The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
I would not argue against the desire for the Society of St. Pius X to preserve its identity, as long as such does not include a persistent and deliberate opposition to the rest of the Church’s self-understanding.
I would also not argue against the discernment of a silent apostasy to which we must respond. However, we must not be deaf to the loud or blatant rebellion and dissent from various members, on the right and left, that afflicts the institution founded by Christ. The greatest threat to papal authority today is not a strained collegialism but an arrogant disobedience. Given their continued participation in this assault, I am not optimistic that the conditions demanded upon by the Society will pass muster with the Holy See.
Despite the negotiations, reconciliation will not come by spurning the directives of the Holy Father while not budging upon their own obstinacy toward an authentic Ecumenical Council of the Church, Vatican II. Any such forced reconciliation would damage real ecclesial unity. While they speak of “canonical normalization,” they cannot even concur with the living Church over which Code of Canon Law actually applies and is in force. Despite their profession in the “monarchial constitution” of the Church under the Pope, they feel they still need a “deliberative vote” before deciding if they will listen to him or not. Is it not peculiar that they attack collegialism in the universal Church but demand upon it for themselves, even arguing that it trumps papal demands? That is certainly not my idea of ecclesial obedience.
I am also not blind to the possible shades of Father Feeney in reference to the Church “outside of which there is no salvation nor possibility to find means leading to salvation.” They are usually very careful not to associate themselves with these extremists, despite a shared affection for traditionalism. While the Church is certainly the great mystery or sacrament of salvation where we encounter Christ, this would seem to invalidate even the more restrained strands of ecumenism. The Church has affirmed that elements of Catholicism with which the Protestants absconded like baptism and faith in Jesus Christ still have some pervading value. While the issue is more complicated with Jews, we acknowledge that Christ is the fulfillment of the one covenant that God first established with them (Cardinal Dulles and Cardinal Ratzinger, i.e. the Pope). The Church is necessary for salvation because there is no way to the Father apart from Jesus Christ. The Church is his Mystical Body. Thus, both are one and integral to salvation. The irony is that if the Society refuses reunion then they will be condemned by their own definition as outside that visible body “by which the supreme power of government . . . belongs only to the Pope, Vicar of Christ on earth.” The only possible solution they might find for this conundrum would be the sedevacantism that some of them apparently have already embraced. Declaring the Chair of Peter vacant, they can define themselves as the true Church and appoint one of their own bishops as the Pope, or in actuality as an anti-pope. Given online sermons and writings from various of their priests, my suspicions are that a number of them will join the Society of St. Pius V in this regard. I hope I am proven wrong.
Further, it is one thing to say that we oppose the abuses from the nebulous spirit of Vatican II; however, they continue to castigate the council itself. As I recall, the Holy See implied that such would be a deal-breaker. It is certainly okay and proper “to uphold the declarations and the teachings of the constant Magisterium of the Church.” Vatican II must be understood or interpreted in light of the traditions and constant faith of the Church. However, instead of seeing continuity, they stress a break “in regard to all the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which remain tainted with errors, and also in regard to the reforms issued from it.” While it lacks certain specificity, this statement can readily be interpreted as a general repudiation of the Church today in all her elements from the catechism to the sacraments. Is this what they meant to say?
Only one of the four traditionalist bishops of the Society of St. Pius X has shown any real interest in the overtures of Pope Benedict XVI. Bishops Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson threatened internal schism within the Society, warning that any agreement with the Vatican would result in surrendering the fight against worldwide apostasy. This is strong language, literally saying that contemporary Catholicism is a false religion. Indeed, when we look at a number of their priests and apologists, they slam the whole business as capitulation to “the Modernist Pope” and “the Modernist Rome.” Some of their sermons online and various writings go so far as to call counterfeit both the “Novus Ordo” priesthood and the “new” Mass. One writer claimed that since Cardinal Ratzinger was made a bishop under the new ritual that he did not share in the episcopacy and thus could not be a genuine pope. People like that will not want to “pollute” themselves with any association with the rest of us. There is a lot of wishful thinking, but after almost a half-century separation, many of them have gotten used to their independence. Slamming the rest of the Church and slurring the Holy Father, at least in sermons and in routine discourse has become second-nature. They do not seem the least bit afraid that they might be committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even Bishop Bernard Fellay has lamented this problem. It has become a habit hard or next to impossible to break. They will not reconnect with what they see as the enemy.
Pope Benedict XVI was very kind to lift their excommunication. However, I would not be surprised if Lefebvrites should invoke its reimposition. After all, they never actually acknowledged it anyway. All it would take is the consecration of another unapproved bishop. Such would force the Church’s hand. The Society itself seems aware that their current response will not suffice for Rome. Thus, they will not be coming home any time soon. While pledging fidelity, they are not going to budge until (in their estimation) the day comes “when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” In other words, they are saying that they are RIGHT and Rome is WRONG and that nothing will change until the post-Vatican II leadership gives in.
(Lumen Gentium) “Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God.”–Pope Paul VI
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s on November 21, 1964.
I will now wait for hell to freeze over.
I do not think the devil will be wearing a coat any time soon.
Responding to the Pope, here is the difficult condition laid down by the Lefebvrites for reunion: “The freedom to preserve, share and teach the sound doctrine of the constant Magisterium of the Church and the unchanging truth of the divine tradition and the freedom to accuse and even to correct the promoters of the errors or the innovations of modernism, liberalism, and Vatican II and its aftermath.”
Indeed, it looks like the devil is stoking the fire.
Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller explains (July 20): “The purpose of dialogue is to overcome difficulties in the interpretation of the Second Vatican Council, but we cannot negotiate on revealed faith, that is impossible. An Ecumenical Council, according to the Catholic faith, is always the supreme teaching authority of the Church.”
The PATHEOS portal advertises itself as “hosting the conversation of faith,” however— it does more than this, it seeks to reframe and/or to delineate religious truth. While several good Catholic blogs are hosted; it seeks neutrality with other religious or non-religious systems that is not possible without compromise and contradiction. For instance, while admitting that Catholicism “traces its history to Jesus of Nazareth,” which it defines as merely an “itinerant preacher,” the quick facts given stipulate the following:
The Roman Catholic Church formed between the 3rd to the 5th centuries C.E.
The bishops formed a “universal” church.
The exact date of the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church is indeterminable.
Many historians suggest that Pope Leo I (440-461) is the first to claim universal jurisdiction over the worldwide Church, thus initiating the rise of the papacy, a uniquely Roman Catholic structure.
While the nomenclature of “Roman Catholic” and “Pope” develops over time, the Church is directly instituted by Jesus Christ, God-made-man. The apostles were bishop-priests. There was no generic first and second century Christianity. Those who accepted Christ in faith and baptism were Catholic Christians. All the apostles and disciples were Catholic. The Virgin Mary was a Catholic. Jesus calls Simon ROCK or Peter and says that he will build his Church on this ROCK. He gives Peter the keys to the kingdom and universal jurisdiction as his visible shepherd. While there is certainly development, all the important elements go back to Christ and the apostles. Anti-Catholic critics have long contended for the late institution of the Church. Revisionist Catholics, even in academia, spout similar nonsense. These are not credible historians, no matter what alphabet soup follows their names. It seems to me that while individual voices at PATHEOS are orthodox, the site is tainted by a religious relativism that spills over into the section about Catholicism. Might this represent the wrong type of ecumenism about which Pope Benedict XVI has warned us? I think so. There is no sense of the supernatural nature of Mother Church. Dissenting voices are given as much legitimacy as those which speak the truth. There is no imprimatur or protection to insure against misleading statements. Attempting to appease many authorities, there is a definite religious indifferentism and denominationalism. Both are contrary to Catholic teaching and are affronts to the truth.
Mark Shea has a good article on his blog (hosted at PATHEOS) entitled, “Why it’s Our Ruling Class vs. the Rest of Us.” It alerts us to media consolidation and control of information, even religious information. I did not even know that PATHEOS existed until after I looked at the post and had my eye drawn away to the ads and links. I found it very unsettling and confusing. I hope over time the problems can be fixed, but I fear a continuing tension and struggle over what is or is not genuine Catholicism.
I find this story somewhat difficult to figure out. Christian-style weddings are all the vogue in Japan and Westerners are making lots of money pretending to be priests at these services.
Mark Kelly from the UK explained,
“I was living in Sapporo, studying Japanese, and I needed the money. It’s far better paid than teaching in a language school. Being a fake priest is big business in Japan – I’ve done a TV commercial for one company. In Sapporo, there are five agencies employing about 20 fake priests. In a city like Tokyo, there must be hundreds.”
Since the weddings have no legal force, the couples must also go to civil magistrates. It is truly bizarre because while only about 1% of the Japanese are Christian, 90% of weddings are performed in a Christian way. I am not talking about the content of the prayers, but rather the borrowed ritual and festivities. Prayers are often perloined from many sources. The old Shinto chapels are gathering dust and Christian ones are doing a booming business!
Of course, it is all about externals. These wedding chapels have flowing fountains, plastic cherub angels, flowers and special lighting. They are popping up everywhere, even in shopping malls.
The article says that the Japanese priests are not happy, but the problem is that there are not enough priests to satisfy the demand. The article and the Japanese are both missing the point.
The real priests in Japan have every right to be angry. It is admitted that many people do not know that fake priests are performing the ceremonies. Impostering a cleric is illegal in many nations and such should be the case in the Orient, too.
Is no one using this fascination with Christian marriage ceremonials for evangelistic and catechetical purposes? It is a tragedy that people are attracted to the externals and yet unable to appreciate the meat-and-potatoes of what Christian faith and the sacraments are about.
Does not the presence of fake priests pose a real danger that a few actual believers might get conned by them and think they are married when really they are not?
Real Catholic priests are generally forbidden to marry couples where neither is a member of the Church. Thus, the dilemma is more than a priest shortage.
Are there any ex-priests or laicized priests among these so-called fake priests? It all reminds me of the local problem with Rent-a-Priests. There are no checks on their abuses. If you pay, they will pray.
This story might seem like only a harmless oddity, but I would disagree. A fake priest and a ceremony for show, empty of substantial meaning or faith constitutes a deceit or fraud. Marriage implies promises being made where honesty and truth are paramount. A counterfeit priest and service undermines the truth with lies.
You claim that Peter was the first Pope, and yet Scripture attests that he was married. Since this great apostle could be married, why not all bishops and priests?
RESPONSE:
Restricting ourselves to the Gospels, no doubt you are referring to Peter’s mother-in-law. We read in Luke 4:38-39: “After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her. He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them.” See the story again in Mark 1:30.
The Catholic Church does not deny that Peter was married. However, note her general absence in the New Testament texts. We do not even know her name. We only encounter the mother-in-law, never his wife or any children. Indeed, throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, references are made to Peter’s activities and travels; but, only a vague intimation by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 that he had a right to travel with his “believing wife.” If it were not for this mention in the epistle, one might suppose that Peter was a widower. Tradition suggests that his wife was martyred. It is peculiar that although the wife would ordinarily have cared for the needs of guests, Peter had to rely upon his wife’s mother.
However, granting that she was still around (somewhere); she evidently assumed a secondary role in his life behind his leadership of the infant Church. Indeed, her insignificance in the biblical witness would seem to provide weight to the supporters of priestly celibacy. Like Peter, bishops and priests might do better to serve God’s people without the distraction of wives and children. Jesus gives his sheep to Peter. Pastors similarly love Christ and care for their flocks. This is the emphasis of Catholic ministry, our family in faith.
This post was never meant to be a defamation against Peter’s wife. I have also edited it to avoid any peripheral discussion about whether or not the tradition can be trusted regarding her martyrdom; given that some authorities speculated that she might have died earlier and/or that there might have been a second bond. It is probably best that we accept the tradition at face value.
Here are early testimonies for the martyrdom of Peter’s wife:
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (died around 215 AD)
(THE STROMATA, 7:11)
So then he undergoes toils, and trials, and afflictions, not as those among the philosophers who are endowed with manliness, in the hope of present troubles ceasing, and of sharing again in what is pleasant; but knowledge has inspired him with the firmest persuasion of receiving the hopes of the future.
Wherefore he contemns not alone the pains of this world, but all its pleasures.
They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, Remember the Lord. Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.
Thus also the apostle says, that he who marries should be as though he married not, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.
Was not then faith in the hope after death conspicuous in the case of those who gave thanks to God even in the very extremities of their punishments? For firm, in my opinion, was the faith they possessed, which was followed by works of faith.
EUSEBIUS (around 265 AD to 340 AD)
(ECCLESIAL HISTORY, 3:30)
1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.
2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them. This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.
DISCUSSION
GERRY:
Thanks for all your insights, Fr. Joe. They are priceless! I’d like to let you know that I look forward to reading the “feeds” from your blog site. God Bless!
KARL:
Who would sit in judgment for all the annulments? Certainly the Pope does not have the time and men who cannot keep their houses in order (like those divorced and seeking annulments) certainly should not sit in judgment of each other and their wives.
What would happen to a bishop who abandoned his wife? Should he continue to serve as a bishop? Who would pay for the divorce, alimony and child support settlements? Who would get the Cathedral, the wife?
Anyone who thinks it is wise to have a married clergy is likely naive, foolish or has difficulty keeping their mind off their private parts. Oops, or Orthodox or one of the Uniate Rites.
ALEXANDER ROMAN: As a Ukrainian Catholic, I wanted to take great exception to a comment on that refers to Eastern Catholics as “uniates.” That term is pejorative and offensive – that it is used by a Latin Rite Catholic is not helpful.
FATHER JOE:
Churches of the East do not permit dating priests. They have to be married before ordination. Only single men become bishops. There is a different sense of priesthood between those who are celibate and the ones who are married. The first married Episcopalian priest in the U.S. who became a Catholic priest is now divorced. His wife left him, saying that nothing in the Episcopal church prepared them for what his life would be like. She gave him an ultimatum, leave the Catholic priesthood or she would leave him. He is now a divorced and celibate priest.
CATHOLIC GIRL:
Catholics and Protestants arguing for a married Priesthood (or worse those who propose that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin) miss the point with their literal interpretations.
Catholics are not literalists (although most Protestants are). We hold the Bible as no more or less important as Church tradition and teaching. Remember who put the Bible together – the Catholic Church. Who better to understand and interpret the meaning?
