Medjugorje: Responses to Saverio Gaeta's Apologetic Objections
by Marco Corvaglia
Published: 30 June-7 July 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17613/37dh7-0f251
Part of: The Medjugorje Illusion
Introduction
Saverio Gaeta.
In 2020, Catholic journalist and essayist Saverio Gaeta, for many years a vocal supporter of Medjugorje, published through Edizioni San Paolo, the largest Italian religious publishing house, Medjugorje: La vera storia (Medjugorie: The True Story), described on the back cover as a “detailed account of 40 years along with answers to objections from critics”.
The objections that were addressed to me personally are minor. Below, I will lay them all out along with my counter-arguments. I will also deal with two or three objections where I was not directly or expressly called into question.
Naturally, if Saverio Gaeta has points to make, I will post them and update the pages.
In March 2018, Gaeta contacted me, scholar to scholar, and expressed that, "although we are on opposite sides, I believe we are both operating in good faith.” (I thank him for this recognition and also for now giving me express consent to publish this bit of private communication between us).
Let’s now examine Saverio Gaeta’s objections.
1. The first day
In addition to Ivan Dragićević, one of the “visionaries” in the story of the Medjugorie "apparitions", another Ivan entered the scene on the first day only. His last name was Ivanković (21 years old), but he did not, however, return to Podbrdo (the hill where the apparitions took place) the next day and did not join the group of "visionaries".
According to "visionary" Vicka, he, on that first day, saw "something completely white, turning" [S. Kraljevic, The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medugorje, Franchiscan Herald Press, 1984, p. 8].
Medjugorje supporters give a lot of weight to Vicka’s statement, because, if true, they believe it serves as confirmation of the authenticity of the phenomenon.
Actually, as I have documented in my book, the authors (supporters of Medjugorje) who, at the time, had the opportunity to speak with Ivan Ivanković (notably, Fr. Ljudevit Rupčić and Father René Laurentin), clearly understood that he did not see anything significant [cf. R. Laurentin, L. Rupčić, La Vierge apparaît-Elle à Medjugorje ?, O.E.I.L., Paris 1984, p. 35; Laurentin, Dernières nouvelles des apparitions de Medjugorje, O.E.I.L., Paris 1984, p. 10].
After all, Ivan Ivanković did not return to the site of the apparitions the next day, because - as Vicka herself said - "he's a bit older than we and what does he want to hang around with us punks?" [J. Bubalo, A Thousand Encounters with the Blessed Virgin Mary in Medjugorje. The Seer Vicka Speaks of Her Experiences, Friends of Medjugorje, Chicago 1987, p. 14].
Already, all this would seem to be enough. However, in my book I also added the following:
Moreover, thanks to Father Sivrić, we know that on May 18, 1986, another Franciscan, Milan Mikulić, who would become friends with Mirjana (he would officiate her wedding ceremony with Marko Soldo), asked Ivan Ivanković if he had seen the Madonna, and he replied, “I told you yesterday that I never saw her!”
[Marco Corvaglia, La verità su Medjugorje. Il grande inganno, Lindau, 2018, p. 24]
Saverio Gaeta writes that I present this as a "smoking gun" (when, actually, I present it instead as an aside, as is also understood from the initial phrasing of “moreover") and argues that the story doesn’t appear reliable. In fact, Gaeta points out the detail that Fr. Sivrić did not learn of it directly from Father Mikulić, but from a witness that Sivrić himself described as "reliable".
Furthermore, Gaeta (incorrectly) writes that Sivrić’s statement “is in the [journalistic] conditional" (i.e., the conditional used in Italian and in French for suggesting the information reported is uncertain). In reality, as we shall see, Saverio Gaeta has confused two different verb tenses and modes of the French language.
Here is a reproduction from the source (Ivo Sivrić, La face cachée de Medjugorje, Psilog, 1988, p. 177):
Gaeta translates as follows (with his own italics):
“A reliable witness (who?, AN) informs me that at Pentecost, when Fr. Milan Mikulic allegedly asked Ivan if he had seen the Gospa…”
[Saverio Gaeta, Medjugorje. La vera storia, Edizioni San Paolo, 2020, p. 20]
Of course, we have this story from Fr. Sivrić because he told us. If we trust him as a scholar, we also trust the sources he deems reliable. If we didn’t trust him, we also wouldn’t trust the sources he deems reliable.
