “kicked off”. Several of them were vehement defenders, but now say that were under some kind of emotional “spell”. One of them compared it to falling in love without using your brains any more. Several of them are good priests, some wrote down their story.

(As for reports of people who eventually were disillusioned about the M.-thing, stories that indicate demonic activity in and around M. are not rare. Like a woman –believer in M., originally- who made great efforts to pray while “Mary” was appearing in the church in M., but could not find a single word, not even of the simplest common prayer: completely washed out of her brain. Immediately after the “apparition”, she could pray as normal. Or like people who saw a sizzling fireball dashing through the church “like a sizzling snake”, and were frightened. Etc.).

Conversions? I have also seen several of them in the course of the last 20 years. But it generally was a conversion to an emotional type of religion, which must be qualified as “polluted conversion”. Like a conversion to Pentecostalism. I see this as harmful, because it is in large part a question of plunging into an atmosphere of feelings and belonging to a special group, suggestive of a sectarian mentality. In other words, M. appeals to sentimentalism and the inclination to gushing enthusiasm: the kind of unmasculine Marian sentimentality that is superficial and religiously immature. It cannot be coincidental that especially certain types of personality appear attracted to M.

Another “fruit” is the division created by M. in the Catholic world. There are many people who think or say: that stuff is nothing for me, and they avoid these groups and meetings (rightly so). Much attention and energy is detracted from the really important issues and needs relating to Catholicism and its tasks in the present world and diverted to “M”, in the way partisanships undermine the goal and objectives of a group.

The emotional sentimentalism of the M. movement explains why many adherents of, for example, Vassula, and of other dubious movements are to be found among the M.-believers.

But so many priests declare they believe in M.? Answer: who would deny many priests and other good-intentioned Catholics are a bit too naive, or let themselves be persuaded on the ground of erroneous arguments, by ignorance, or are sometimes led astray by some character weakness? And many have difficulty realizing that under the seemingly pious and religious error or falsity can hide.

For example:

The pseudo-mystical sect of the Mariavites, founded in Poland in 1906 by a priest (who was later excommunicated), Jan Kowalski, on the basis of the “apparitions” to Sr. Kozlowska (Franciscan nun). Mariae vitam imitare, was their nice slogan. In the end, Mary “dwelt” in the Sister, and more such; but the point is that some 300 priests and nuns took part in the movement, which had 1 million Catholic followers. Sounds familiar. In 1920 the papal condemnation was confirmed and published officially. Yet in 1952 the group (sect) still counted about 50.000 people.

A recent variant of this pseudo-Marian mysticism and exaggerated “Marian” emotionalism is the (in the meantime, forbidden) Canadian sect of the “Army of Mary”: more than one priest had been taken in.

Or:

The strange emotional hold on the important theologian Urs von Balthasar (ex-jesuit, who was nominated a Cardinal just before –or just after?- his death) by the pious “mystic” Adrienne von Speyer, hailed as a saint. Her (absolutely crazy) visions of hell and Christ’s visit to hell persuaded him that Christ suffered in hell after his death and thereby in principle liberated practically everyone in that place or everyone who should come there, provided we faithful believers will have enough trust; anyhow, it would be probable that, after all, hell will be empty. If a thinker as Urs has fallen for feminine religious charms (Adrienne must have made an impression on him), this signals some naiveté or other character weakness in the great theologian. A warning, no doubt.

* Note. Even apart from all these considerations, the remark made buy the Pope to the present Bishop of Mostar at the latter’s visit with the Pope about a year ago should give the M.-believer a pause and make him re-think his position.

The Pope told the Bishop (this is not verbatim, but more or less so) that “we” in the Congregation for the Faith could never understand that people could believe in the supernatural reality of an apparition which went on so endlessly. It is obvious that he had rejected M. all the time, but he expressed himself rather diplomatically. Do we have a better insight?

The Pope also (as Cardinal Ratzinger) on July 22 1998 dismissed the M.-propaganda, that the previous Pope would endorse M. : “Frei erfunden”, he said (“purely fantasy”).



Good Critical literature on Medjugorje

For the methodological principles of distinguishing between true and false mysticism, one of the most authoritative works was written by Canon (and official exorcist)

Saudreau, A. L’État Mystique: Sa Nature – Ses Phases. Paris : Grassin, Richou, 1921 (also on false Marian apparitions)


On Medjugorje itself:
1.
http://www.leforumcatholique.org/message.php?num=388978

(It seems the Congregation for the Faith is asking the Italian Bishops of Toscane to publish in their diocesan newspaper the homily of Bishop Peric in the church of Medjugorje in order to educate the priests and laity correctly)

2.
www.mdaviesonmedj.com

(English: the book of Michael Davies on M., with a foreword of Bishop Peric, can be downloaded for free)

3.
Bouflet, J. Ces 10 Jours Qui ont Fait Medjugorje. Ed. CLD, Tours. (347 p., French, 21 euro); ISBN 978-285443-512-2;
Email: contact@editionscld.com

4.
In German:

Article by Mag. Thomas Lintner, St. Pölten (Austria) in the orthodox theological magazine
Theologisches, 2005, Febr. Issue

Book:
Kevin Orlin Johnson 20 Fragen zu Medjugorje (87 p.). Müstair, Switzerland: Verax Verlag CH 7537,
ISBN 3-909065-23-6

5.
Marco Corvaglia Medjugorje è tutto falso. Ed. Anteprima, 2007. 288 p., 19 €.
ISBN 978-88-88857-17-6
Inhoud: www.cafarus.ch/corvaglia.html

***

Website Diocese Mostar:

www.cbismo.hr Click Medugorski slucaj (English or Italian)

[MarieT]

Sis,
you've done an excellent job on putting the medj drama on the opening web page
Case of Medjugorje - Bishop of Mostar

Great Job !

marie