The important part of the message about St. Peter is that he – Peter – represents the Church. Christ was returning to the Father and so he gave Peter a duty as the first Pope and left us with the Church as the visible symbol of his love. He specifically said that he would be with the Church until the end of time and gave it the “keys to heaven,” what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven.
He knew Peter was not perfect – after all, he denied he knew Christ three times. He did expect and continues to expect that we follow him and that means that unmarried persons should remain celibate – as he did.
Only the Catholic Church has the keys to the kingdom. Pope Benedict says that the tradition will not be changed. The Church isn’t a democracy and those that don’t agree are simply not Catholic. So he’s the boss and that discussion is closed!
MARK:
The Church has never taught the two sacraments are incompatible; neither did Our Lord. That the Church has chosen to promote celibacy in the model of Christ should be sufficient for the discussion.
“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”—St Augustine
FATHER JOE:
It is probable that his wife later suffered martyrdom but her absence from the Scripture texts is still a significant fact. Except for the fact that Peter had the right to bring her along, there is little or nothing that can be cited to show that his wife actually did participate in his most important missionary journeys.
You are right that the sacrament of marriage and that of holy orders are not intrinsically incompatible with each other; although, there is early evidence of tension. Many of the Popes and saints over the centuries have written about celibacy in the priesthood and religious life as if it were the best course to pursue. Could it be said that just as there was an organic development of doctrine, that celibacy for priests reflects a positive evolution in discipline as well, also under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I think so. Indeed, there is growing evidence that priests who were married during the apostolic and patristic age were expected to practice perpetual continence after ordination.
ANGELA:
I personally believe that leaders of the church should be able to get married if they want; but I think it is great when they are capable of remaining celibate. I guess I feel if God has called you to become a priest, then he has also called you to become celibate since that is in accordance to what priesthood is.
I no longer attend a Catholic church, although I grew up in one. I have met some great priests and some not so great. I have also met some great married pastors and some not so great. It does talk about how it is better for a man to remain celibate unless you are incapable. I believe if a man can do this successfully he will be greatly rewarded.
Unfortunately, if a man is choosing to go into the priesthood and have lust issues, they may want to consider what going into the priesthood really means. He should either first address such issues or consider the possibility that maybe God wants him to be a leader of men in a different way that allows marriage. He should not necessarily change denominations if he feels his faith corresponds more greatly with Catholic belief systems; but there are so many ways to be a shepherd among men and yet be married.
That being said, I still admire the man and woman who can devote their hearts, minds, and souls solely to God and remain pure in heart, mind, body and soul.
JAKE:
Peter was a [expletive deleted] and his wife was well to be rid of him. Peter is well said to be the founder of the ‘mother of [expletive deleted] church’. Women were nothing more than cattle in the [expletive deleted] bible and the men, including jayzus were perverted [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted]. The catholic church is indeed the true church of jayzus. If priests aren’t [expletive deleted] each other, they are [expletive deleted] innocent children and being paid by stupid people to do so.
FATHER JOE:
I must report your IP number (Atlanta) to the authorities for misuse of this forum. Sorry, but you forced my hand.
JAKE:
Peter=child molester
jayzus=[deleted pejorative word for homosexuals]
catholic church=mother of [plural expletive deleted]
FATHER JOE:
Jake=Bigot
LUCIA:
It is an interesting topic and one I am not sure I yet fully understand. It is my understanding that the vows of celibacy from the priesthood all the way to the pontiff are a matter of the disciplines of the Church. Its necessity is established by the Authority of the Church based on the inspired judgments of the Church.
Thus it is possible that the Church can change its mind on this point for its own reasons, or make exceptions to the rule. For example I know that in cases of Eastern Catholics, those from the predominantly Orthodox regions which are now in full communion with Rome, there are exceptions allowing married priests. None of this creates a problem.
So to my thinking, if as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius relate, Peter was in fact married as an apostle/bishop it doesn’t matter. If the Church then later decided that it would require celibacy of priests and all the clergy in the higher ranks as well then that is the rule. The rule established by the authority of the Church. If Peter was not married as a bishop likewise it remains a discipline the Church has established and maintained for good reason. And one which, in limited cases to which it makes exception.
Do I understand correctly? Thanks.
FATHER JOE:
Sounds like you do. Priests promise celibacy when they are ordained transitional deacons.
MD:
Lucia has the simplest answer but the most profound.
CO:
First of all, the Bible refers to Peter’s mother-in-law. My assumption is that there is a wife and the Scriptures do not tell me different…meaning, he was married. My concern, however, is the belief that he was the first Pope. If you are basing it on the fact that Jesus said that on this Rock I will build my church, and he was speaking to Peter, Christ is the Rock, not Peter. Peter in the original Greek is petros, which in interpreted… “pebble.”
FATHER JOE:
Actually, in common usage the word PETROS could mean more than pebble. The reason why that word is used instead of the more common Greek word for ROCK is because Greek words have gender. Peter is given the male version of the word. In itself it is a transliteration of the Aramaic which makes no distinctions about ROCK. Peter is literally a chip off the old block, Jesus Christ, who is the foundation stone of the Catholic Church. Peter is Rock because Jesus is ROCK.
This post is the result of an extended online conversation and debate about various elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon. The focus is very narrow. The discussion increasingly centered upon the conduct of the Franciscan priests involved and the Church’s authority over both the clergy and the validation of purported supernatural intervention. The messages themselves are not really analyzed and the visionaries are not detailed.
JEFF:
Father, I’m suspicious of anyone who has any association with the evil fraud known as “Medjugorje.” IMO, we have yet to see the full negative effects of this sad charade.
FATHER JOE:
I have always done my best to reserve judgment on Medjugorje but have long had serious reservations.
The messages themselves have been repetitive but sometimes problematical. Of course, there was often the possibility of translation errors. I was troubled by such things as the approval of a Franciscan priest as saintly and good who later married and abandoned his ministry and by religious indifferentism, as when Mary purportedly said the holiest woman of the village was an elderly Moslem lady. The real Mary would certainly know the state of the priest’s soul and would not so quickly discount the value of faith in her Son and the grace that God grants the saintly. My other concern is the length of the apparitions and how they continue. The apparitions are haphazard and no longer strictly localized. Religious vocations failed to materialize. The principal visionary had a serious brain tumor raising the logical possibility of hallucinations. An indeterminate number have purported inner locutions. Might the apparitions have started out as genuine and then stopped, leaving the visionaries uncertain as to what to do next? Could there be demonic deception? Where is the permanent sign that Mary promised there? And yet the local fruits (as with people returning to the faith) seem positive. Given the local bishop’s opposition to the purported apparitions, or at least to the pilgrims, I have never gone there. I saw one video that upset me. It showed the priests hearing confessions outside. This practice is okay by me, but it should not be recorded. Even with the sound inaudible, it violates confidentiality and given lip-readers, breeches the sacramental seal. This is quite serious.
However, while I give voice to my concerns, I just do not know. It is all private revelation if genuine, and thus is not necessary for salvation. I have known people moved and brought back to faith by it. I have also met people more fascinated by rosaries that changed colors than by the need to reconcile the messages with Catholic teaching.
GIO:
Isn’t Medjugorje in Russia? Marian apparitions only happen to Catholics; if it was really her, as in Fatima, she would make it known that it was her.
FATHER JOE:
When they started it was Yugoslavia and the nation was still run by the Communists.
GIO:
If Mary purported said that the most holy woman was a Muslim then Mary didn’t appear there. Muslims deny that Christ is the Son of God. They think he was just a Prophet. They trump the fake prophet Muhammad over Jesus, Lord God. This means that the apparitions are a lie or by the devil. St. Pio had apparitions like this; they were fake apparitions of the Lord, Mary and of his spiritual director.
ANITA MOORE, OPL:
I have always been skeptical of Medjugorje and think the opinion of the local ordinary ought to be given more weight than it has been given by some: as the man on the ground, he’s surely in the best position to know.
In my opinion, the good fruits do not weigh in favor of the genuineness of the apparitions. I think it more likely that the credit for the good fruits should go to the Sacraments.
My understanding is that a formal investigation of an apparition does not usually begin until after it has ended. If they are fraudulent, then this would provide a motive for the “seers” to spin them out for as long as humanly possible.
JEFF:
It is up to the local ordinary to rule on the validity of apparitions. The local ordinary’s ruling over the parish in question has definitively ruled against it, and in fact, the Church forbids formal pilgrimages to the place:
His Eminence Cardinal Franjo Kuharic, President of the Yugoslav Episcopal Conference, and H.E. Most Rev. Pavao Zanic, Bishop of Mostar-Duvno forbid organized pilgrimages (1987).
Dear fellow Catholics, Pope John Paul II said if he could go to Medjugorje he would. I have been there twice. Both times I have been touched by Mary’s presence. If you have not yet gone, please reserve your opinions.
FATHERJOE:
Actually, one does not have to go to Medjugorje for an opinion. Part of the discernment process involves the reputation of the visionaries, the various clergy involved (the legitimate bishop’s verdict and the tension between the secular and religious clergy), the possible fruit of the proposed apparitions, and an analysis of the doctrinal content in the messages themselves. One may very well have a positive personal experience; however, the Church’s ultimate verdict will be not be based upon this subjective element.
ANNE:
As I understand it, the “Church” has not forbidden anyone from going there.
FATHER JOE:
The Church is not in the business of telling the laity what churches they can and cannot visit. Church officials can ask obedient priests not to encourage a fascination with certain private revelations or to lead pilgrimages to certain sites.
ANNE:
As for declaring it a “holy place,” they cannot until Mary ends her visits. The visionaries still receive her visits. When it is time, she will allow them to tell the messages.
FATHER JOE:
I have a whole book of the messages. The problem is not secret messages but some of the things said in the ones made public. However, there is the possibility of translation errors. I take it that Our Lady is apparently speaking in Croatian? We must be humble enough to allow that the universal Church might give the local bishop the last word, even if it is a negative one. While it is possible that a positive verdict could be granted in the future, the longer the messages continue, the less likely this becomes. They are also no longer strictly located in one place.
ANNE:
The Devil never stops trying to reduce our Blessed Mother to nothing. Say the Rosary often and remember to pray for each other.
FATHER JOE:
I am not sure about Medjugorje, but one can still love Mary and say the rosary. Peace!
SUSAN:
My sister and my friend have both visited Medjugorje. They witnessed a healing and a conversion to Catholicism. They were dumbfounded at how untouched the city was by the war. I believe we need to pray the rosary every day. I am not sure about Medjugorje, but from what I have heard and witnessed, it has been good. I do think if we pray the rosary we can experience the peace of Mary without having to travel halfway around the world.
WI CATHOLIC:
As for Medjugorje, I have not been comfortable for many years with the repetition of the messages and apparent disobedience of some of the well known people involved, etc. While some have said “NO vocations have come out of this,” I have reminded them that Marriage is a vocation, as is Single Life. I am glad that you specified no RELIGIOUS vocations have resulted, for that is true, and is also a smaller concern of mine.
PJ:
For Anne Gilmartin—
“I can only say that the statements on Medjugorje that have been attributed to the Holy Father (John Paul II) and to me have been made up out of thin air” (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [now Pope Benedict XVI], interview in Der Speigel magazine, July 22, 1998.
For everyone who “feels” the alleged apparitions are true and don’t promote indifference or heresy:
“How wonderful it was to see those of the Jewish faith come to Medjugorje. Some would convert to Christianity; others would return home more devout in their Jewish faith. The same was true of many nonbelievers, Muslims and Protestants.” (The Final Harvest by Wayne Weible, page 121).
These are the words of Weible himself – probably the most prominent promoter of Medjugorje in the U.S. His take-it-or-leave-it attitude about the Catholic Faith is dumbfounding! He gleefully declares how “wonderful it is” to see THE [alleged] BLESSED MOTHER SENDING PEOPLE HOME MORE DEVOUT IN THEIR REJECTION OF HER SON CHRIST AND HIS CHURCH!
OH PLEASE! WAKE UP PEOPLE! If it’s not promoting Catholicism – just Catholicism and ONLY Catholicism – it is not Our Lady and it definitely is NOT Catholic! 95% okay is not good enough! It is either 100% Catholic or it is not Catholic at all— period. Therefore it’s not worthy of belief!
“I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel…there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.” (1 Gal. 1:6-8.)
SEAN:
Regarding Medjugorje – I have been there numerous times over the years. I have read numerous responses here complaining of the repetitive nature of the messages. We must not forget that Our Blessed Mother is just that…OUR MOTHER! And like any mother telling her children how to be safe and act correctly…she has to repeat this to her children. I often find myself saying to my own children “…how many times must I tell you….” Yes, the visions of Our Blessed Mother are repetitive. You could say the same for the Gospel readings at Mass. Should we stop going to Mass because the readings repeat themselves after a while? I believe not.
The Vatican allows people to go to Medjugorje (it does not encourage it but it neither discourages). The official stance resulting from the Zadar declaration of 1991 (Yugoslav bishops re Medjugorje) is that … “it has not yet been established that anything supernatural has taken place there.” Remember, it says not yet. When I first went to Medjugorje in 1987, I found a lot of people were over-emphasizing the importance of the apparitions, signs and chastisements. I have found that over the years the priests and visionaries seem to be speaking less and less of this and more on the importance of the sacraments. This disappointed many of the pilgrims from the early years as they were expecting some imminent sign or worldwide calamity (most probably before 2000, though timeframes were never implied by the visionaries).
I believe the visions to be worthy of belief. After all, if they were demonic then it was indeed a huge “own goal” on the part of demonic forces. If the messages are manmade then I would have thought the messages could be made juicier to appeal to the human desire for new information. But no, the messages are simple and clear.
It should be noted that the ONLY messages that are considered “official” are the ones given to the visionary Maria on the 25th of each month.
You do not have to go to Medjugorje to feel peace. Peace starts in our hearts (something Our Lady has said). If prayer or messages do not bring you closer to Jesus then I would be worried about that. I think that is why Our Lady’s messages are so clear about the need for prayer from the heart.
Finally, while I do not share Fr. Joe’s skepticism I do welcome his caution regarding Medjugorje. After all he is only being prudent. God Bless you all.
CATHY:
I believed in Mary’s apparitions in Medjugorje from the first time I heard of them from 1986-90. I visited there three times. I am still a firm believer in the apparitions and am a better person and better Catholic as a result of having believed in the apparitions and the messages. While I am quite aware of the repetition in so many of the messages, I was always aware the repetitions from my biological mother as she tried to teach me. She repeated over and over the same instructions until I finally ‘got it right’ and/or obeyed her. I believe that the Blessed Mother teaches and repeats herself as every good mother does. I appreciate that!