Additionally, in 1989 Sivrić also published the English translation of his book, and there is no evidence that Father Milan Mikulić (deceased in 1997) ever denied the information regarding it.
Moreover, Sivrić’s statement (which he wrote in 1988) obviously traces back to the immediacy of the events, because in the original text, the French expression m'informa contains the verb informer in the passé simple (past historic) tense, which does not mean in Italian "m'informa" (he informs me as translated by Saverio) but "mi informò” (he informed me).
Remaining on the topic of translation, as I mentioned, Saverio Gaeta confused the past anterior tense of the verb demander (to ask) actually used by Sivrić (eut demandé; literally "had asked") with the past conditional tense (which, instead, in French, would have been aurait demandé, and in English would correspond to "allegedly asked").
Here is the relevant text from the English version of Sivrić's book:
A credible witness told me that on Pentecost Sunday, May 18, 1986, when Father Milan Mikulic, O. F. M., of Portland, Oregon, asked Ivan if he had seen the Gospa on June 24, 1981, the latter told him: "I told you yesterday that I never saw her!"
[Ivo Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, Psilog, Saint-François-du-Lac, 1989, p. 185, note 4]
I know how difficult it is to write a documentary essay and how many potential risks are hidden around every corner, so I don't argue. To err is human. However, I cannot refrain from reflecting on how enormously more difficult it is to be on the side I’m on. Saverio Gaeta can count on everyone's understanding (including mine) for these translation errors. But if it were me who had made them...
The majority of the audience listens willingly and "adores" those who tell them what they want to hear. Consequently, it has the opposite feelings for those who say opposite things.
The second argument presented by Saverio Gaeta seems to be aimed at CNR [Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche] physicist Valerio Rossi Albertini, whose statement I quote in my book regarding the recordings he made at Medjugorie, on behalf of RAI (Italian Radio and Television) in 2010. However, in essence, the argument is also aimed at me, because I report the scientist's statements "without expressing any astonishment" [Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 29].
What did Rossi Albertini say?
Having aimed special equipment at the Podbrdo (the hill where the first apparitions allegedly took place), he provided this account (taken from the broadcast La storia siamo noi [The Story is Us], which was aired on RAI 2 on January 20, 2011):
Where the crest of the hill met the background of the sky, at certain points in some frames, there's a higher intensity than that of the sky's background, demonstrating - translated into more understandable terms - that there's an excessive brightness or a glow, that was actually recorded by the measuring equipment. Most likely, this phenomenon can be justified in terms of air currents producing temperature changes on the hilltops, and changes in temperature also correspond to changes in the visual properties of air.
Reporting this statement, Saverio Gaeta comments, "and would that be the explanation for what the visionaries said?" [ibid.].
In a private communication sent to me on June 30, 2020 (after the publication of this page), Gaeta added:
The question concerns what I have placed in italics: "in some frames, at certain points". There are typically 24-25 frames per second. How long can a few frames last? One or two tenths of a second? Would a flash like that be the trigger for this event? Frankly, to me, this sounds like a totally absurd explanation, and since I know that you think carefully about what you write, I indicated my surprise at a citation like that in your book.
It must be mentioned that Rossi Albertini, as a scientist, is merely reporting what the equipment recorded and is formulating a plausible scientific explanation and nothing more.
As to me, it's important to remind, for readers who are less familiar with the event, that the first alleged apparition took place in two distinct phases: in the first, the only one to "see" it is Ivanka, who tells Mirjana, who doesn't pay any attention to her. Ivanka doesn't push the issue and the two leave.
When we were returning home, for some reason I looked toward the hill and saw a bright figure. I said, "Mirjana, look, the Madonna!" Mirjana waved her hand and said, "Come on! You think the Madonna would appear to us!" And we continued on our way home.
