What’s the scoop on Medjugorje?

One of the most balanced writers on this subject, across several years, has been Diane Korzeniewski, whose blog Te Deum laudamus  has followed the saga of Medjugorje with clarity and charity.

She responds today to reports in Italian media that appear to quote people with inside information who have concluded that what is happening in in the village is “no hoax.”

Diane explains:

I would encourage people to read these things very carefully and to wait for the Holy See to speak on the matter before spiking any footballs.

Problem No. 1 is a conflict between the headline and the body of the letter.

The headline reads:

Verdict on Medjugorje nears as Commission claims apparitions are “no hoax”

The body of the article on that point reads (my emphasis in bold with added emphasis using asterisks):

Vatican Insider has learnt that the Commission has focused mainly on the first phase of apparitions. There is *apparently* no proof of any tricks, hoaxes or abuse of popular credulity. However, it is proving difficult for the Church to form a definitive verdict on the supernatural nature of a phenomenon that is ongoing.

“Apparently” is a speculative word. If they knew this as a fact, they would not be using words like “apparently.”

And how do we know it is proving difficult to form a definitive verdict on a phenomena that is still ongoing.  I addressed this misleading kind of speculation in last night’s post which looks at why I believe the Church has taken so long on the case of Medjugorje. 

My second problem with the *who* they learned this from.

*If* they have learned something from a member of the commission, then that person caused a breached in trust given to them by the Holy See.  I believe the commission members are honorable people so I am inclined to naturally disbelieve they would break the secrecy they promised.

So, then, from whom did Vatican Insider learn this information?

Perhaps it was someone who knew someone, who knows a member of the commission.  Of course, that would be hearsay.

Perhaps it was a clerk who had access to a part of the findings, but not the full docket.

Perhaps it was a floor sweeper who happened to notice a piece of paper in the copy machine.

And, maybe, just maybe, it merely an opinion of someone, even a respected theologian, doing his best to, “read the tea leaves.”

That’s for starters.  Read it all.  


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X