JOE:
I know many people who have visited Medjugorje, and everyone who I have spoken with, has been drawn closer to Christ. In fact, my sister and brother in law have visited four times each, and the change in them was dramatic.
As far as the bishop is concerned, if you read the lives of many saints, it was the bishops and the Vatican who were the thorns in their sides. The human side of the Church is the problem; the divine side is just that.
I cannot believe you would allow someone to accuse St. Pio of having fake apparitions.
FATHER JOE:
No one denies that pilgrims who traveled to Medjugorje have often grown in faith and devotion. Besides the purported apparitions, innerlocutions, and signs, the people have gone to Confession and participated at Mass. The sacraments always nurture faith and grant us grace. The question is whether they were changed by something there that was singularly supernatural or whether it was the faith they brought with them that transformed the experience and gave it heightened meaning.
First, Catholics are not obliged to give personal credence to private revelation and particular apparitions.
Second, all salvation truth and the fullness of revelation that constitutes the deposit of faith conclude with the death of the last apostle, John.
Third, the living Church is composed of both shepherds and flocks who cooperate with each other according to the charisms and roles given by Christ; they do not stand in opposition to each other.
The Vatican (Holy See) and the bishops are not thorns in the side of holy men and women. Indeed, the shepherds of the Church are commanded to exhibit oversight in caring for Christ’s sheep. Many apparitions are judged as not supernatural and are thus false. These are dangerous and can lead God’s people astray. (A case in point was Veronica in Bayside, New York or the events in Garabandal, Spain.) The ultimate verdict about Medjugorje is still out, although the opposition from the local bishop and certain problematical messages will necessarily be considered. Indeed, recriminations against the hierarchy as you propose here will also weigh against it. Protestants might reject the Magisterium, but it is unseemly for those who claim to be faithful Catholics to ridicule it.
The bishops and Holy See rightly tested apparitions like Guadalupe, Lourdes and Fatima, eventually finding them safe for the faithful. What was done for Juan Diego, St. Bernadette and Sister Lucia should not be short-circuited or dismissed regarding Medjugorje and its visionaries. The bishops and Vatican are not merely the human elements of the Church. The bishops in union with the Pope were established by Peter to guide the Church. As our shepherds, they constitute the living teaching authority which interprets and teaches the deposit of faith. The Holy Spirit watches over them and preserves them in the truth. Only some sort of confused congregationalism would narrowly focus the divine upon the laity or a few pious saints and ignore and deny the Pope, bishops and priests.
This post is not really about Padre Pio. Padre Pio struggled with just authority but his life was essentially marked by holy obedience, even when it was difficult. As a priest and religious, it was not his place to question his superiors. The stigmata itself does not mean that a man is perfect or all holy. Indeed, his long-suffering with the wounds of Christ might have been the feature that made him the saint that he would become. The revelations or messages received by saints are regarded as personal and may not always be in perfect sync with every article of Church teaching. Saints are holy; they are not always right in their opinions. I have no reason to doubt the supernatural events around Padre Pio; but neither can I fault the Church in being scrutinizing and careful about such things. You should not deride that authority to which the great saint vowed submission of intellect and will.
PATRICK:
I would like to say that I converted back to Catholicism, through Medjugorje. I discovered it on its anniversary (June 24, 1995). I know this, because I took out the book, “Visions of the Children” in a library. After reading this book, I needed more information, because I had a really hard time believing that this was happening. After flying through my fifth book on the place, many coincidences started happening to me, pointing to Medjugorje. There are just too many to mention; but I can say that many of my friends, (that made fun of me for reading these books), are now converted.
I can say that the coincidences in my life that led me towards Medjugorje became really apparent, and it started leading me to confusion. This last (I will say coincidence, but I now realize God just pushed me along, until I listened to him) happened on the way to work. One morning I woke up an hour late and realized that I could be terminated because my record was getting worse and I was extremely worried (for some reason, I just had a hard time getting up for work back then). I decided to just get dressed and go in to see what would happen. On the way into work, I realized that after all those books I read, not once did I think to pray. I was 30 years old and had not prayed since I was 15. I said a prayer and with tears in my eyes, I asked God to forgive me for all my sins. I then asked him to show me one more sign to let me know if Medjugorje came from him and not from the Devil. I begged him not to lead me astray and that if it was from him to show me a sign; I promised him I would go there even during the war.
I arrived at work to find that my Boss just happened to be at the door getting some fresh air. He had a quick talk with me and told me he covered me and to go home and relax, before anyone saw me. I was shocked! I was driving home praising God, not even knowing what was to come. I arrived home around 8:30 AM. Sitting in my house alone, wondering what I was going to do, one of my good friends, (who actually teased me the most about Medjugorje), happened to take the day off as well. He saw my car and decided to call me to see if I wanted to go fishing with him at the Detroit River. I have never fished there and curiosity made me go.
We arrived at the Detroit River, took out our poles and drinks and sat their fishing while making small talk. I didn’t want to bring up anything about Medjugorje, but decided I should. Of course he didn’t want to listen and scolded me into changing the subject. I ended it by telling him that I prayed for a sign, asking God to show me a sign, just one more coincidence and I was going to go. He thought I was going crazy and kept trying to discourage me. It wasn’t 5 minutes later that it happened and we became quiet. My friend looked up at this huge oil tanker coming down the river and said, Oh My God! Pat, there is your sign! I looked up to see that this ship that was coming down the river was named, “The Bosnia-Herzegovina.” It was the name of the place where Medjugorje was located. I looked at my friend and he was in tears. I was shocked at his reaction, but knew that God was telling me something. This was the last sign God gave me. I have many stories that took place in such a short time (two months) that I could share, but the last one was the one that made me go.
I can say that Medjugorje is a mystery to us and the Visionaries. The Visionaries don’t even know the extent of Gods plan from this event. If you have never been there, it is an experience you will never forget, a life changing experience! Growing up on the streets of Detroit, I know a B.S.er a mile away. I found these visionaries to be very humble and family oriented. You don’t see them on talk shows or showing pride about who they are. I believe that their sufferings are much worse then we can imagine for what they know. It seems as if their “free will” is gone. I would not want to be them.
I wish the best for everyone who is searching for truth; I will keep you in my prayers always! God Bless Everyone.
ANNE:
Medjugorje is in fact real, believe it or not. I find your blog very disrespectful to Mary (the Mother of GOD) and to those who have been there and part of the apparitions.
FATHER JOE:
There is nothing here disrespectful of our Blessed Mother and to authentic apparitions.
ANNIE:
If you don’t believe in it so be it but I myself am one of the many who found joy in returning to active participation in Church activities.
FATHER JOE:
That is good for you, but what right does this give you to challenge a priest in good standing with the Church?
ANNIE:
I also gave a Nun her Rosaries back, after they had changed from aluminum to GOLD. This can be a game from the Devil but I doubt it.
FATHER JOE:
My faith is based upon more than rosaries that change color.
ANNIE:
Why don’t you all have a little FAITH?
FATHER JOE:
I believe in a great deal… the CREED… the CATECHISM… the SCRIPTURES… the Eucharist… the POPE.
ANNIE:
Mary is real and you all should look into all the mysterious things that have happened since the Apparitions.
FATHER JOE:
Of course Mary is real. As for apparitions, I would especially recommend Fatima, Lourdes and Guadalupe.
ANNIE:
Also, before you claim that you doubt any of this, look up a map and find out where exactly Medjugorje is. Then, find out about Fr. Jozo, a priest who like yourself did not believe until Mary (the Mother of GOD) came to him while he suffered in prison. There are many good stories. Just have FAITH— prayers to all.
FATHER JOE:
Ah, you are pushing Medjugorje. The verdict is still out on that one and the local bishop has claimed that nothing supernatural happened. There are problems that sensible Catholics must admit. But I have not yet made up my mind. Father Jozo was suspended as a priest for disobedience although the Franciscans gave him safe harbor from the local bishop. There are also public allegations of sexual offenses with women. Father Ken Roberts was suspended for child molestation. The news gets worse and worse. Have you heard about Father Vlasic?
IRISH EXAMINER (September 9, 2008):
Pope orders disciplinary measures on priest over sex scandal
ALL hell is breaking loose in Medjugorje following the Pope’s crackdown on the world’s largest illicit Catholic shrine.
Pope Benedict XVI has authorized severe cautionary and disciplinary measures against Fr Tomislav Vlasic, the former spiritual director to six children who said Our Lady was appearing to them at the site in Bosnia.
The Franciscan priest was suspended after he refused to co-operate with a Vatican probe of scandalous sexual immorality “aggravated by mystical motivations.”
Fr Vlasic, who fathered a child with a nun, was a central figure in promoting the apparitions that allegedly began in 1981 and continue to this day. The seers say they have seen Our Lady more than 40,000 times in the past 27 years.
Three Church commissions failed to support the claims and the bishops of the former Yugoslavia declared in 1991 that “it cannot be affirmed that these matters concern supernatural apparitions or revelations.”
In a statement posted on the website of the diocese which includes Medjugorje, Bishop Ratko Peric explained that Fr Vlasic was being investigated “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspicious mysticism, disobedience toward legitimately issued orders” and charges that he violated the sixth commandment.
In 1985 the Pope, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, banned official, diocesan or parish-sponsored pilgrimages to the shrine.
Fr. Vlasic is the second spiritual adviser to the visionaries to be suspended from ministry. Similar action was taken against Fr Jozo Zovko in 2004. Fr Vlasic has been confined to a monastery in Italy and banned from contact with the Queen of Peace community he founded, or with his lawyers without permission.
He is also banned from making public appearances, preaching and hearing confessions, and will be required to make a solemn profession of the Catholic faith.
The Vatican has warned the priest he will be excommunicated if he violates any of the prohibitions.
In 1984 he wrote to Pope John Paul II to say that he was the one “who through divine providence guides the seers of Medjugorje.”
Four years later, when it was revealed he had fathered a child, he moved to Parma where he set up the Queen of Peace community which is dedicated to the Medjugorje apparitions.
FATHER JOE:
The Canonical status of Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, OFM
The Bishop, 2008-08-31
The CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH with its letter prot. 144/1985-27164 of 30 May 2008, has authorized me as the local Bishop of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno to inform the diocesan community of the canonical status of Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, the founder of the association “Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu” – (Queen of Peace, totally Yours – Through Mary to Jesus).
The letter signed by the Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Archbishop Angelo Amato, states the following:
“Within the context of the phenomenon Medjugorje, this Dicastery is studying the case of Father Tomislav VLASIC OFM, originally from that region and the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu.’”
On 25 January 2008, through a properly issued Decree, this Dicastery imposed severe cautionary and disciplinary measures on Fr. Vlasic.
The non-groundless news that reached this Congregation reveals that the religious priest in question did not respond, even partially, to the demands of ecclesiastical obedience required by the very delicate situation he finds himself in, justifying himself by citing his zealous activity in the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno and surrounding territories, in initiating religious activities, buildings, etc.
Since Fr. Vlasic has fallen into a censure of interdict latae sententiae reserved to this Dicastery, I kindly ask Your Excellency, for the good of the faithful, to inform the community of the canonical status of Fr. Vlasic and at the same time to report on the situation in question….”
*****
This regards the fact that the same Congregation of the Holy See applied ecclesiastical sanctions against Rev. Father Tomislav Vlašić, through a Decree of the Congregation (prot. 144/1985) of 25 January 2008, signed by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect, and by Archbishop Angelo Amato, Secretary of the Congregation along with the “Concordat cum originali” of 30 January 2008, verified by Msgr. John Kennedy, Official of the Congregation.
The Decree was handed over to Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić in the General Curia of the OFM in Rome on 16 February 2008 and the notification was co-signed by the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order, Father José R. Carballo, the Ordinary of Fr. Vlašić.
The Decree of the Congregation mentions that Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlašić, a cleric of the Franciscan Minor Order – the founder of the association ‘Kraljice mira potpuno Tvoji – po Mariji k Isusu’ and who is involved in the “phenomenon Medjugorje” – has been reported to the Congregation “for the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism, disobedience towards legitimately issued orders and charges contra sextum.”
“Having studied the case, the Congregation during its special Congress decreed the following sanctions against Rev. Fr. Tomislav Vlasic:
1. Mandatory residence in one of the houses of the Order in the region of Lombardy (Italy) to be determined by the Minister General of the Order and to be realized within thirty days from the time of the legitimate notification of this decree;
2. All contacts with the ‘Kraljice Mira…’ community and with its members are prohibited;
3. Any actions involving juridical contracts and administrative organizations, whether canonical or civil, effected without the written permission ad actum of the Minister General of the Order and under his responsibility are prohibited;
4. A mandatory course of theological-spiritual formation, with a final evaluation along with a prior recognitio of this Congregation, and a solemn professio fidei;
5. The following are also prohibited: activities involving the ‘care of souls’, preaching, public appearances, while the faculty to hear confessions is also revoked up until the conclusion of the terms described in the previous number, barring an evaluation of the case.
An additional sanction of a latae sententiae interdict (can. 1332) reserved to the Apostolic See is adjoined in the case of the violation of the mandatory residence (n. 1) and the other prohibited acts mentioned in n. 3 and n. 5.
Fr. Vlasic is forewarned that in the case of stubbornness a juridical penal process will begin with the aim of still harsher sanctions, not excluding dismissal, having in mind the suspicion of heresy and schism, as well as scandalous acts contra sextum, aggravated by mystical motivations.
Fr. Vlasic remains under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister General of the Order of Minor Franciscans, who shall see to his vigilance through the local Superior or another Delegate.”
ANNE:
Dear Fr. Joe, I have read your blog and ask you, Isn’t it just a little strange that the very priests who are so heavy into Medjugorje are the very ones (according to everyone) who have SINNED BIGTIME? Well I do! Do you all really believe that the DEVIL is going to stand still and allow the BVM to have all these people saved? Nonsense! He is going to battle her as she is according to our faith and the Bible— that she will crush his head. Remember?
I’m sorry if I irritate some but I have a very strong faith in our Mother, and I believe in her visitations in Bosnia-Herzogovina. The way I initially went was also irregular. I had a friend who went and who wanted me to go. I could not get her to understand I couldn’t afford it. So I told her to tell the BVM if she wanted me to go there, she (Mary) had better get me the money. After I hung up the phone I apologized to Mary for being fresh, as she understood what a pickle I was in. I was in Medjugorje on June 24, 1988 (two months later). Tell me that wasn’t weird. As I told you the place is a land of PEACE. I had dreams of going back and I did in 1999. Before and after I have been ill; realize I am praying as well. Keep the Faith and continue praying the Rosary.