[Kraljevic, The Apparitions of Our Lady at Medugorje, p. 7]
In fact, if things indeed happened more or less in this way, it's presumable that Mirjana at least had a look, as any human being would instinctively do but evidently didn't see anything significant. And Ivanka herself was evidently not too sure of it.
Rossi Albertini's quote was from me related, in a completely hypothetical manner, only to this first moment (and thus to Ivanka alone).
As a result, I mentioned it only as a possible "trigger" (the actual word I used), and thus a starting point from which the event may have arisen.
In essence, Ivanka's genuine and fleeting impression (moreover, traumatized by the recent death of her mother) may have been the instance, the suggestion, the idea, on which everything else was then built.
In fact, what I wrote is this:
If Ivanka actually sensed something, on a purely hypothetical level, the trigger may have been provided by a natural phenomenon which was recorded by CNR physicist Valerio Rossi Albertini, aiming his equipment at length toward Podbrdo.
[Corvaglia, La verità su Medjugorje, p. 16]
Even half-second glimmers could perhaps have influenced her at that time (it may also be worth noting that, in the collective imagination and local history, those hills were already associated with alleged apparitions of Our Lady, organized as a joke to mock believers, as Jozo Zovko, the pastor of Medjugorje, reminded Fr. Pietro Zorza, who reported that "communism immediately after the war lit up the mountains, saying it was Our Lady and when people were there, they would reveal the trick, blaming the church and the priests..." [P. Zorza, Cari figli, grazie per aver risposto alla mia chiamata, Eurostampa, Leno, 1991, p. 100])).
Approximately an hour later, there would be the alleged apparition shared by Ivanka, Mirjana and the other "visionaries" on that first day.
Consequently, I never asserted that the phenomenon recorded by Rossi Albertini was "the explanation for what the visionaries said."
2. Visionaries Unaware of Apparitions?
In his book, Saverio Gaeta challenges my skepticism (which I consider fully argued) against the visionaries' statements when they claim that, at the time, they had never heard of Our Lady's apparitions (and therefore, according to them, could not invent an apparition).
Some supporters of Medjugorie believe that what makes these statements credible is the fact that Yugoslavia was ruled by a communist dictatorship and therefore influenced by the principles of state atheism.
The reasoning seems to flow, but only on the surface.
The Yugoslavian regime (unlike other communist regimes in Eastern Europe) tolerated religion.
There were therefore (in the Catholic world) bishops, priests, friars, nuns, parishes, catechisms, religious books (including those on Marian apparitions, e.g., Bozidar Nagy, Lurd: susret neba i zemlije [Lourdes: Where Heaven Meets Earth] Zagreb, 1979; Josip Sukner, Veliki znak. Ukazanja i poruke Presvete Djevice [The great Sign. Apparitions and messages of the Blessed Virgin], Zagreb, 1975; religious periodicals with circulation numbers in the tens of thousands (e.g., Glas Koncila [The Voice of the Council]).
The regime even built new churches. Saverio Gaeta himself, recalling the history of the church of St. James of Medjugorie, reminds his readers that it was completed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and that "three sister churches were also built during the same period: one in Šurmanci in 1964, one in Vionica in 1969 and one in Miletina in 1970" [Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 6, n. 2].
Saverio Gaeta believes the "visionaries'" statements and writes:
Corvaglia argued, "In Medjugorie, rosaries were prayed regularly in all families, and people went to mass every Sunday, but they had never heard of Lourdes and Fatima? Who would believe that?" But let's read what his colleague Bouflet [a critic of Medjugorje, AN] writes, "A survey conducted among 300 people reveals that the name Medjugorie means nothing to 213 of them."
If it's feasible that in democratic France, more than two thirds of these respondents were unaware of the existence of Medjugorie after a good seventeen years of apparitions, then how can it be said with certainty that in 1981, in a remote village in communist Yugoslavia, did six teenagers have to know about Lourdes and Fatima?
[Ibid., pp. 33-34]
To begin with, it was not necessary for all six to know about Lourdes or Fatima (one or a few of them would have been enough), but let's let Father Jozo (the parish priest of Medjugorie at the time the "apparitions" began) respond.
