SO, IS MEDJUGORJE TO BE DECLARED
A GENUINE MARIAN APPARITION?
Obviously, Andrea Tornielli had the inside track as well as the green light to make the following report, but I find it very odd.
After the pope's statements about Medjuorge on May 13, coming back Rfrom Fatima, one might have thought that - as Rorate caeli concluded,
he had 'closed the door' on Medjugorje as a Marian apparition site.
Yet this report indicates that the papal commission named by Benedict XVI to study the question voted strongly in favor of acknowledging that
the first seven apparitions in 1981 were supernatural in origin, but cannot express an opinion on all the supposed daily
apparitions reported by the seers over the past 26 years.
So is Tornielli pre-empting the pope's formal announcement eventually that the Church recognizes the initial apparitions at Medjugorje as
'genuine', i.e., supernatural in origin? Or does Jorge Bergoglio reserve the right to decide for himself regardless of what the Ruini commission
and members of the CDF think? In any case, the Ruini report appears to have something to satisfy both sides of the Medjugorje controversy.
Medjugorje: The findings of the Ruini report
It is positive on the first few appearances, but dubious about all the rest,
and proposes to make Medjugorje a pontifical shrine
by Andrea Tornielli
Adapted from the English service of
VATICAN INSIDER
MAY 16, 2017
VATICAN CITY -Thirteen votes were in favor of recognizing the supernatural nature of the first seven appearances in Medjugorje, one vote against and one “suspensive” ballot (the person who cast it will give a final answer later), But for the rest of the apparitionsfrom the end of 1981 to today, many doubts and a majority of suspensive votes
These are the results of the work done by the commission on Medjugorje established in 2010 by Benedict XVI and chaired by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, who was president of the Itaian bishops’ conference for 15 years, as well as the Vicar of Rome for both John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
Pope Francis mentioned this report in the press conference on the return flight from Fatima when he revealed the distinction between the first apparitions and the later ones, saying, “A commission of good theologians, bishops, cardinals. Good, good, good. The Ruini report is very, very good”
The Pontiff was positive about the spiritual fruits and the conversions (”people who go there and convert, people who meet God and change their lives”, but is negative with regard to the current apparitions ( “I prefer Our Lady as a Mother, and not the head of the telegraphic office, who sends a message every day”.)
The commission named by Benedict XVI started work on March 17, 2010, a report on January 17, 2014. Besides Cardinal Ruini, its members were Cardinals Jozef Tomko, Vinko Puljić, Josip Bozanić, Julián Herranz and Angelo Amato; psychologist Tony Anatrella; theologians Pierangelo Sequeri, Franjo Topić, Mihály Szentmártoni and Nela Gašpar; Mariologist Salvatore Perrella, anthropologist Achim Schütz, canonist David Jaeger, a representative from ;the Congregation for the Causes of Sainthood, Zdzisław Józef Kijas; psychologist Mijo Nikić and an official from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Krzysztof Nykiel.
Their task was to “collect and examine all the material” about Medjugorje and to present “a detailed report” followed by a vote on the “supernatural nature or not” of the apparitions as well as the most appropriate “pastoral solutions”. The committee met 17 times and screened all documents filed in the Vatican, the parish of Medjugorje and the archives of the secret services of the former Yugoslavia. The commission heard all the seers and witnesses involved, and in April 2012, they carried out an site inspection.
The commission noted a very clear difference between the beginning of the phenomenon and its subsequent ‘development’, and therefore decided to issue two distinct votes on each phase: the first seven presumed appearances between June 24 and July 3, 1981, and all that happened later.
The commission came out with 13 votes in favor of recognizing the supernatural nature of the first visions. A member voted against and an expert expressed a suspensive vote.
[DIM=9pt [Since the commission included the former and present bishops under whose diocese Medjugorje falls, are we to conclude that both bishops - who have been very emphatic in the past that they do not consider the Medjugorje apparitions to be supernatural in origin - have now changed their mind at least with respect to the first seven apparitions? Or may the member who voted against was one of the two bishops.]
The commission notes that the seven young seers were psychically normal and were caught by surprise by the apparition, and that nothing of what they had seen was influenced by either the Franciscans of the parish or any other subjects. They initially showed resistance in telling what happened despite being arrested by the police and death threats. At the same time, the commission rejected the hypothesis of a demonic origin for the apparitions.
