Medjugorje


#1

I would like to know how the church feels about Medjugorje. What has been the offical word on Medjugorje? Also the reasons? Thanks Janet


#2

OK here goes the can of worms - but I do have a question that no one seems to have been able to answer.

I went to Medjugorje in 1999 (prior to my purchase of a computer - so I didn’t research all the pro-con Medjugorje stuff)
When I asked my priest if it was acceptable for me to go he produced the 1991 Zadar(sp?) proclamation which basically says that the bishops remained neutral at the time. They prohibited church sponsored pilgrimages - but allowed individual pilgrimages.

It hasn’t been until this past year that I’ve discovered via the internet all the heated controversy.
So before anyone asks - yes I’ve read every official document.Yes I’ve been to unitypublishing (and e-mailed questions to Rick Sabato which he never responded to)
But here is what I’m still wondering.

If Bishop Zanic’s 1986 condemnation was recognized by the church - then WHY THE SECOND INVESTIGATION BY THE YUGOSLAVIAN BISHOPS???

By what authority was this second commission called?
Do the bishops themselves have the authority to take over the investigation?
Did Rome request the second investigation?

Any church documents written on the subject after 1991 refers back to the 1991 document as the church’s official position as opposed to the 1986 document. These two declarations are quite different.
So it seems to me that someone somewhere did not accept Bishop Zanic’s original ruling.
Even his successor refers back to the 1991 document.
The vatican refers back to the 1991 document.

So why are all the ant-medjugorje folks referring back to 1986??

And when this confusion causes such division between the pro and anti Medugorje catholics - why doesn’t the church issue some statement to clear up the matter?
It seems to me the church has contributed to the confusion.

BTW - on the unitypublishing site check out the Catholic Nation link where Rick Sabato advocates legalized prostitution.


#3

[quote=janetl20]I would like to know how the church feels about Medjugorje. What has been the offical word on Medjugorje? Also the reasons? Thanks Janet
[/quote]

Although I only have word of mouth on which to base my opinion, I believe that Medjugorje is a hoax and not accepted by the Church. I’m not stating fact but I have heard that the people who were supposedly seeing the Virgin Mary were all living very sinful lives, for example a priest getting a nun pregnant etc. Once again, I do not know this for certain. Thank you for asking, it is something I should be more familiar with and I’ll try to find out quickly.


#4

The most recent document on the status of Medjugorje is by Bishop Ratko Peric of the Diocese of Mostar-Duvno. Bishop Peric is Medjugorje’s ordinary. Here is a link to the document:

cbismo.hr/DHTMLFiles/Opsirnije.asp?P=7


#5

**Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.**


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.