SEAN:
As for Medjugorje, I am a believer in the apparitions. I have been to Medjugorje many times over the last 20 years. In the early years of going there on pilgrimage I must admit I was caught up in the supernatural aspect of the place and the celebrity status of the visionaries. I found this initially strengthened my faith but did not last. It was only later on that I started to actually listen to the messages from Our Lady, which did not differ at all from the Gospels. None of the official messages (mainly given on 25th of the month) have been in contradiction to the Gospels. I know people have questions and problems with some other comments attributed to Our Lady, such as references to other faiths. Some of these are taken out of context. Most people’s misgivings in relation to this area are based on pre-Vatican II teachings, such as salvation not been attainable outside of the Catholic Church. I am not for one second implying that all faiths are the same.
There is also a lot of inaccurate information regarding Medjugorje in relation to some of the priests. Firstly, Fr. Jozo was never guilty of misconduct towards women. It was alleged but never proven after investigation. Fr. Vlasij never fathered a child with a nun. This was a Fr. Ivica Vego who was working in Medjugorje in a gift shop with the nun in question. At the time he was suspended from duties by the bishop of Mostar and was never carrying out pastoral work or saying Mass publicly. However, it is nonetheless a sad story but should not be mixed up with Fr. Vlisij.
Fr. Vlasic was never a spiritual director to the visionaries though he did claim to be so himself. He has not worked in Medjugorje in over 15 years. He set up a community in Italy which is in no way affiliated with Medjugorje. The shrine of Medjugorje cannot control how other people promote Medjugorje or how they interpret the messages from Our Lady. It was Fr. Vlasij actions and teachings that has got him into trouble with the Vatican. Unfortunately but not surprisingly the media have tried to imply that this is linked to Medjugorje in some way.
Mr. Vego was once Fr. Vego. He was dispensed from his vows and expelled from the Franciscans back in the 1990’s. His removal was by direct order of Pope John Paul II. There is no questioning the truth of the charges. His immoral actions included a sexual relationship with Sister Leopolda and her impregnation. They both left religious life and moved in together and continued to enlarge their number of offspring. Prior to his removal, he fought his expulsion and administered the sacraments without faculties to do so.
The former spiritual director and pastor to the parish of the visionaries is now an ex-Franciscan Catholic priest. A few years prior to coming to Medjugorje, he impregnated Franciscan Sister Rufina and had her sent to Germany in 1976 with the false promise of joining her. Their correspondence was provided to the Holy See as evidence of his disobedience. Heavily involved with the Charismatic renewal, he presumed that the Virgin Mary had chosen him to be the leader of a new movement. His preaching and teaching became increasingly suspect. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 2008 informed him that he was under formal investigation for spreading “dubious doctrine,” “manipulation of consciences,” “suspected false mysticism,” disobedience to legitimate authority and charges of “contra sextum” or fornication. He was laicized in 2009. If he tried to continue with any ministry in the Church he was told that he would be excommunicated. He has since left the Church anyway for a New Age cult centered on distorted Catholic doctrine, private revelation (Medjugorje), pseudo-science and astrology.
Of the three priests often associated with Medjugorje, Fr. Zovco is the only one who still functions, albeit in a truncated fashion, as a priest. Originally sceptical, he protected the visionaries and was imprisoned by the Communist authorities. His story should be the most inspiring; however, subsequent events have also tarnished his witness. Various women charged him with sexual misconduct. Of course, charges are not proof and he may be innocent. The bishop suspended him in 1989. He appealed to Rome which reaffirmed his suspension and ordered his seclusion to a distant monastic setting. He refused (1990). Despite having his faculties removed, he disobediently continued to offer the sacraments. The next bishop reaffirmed the suspension and Rome notified the Franciscans that his faculties and now that of three additional priests had been removed. Any Mass that a suspended priest offered was illicit. Any marriage they witnessed was null-and-void. The Franciscan Providence continued to fight with the bishop and even made Fr. Zovco the administrator (pastor by another name) in Siroki Brijeg. Another notice of suspension was sent (1994) but was again ignored. He offered Mass, heard Confessions and gave retreats. He went on a world tour giving talks and retreats, even scheduling a visit to the United States. Scandal and protests erupted in 2002 when his participation was cancelled (two days before the event) at the Marian Mass and prayer vigil scheduled at the Basilica of the National Shrine in Washington, DC. The Archdiocese was notified that Fr. Zovko had no faculties to publicly function as a priest and that he was under ecclesial censure. Canon Law made his involvement impossible. Bishop Peric would suspend him a third time in 2004 in response to his persistent disobedience. The bishop called him for a meeting so that his status might be regularized. He spurned the piles of testimony against him and the record of his insubordination. He refused any compromise or reconciliation. Rome initiated a new investigation (2009) and he was ordered confined to a convent far from Medjugorje; supporters were informed that this was “against his own will.” Finally, the Franciscans gave in and stopped protecting him.
SEAN:
Imagine if you will the following headlines from 2000 years ago: “Main Follower of Jesus Denied Knowing Him,” “Internal Disagreements between Jesus’ Disciples,” “Jesus’ Followers Nowhere to be seen during Trial.”
FATHER JOE:
You would compare reprobates to Jesus and the Apostles?
SEAN:
My point is that even those close to Jesus had failings and disagreements. My point is that people will believe what they want to believe. This is not helped by inaccurate reporting by the media.
FATHER JOE:
But your facts are inaccurate, too. Further, the challenge is not coming from the media but people of faith who love the Church.
SEAN:
I do not believe that you or your blog is anti-Medjugorje or disrespectful to Our Lady. As Catholics we are not required to believe in apparitions. However, many of us do. Many of us believe the Mother of God to be appearing in Medjugorje. Personally I have found Medjugorje to have strengthened my faith. It is easy when in Medjugorje to be prayerful. It is harder when you come home. That is why we are always encouraged by the visionaries and priests in Medjugorje to pray the Rosary, read Scripture and attend Mass. There is nothing new in this requirement.
I agree with Fr. Joe when he says that you don’t have to go to Medjugorje to have an opinion on it. I would suggest he does not rule out going there at some stage. If he feels that he does not need to or want to go then I am okay with that. I enjoy reading this blog and thank Fr. Joe for setting it up. Peace to all of you and God Bless.
LADY GODLESS:
Sean O’Shaughnessy said, “As for Medjugorje, I am a believer in the apparitions. I have been to Medjugorje many times over the last 20 years.”
Sean, if I may ask… Did any of these apparitions occur while you were there? Did you see them or hear them? What were they like?
SEAN:
To Lady Godless—
In response to your comments, no I have not seen Our Lady. Science cannot prove or disprove that the visionaries are seeing anything. I accept that. Countless tests have been carried out on the visionaries by scientists, doctors and psychiatrists from all over the world. Some of these were atheists, agnostics and non-Christians.
Psychiatric tests have shown that the visionaries are not delusional. The scientific tests i.e., brainwaves, pupil dilation tests have shown that as far as the visionaries brains are concerned…they are seeing something. Neither Science nor faith can prove what exactly they are seeing.
I simply say that I find the visionaries testimony worthy of belief when I say I believe them. Do I belief them 100%? I would be foolish to say yes because I have not seen with my own eyes. My faith is not based on visionaries and mystics. It is on the Gospels.
The fruits of Medjugorje are positive. Millions have returned to their faith and a deeper relationship with God.
One of my best friends is an atheist and nothing anyone says will convince him that God exists. On the other hand nothing atheists will say to believers will convince them that God does not exist.
It is good that people question faith, apparitions, etc. Humans are programmed to question who we are and what we are doing here. There comes a point when you make a decision to accept, not accept or remain indifferent. I have accepted.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, weak believers can be swayed by atheists and certain atheists may come to believe on account of rational arguments, often based on philosophy and elements of science. Faith is a gift from God, but it does not have to be blind faith. Unlike certain forms of Protestant fundamentalism, Catholics stress faith seeking understanding. We do not “believe” in spite of reason. Scientific discoveries are not false trails established by the devil but are rather the fingerprints of the Creator. As Christians we need a sober respect for all truth and a healthy appreciation of the divine mystery.
MICHAEL:
Sean and Lady Godless, I had a friend who visited Medjugorje. He was also very weak in his faith until he witnessed the cross beam on a concrete crucifix move up and down on its concrete post while there. This is a true story. Think of all of the conversions that took place without anyone experiencing any physical manifestations. Happy are we who believe without seeing.
SEAN:
Fr. Joe, you are correct in your response to my comments. People can certainly change their minds on reflection and in the presence of certain information. I am sincere in my expression of appreciation for your clarification and wisdom. May God bless you and your pastoral work for His Glory.
FATHER JOE:
I did not intend to detract from your words, just to amplify them with a few more details. Peace!
SHANNON:
Father Joe, your reasoning is unbelievably dumb. The Muslim lady is holy. God judges us by what we know and not on whether we are Catholic or not.
FATHER JOE:
Then you would favor the heresy of religious relativism. I do not. Further, salvation is not something we can merit apart from Christ. We cannot save ourselves. We are not saved simply because we exhibit good behavior. In any case, even if God has a place in heaven for the old Moslem woman, no doubt because of her ignorance of Christ as God and Savior, this does not mean that she would possess more grace than a faithful Christian believer.
SHANNON:
“Where is the permanent sign that Mary promised there?” Oh you want your chastisement NOW it appears. Ever heard of mercy? Isn’t that what Mary has been saying, that she is holding back the arm of her son? You are completely ignorant. I didn’t say stupid here just ignorant.
FATHER JOE:
You are now mixing your private revelations. The so-called permanent sign and the proposed chastisement are not the same thing. If I am ignorant then I suppose you would similarly condemn the local bishop, too. Marian apparitions are supposed to build unity in the Church, not cause ridicule of her priests and disdain for her bishops.
SHANNON:
You should stop making any comments about Medjugorje because you haven’t taken the time to discern it.
FATHER JOE:
Evidently, you would silence me in regard to Catholic teaching as well. In any case, I have made no final or absolute verdict against Medjugorje. Is it the fear of a negative verdict that upsets you or is it that a few of the pro-Medjugorje priests were found to be unworthy of trust and scandalous in their personal behavior? Would you listen to bad rogue priests before giving respect and a listening ear to priests who keep their promises?
SHANNON:
It probably takes more time than you have but please just be quiet and say you don’t now and stop giving stupid reasons why it MAY be false like some of these other people.
FATHER JOE:
I will not stop “reasoning” for you or anyone. We must be critical of matters like Medjugorje. That is the way the Church deals with such things. It would be “stupid” and “dumb” just to accept apparitions at face value. You must be humble enough to accept whatever the Church decides. Your current attitude is not from God or reflective of how Our Lady would have you talk to me.
SHANNON:
I know Mary isn’t happy with my scolding of you but I am sick of stupid reasons.
FATHER JOE:
You have said it yourself, Mary is not happy with you. Forget the rest, it is that which should make you go to Confession and move you to accept what the Church ultimately says about Medjugorje. Even if certain purported supernatural elements are not given approbation; that does not in any way subtract from the authenticity of faith which so many pilgrims brought to Medjugorje. The verdict against Garabandal Spain was negative, and yet the faith grows there even despite false apparitions and inner locutions.
SHANNON:
I am also worried about the loss of information that the school of Mary imparts and the possible loss of souls to Hell because they don’t follow her advice. Why? It is because they aren’t sure or they are waiting for the Church to make a ruling. So they die and are judged because the messages are going on for 28 years and thanks be to God may go on for another long period while we get our act together to meet Jesus. Ignoring the messages is Satan’s joy.
FATHER JOE:
But, we must make sure that it is really Mary speaking. It would be foolish or “ignorant” to be presumptive about this fact in Medjugorje. Satan can also pretend to be an angel of light. Private revelation cannot displace the public revelation which ended with the death of the last apostle, John. The Church does not require her children to believe in apparitions and private revelation. She does have the authority to judge as to whether such things are in accordance with the deposit of faith or in opposition. I have only echoed the voices of people higher up in the Church. These men are part of the Magisterium, protected by the Holy Spirit. You and I, apart from their guidance, are not so safeguarded. One does not have to believe in private revelation to be a good Catholic or to know salvation.
SHANNON:
I absolutely KNOW it is real. This is a gift to me like the gift of Faith in God. I get really tired of hearing stupid reasons why people don’t believe. Bishop Zanic got his ego involved. Pope John Paul overrode his opinion more than once. That was never done before where a Pope overrode the local Bishop. I trust Pope John Paul over Zanic.
FATHER JOE:
Pope John Paul never gave a final verdict to Medjugorje. Pope Benedict XVI remarked than many attributions to the late Pope in favor of the apparitions are fiction. He deferred to the local bishop; however, he did ask that the diocese make provision to assist pilgrims with the sacraments. The Pope himself did not go to Medjugorje. It is not your place to second-guess a bishop. Neither was it the place of the Franciscans. If you place your personal faith in this apparition ahead of any allegiance to the Church and her teachings then you are falling into a type of “private faith” as espoused by certain Protestant denominations. This is further evidence that the fruits of Medjugorje are not everything they should be.
SHANNON:
He saved Faustina’s reputation because he was a great Pope who didn’t listen to stupidity but made them examine it thoroughly. Satan is involved and doing all he can to mess up the work of Mary to save us from Hell.
FATHER JOE:
Are you calling Pope Pius XII stupid for his caution? Are you saying that the Church’s reluctance to promulgate the Divine Mercy was Satanic? The late Pope John Paul II only said that the time of deliberation was over. He never chastised the Church or the previous Pope as you seem to do.
SHANNON:
“…principal visionary had a serious brain tumor. ”
Since you haven’t spent the time to know what you are talking about you should know this was at the request of Mary that she suffer for a cause. Vicka immediately said YES but Mary said to pray for 3 days before deciding. She was also cured at a date she (Vicka) put in an envelope to prove it was from Mary. You obviously don’t know that.
FATHER JOE:
You have only her word I suppose for the tumor and cure? Again, I am not saying that Mary did not speak to the young woman; however, I would never place blind faith in an apparition like Medjugorje. I believe in the Catholic Church and everything she teaches to be true. That is enough for me.
