LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
JANUARY 2001

---

FREE TO CHOOOSE WHAT?

Re: "Back to the Future," November Faith. I am pleased to hear there is such a thing as a liberal Catholic newspaper in the greater San Francisco/Sacramento Bay Area of California. Your writers seem to be more partisan, primarily Republican than Catholic. I take exception to the wording of your writer Cameron O'Shea suggesting the immoral side of the abortion issue is Democrat, and that our current Governor Gray Davis is a "pro-abortion Democrat". Politically biased people are often frequent repeaters of bigoted phraseology. I believe it would be more correct to note that Governor Davis is an advocate for free choice of women during the term of their pregnancy. Such a stand and such a law does not automatically make anyone "an abortionist", but rather at this time only a person upholding current law, affirmed by the Supreme Court (Roe v Wade, McCorvey v Texas). The current law needs amending, in favor of life for both mother and child, not a return to former "butchering" ways.

I am a Democrat. I am a practicing Catholic. I am not an abortionist, nor does the label, 'Democrat' make any such person of such political group automatically an abortionist. There are an equal number of Republicans, if not more, who hold with "choice for women during their pregnancy", a choice for a right to equal life, if the medical condition of such pregnancy requires the early removal of the child from the womb. Abortionist and 'choice advocate' are not one and the same. Republican and anti-abortionist are not one and the same.

Obviously, your writer, Cameron O'Shea, is not familiar with fairness in political reporting and his (or her) political bias over-rides an opportunity for a solution to the very serious problem of unnecessary abortions in this country.

Respectfully,

Patrick W. Maher, Sr.
Vallejo

Editor responds: I thank Mr. Maher for his letter. Calling Gray Davis "pro-abortion" is entirely accurate. If there is any kind of abortion procedure that bothers him, he never said so during his campaign or during his term in office. Yet on many occasions, Davis has guaranteed that he will do nothing to change the status quo. In fact, Davis said at his inaugural that keeping all abortions legal was one of his top priorities -- for this he got a standing ovation from the Democrat audience. [Governor Wilson was also in attendance, and seems to be of one mind with Davis on the issue]. But if Mr. Maher thinks abortion is a "serious problem," then he is not in agreement with the governor.


EXPERIENCE MEDJUGORJE PERSONALLY

Thank you so much for your cover story on Medjugorje [see "Marketing Medjugorje," by Cameron O'Shea, October, 2000 Faith]. I'm sure many of your readers were unaware about it before. I visited there in 1988 with Adriatic Tours, a Yugoslavian tour company and again in 1989 with MIR, a group from San Francisco, the leader of which has since become a priest in Stockton. At that time the bishop of Mostar had reversed his original approval of the apparitions and was investigating them. He was personally removed from the investigation by Pope John Paul II. August 15, 1988 was the first time, I believe, that Our Lady mentioned her motherly blessing to help people convert to Jesus by "repentance, prayer, fasting" and ask us to give it to others. She is very clear that the blessing of a priest is her Son's blessing and different from hers.

Did you know that Father Faricy decided to become a priest when he was a sailor docked in Portugal and visited the shrine of Fatima? I also saw in your paper an advertisement for a book defending the saintly Pope Pius XII. Those of us who knew him already knew that the play, "The Deputy" was a lie. Those of us who have met Father Jozo Zovko know any evil allegations are also lies. I was a little curious about the writer's seemingly critical position with Lynn Hoffman's support of priests. Without priests we have no Mass and without Mass we have no Eucharist. How could Catholics live without the Eucharist.

God bless you all and may the Holy Spirit move you to experience Medjugorje personally as we await Holy Moth Church's final decision.

Sincerely,

Naomi Tambornini
Sebastopol

P.S. In regard to book sales at the convention: I have never been to a Catholic convention nor have I read a Catholic magazine not Catholic newspaper where books have not be sold or advertised for sale. I extend to you and Cameron O'Shea Our Lady's personal blessing received by me August 15, 1988.


WHICH CALL IS THAT?