Recalling his first conversation with "visionary" Mirjana (which took place three days after the first "apparition"), he says in the interview-book with Sabrina Cović:
I was surprised that she had never heard of Lourdes or Fatima, and I lent her a book translated into Croatian for her to read.
[Sabrina Covic, Incontri con Padre Jozo, Sakramento, Grude, 2006, pp. 53-54]
If Father Jozo was surprised, this means it was normal that a Yugoslavian Catholic teenager would know about Lourdes and Fatima.
Therefore, if, after becoming a "visionary", a Yugoslavian Catholic teenager says he or she didn't know about Lourdes or Fatima, it's suspicious.
If more Yugoslavian Catholic teenagers, after becoming "visionaries", say they didn't know about Lourdes or Fatima, it's extremely suspicious.
It's simple.
The statistical and probabilistic comparison provided by Saverio Gaeta between the (actual) lack of knowledge of Medjugorie in France and the (hypothetical) lack of knowledge of Lourdes and Fatima in the former Yugoslavia, also cannot stand, for logical reasons.
To begin with, it's obvious that Lourdes and Fatima have always been much better known than Medjugorie. If we really feel the need to resort to numerical data, just use Google Trends (the tool that provides data on searches performed by users in Google's search engine). These are the results for worldwide searches from January 1, 2004 (first available date) to June 30, 2020:
As can be seen, Lourdes and Fatima have more than six times more than Medjugorie. As such, we cannot compare knowledge of Lourdes and Fatima, on the one hand, and knowledge of Medjugorie on the other, as if they were two homogeneous variables.
Even less can we compare the two nations, whose differences run in the exact opposite direction to that expressed by Saverio Gaeta, who underscores "Democratic France" in opposition to "Communist Yugoslavia".
France is notoriously one of the countries in the world with the highest rate of indifference to religion. According to a survey conducted in 2006 by The Harris Poll and The Financial Times, it turns out that 64% of the French describe themselves as agnostic or atheist. According to a 2018 survey, practicing Catholics in France represent 13% of the population.
Consequently, if in 1998, more than two-thirds of French respondents had never heard of Medjugorie, this data cannot in the slightest be used as a term of comparison to estimate the possibility that Lourdes or Fatima were known to a Catholic teenager from Medjugorie.
And, by contrast, what was the level of religiousness (and Catholicism) in Medjugorie in communist Yugoslavia in 1981?
Let's hear it from "visionary" Mirjana who in her autobiography writes:
Even before the apparitions began, most families recited the Rosary together every evening...
[Mirjana Soldo, Il mio cuore trionferà, Dominus Production, 2016, pp. 51-52 (English version: My Heart Will Triumph, Catholic Shop Publishing, Cocoa FL 2016]
To use a term of comparison, certainly no one could say that, for example, in Catholic Italy in the early 1980s, it was prayed in every home.
It should be clear by now that the political regime had absolutely nothing to do with the knowledge of Lourdes and Fatima on the part of the "visionaries".
At any rate, in 2001, Mirjana herself, when she attempts to reinforce her claim with an outright lie aimed at the naïve Italian public says (emphasis added):
I knew nothing of either Lourdes or Fatima because we were not allowed to read religious books.
[Riccardo Caniato, Vincenzo Sansonetti, Maria, alba del terzo millennio, Ares, Milan, 2005, p. 439]
You couldn't read religious books?
Mirjana needs to be reminded of a few passages from her first conversation with Father Jozo, tape recorded on June 27, 1981:
FRA JOZO ZOVKO: Do you read any holy books?
MIRJANA: I read some.
[James Mulligan, Medjugorje. The First Days, Boanerges Press, 2013, p. 78]
A few seconds later, Mirjana also added:
I also read, Is the Bible really the word of God? I love to read the Bible.
[Ibid.]
It's obvious that the situation is exactly the opposite of what's now being described. If there was one place in the world where a young person was most likely to be prompted to invent an apparition in the 1980s, it was probably in rural Herzegovina, in the former Yugoslavia.
Finally, take a look at this painting entitled Gospa iznad Međugorja (Our Lady Over Medjugorje):
At the start of the Medjugorie phenomenon, this naïf painting (120 x 80 cm) was located above the entrance of the church in Medjugorie. It dates back to 1974 and is the work of parishioner and amateur painter, Vlado Falak, from Šurmanci. As can be seen, Our Lady is depicted descending upon Medjugorie.