SHANNON:
You are incredibly ignorant about Medjugorje so you should just be quiet and stop dissuading people from listening to Mary.
FATHER JOE:
I have a whole library about Medjugorje. I have read the messages from the very beginning. I have noted the purported supernatural events. Yes, I am not convinced. But I am not ignorant.
SHANNON:
It is real.
FATHER JOE:
It is your choice to regard it as such. I am not so sure. You have no authority and no right to compel others to accept it.
SHANNON:
You either need to spend more time on it or keep quiet because you are a priest and can affect people in a way Satan loves. Not listening to Mary’s messages, not discerning is not an option as we only have so many years on the earth. We can’t wait for the Church to discern. The question here is if Mary is appearing, are you and others ignoring her? As she says, living the messages is why she is here speaking and that ain’t easy.
FATHER JOE:
Maybe Satan is using you to silence one of God’s servants? Were you ordained to preach and teach? Were you ordained to forgive sins? Were you ordained to confect the Eucharist and to make Christ’s sacrifice present to the community? Pope Benedict XVI is arguably more critical. Will you try to silence him as well? Given that your comments are filled with heresy, would it not be better for you to return to the flock as one of the sheep and stop trying to be one of the shepherds?
SHANNON:
I am in two prayer groups and go to daily Mass and monthly Confession but priests like you who give dumb reasons on why Medjugorje just may be a hoax makes me lose my religion. See what you have done. Now I have to go to Confession for writing this attack on your character. But you deserve it because you have not done what you are called to do. Spend the time to discern. It is hard work but the fruits are worth it. As a priest it’s your job.
FATHER JOE:
You may have already lost your religion; and if that is the case, then it will be further testimony against the validity of Medjugorje. There is no true Church other than the Catholic Church. Leave the Church and you will be lost in the sea of lies and sin. Your Catholic faith and Medjugorje are not the same thing. Focus on the power of the Eucharist and say your daily Rosary. Let the real Jesus and Mary speak to your mind and heart.
SHANNON:
Mary once “spanked my hand” when she said I should treat people who don’t get it better. She said in a message, “You know the messages are true,” they don’t so how dare you be so insolent toward those who don’t know? I paraphrase but that’s what she said. Your reasoning is so ridiculous though I can’t hold back. Too many messages is the dumbest reason of all. Too much love is what you are saying.
FATHER JOE:
You think you are in getting inner locutions of your own? Such things can be very dangerous if you do not know how to discern spirits. Remember, anything which conflicts with the dogmatic teachings of the Church or which would disparage the apostolic ministry is by definition from the evil one. Know the difference, before it is too late.
GLEN:
Fr. Joe, I wouldn’t want to come out against something Mary was trying to accomplish, i.e. Medjugorje and have it turn out to be real. I would much rather believe something was real and have it turn out to be false. May God show you truth in all the decisions you have to make in your priestly vocation. Your responsibility is overwhelming! You have the power to bring almighty God to the altar! Thank you for that. I will pray for you, please pray for me and my family.
JENNY:
Fr. Joe, I have gone to Medjugorje twice (1994 and 2000), and I truly felt my relationship with God was greatly strengthened by my pilgrimages there. I was blessed to see the supernatural event of “The Miracle of the Sun,” not only there, but on a near-daily basis for 4 years after returning.
Having said this, I absolutely agree with you that as faithful Catholics we must be obedient to the Magisterium of the Church in all matters of Faith and Morals. I don’t understand how the people that comment on this blog can criticize your God-given authority as a priest and spiritual adviser! Everything you have said is exactly true! Until the Church declares the apparitions as authentic, we should be extremely cautious about what is going on there. I have often cautioned myself that the “miracle” I witnessed. Could it possibly be a “trick of the devil”? I have prayed for Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother to guide me in Truth. Since no evil has come out of my particular experience, and since I have drawn closer to God, I do believe that the apparitions are authentic and will eventually be declared as such by the Church; but even so, as you stated, private revelations are NOT necessary for our salvation. For people commenting here to act as though this unapproved apparition is absolutely authentic and anyone opposing it must be working for the devil, is very upsetting. We should thank God that the Church often takes many years to discern and approve of supernatural happenings, lest scandal sneak in and discredit the authority of the Church! A good example is that upon the death of Mother Teresa, the secular press thought the Church would immediately declare her a saint since everyone thinks she is anyway! The Church takes her time in these matters for good reason. The Church does not base her findings on public opinion (God help us if it did!); but through the guidance of the Holy Spirit! Yes, Mother Teresa was very saintly in her lifetime, and her cause for sainthood is underway, but until the Church canonizes her, we cannot presume upon where her soul is! She may be in Purgatory, awaiting the prayers of the Faithful! In conclusion, we MUST, as faithful Catholics, submit ourselves to the authority given to the Magisterium of the Church by Christ himself— and woe to anyone who criticizes a priest, bishop, cardinal or the Pope! We should be praying constantly for all of our priests, nuns and religious, since Satan particularly enjoys attacking them! God bless you, Fr. Joe!
RON:
After first learning about the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje, back in 1983, I’ve continued to monitor the events and pick up on any references. Especially throughout the 80’s, I recorded a number of TV programs, including an episode of the CBC documentary, “The Fifth Estate,” and an episode of the Shirley Show, a talk show on the Canadian network, CTV, not to mention an episode of Mysteries of the Unexplained. Considering that these programs could all be categorized as “secular”; especially the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) documentary, arguments against the veracity of the apparitions were weak indeed. These facts, coupled with getting to hear one of the visionaries speak live, in Edmonton, Alberta, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of Fatima, and the reality that the six visionaries attended the apparition site to pray daily for 15 years, to me is very persuasive. If the Medjugorje phenomenon is from the devil, then either the devil himself has been converted or there is no hope for salvation for any of us, because it is impossible to discern the truth from a lie.
PAUL:
Concerning Medjugorje, and reading some of the comments made about this place, with some people making comments about demonic forces being involved, i.e. Satan and company— well Satan must be making the biggest mistake ever because he is leading numerous souls back to God with people being converted back to the faith every day. If some of these people would just read a small bit more on Medjugorje maybe they might get converted without even going there at all? These are people who want to believe but are a bit cool to faith, so please show restraint and don’t fall into Satan’s trap. Our lady is appearing there without a doubt, and there will be a sign left on apparition hill for the non-believers in God’s own time and choosing. Our Lady’s main message is the call for sinners to repent of their sins and conversion. I can tell you it is surely happening in Medjugorje; so all can say is Satan must be getting a bit soft in his old age.
CHARLES:
I am writing a book about Medjugorje and am trying to work through the positive and negative input that is both out there in cyberspace and from discussions from all folks involved. The one area that seems so controversial is the lack of support from the Mostar Diocese and Bishop, the conflicting stories out of Rome whether Pope John Paul II and our present Pontiff ever had given positive statements about Medjugorje that can be documented. I am also in touch with Vatican resources on this matter, as well as approaching the present Bishop of Mostar for his input. Lest you think I am negative I am not. I have been to Medjugorje twelve times, been in Ivan’s house during Our Lady’s appearance and in St. James choir loft also during an apparition. I know Jelena Vasilj personally, I have met all of the visionaries, know Fr. Svet, and many of the top tour guides. That has made it difficult to be objective, but after reading so many negative web sites and issues surrounding Medjugorje I felt someone must try and research this from a non-biased point of view and try if it be possible to put this to rest, or at least present the facts, fiction, history etc. in a well researched way. So I am contacting as many of the websites that look legitimate both from a positive and negative standpoint for their input into my research. So if you are willing I’d like your preliminary thoughts on why you believe or don’t believe in Medjugorje and permission to follow up at a later date for more in depth research.
FATHER JOE:
I do not know if it is supernatural or not. I will leave the verdict to Church authorities. You are right; it is hard to be objective. Have there not been enough books about it? People have repented and come back to God. Those instances would be positive. But are the messages, visitations, and inner-locutions objectively genuine? Why have they lasted so long? And why are there a few statements hard to reconcile with the truth about the characters involved and certain Catholic teachings? My speculation is not worth much and I doubt you will get much cooperation from authorities. The business is so popular among devout people that I suspect that Church leaders are frightened by possible schism and/or religious riot if a formal negative verdict is issued. So far, the local bishop has taken the heat. A lot of weight has to be given his appraisal. Some have spoken quite rudely about the bishop(s) and have dismissed the very real tension between the diocese and the Franciscans. In any case, if it is real I suspect that our Blessed Mother will do something spectacular to verify it. Such a miracle was promised. We are still waiting.
TIM:
Fr. Joe, I am saddened to see all the people who write such horrible things to you on this page. I would certainly delete some of them. Thank you for your service to our Lord and His Church! God bless you. (and to all of you who are so agitated about his comments on Medjugorje, take a deep breath and relax— you need to read them slooooooowly and then you will see they are not so bad). God bless!
FATHER JOE:
Here is an extended BBC documentary of a pilgrimage group to Medjugorje in 2009. The narrator is listed as Bernard Hill but older listeners will probably note that it sounds very much like Ken Roberts who was himself removed from priestly ministry.
A Vatican Commission was instituted in 2010 to officially study Medjugorje for possible recognition. Out of respect for their work, the local bishop no longer speaks about the subject.
The demonic will lie to us, offering a feigned friendship and understanding. Evil is all about seduction, not about well-being and advancement. What is the darkness really saying behind the duplicity and rhetoric?
The Darkness
You are no good.
You are stupid.
You are fat and ugly.
No one loves you.
You are worthless.
You are hopeless.
You can’t do anything right.
No one wants to be around you.
No one cares about you.
We would all be better off with you gone.
You are bad and beyond forgiveness.
You deserve every bad thing that happens to you.
Everyone hates you.
You would be better off dead.
A Response
Enough! Everything that God creates is good. You have value in God’s eyes. Indeed you are precious and irreplaceable. Your worth is immeasurable.
Some are smart about the things of the world but ignorant about the truths of eternity. We know that God loves us and has called us to a relationship with his Son. We should all be, as St. Paul taught, fools for Christ.
God calls us marvelous to behold, no matter what the standard of beauty in the world might be. Nothing else matters.
God loves us and his Church does, too. We must never buy the deceit that we are not lovable.
We have value because God gives us worth. People might not recognize it, but everyone is important. There are no disposable people. Everyone matters.
Our hope is in the Lord. Despair is from the evil one and is poison to faith. There is no Christianity without hope. It is one of the three things that last: FAITH, HOPE and LOVE.
We might make mistakes and fail, but the good Lord will give us strength. Jesus, himself, was judged a failed prophet by the world, a criminal handed over by his own people to be put to death. But the world was wrong. We can share in Christ’s victory.
God wants you near him and the Church wants you, too. She invites you to worship with the community and to know fellowship with other believers. You are not alone.
Jesus cared so much for you that he laid down his life and died for you. Yes, by name, he shed his blood that you might know him and his saving mercy. The Church also cares, from the moment you were conceived in the womb, she was the advocate for your life.
We would be diminished by your loss. You need the Church and we want you. Christ wants you as a friend in his service. We are all family.
We are all sinners but the mercy of God is infinite. All that is required is a contrite heart and a disposition for faith and conversion. God wants to pour his life into us.
It is not a matter of what we deserve but rather the generosity of God. He gives us his gifts freely. No one merits salvation; grace is a gratuity from the Lord.
God loves you. The Church and the saints love you. There are probably many who love you in this world but you do not always see it. You are surrounded by love.
Life is God’s gift. He alone is the one to number our days. We need to respect this gift in us and others. We know that when our time in this world grows short, we have an eternity with the Lord waiting for us. The saving work of Jesus is a testimony that love is stronger than death.
Reflecting upon my own formation, we had opportunities for clinical pastoral care but were offered little in the way of understanding human psychology. Priests can certainly become proficient counselors over time but rarely just out of the seminary. The priest learns a great deal over the years as he undergoes his trial by fire. He becomes a master on the human condition, both good and bad. Of course, few clergy are professional psychologists or social workers. We are ministers of the Gospel and priests of the altar. We speak the language of faith in a world that has an increasingly difficult time with translation. We want to save marriages and better people’s lives, but always in terms of the redemptive work of Christ. We desire for people to find healing in a personal and corporate relationship with the Lord.
When a priest or teacher begins to talk about Jesus and religion, some people turn us off. Young people often do this and have not yet mastered masking their distraction. They know from their primary catechism that Jesus loves us but have rarely reflected upon what this really means. The full sacrificial dimension of this love has yet to seep deep into their soul and personality. They can recite the theme but do not feel its significance. If they truly appreciated the depth of Christ’s love, they would be brought to tears and would eagerly try to expunge sin from their lives. Jesus loved us so much that he died for us, to forgive our sins. This was no stoic act, but one filled with conviction and emotion. God would have us receive and return this love in kind. I would pointedly ask each listener, “Jesus loves YOU, what does this mean to YOU?” Jesus dies for them by name. He knows them better than they know themselves. He knows the problems they face and is ready to shower his grace upon them. Jesus can help and he wants to help. But have we truly invited Jesus into our life? Is he real for us or just a name we hear in church and read in the Bible? Jesus had to deal with feelings of abandonment and fear as well. The agony in the garden resonates with our own fears and sense of loneliness. You may have cried in your pillow but he wept at the death of his friend Lazarus and again when he sweated blood on the Cross. Jesus had his own relationship troubles. The leadership of his own people sought his life and his beloved apostle Judas betrayed him. His family thought that he was out of his mind. His friends often failed him. He knew, first hand, what we all go through. Maybe we have sought compensation in material things? Maybe we have raised the value of money and things over the needy and faith? Maybe the desires of the flesh have supplanted a true love of persons and God? Maybe our response has been to turn inward instead of outward? Jesus tells us to look to him. The answer is not to be found in the distractions of the world. He is the Way and the Truth and the Life.
There are many voices in the world that would lie to us. They tell us that happiness can be found in a bottle, drugs or sex. They are traps set by the evil one and his minions. Such paths are dead-end roads that will leave us with a sense of nowhere out. Too many who get lost listening to these voices are tempted to destroy themselves, wrongly thinking that it is one way out of the cage of a painful and meaningless existence. But this is the final lie on the road to hell. Instead, we listen to the voice of Jesus. He knows what you are facing and he wants to help you. Jesus is himself the medicine for the soul. He wants us to share his life and love. He will give his Spirit to any who ask. It does not matter what we have done. God is gracious and merciful.