May the grace and peace of our Lord be with you. I have not yet received the November issue of your newspaper, San Francisco Faith. I expect to receive it soon. I hope that you included in it my letter to you regarding that article that you printed last month on the Northern California Marian Retreat ["Marketing Medjugorje," October Faith; see November Faith for Father Shipp's letter and Cameron O'Shea's response]. I know that you have published several other articles in the past on Medjugorje. The two that I have read have not presented an accurate portrayal of what is happening in that community.

I hope that some day you will be able to publish the true story of what is happening in that community. I received today via email the latest issue of Sister Emmanuel's newsletter. I know her and am convinced that what she presents in her publication is accurate and, of course, truthful. I have enclosed a copy of this latest issue of her newsletter. I believe that it demonstrates what blessings can and have occurred in that region because of our Lady and the faithful response of the people to her call to holiness -- which call is that of the Church of her Son, the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that you will make time to read it and to do so prayerfully.

Your brother in Christ,

Father Ted Shipp
San Francisco


MORE NEGATIVE THAN POSITIVE

I have read your article, "Marketing Medjugorje," from your San Francisco Faith issue, October 2000. I know a lot about Medjugorje and have read numerous books on the subject. With this letter, I enclose a copy of an interview with a bishop from Belgium. I agree completely with his assessment.

I am also enclosing a copy of the Church's declarations and an article written by a Polish priest who is a seminary teacher. I agree completely with his assessment too. My only contention with your article was that it was more negative than positive. I also have some question regarding the factual content of some of the things that were said. Otherwise, you have some very legitimate concerns which need to be addressed and I agree with those concerns.

Sincerely,

David Lotten
Fort Bragg


I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST TO THEIR OBVIOUS HOLINESS

In response to Cameron O'Shea's article "Marketing Medjugorje," I invite Faith readers to read further before deciding whether to accept or reject the alleged apparitions. The tone of the article suggests that Medjugorje stands alone among pilgrimage sites from which monetary gain from tourism and the sale of religious articles is made. Is it a sin for a travel agent to make it known that he or she can (yes, for a price) assist those who wish to travel to sites of approved apparitions such as Lourdes and Fatima? Why not Medjugorje, when the fruits of the apparitions have been so great for so many? As to the negative portraits drawn of the visionaries and those in their circle, such as Wayne Weible: having personally seen and heard four of the six visionaries, I can attest to their believability, humility, and obvious holiness. Mr. Weible's books on Medjugorje speak for themselves as to his sincerity of purpose. Mr. O'Shea claims that the current bishop of Mostar, Ratko Peric, has the authority to proclaim the Church's position on Medjugorje. According to the booklet, "Medjugorje -- What Does the Church Say," by Sister Emmanuel and Denis Nolan, after Cardinal Ratzinger rejected the denial of authenticity made by Bishop Zanic, bishop of Mostar when the apparitions began, the Vatican dissolved Bishop Zanic's commission and it was replaced by the Commission of Inquiry of the Episcopal Conference, thus relieving the current bishop of "discretionary powers" in the matter. While the Church has made no final pronouncement on Medjugorje, many of its most prominent members have made positive statements regarding it. Cardinal Ratzinger, in 1991, called Medjugorje "a place of prayer and faith...." In 1996, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, spokesman for the Holy See said, "You cannot say people cannot go (to Medjugorje) until it has been proven false. This has not been said so people can go if they want." According to the booklet, Mother Teresa, on April 8, 1992, wrote to Denis Nolan stating that, "We are all praying one Hail Mary before the Holy Mass to Our Lady of Medjugorje...." Theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar stated that "Everything concerning Medjugorje is authentic from the Catholic point of view." Perhaps until the official Church pronouncement is made regarding the authenticity of the apparition, we can take comfort in the statements made by one who has added his voice to the millions of pilgrims, including thousands of priests and bishops who have supported Medjugorje: Pope John Paul II. The pope has met with some of the visionaries; in March 1984, he stated that Medjugorje was "...the fulfillment and continuation of Fatima." He told Father Jozo Zovko, the holy priest who defended the visionaries in the early days of the apparitions, "Tell Medjugorje I am with you. Protect Medjugorje!" I have, in the past, supported the Faith for its defense of Catholic orthodoxy, but the papers' continued attack on Medjugorje and it neglect to inform its readers of the Church's true official position on the matter, makes me wonder why the paper has chose to obscure the very truth they are called upon to protect.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Choury
San Leandro


GO SEE FOR YOURSELF

Regarding your article, "Marketing Medjugorje," in the October 2000 issue of San Francisco Faith, I respectfully suggest you go to Medjugorje and see for yourself what is going on there.