It's not unfathomable that this could be a possible trigger for a group of teenagers, considering they saw it every Sunday upon leaving church (of course, among supporters, it's, instead, a prophetic painting).
In the mid-1990s, the visionaries' spiritual leader, Father Slavko Barbarić, strangely enough, had the prophetic painting transferred to the nearby village of Vionica, donating it to the chapel of the Community of the Sisters of the Wounded Family, led by his niece (his sister's daughter) and former Franciscan nun, Josipa Kordić, where it can still be found [cf. Gianfranco Fagiuoli, La Madonna ci ha parlato, ho cercato di abbracciarla, "La Domenica del Corriere»" vol. 83, no. 39, 26/9/1981, p. 20 and Paolo Brosio, I misteri di Maria, Piemme, Milan, 2016, p. 53].
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
On July 2, 2020, Saverio Gaeta kindly sent me the following comment:
Regarding the third issue [the one dealt with on this page, AN], I think we should just stick to our opposing views, since our reasoning is, in fact, based on the assumptions that respectively seem closest to our beliefs.
3. The Communist Regime and the Bishop
Saverio Gaeta writes:
Critical essayist Marco Corvaglia entitles part of his latest book: “Persecutions? Not against the visionaries”, and instead immediately afterwards supports the idea that “[in Medjugorje] opposition on the part of Žanić [the local bishop] constituted a stance that not only did not please the government, but was even undesirable.”
[Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 101]
Apart from the fact that, by putting things in these terms Gaeta is combining things that are clearly on different temporal planes, he evidently believes that the visionaries were persecuted and that the bishop did not oppose the regime’s wishes.
So, he strongly objects to my statements with the following arguments:
We need only to cite the Vatican Commission of Inquiry into Medjugorje, which analyzed these events over the course of four years and had the ability to consult numerous confidential documents: "The Communist authorities also then intervened. During the interrogations that followed, the alleged visionaries received serious threats. They continue to maintain and in no way deny what they experienced. There are testimonies that there had been pressure on the bishop.”
[Ibid.]
Yet, in a book published four months earlier, Gaeta himself had noticed "a flaw in the composition of the Commission, due to the absence of an expert in the story of the Marian apparition of Medjugorje who could keep everything straight regarding the proposed reconstruction of the protagonists’ accounts” [Gaeta, Dossier Medjugorje, San Paolo, Milan, 2020, p. 65].
But let's stick to the facts.
Regarding the first week of the phenomenon (that is, the last week of June, 1981) and some of the threats received by the “visionaries” from individual police officers, I wrote:
The youngsters don’t seem to have taken certain threats too seriously, and we can’t say they were wrong, since no punitive actions have ever been taken against them, nor against their parents, brothers or sisters.
[Corvaglia, La verità su Medjugorje, p. 58]
In principle, even Saverio Gaeta concedes to my concluding words but commits a serious error in the logic of his argument, as we shall now see.
On June 30, 1981, the "visionaries" stated that the apparitions would only last another three days. However, as we know, they’ve never stopped. Addressing this issue, Gaeta writes:
As a matter of fact, the news that the apparitions would only last another three days made the police authorities refrain from taking serious action against the visionaries by carrying out threats of incarceration or confinement to a psychiatric hospital.
[Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 127]
The historical and objective fact is more simple and more fundamental — no “serious action" was ever taken against the visionaries. Stop.
If the authorities had - as Gaeta claims - changed their minds due to the established end of the apparitions on June 30th, it’s obvious they would then revert to their previous thoughts once they had figured out on July 4th that they’d been duped (since the “apparitions” continued).
However, in reality, serious measures were not taken for the simple fact that... they never saw fit to take them.
Turning then to examine the situation in the second half of 1981, I wrote:
The authorities waited a full month and a half before showing any resolve. In mid-August, coinciding with the issuing of an outright prohibition of access to Podbrdo, which was implemented through the constant presence of police officers (who would remain on guard for six months), there was indeed a worsening of punitive measures, which, however, did not directly affect the youngsters.