A few recent articles have gone too far and have revealed the identity of the possessed boy. There will be nothing of that here. Indeed, I wrote one so-called investigative journalist and pleaded with him to remove the name from his article reprinted to the World Wide Web. If this man wanted to be known, he himself would have told his story. Past journalists and authors had the information at hand, but they were true gentlemen and respected the rights of personal privacy. The Church has also kept the record secret. The Jesuits spoke and the journal kept has come to light. This rendition is based upon that journal and the recollections of the server involved with the Washington exorcism effort.
The News Breaks
The Washington Post article in 1949 proclaims, “Priest Frees 14-Year-Old Boy Reported Held in Devil’s Grip.” Almost immediately the story was picked up by the other news services and magazines. Who would think that such a thing could still happen, and in all places, modern-day America? The story has been told and retold.
Unable to get access to archdiocesan records, William Peter Blatty produced his fictionalized account that resulted in a blockbuster movie of 1974. One priest lamented at the time, “It is tragic that the devil should prove so popular with people when they seem so disinterested in God.” The conclusion of the film was most lamentable in that the young priest exchanges his body for that of the child as a host to the demon and then throws himself from the window. If the story had been true, one could logically contend that the devil was really after the priest the entire time. In other words, the devil actually won and the rituals and intercession of the Catholic Church were proven impotent. Fortunately, such portrayals are restricted to the movies and the real story shows that the power of Christ and of his Church can still vanquish the demonic.
How It Really Started
Unlike the movie, the story surrounded a young boy who was born June 1, 1935. He and his parents lived just outside Washington, D.C. in Cottage City, not far from Mount Rainier, Maryland. (Some sources claim a popular Mount Ranier location as the site of the boy’s home. The house at this location has been torn down and a dance studio is now on the site. The diary gives the Cottage City location, instead. I do not feel it appropriate to give the full address. However, since Catholics in the past identified themselves by their parishes, we might still regard this as the Mount Ranier Case. The boy converted to the Catholic faith and claimed St. James Parish as his own in Mount Ranier.) The first signs of trouble started on January 15, 1949. He was thirteen years old. While his parents were out that evening, he and his grandmother heard a dripping sound in the house. It only lasted for a brief period and then a picture of Jesus on the wall began to shake as if something had bumped into it. When his parents had returned home, a definite scratching noise could be heard under the floorboards next to his grandmother’s bed. This sound of scratching was repeated each night from about 7:00 PM until midnight. Logically, the family figured that there must be a rodent problem. An exterminator was called. However, despite taking up the floorboards and wall panels to spread poison, the sound did not cease. Indeed, the disturbing noises became worse.
Some ten days afterwards the noises ceased and all believed the rodent to be dead. Nevertheless, the boy was under the impression that he could still hear the scratching noises. Three days later the sound became audible to the rest of the family again.
The exorcist writes:
“When the sound became audible again, it was no longer in the upstairs bedroom but had moved downstairs to the boy’s bedroom. It was heard as the sound of squeaking shoes along the bed and was heard only at night when the boy went to bed. The squeaking sound continued for six nights, on the sixth night scratching again was audible.”
It appears that the invitation for this spiritual invasion was inadvertently initiated through a favorite aunt of the boy. She had died in St. Louis two weeks prior to the first registered phenomena.
“It developed that the aunt of the boy and his parents had used a Ouija board, and this probably gave the devil his first entrance.”
Many religious authorities are convinced that such a so-called toy actually offers an invitation to evil spirits. Aunt Tillie had been an enthusiast of spiritualism. Suspecting something supernatural in the sound of marching feet, the boy’s mother asked (according to the exorcist’s journal):
“‘Is that you Aunt Tillie?’ She obtained no verbal reply and continued: (evidently aware of the methods employed by spiritualists) ‘If this is you, knock three times.’ There were waves of air striking the grandmother, mother and boy, and three distinct knocks were heard on the floor. The mother asked again: ‘If you are Tillie, tell me positively by knocking four times.’ Four distinct knocks were heard.”
As time went by, it became evident that strange occurrences and sounds seemed to follow the boy.
“An orange and a pear flew across the entire room where he was standing.”
“The kitchen table was upset without any movement on the boy’s part.”
“Milk and food were thrown off the table and stove.”
“The breadboard was thrown onto the floor.”
“Outside the kitchen a coat on its hanger flew across the room.”
“A Bible was thrown directly at the foot of the boy but did not injure him in any way.”
“His desk at school moved about on the floor similar to the planchette on an Ouija board.” (This latter evidence of telekinesis forced the boy to quit school because of embarrassment.)
Things became increasingly worse at home.
“On one occasion the coverlet of the bed was pulled out from under the mattress and the edges stood up above the surface of the bed in a curled form as though held up with starch. When the bystanders touched the bedspread, the sides fell back to normal position.”
It was also stated that “At first everybody, including the boy, took it as a kind of joke, but it became more than a joke.” Soon thereafter, “the word LOUIS was written in deep red on the boy’s ribs,” seeming to indicate that some invisible force desired that the boy travel to St. Louis where his favorite aunt lived.
The Lutheran Minister
His mother called a minister of her faith, a local Lutheran pastor. He was dubious about the whole matter. Although suspicious of the chest message, written upside down as if self-inflicted, he requested that the family come to his home. What happened next struck him as defying any natural explanation. His offer to keep the boy over at his home was accepted. It was the 17th of February in 1949. At about 10:00 PM, they decided to go to bed. The room contained twin beds. After about ten minutes, the boy’s bed began to vibrate. The headboard was banging against the frame.
The minister reported:
“It made a lot of racket. I thought he was shaking it but he was making no visible movement.”
Seeking a practical remedy to the situation, he placed the boy in a large overstuffed chair and sat beside him. Slowly the chair began to tilt upon its side and the minister had to grab it before it fell over. The good pastor insisted that there was no way the boy could be pushing the chair over since his legs were thoroughly tucked beneath him. He then placed the boy on a scatter rug upon the floor. Certainly, this would resolve the matter for the night. But no, the rug “moved slowly until it got to the wall and then it stopped.” The poor clergyman was utterly befuddled.
“I remember thinking he must be doing it himself but I realized later that would have been impossible. There was no movement of his body.”
The boy was delivered home the next day. Because of his Protestant theology, the minister sought a natural explanation. Unable to come up with one, he categorized the whole incident under unknown forces.
From Shrink to Witchdoctor to Priest
A psychiatrist from Georgetown University was called in but refusing to believe in the phenomena he simply reported that the boy was normal but “somewhat high-strung.” The family complicated matters further by calling a spiritualist. However, his incantations for dispelling spirits failed. Indeed, the situation became graver.
Having a relative married to a Catholic, the boy’s mother described the situation to him. His response was “If what you say is true, then you should consult a priest.” The family called the nearby parish, St. James Catholic Church. The boy’s father made an appointment to talk to one of the priests. The clergyman gave him various sacramentals: holy water, blessed candles, and some recommended prayers.
“Once when the mother had sprinkled the holy water around the room, she placed the bottle on a dresser and it was picked up by the spirit and smashed. When one of the candles was lighted, the flame shot up to the ceiling, and the candle was extinguished for fear that the house might be set on fire.”
The suggested prayers seemed to make the phenomena worse. Deciding to call back the priest, the clergyman heard a great crashing sound. The mother of the boy told him that the telephone table she was using had broken into a hundred pieces.
This anxious situation refused to end and matters grew tenser. The priest, Fr. E. Albert Hughes, went to the chancellor of the archdiocese. He was warned to move slowly and not to leap to rash judgments. The young priest explained that he had done as much. After a meeting with the archbishop, Most Reverend Patrick A. O’Boyle, he was authorized to initiate the exorcisms. Fr. Hughes resisted, hoping that an older and more experienced man might be chosen instead.
He “understood that this should be done by a very holy man because the devil is wont to expose the sins of the priest; so the Father went to Baltimore and made a general confession. But the devil is the father of lies, and there is a theological opinion that he is unable to reveal sins that have been forgiven.”
The archbishop insisted, the young priest had to offer the ritual. It would prove a terrible miscalculation. Between February 27 and March 4, the boy was moved to Georgetown University Hospital. A young man and altar server (George Chapman) who was known for his abilities in high school football was drafted by the priest to assist him. This young man grew up and became a leader in the local Knights of Columbus. A good friend, he passed away on January 9, 2009. He told me that he had a terrible struggle to hold the possessed boy down. The boy could spit across the room with deadly accuracy. George said the saliva was like acid and he saw it literally dissolve the priest’s book. At one point George lost his patience and even lightly slugged the other boy to keep him under control. He saw himself as the popular priest’s body guard. The priest made him go to confession and pledged him not to tell his mother and friends the details of the encounters. They tied the hands and feet of the boy to the bedposts. He reacted violently to the ritual. Loose items in the room crashed to the floor. The bed shook uncontrollably. Strenuously the large server sought to hold the bed down. The victim was a small boy and yet he possessed incredible strength. The priest warned his young assistant not to enter into dialogue with the boy, only to give the required responses to the ritual words of the priest. Strange words came forth from the restrained boy, supposedly Aramaic, a form of ancient Hebrew. Previously the boy had taunted the priest in Latin. Objects were thrown around the room. The boy growled like an inhuman animal. Then it happened. Somehow the boy had gotten a hand free of the restraints. He secretly tore through the heavy mattress and ripped out a metal spring. The server responded to the words uttered by Fr. Hughes in the ritual. At the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer, the boy attacked the priest and tore a gash into the cleric’s arm from his shoulder to his wrist. Blood exploded over everything! The ritual prayer book was caked in the priest’s blood! He screamed out! The exorcism had ended in failure. The priest’s life was saved by the doctors and his arm had a long track of a hundred plus stitches. He would have lingering problems with the arm and it would visibly drag at the consecration during Masses.
As an interesting aside, the young server in this episode was struck in the eye by the afflicted boy. He would develop a black eye and it was joked that maybe the priest had socked him. When the priest mysteriously left the parish, only he knew the true reason. The good priest would need to recuperate from his terrible encounter and injury. After this event, colleagues of the priest say that Fr. Hughes was never quite the same. He became quieter. He was intensely reserved about what had happened. One remarked that it was as if he was a haunted man. He died in 1980.
The sources are clear about this next point.
“Up to this time everything had been obsession, that is, exterior to the boy, but as soon as the exorcisms began, real possession began.”
They Go to Saint Louis
The boy expressed a desire to go to St. Louis, and since they had relatives they could visit there, the family left with the hope of leaving their troubles behind them. Unfortunately, the problem with the boy did not improve.
“Different displays were witnessed by two aunts of the boy, four uncles and four cousins. The printing ‘No School’ was seen by four people. The swaying of the mattress, the upsetting of bedroom furniture and the scratching on the mattress were observed by the entire group . . . Phenomena indicated that the spirit was not the devil but the soul of deceased Tillie. The spirit confirmed again to all present that she was Tillie by moving a heavy bed two or three feet with not one of the bystanders near the bed.”
Again a priest was consulted from the closest Catholic parish. Fr. Raymond J. Bishop, S.J., a teacher at the university came to the house on March 9.
He “blessed the entire house, and used a special blessing in the boy’s room and on his bed. A second-class relic of St. Margaret Mary was safety-pinned to the extreme border of the pillow. Shortly after the boy retired, the mattress on his bed began to move back and forth in the direction of the bed uprights. The boy lay perfectly still, and did not exert any physical effort. The movement in one direction did not exceed more than three inches; the action was intermittent and completely subsided after a period of approximately fifteen minutes.”
The next day, similar things happened. The relic was thrown to the floor.
“The safety pin was open but no human hand had touched the relic. The boy started up in fright when the relic was thrown down.”
Exorcism & Baptism
The next day, Friday, March 11, the priest who would perform the exorcisms visited the family. Fr. Bishop had in turn contacted Fr. William S. Bowdern, S.J. from St. Francis Xavier Church. He was shaken by what he observed. He brought additional relics and a crucifix.
“Shortly after the boy had retired at 11:00 PM, he called downstairs that he had been frightened by a strong force that had thrown some object against the mirror in his bedroom. With safety pin opened, the relic of St. Margaret Mary had been thrown against the mirror and the sound was like a pellet striking the glass. Another occurrence was a cross mark scratched on the boy’s left, outer forearm. The pain was similar to that produced by a scratch of a thorn. The cross remained evident for approximately forty-five minutes.”
The family telephoned the priest in Washington, and after a few days, the priest in St. Louis brought the case to his archbishop (Archbishop Ritter) and was authorized to continue with the exorcisms.
Artist’s Conception of Devil as the Beast
The symptoms of possession seemed to get worse and not better with the new exorcism attempts beginning on March 16.
“The seizures took place in the evening when the boy went to bed and would last from 8:00 to 12 Midnight or 1:00 AM, intermittently, and then the boy would go off into a perfectly normal sleep for nine or ten hours.”
It was decided a few days later to recite the prayers earlier so that everyone could get more sleep. Nevertheless, the seizures were unabated and started about 9:00 at night and lasted until 2:00 or 3:00 AM.
Sometimes as many as ten people were required to hold the boy during seizures. He would tear the sheets and pillows to shreds, as well as the shirts and undershirts of those who restrained him. He was utterly wild, hitting and kicking. He even broke the nose of one of the assisting Jesuit students. One incident had him scratching the exorcist’s arm so badly that he could not lift it for a number of days.
“Coming out of a seizure he would complain of feeling very hot and would ask for a glass of water. After one of the seizures in the beginning, he said that the evil spirit seems to carry him down into a pit about two hundred feet deep where there were intense heat and vile evil spirits. In the beginning also he seemed to be in a long, dark cave with a tiny bit of light at the far end; as the exorcism progressed, the lighted end seemed to grow larger and larger, in one of the exorcisms, the spirit, in the body of the boy, pointed to one of the priests who were assisting and said: ‘What is the use of you being here; you will be with me in hell in 1957.’”
A few days passed. The boy asked to be baptized. It should be noted that his father had been baptized a Catholic and that some of his cousins in St. Louis were Catholics. Once consulted, the parents were agreeable. The boy was instructed and preparations were made to baptize him in church.