In His Name,

Frances M. Kelly
Walnut Creek

Editor responds: There are many rules for determining the authenticity of private revelations. One of these is whether the "seers" have been honest. With regard to Medjugorje, this is not the case. In the original investigation by Bishop Zanic, it was found that there were "thirteen cases of deliberate and conscious lying" on the part of the visionaries. When it became clear that Bishop Zanic was not going to affirm the apparitions, the alleged visionary, Vika, wrote down her diary of "messages" that personally attacked him. After the two Franciscan priests, Ivan Prusina and Ivica Vego, were expelled from the diocese by Bishop Zanic for disobedience, Vicka quotes the Virgin Mary in her diary of April 26, 1982 saying, "the bishop doesn't possess a scrap of the true love of God for those two." Has Our Lady ever personally attacked a sitting bishop and sought to overturn his authority in the entire history of the Church? Later, the "seers" went on to claim that the two Franciscan priests were exonerated, although they were both suspended from the priesthood. As we reported earlier, one of these would go on to get a local nun pregnant.

Ms. Tambornini's statement in her letter bears scrutiny: "She (the Blessed Virgin Mary) is very clear that the blessing of a priest is her Son's blessing and different from hers." Does this indicate that followers of Medjugorje believe that Mary is a 4th member of the Trinity? Father Schipp's material from "Sister Emmanuel's newsletter," is a three-page-long message from a "visionary" who is supposedly imparting messages directly from the Blessed Virgin Mary. There are also references to the "visionary," Vicka (see above). According to Ms. Choury and Ms. Tambornini, Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father overturned the findings of the bishop of Mostar -- this never happened and is simply a false statement. Neither did the episcopal conference of Yugoslavia overturn Bishop Zanic. The conference issued a declaration on April 10, 1991: "On the basis of studies conducted so far it cannot be affirmed that supernatural apparitions and revelations are occurring." There is no documentation that Cardinal Ratzinger has ever endorsed the apparitions at Medjugorje. Letters from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, support the Yugoslavian bishops' conclusions. In a 1997 interview with Bishop Zanic's successor, Bishop Peric in Présent, Bishop Peric says, "I am, moreover, very grateful to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [whose head is Cardinal Ratzinger] for having, on two occasions, explained and implemented the affirmation of the Episcopal Conference of the ex-Yugoslavia. This was done in a letter to Mgr. Daloz, archbishop of Besançon, on 4 July 1995, and in a letter to Msgr. Taverdet, bishop of Langres, on 23 March 1996. After having cited the declaration of the episcopal conference [quoted above], the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added: "From what has been said, it follows that official pilgrimages to Medjugorje, representing it as a place of authentic Marian apparitions must not be organized either on a parish or diocesan level, because this would be a contradiction of what has been affirmed by the bishops of the ex-Yugoslavia in their previously cited declaration."

Joaquin Navarro-Valls, Vatican Press Office spokesman, did say that anyone can go to Medjugorje if they want. But that is just the beginning of his statement. He went on to say, "The problem is if you systematically organize pilgrimages, organize them with the bishop and the Church, you are giving a canonical sanction to the facts of Medjugorje."

The Franciscans who claim to be serving Our Lady at Medjugorje have been formally expelled from the local diocese of Mostar and Duvno. The expulsion was made by both the bishop of Mostar and the father general of the Order of Friars Minor. This took effect on February 21, 1999. The joint expulsion was approved by the Vatican. The rebel Franciscans continue to control parishes in the diocese in disobedience to the Church. The latest expulsions follow the expulsions of the other two Franciscans who refused to hand over the parish of Capljina in 1996 (see above). Their expulsion was confirmed in 1998.

TOP