[Corvaglia, La verità su Medjugorje, pp. 58-59]
It should be emphasized that during this most hostile period, virtually nothing was done to the youngsters. One of the reasons, is explained by Mirjana the “visionary" herself (who, after the summer holidays, returned to Sarajevo where she lived and where she was the only one who had some real troubles):
The city was full of hardcore communists, while most of the police in Medjugorje were Catholic and believed in the apparitions.
[Mirjana Soldo, Il mio cuore trionferà, Dominus Production, 2016, p. 136 (English version: My Heart Will Triumph, Catholic Shop Publishing, Cocoa FL 2016)]
“Visionary” Ivan, interviewed by Krešimir Šego, editor-in-chief of the monthly magazine Glasnik Mira (published by the Mir Information Center in Medjugorje), states:
It was difficult to see my parents undergo ill-treatement. They were intimidated and threatened. When that didn't work, the autorities tried to bribe them to make us say that we fabricated the whole thing.
[Krešimir Šego, A Conversation with the Visionaries, Medjugorje, 2012]
This doesn't sound like much of a persecution.
Moreover, Vicka, also interviewed by Šego, replies:
Neither I nor the other visionaries had problems with the authorities; the authorities had their problems with us.
[Ibid., p. 112]
She couldn't have been clearer that that...
Nor were pilgrimages prohibited. Franciscan Marijan Ljubić, who closely followed the events of Medjugorje from the first days and was the author of the first book ever published on Medjugorje (Erscheinungen der Gottesmutter in Medjugorje, Miriam Verlag, 1982), writes:
No one can say for sure how many pilgrims have already traveled to Medjugorje. However, it’s certain that by the end of October 1981, the half-million mark had been exceeded.
[Marijan Ljubić, André Castella, Medjugorje. Dernière invitation à la prière et à la conversion, Parvis, Hauteville 1986, p. 37]
This video documents the large influx of pilgrims in June 1982:
The government didn’t care about the apparitions in itselves. Their concern was that the apparition was contrived by the Franciscans (historically close to the views of the Croatian Nationalists, the Ustaša) to begin giving celestial messages of independence (Yugoslavia was a federation of six republics).
Consequently, there were only (very serious) retaliatory actions against some Herzegovin Franciscans who, for years, had already been considered political enemies of the government. Only one of them was closely associated with Medjugorje— parish priest Jozo Zovko, who was arrested on August 17, and had long been considered a subversive by the regime. (There are police reports against him dating back to 1977 and 1978 [Cfr. Žarko Ivković et al., Misterij Međugorja, Večernji edicija, 2011, p. 153]).
And Bishop Žanić, while the government's hostility toward Medjugorje is at its peak, does what?
On September 1st, complaining about the smear campaign organized by the regime press against Medjugorje and local Franciscans, he sends an emotional letter of protest to the president of the Yugoslav Federation, Sergej Kraigher [cf. R. Laurentin, La Vergine appare a Medjugorje?, Queriniana, Brescia, 1991, p. 61].
The following October, in the diocesan newsletter, Crkva na Kamenu, on the subject of Medjugorje, Žanić writes that in these sorts of situations, "caution and openness to the Spirit of God, who acts in the Church, is always necessary" [P. Žanić, Bishop, Pred odgovornošću, «Crkva na kamenu», no. 9-10, October 1981, p. 2; original text: «Zato je uvijek potreban oprez i otvorenost Duhu Božjemu, koji u Crkvi djeluje». Cf. Michael Kenneth Jones, Medjugorje Investigated, Devotions, 2006, p. 135].
It should be noted that throughout 1981, in the parish document entitled, Chronicle of the Apparitions (Kronika Ukazanja), compiled at that time by vice-parish priest Tomislav Vlašić, the bishop's openness to the phenomenon is always highlighted.