“On the appointed morning he rose, took a shower, ate his usual breakfast and set out for the church in a car driven by his uncle. Just before reaching the church the boy grabbed his uncle by the neck and said: ‘You S.O.B., you think I am going to be baptized, but you are going to be fooled.’ The uncle was just able to seize the emergency brake and avert a collision by an inch. It was realized that to baptize the boy in the church would create a scene, so he was taken to the third floor of the rectory, which stands in back of the church but faces Lindell Boulevard. Every time he was asked: ‘Do you renounce Satan and all his works?’ he would go into a rage. Only after several hours of repetition was the boy able to reply: ‘I do renounce Satan and all his works.’ Then it required several more hours to get the water poured on the boy’s head.”
After the rite of initiation, things became calm and quiet for a couple days. However, then the demonic business started up again and worse than before. Some of the phenomenon was quite peculiar.
“One was the amount of spittle that the boy could discharge: there would be half-a-pint at one time. At times he would ask for a glass of water and it would be given to him, although it was known what would happen. It would be spat back on the bystanders. While the priest read the exorcisms, two others would hold a towel in front of his face to protect his glasses, but it was useless; the spittle would go under the towel, over the towel or around the towel and strike directly on the priest’s glasses, and the boy’s eyes would be closed the whole time. Another phenomenon was excessive urination. During the seizures the boy would utter the vilest obscenities, curses, blasphemies and ribald songs, all in a high falsetto voice that was off key.”
It is noted that at one stage, the exorcist had to protect himself with a pillow, for the boy’s head moved like a cobra, aiming non-stop with spittle for his face.
First Communion
The exorcist and the family returned to the Washington, D.C. area. The boy’s parents were at wits end and were suffering from sleep deprivation. Fr. Hughes tried to get the boy committed to a sanatorium or hospital in the Washington-Baltimore area, but none would take him. It was decided to take him to the Alexian Brothers Hospital in St. Louis. He was given instructions in preparation for his first communion. The hope was that receiving the Eucharist might bring the possession to an end.
“When the time came, it was impossible to get the Host near his tongue, but finally, after several hours, they succeeded in placing it on his tongue and three times he spat it out. Eventually success was achieved. This was on April 2, the first Saturday of the month, a day dedicated to Our Lady of Fatima. The title was explained to the boy and he showed great interest. But the seizures continued.”
“What is Your NAME?”
During the exorcism, the priest asked for the first time its name.
“What is your name and when will you depart?” The response was simply “Shut up, shut up.” Later, “in answer to the question of his name, the words, ‘Hell, Spirit,’ appeared in red letters on the boy’s chest. In reply to the question of departure, red numbers: 4, 8, 10, 16, some Roman numerals appeared on the boy’s body. He said: ‘I will not go until a certain word is pronounced and this boy will never say it.’ There also appeared a red arrow extending from the boy’s throat to the bottom of his abdomen, and it was thought that the spirit might go out by the way of urine, as has happened in some cases.”
An appendage to the diary tells us that “the boy would greet the priests with filthy, foul obscenities, fluently answer the exorcist’s questions in Latin, a language he had never studied.” One day the boy was sitting in bed reading about Our Lady of Fatima with the book on his knees when he was thrown into a seizure. He threw the book across the room. On another occasion, he was given a glass of milk and threw that across the room. On one of the final days, a Jesuit scholastic gave the boy a plate of chipped beef. He grabbed the plate, jumped to one side of the room, and threatened to brain anyone approaching him. While one assistant approached him from one side, the scholastic crawled under the bed to seize him. The boy threw and smashed the dish of food against the wall.
Liberation at Last
Despite hope that the possession would end during Holy Week, it continued through Easter Sunday with particularly violent seizures. The worst day of all was April 18, Easter Monday. The exorcist and his assistants were becoming completely discouraged.
“Suddenly, at 11:00 PM, a new voice was heard from the boy; a beautiful, rich, deep bass voice exclaimed: ‘Satan, Satan, go, now, now, now to the pit where you belong, in the name of DOMINUS (the Lord).’ That was the word and at that moment the boy felt a tearing sensation in his stomach, relaxed and lay perfectly quiet. He described what has happened. He saw a brilliant figure, visible from the waist up, clothed in a close-fitting white garment which had the appearance of scales; the hair was long and flowing in a wind; the right hand held something like a flaming sword or light pointing downward. It was St. Michael the Archangel. When he spoke, the evil spirit rebelled against going until the word ‘Dominus’ was spoken and at this moment the boy felt the tearing sensation in his stomach. Then at some distance down he saw some evil spirits standing at the mouth of a cave from which flames issued. Then the spirits reluctantly withdrew into the cave, the opening closed and across it appeared the word: ‘Spite.’ Thus the possession was ended.”
Closing Remarks
The diary tells us that the exorcist and his assistants “observed some severe fasting, mindful of the admonition of Christ that some devils can be driven out only by prayer and fasting.” There had been at least twenty exorcisms performed. One Jesuit involved remarked: “Only by examining the record after possession was ended, was it possible to see the meaning of the replies (the red marks on the boy’s body). The numbers may have been the days on which certain spirits departed from the boy, if there were actually more than one in his body.”
The Jesuit priest, Fr. Bowdern, passed away in 1983 and his assistant and then scholastic, Fr. Walter Halloran died from cancer March 1, 2005. The young server who tried to help Fr. Hughes desired to remain anonymous while he was alive. An interesting side note, George (the server) told me that when the boy returned to Washington, he could not remember the active possession episodes. The possessed man is still living and there has been no trouble since. He married and had a nice family. Life went on.
A FEW ADDENDUM NEWSPAPER CITATIONS
An aunt of the boy said in a New York Times article from August 1972:
(Upon the boy’s visit to her home) “All of a sudden the mattress starts going, just raised up in the air, and down, up and down, and my sister hollered for me, . . . oh I tell you that mattress just raised both of us right up in the air . . . . I happened to have a table against the wall with a vase of flowers on it and I got out but as my nephew tried to leave, that table actually flew in front of the door and would not let him out . . . .” In the same article it quotes what a Jesuit priest confided to him, “I assure you, Gene — I saw this with my own eyes — the boy did not tear the Ritual book, he dissolved it! The book vaporized into confetti and fell in small pieces to the floor!”
The staff writer Jeremiah O’Leary reported in The Evening Star that the boy spoke an unknown language that sounded similar to Hebrew.
“A professor of Oriental languages from Catholic University was called in and he was shocked to discover the words coming from the boy’s mouth were in Aramaic, the language spoken in Palestine in Jesus’ day.”
RECOMMENDED READING:
Allen, Thomas B. POSSESSED. New York: Doubleday, 1993.
Exploitation & Where Do We Really Find Evil?
After reading the sensational article “Possessed,” by Thomas B. Allen in June 1993’s edition of Washingtonian Magazine, many people were eager to buy the book of the same title released in July of that year. Having read the book, it must be admitted that there are elements to the tale that seem to validate Christian faith in God and in his mercy; however, at the same time I fear that it’s telling will surrender true religion to mockery and to superstition. No suggestion is made in the article and none in the book until the very end, that there might still be more to the story than the supernatural. However, even if it should be the case, books and films tend to give more emphasis to the demonic than to the divine. Producers and writers work ever harder to shock their patrons, an audience made increasingly insensitive to violence and to “things that go bump in the night.” We want to be entertained and producers of horror films and writers know all too well how to excite the masses with fear and gross happenings. Even the 1973 film, The Exorcist, based on William Peter Blatty’s book, opted to highlight vulgar language, Eucharistic desecration, obscene gestures, fanciful special effects, and finally the death and failure of the two priests. I would suspect that the battle between good and evil is more frequently invisible to the movie camera and ignored by novelists seeking to sell books. Indeed, just as the case here began as one of demonic obsession and only later became possession when the exorcisms were attempted; might a heightened concentration upon this issue similarly endanger people? Such worries me in my own retelling, although I offer the corrective that Christ is really the one with all the power. Satan is pathetic by comparison to our Lord. The end of the story, the real story, is what makes a big difference. God’s grace is victorious over sin. Evil is repulsed. Having said this, while it is true that the devil should not become a scapegoat for all human ills, it is almost impossible to believe that he is not involved with the atrocities at home and abroad. In language, popular music, drug experiences, new cult religions, escalating crime, immoral lifestyles, terrorism, wars and genocide, abortion, euthanasia, etc., Satan is exerting an obsessive influence, numbing consciences and helping to distort values.
“Okay, maybe this story should not have been told?”
Sometimes the devil is incredibly subtle; at other times he shocks us by his audacity and malice. If people want to be frightened, then here is the real thing of which to be afraid; but, only if we separate ourselves by sin from Christ and the sacraments. Most of us, probably all of us after the age of reason, are no longer bystanders to the devil’s malevolence, but in every sin, large and small, accomplices. God’s grace can turn this around, if we really want Satan exorcised from our society and world.
Prayer to Saint Michael the Archangel
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our defense against the wickedness and snares of the Devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray, and do thou, O Prince of the heavenly hosts, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan, and all the evil spirits, who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen.
Recommended Books
An Exorcist Tells His Story by Gabriele Amorth. (Ignatius Press, 1999).
An Exorcist: More Stories by Gabriele Amorth. (Ignatius Press, 2002).
Angels and Demons by Peter J. Kreeft. (Ignatius Press, 1995).
Ghosts and Poltergeists by Herbert Thurston, S.J. (H. Regnery Company, 1954).
This discussion emerged within a series of comments from what is commonly regarded as an Internet troll or spammer. Typical of such efforts, the critic here uses the “cut-and-paste” method of extracting text from old anti-Catholic works and then inserting the material (without attestation) into the comment fields or message boards of others. The style change is the usual give-away. The modern media allows even a silly and ignorant anti-Catholicism a voice to plague Catholic sites and to tear down the faith of weak Catholics. While many would erase such comments, I try to turn them into teaching moments.
RONIE:
Mister Joe, I am sorry but I will not call you as others address you. Christ said call no man Father.
FATHER JOE:
I have discussed the issue of priestly fatherhood before, as well, but let me repeat myself:
“And call no one on earth your Father; for one is your Father, who is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9).
This is an example of a Scriptural literary form known as Hebraic Hyperbole. It is like the passage that admonishes tearing your eye out or cutting off your hand or foot. It is a way of speaking to give heightened emphasis. The fundamentalist reads everything as if the primary language is English and the author contemporary. This is also an example of taking a verse out of context and distorting its meaning. Verse eight says to call no one Rabbi or teacher. However, do we not use this word all the time? Further, if this line is absolute against Catholic priests who possess a spiritual fatherhood, then what about our foster fathers and biological fathers? It would have to apply there as well. Almost no one would agree to this. It is a wonderful sign of respect and relationship. The matter about which the Lord is concerned is that his disciples not imitate the Pharisees in their pride and hypocrisy, lording their positions over others. God is the true and ultimate Father of all. If any fatherhood does not flow from and participate in divine fatherhood, then it is a lie and oppressive. St. Paul speaks of himself as a spiritual father in his first letter to the Corinthians and admits that there are other such fathers, although not many. The shortage of vocations to the priesthood is still a matter with which we must deal.
[In speaking of our priorities] “He who loves FATHER or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).
[About marriage] “For this cause a man shall leave his FATHER and mother, and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Matthew 19:5).
[Placing discipleship to Jesus first] “And everyone who has left house, or brothers, or sisters, or FATHER, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting” (Matthew 19:29). {see also Mark 10:29}
[Abraham is called father] “For this reason, it depends on faith, so that it may be a gift, and the promise may be guaranteed to all his descendants, not to those who only adhere to the law but to those who follow the faith of Abraham who is the FATHER of all of us, …” (Romans 4:16). {see also Romans 4:11-12,17}
[Treatment of elders] “Do not rebuke an older man, but appeal to him as a FATHER” (1 Timothy 5:1).
[Enduring trials] “For what ’son’ is there whom his FATHER does not discipline?” (Hebrews 12:7). {see also Hebrews 12:9}
[My favorite and very similar to calling the priest, Father] “I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many FATHERS, for I became your FATHER in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you to be imitators of me” (1 Corinthians 4:14-16).
RONIE:
Dear Mister Joe, this is in regard to your answer to me and the text:
“Matthew 23:9 – And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
Sorry but I have to say this, you are out of context. The “Father” in the above text refers to “God the Father,” which is Spiritual, and the verses to which you refer, like Matthew 19:29, Mark 10:29, Romans 4:16, refer to our earthly fathers. The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God only must be allowed as the Father of our spirits, (Heb. 12:9). Our religion must not be derived from or made dependent upon any man. Our flesh fathers do not have authoritative power over men’s consciences in matters of faith and obedience, in which God and Christ are only to be attended. Christ’s sense is that he would have his disciples not fond of any titles of honor at all. Much less would he have them assume authority over men, as if they were to depend on them— as the founders of the Christian religion— the authors of its doctrines and ordinances— and to take that honor to themselves which did not belong to them. Neither would he have them even choose to be called by such names, as it would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of them. It would take off of their dependence on God the Father.
You know Mister Joe, these titles the scribes and Pharisees love to be called. Kindly check your verse in 1 Corinthians 4:14-16. I notice that there is a text “for I became your father” which is not found in the Greek text. I more agree on this verse found in the KJV below:
1 Corinthians 4:14: “I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.”
1 Corinthians 4:15: “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.”
1 Corinthians 4:16: “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.”
FATHER JOE:
The proper title for a cleric is Father, Reverend or Pastor. Why should I spend any time with a person who begins with a deliberate act of disrespect? But given that our Lord would want repentance and conversion for both the ignorant and the bigoted who blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, I will try to make a short response. Admittedly, I have little confidence that anything I might say will penetrate the walls fabricated by those who are obstinate against the truth and closed to the movement of divine grace.
You begin by seeking to “clarify” this text: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” (Matthew 23:9). Actually it is best that we look at the entire section and our Lord’s use of Hebraic hyperbole (verses 1 to 12):
Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice. They bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger. They do all their deeds to be seen by men; for they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues, and salutations in the market places, and being called rabbi by men. But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ. He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
The authority of the Church instituted by Christ would eventually supersede that of Moses and his successors in leadership, the Pharisees. The bishops of the Catholic Church sit in the seats of the apostles. The popes govern from the Chair of Peter. Jesus establishes both a new People of God and the accompanying authority. Our Lord was critical about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and pleaded with his apostles that it should not be so with them. He gave them the example of the foot-washing and urged humility in service. The hyperbole stresses that the ministers of the Church should not seek earthly rewards, titles and esteem, but rather that imperishable treasure of being in right relationship with God. The titles rabbi, father and teacher (or master) would continue to be used. Even St. Paul speaks of himself as a spiritual father. Lost in translation is the peculiar Hebrew form of stressing a point by pushing a matter to absurdity: call no man father or teacher or rabbi; if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out; if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. These matters were never meant to be understood in a literal fashion. Apart from the truth of Christ, no one is a genuine teacher. In conflict with the fatherhood of God, no fatherhood is genuine.