With regard to the subsequent ‘apparitions’, the commission took note of the conflict over the apparitions between the local bishop (two of them since 1981) and the Franciscan fathers who were in charge of the village parish
[and whose subsequent manipulations, according to many reports, orchestrated the propaganda and became the ‘masterminds’ for the seers in order to exploit the commercial possibilities of the pilgrim traffic generated by the reported phenomena].
Likewise, the commission noted that subsequent apparitions appeared to be programmed individually for each seer and are supposed to have continued daily to the present
[now going on 26 years, which really taxes all credulity and plausibility!] with repetitive messages of an apocalyptic nature.
[Surely, the theologians on the commission would also have commented on the reportedly heterodox content of these supposed Marian messages!]
On the dubious apparitions, the commission took two votes. First, taking into account the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje but leaving aside the behaviors of the seers, 3 members and 3 experts say there are positive outcomes; 4 members and 3 experts say they are mixed but mostly positive, and the remaining 3 experts think the negative effects outweigh the positive effects.
But when the behavior of the seers over the past 26 years was taken into account, eight members and four experts believe that an opinion cannot be expressed, while two other members voted flatly against a supernatural nature.
Having noted that the seers were never appropriately ‘accompanied’ on the spiritual side, and the fact that they have long acted individually and not as a group, the commission coted to end the ban on organized pilgrimages to Medjugorje. Thirteen out of 14 members voted in favor of “an authority dependent on the Holy See” to be established in Medjugorje, and to transform the arish into a pontifical shrine.
The decision, it was made clear, was based on pastoral reasons – namely, for the adequate care of millions of pilgrims and to avoid the formation of ‘parallel churches’, as well as for clarity on economic issues, none of which implies recognition of the supernatural nature of the apparitions.
A decision based on pastoral reasons - the care of millions of pilgrims, avoiding the formation of “parallel churches”, clarity on economic issues - which would not imply the recognition of the supernatural nature of all the alleged apparitions.
Hpwever, the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith led by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller expressed doubts about the phenomenon and about the Ruini report, which it considers an authoritative contribution to be considered along with other opinions and reports. All such documentation has been furnished to the cardinals and bishops who are members of the CDF in order to get their opinion.
But Pope Francis respects the Ruini report and was unwilling to have it ‘put up for auction’, as it were, so he asked that the CDF members send their opinions to him, not to the Cardinal Mueller.
After examining the Ruini report and the opinions of the CDF members, the Pope appointed Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser to undertake a “special mission of the Holy See” to “acquire more in-depth knowledge of the pastoral situation In Medjugorje, and “above all, the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage” and to “suggest any pastoral initiatives for the future.” Hoser is expected to make his report this summer, at which time the pope will make a decision.
[Over what? Whether to announce, in accordance with the Ruini report, that the Church recognizes the first seven apparitions in Medjugorje to be supernatural in origin, but not all the rest?]
I checked Wikipedia to see which Marian apparitions have the seal of the Church and surprised myself:
Canonically approved apparitions
6.1 Approved by the Roman Catholic Church
6.1.1 Our Lady of Guadalupe (1531)
6.1.2 Our Lady of Laus (1664–1718)
6.1.3 Our Lady of the Miraculous Medal (1830)
6.1.4 Our Lady of La Salette (1846)
6.1.5 Our Lady of Lourdes (1858)
6.1.6 Our Lady of Pontmain (1871)
6.1.7 Our Lady of Knock (1879)
6.1.8 Our Lady of Fátima (1917)
6.1.9 Our Lady of Beauraing (1932–1933)
6.1.10 Our Lady of Banneux (1933)
I must confess I had never even heard the place names Pontmain, Beauraing and Banneux before I saw this list (all three names sound French, which gives France 7 out of the 10 approved apparitions [Laus, the Miraculous Medal (Paris), La Sallette, Lourdes, Pontmain, Beauraing and Banneux). Now I must go read about the three I had not heard of before.
The 1973 apparitions in Akita, Japan, have not been decided upon by the Church, and there are conflicting and unclear reports about the fate of the 'cause for Akita' at the CDF.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Akita
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 17/05/2017 02:53]