On November 2, 1981, we read:
Today I went with Vicka to Fr. Bishop P. Žanić. I wanted him to receive the information directly. He listened to Vicka with great openness and encouraged her. He told her to always be sincere and free in saying what she experiences ... "
[Tomislav Vlašić, Kronika ukazanja u župi Međugorje (Chronicle of the apparitions of the parish of Medjugorje), initial unnumbered volume, under the date 11/2/1981, document in the archives of the curia of Mostar and of the parish of Medjugorje. Original text: «Danas sam s Vickom bio kod o. biskupa P. Žanića. Htio sam da dobiva informacije direktno. On je slušao Vicku s velikom otvorenošću i ohrabrio ju je. Lui rekao joj je da lei uvijek bude iskrena i slobodna da lei kaže sve što lei doživljava ... "]
And all this during the time of extreme government hostility!
The Vatican commission, as Gaeta reported, writes that "there are testimonies that there had been pressure on the bishop.” But first, we need to see where and from whom these testimonies come. In fact, if they were true, the better it would be for the bishop’s image.
Being pressured is certainly no fault of the recipient. Continuing on one's own way without being influenced by pressure is, on the other hand, a virtue.
Regarding the attitude toward Medjugorje, 1982 is a year of transition, both for the government and for the bishop. But in opposite directions.
In fact, on exactly April 4, 1982, Žanić begins to have serious doubts, certainly not unjustifiably so, but rather, in the face of documented, serious and objective contradictions incurred by Vicka and Jakov, whom he welcomed in Mostar on that day [visit the website of the Curia of Mostar to view a document published as a supplement to the Službeni vjesnik (Official Bulletin), no. 2/1982: Supplement to the “Information" of Mons. Pavao Žanić].
However, at the end of 1983 Žanić still whole-heartedly hoped that there was something to be salvaged from the phenomenon.
Interviewed by journalist Renato Farina for the weekly newspaper, ”Il Sabato," the bishop said:
If everyone were like Marija... She’s the perfect witness, she’s like Bernadette. But the others are not convincing to me. They can't talk, they’re also hot tempered [...] How happy I’d be to acknowledge that the "Apparition" is authentic. But the responsibility is great, enormous...
[Interview with Renato Farina, originally published in "Il Sabato", year VI, no. 38, September 17, 1983, p. 16, in Mario Botta, Luigi Frigerio, Le apparizioni di Medjugorje, Mimep-Docete, Pessano 1984, pp. 153-154]
Here is a statement (in Italian) from Bishop Žanić, dating back to early 1984:
Integral translation:
I think: if I’m guilty, I deserve the bottom of Hell. But I can not pass over all these…deceptions, I think. All these revelations, according to me, are by Father Vlašić. He knows what to tell all the world.
Perhaps he is a saint and I am damned, I don’t know. I am waiting on the Grace or a sign by Our Lady in order to believe. This way, I can not believe.
On the other hand, in 1982 the regime's suspicion of Medjugorje slowly and gradually begins to loosen up.
Cyrille Auboyneau, a devout French author who moved permanently to Medjugorje in 1984, and for seven years was the interpreter for Father Jozo and the visionaries, reports that "after the apparitions began, the police began to back off over the course of a few months” [C. Auboyneau, La vérité sur Medjugorje, clef de la paix, F.-X. de Guibert, 1993, p. 22].
In one of the first books on Medjugorje published outside the former Yugoslavia (April 1984), it was written:
The Marxist government cannot officially authorize pilgrimages. However, it’s well-disposed and tolerant of tourists who go on their own to pray in Medjugorje with respect for public order.
[René Laurentin, Ljudevit Rupčić, La Vierge apparaît-Elle à Medjugorje ?, O.E.I.L., Paris 1984, p. 188]
In 1985, the "evolutionary process" will be brought to completion, and it’s the state TV itself that produces propaganda for Medjugorje, with the (hour-long) documentary Faith and Mysticism - Five Years of Our Lady of Medjugorje, broadcast on October 16 & 17, 1985.
Even Medjugorist authors admit it, including Fr. Luigi Bianchi, who saw in that broadcast a huge exaltation of Medjugorje or Father Slavko Barbarić, who on December 27, 1985 enthusiastically affirmed:
One thing that was a miracle to me was on October 17th, when they showed a documentary on Medjugorje on Belgrade television. It was really good, and it gave new impetus to our people.