You say that my reference to “father” is out of context. You must be kidding! You are the one who gives no real context at all. Indeed, you treat Scripture as if it were written originally in English. Instead of respecting the message and historical setting, you offer an illogical and contrived explanation that goes against the practices and writings of the early Christians. They were close to the source and were in a position to know the truth. They did not understand this text as you do.
The text cannot be dissected as you attempt. The meaning is that there is no true fatherhood which usurps or conflicts with the fatherhood of God. This includes both spiritual fathers (as with St. Paul) and with our biological or adopted fathers. Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29 speaks about the family of the Church and the communion of the saints. Romans 4:15 makes mention of Abraham as our father in faith. God calls him forth and his family becomes a tribe and later a nation. He is a crucial starting point in the history of salvation.
The texts you cite either contradict or do not support your view. The Church sees herself as a family and addresses God in her prayers as FATHER MOST HOLY. Priests, bishops and popes are spiritual fathers in that they perpetuate the teachings and mission of Jesus Christ. The Church fully subscribes to the understanding of her membership as brothers and sisters to one another. In faith and baptism, Jesus is our elder brother and Mary is the queen mother. We are adopted sons and daughters of our heavenly Father. The reference to earthly fathers means any type of fatherhood here on earth. Our mortal fathers, no matter if biological, adopted or spiritual, must reflect divine fatherhood or else they are false. There is nothing here that says that biological fathers are exempt. Further, your citation of Romans 4:16 is in reference to Abraham, not almighty God. He is called the father of all.
Parents are the primary educators of their children in the faith. They constitute the “little church.” You wrong Christian fathers by reducing them to roosters who service hens. St. Paul tells us that the Christian husband/father is the head of the home just as Christ is the head of the Church.
You next write (uncorrected here as above for grammar): “Christ’s sense is, that he would have his disciples not fond of any titles of honor at all, and much less assume an authority over men, as if they were to depend on them, as the founders of the Christian religion, the authors of its doctrines and ordinances, and to take that honor to themselves, which did not belong to them, nor even choose to be called by such names, as would lead people to entertain too high an opinion of them, and take off of their dependence on God the Father.” What you write is absolute gibberish. Indeed, your run-on sentence even defies linguistic diagramming. And yet it makes more sense than what you usually write. Of course, you did not write it. You stole it. You plagiarized. You borrowed the work and genius of another to foster the pretense of knowing what you are talking about. These are not your words, but those of one who was a polemicist against Catholic claims. As I said before, you prefer parroting the enemies of the Church instead of learning objectively and directly from her own mouth. These words come from an EXPOSITION OF THE ENTIRE BIBLE written (between 1746 to 1763) by John Gill.
The commentary here is not your own and I dislike dialoguing with cut-and-paste intellectual thieves. However, despite this and the convoluted language, I will try my best to parse it out. Our Lord was not so much against titles as he was concerned that “show” not replace “substance.” The title “apostle” itself becomes one of great distinction. Our Lord was often called “master” or “teacher” or “rabbi.” He explicitly gave his authority to his apostles and sent them out to baptize the nations. He explicitly gave Peter the power of the keys and the power to loosen or bind over sin. He tells him, after the resurrection, to feed his sheep and to care for his flock. It is quite evident that Jesus gave them such authority as shepherds to the community. This authority would be passed down to others. Failure to see this demonstrates your blindness to important passages in the Word of God. Jesus, himself, was the founder of the Christian religion, i.e. the Catholic Church. He is the ultimate source of revelation. He would send his Spirit to insure the Church’s fidelity to the truth, the doctrines and ordinances that men should know and follow. As I have mentioned before, the great apostle Paul spoke about himself as a spiritual father. There was no prohibition, either about the title or the function. The spiritual title of FATHER given to a priest in no way detracts from the fatherhood of God. Indeed, he becomes a flesh-and-blood symbol of God’s abiding love and mercy in the faith community.
Just because the Pharisees allowed their titles to go to their heads does not mean that such must always be the case for others. The title “father” is an expression of endearment.
“I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you” (1 Cor. 4:14).
Paul admonishes the Corinthians as his beloved children. There is definitely a fatherly relationship.
“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).
This is a somewhat archaic Protestant translation. A better translation is the RSV, also Protestant (but acceptable to Catholics):
“For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.”
The reference to “father” is in the Greek text as is the term for being begotten of a father:
“Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me” (1 Cor. 4:16).
More than followers, he is literally urging them to imitate him. He sends Timothy as his emissary and calls him his “Beloved and faithful son in the Lord.” The spiritual fatherhood of every priest is akin to that of the apostle Paul.
A brief aside:
While I might sound harsh at times (in this and other posts), it is hard not to become emotionally involved about matters that priests take very personally. Critics would strip priests of their spiritual fatherhood and label them as minions of Satan and/or the anti-Christ. There have been a few deletions of the more insensitive material in this particular post.
Is it impolite for a priest to offer correction and to be blunt?
Is it rude to speak the truth?
I received criticism to this effect, and apparently from a Catholic. But the person in this post, and those narrated in others, often do not come for a sincere and simple discussion, but rather, to ridicule the priesthood and the Church. I try not to be hurtful. I avoid foul language. Nevertheless, I stand by my negative assessment of such anti-Catholicism and the poor people who swallow and spout it. Some people are moved by gentleness and others must be shaken up a bit. We see this in the ministry of Jesus where he was gentle with the outcasts and marginalized but harsh with others like the scribes, lawyers and pharisees.
The Catholic Church according to its practice and compared to Biblical injunctions is tantamount to a cult.
FATHER JOE:
Actually, it is more likely that your religion is the cult. Catholicism is true religion and the Church directly instituted by Jesus Christ. Catholicism is the most genuine form of Christianity.
RONIE:
Mr. Joe, can you tell me in your own understanding the meaning of Church?
FATHER JOE:
Mister Joe?
The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Church is the great Sacrament of Salvation.
The Church is the House that Jesus built.
The Church is that community of faith which receives its life from the Eucharist.
The Church is built on the foundation of Christ (invisible head) and the ROCK of Peter (visible head).
This information is elsewhere on this site. Look it up next time.
DENNIS:
Purgatory is a myth and Peter was Jewish so how could he be the first pope. I am no longer going to the catholic church because it is all symbolism over substance. It will be a pope (HOLY FATHER…WHAT A JOKE) who will be the antichrist or at least be very supportive. I joined the catholic church before getting married 29 years ago and I told my wife who is catholic that many things the church did were wrong. After many years she agrees and my daughter has taken religious courses that prove the evils that exist.
FATHER JOE:
In the course of God’s progressive revelation to his people, the Jews had come to believe in both an afterlife and that atonement could be made for the dead. Jesus speaks about the afterlife drawing from the analogy of a debtor’s prison where none could be released until the last penny was paid. While the passion and death of Christ makes possible our redemption, he desires that we have both a saving personal faith in him and a corporate faith as members of his new People of God, the Church. Purgation is a sign of God’s gracious mercy. We must be transformed by grace and made perfect for heaven. If we belong to God, then he will finish what is started in this world. The saints of purgatory are all destined for heaven. As they approach the fire of God’s love, that eternal flame burns away the last vestiges of sin and vice. Temporal punishment is appeased and we are made truly holy. Such is no more a myth than our abiding faith that our Lord has gone ahead of us and that he prepares a place in heaven for his children.
The first called by Jesus were the Hebrew people. Salvation comes from the Jews. The apostles were all Jewish and yet at the Last Supper our Lord instituted both the priesthood and the Eucharist. Just as there are Semitic Catholics today, Peter was both Jewish and the visible head of Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church. They became the first Catholics.
You probably never really understood your Catholic faith to really know what you were rejecting. Did you ever sit down with a priest and ask your questions? Did you take advantage of adult faith formation in your parish? The odds are that you did not. There is no conflict between sacred signs and a faith of real substance. The problem is that you may never have known where to look for that substance or the meat of faith.
The Pope or Holy Father has even written a personal reflection on the life of Christ, now in two volumes. He preaches and witnesses to our Lord. Be careful of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. If God does protect Pope Benedict XVI and the faith and morals he teaches, then you slander not men but God. Only ignorant men filled with hatred would call the Pope by the demonic name of “antichrist.” Be careful that the joke is not on you.
You did not have to join the Catholic Church to get married in the Church. The fact that you entered a Church in which you placed no faith is tragic. It says nothing against the Church but volumes about your own lack of integrity and discretion. Why would you lie and say you believed when you did not? You should have shared your reservations then and withheld your prejudiced venom now.
I suspect that you undermined your wife’s weak faith and now delight that your child has also been stolen from the Church. Am I supposed to take these remarks seriously? I challenge you to bring your family to a strong parish-run Catholic instruction program. Bring your questions to the priest. You assume many things and there are plenty of misguided ministers ready to steer you away from Catholicism… not with a positive message of their own, but with a negative message against the Roman Catholic Church. They build themselves up by tearing others down. My Church preaches love, not hate.
RONIE:
It is very clear. By the way, your explanation about church is different and it is more complex. You know church is not a house or a building, Church is called the Bride of Christ, and also is called the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-14). Its members all have different functions. It is composed of saved and baptized believers; that’s why Christ love the Church. The word “Church” in Greek is “ekklesia” which means “called out assembly.” Peter is not the rock because the 12 disciples, knowing well the Old Testament, recognized the Rock as a description or name for God.
“He is the Rock, His word is perfect” (Deuteronomy 32:4).
“The Lord is my Rock, and my fortress…” (Psalm 18:2).
“For Who is God save the Lord? Or who is a Rock save our God” (Psalm 18:31).
We see here that there is no other Rock than God, not even Peter. Jesus Christ is the foundation Rock on which the Church is built. Oh, by the way Mr. Joe, Peter did not even reach Rome. The only man who was sent by God to preach to the Gentiles was Paul. Also, if Peter is your first Pope, why until now are priests not allowed to marry, since Peter had a wife? (see Matthew 8:14)
FATHER JOE:
I am not sure what you read, but I have spoken numerous times about the Church as the bride of Christ. Indeed, the Mass is a sacramental participation in the marriage banquet of heaven. This Church is one and the same with the Catholic Church. The members of the Church have different functions and gifts. We make distinctions between the clergy and the laity. Baptized believers with faith in Jesus live in the hope of their salvation. Your reference to the “saved” might be criticized under the sin of presumption. Jesus loves the Church as his own body.
The term “ekklesia” was originally a political term for the calling together of an assembly. It becomes descriptive of the assembly of the Church. Christ calls us both to a personal faith in him and to a CORPORATE faith as his Church. I suspect that you would tend to minimize this latter understanding. No one is saved apart from Christ; no one is saved apart from the Church.
Moving on, I am sorry, but Peter is the ROCK because Jesus said so.
“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it,” (Matt. 16:18).
Our Lord is the foundation stone of the Church. He gives something of his own authority to Peter and his successors to shepherd his flock. There is no contradiction in that Jesus is also called our rock of safety and refuge. Peter is literally a chip off the old block.
There is ample historical evidence that Peter reached Rome. The problem you face is that you exclude any information not put forward in the Bible. That would also exclude the works of the Church fathers and the legacy of the saints. Or maybe this is not true? You do seem to esteem the interpretive works of reformation anti-Catholics like Gill even more than the Bible. Excavations have discovered the tomb and the bones of Peter, clearly marked. The Holy See sits upon the twin pillars of Peter and Paul. As for priests getting married, the fact that Peter has a wife says nothing about the discipline of celibacy as practiced by Jesus, Paul and others. Celibacy is not so much a doctrinal matter as it is one of Church discipline. Disciplines can change or even be revoked; doctrines cannot.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Only one of the four traditionalist bishops of the Society of St. Pius X has shown any real interest in the overtures of Pope Benedict XVI. Bishops Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Alfonso de Galarreta and Richard Williamson threatened internal schism within the Society, warning that any agreement with the Vatican would result in surrendering the fight against worldwide apostasy. This is strong language, literally saying that contemporary Catholicism is a false religion. Indeed, when we look at a number of their priests and apologists, they slam the whole business as capitulation to “the Modernist 
Pope” and “the Modernist Rome.” Some of their sermons online and various writings go so far as to call counterfeit both the “Novus Ordo” priesthood and the “new” Mass. One writer claimed that since Cardinal Ratzinger was made a bishop under the new ritual that he did not share in the episcopacy and thus could not be a genuine pope. People like that will not want to “pollute” themselves with any association with the rest of us. There is a lot of wishful thinking, but after almost a half-century separation, many of them have gotten used to their independence. Slamming the rest of the Church and slurring the Holy Father, at least in sermons and in routine discourse has become second-nature. They do not seem the least bit afraid that they might be committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Even Bishop Bernard Fellay has lamented this problem. It has become a habit hard or next to impossible to break. They will not reconnect with what they see as the enemy.
Pope Benedict XVI was very kind to lift their excommunication. However, I would not be surprised if Lefebvrites should invoke its reimposition. After all, they never actually acknowledged it anyway. All it would take is the consecration of another unapproved bishop. Such would force the Church’s hand. The Society itself seems aware that their current response will not suffice for Rome. Thus, they will not be coming home any time soon. While pledging fidelity, they are not going to budge until (in their estimation) the day comes “when an open and serious debate will be possible which may allow the return to Tradition of the ecclesiastical authorities.” In other words, they are saying that they are RIGHT and Rome is WRONG and that nothing will change until the post-Vatican II leadership gives in.
QUESTION:
This post is the result of an extended online conversation and debate about various elements in the Medjugorje phenomenon. The focus is very narrow. The discussion increasingly centered upon the conduct of the Franciscan priests involved and the Church’s authority over both the clergy and the validation of purported supernatural intervention. The messages themselves are not really analyzed and the visionaries are not detailed.
FATHER JOE: (Corrections)
The Facts about Tomislav Vlasic
The Facts about Fr. Jozo Zovco, OFM
The demonic will lie to us, offering a feigned friendship and understanding. Evil is all about seduction, not about well-being and advancement. What is the darkness really saying behind the duplicity and rhetoric?
Blogger Priest 