[Tomislav Vlašić, Slavko Barbarić, Pregate con il cuore, Amici di Medjugorje, Milan 1986, p. 211]
The following video (dubbed in Italian) featured two clips from this documentary:
Also in 1985, government-controlled newspapers published articles entitled: "Virgin is ‘Working’ for the State", “Herzegovinian Economic Miracle,” “Apparitions of Tourism in Međugorje,” “Virgin of Gold,” and “Dollars in the Valley of Tears” [B. Aleksov, Marian Apparitions and the Yougoslav Crisis, «Southeast European Politics», vol. V, n. 1, giugno 2004, p. 9].
In September 1986, The Secretary of the Commission of Religious Affairs for the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Filip Šimić, interviewed by the BBC, states that pilgrims are welcome in Medjugorje (the statement was also reported in BBC journalist Mary Craig’s book, Spark from Heaven, Hodder & Stoughton, 1988, p. 191):
Throughout this time frame (and afterwards), the more the government loosens its stance on Medjugorje (to the point of openly supporting it for purely economic reasons), the more critical the position the bishop takes towards it.
Moreover, in now declassified UDBA (the secret police of Communist Yugoslavia) documents, Bishop Žanić, “being a staunch opponent of the communist system, is explicitly named at the top of the list of persons ‘responsible for enemy activity’ in documents dated January 31, 1983, November 7, 1983, December 8,1983, January 4, 1984, March 7, 1984 and April 24, 1986”, as disclosed on January 12, 2012 by the Press Agency of the Curia of Mostar (KIUM).
In 1988, Father Laurentin specifically admits the following:
It’s well known that today, the country's economic and tourism authorities would consider the condemnation of Medjugorje as a national catastrophe.
[Laurentin, Dernières nouvelles de Medjugorje, n. 7, O.E.I.L., Paris 1988, p. 23]
On 20 October 1989, in an interview with the journalist Kieron Wood, of the Ireland Radio-Television, in defiance of the government that would consider, as Laurentin says, "a condemnation of Medjugorje as the national catastrophe," Žanić said:
Money plays an important role in this issue.
[in Fr. Michel de la Sainte Trinité, Medjugorje en toute vérité, CRC, Saint-Parres-lès-Vaudes 1991, p. 487]
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
On July 6, 2020, Saverio Gaeta sent me the following comment:
Hello Marco,
Regarding "Part 3," it seems to me that we’ve repeated the remarks we’ve made before with a debate that, in general, seems to me to be essentially based on the subjective difference of the interpretation of facts.
Therefore, I would have no particular additions, except for an objection that the lack of a historian in the commission does not seem to me to impede the claim that there was pressure on the bishop. Here, it’s not a question of interpretation or overall knowledge of the facts, but solely of an ability to read the documentation received. (However, since I do not possess it, I am honestly unable to further corroborate the meager quote from the "Ruini report").
Responding on the same day to Saverio Gaeta, I then explained to him more fully my position, which I report the gist of below.
I start from the premise, of course, that knowledge of one, two or three pieces of raw data is one thing, extensive knowledge is another thing, and knowing how to critically relate facts is entirely something different.
Having clarified this, the issue addressed on my page is not only related to pressure on the bishop, but also to the "persecution" of the visionaries. If two people have equal knowledge of some of the facts, it’s always possible for them to express different conclusions, but they will do it mindfully.
On the other hand, those who are not familiar with the story, at best (that is, if they’re in good faith), evaluate based on what they more or less casually learn from such and such a source. Depth, perspective, nuance and contrasts are not evaluated or considered.
However, this also applies to pressure. The committee member must (or should) have the tools to understand whether a source, a "testimony" (individual and oral?) is reliable or suspect.
Without historical-critical knowledge of the facts and characters, how is it done?
On the other hand, as I emphasized, receiving pressure means absolutely nothing, it’s of no fault and not dependent on the person receiving it.
4. Apparitions? Three more days!
On the afternoon of June 30, 1981, during the "apparition" (and even after), the "visionaries" stated that the Gospa (Our Lady) had communicated that she would appear for three more days (which would have meant through July 3, 1981).
In reality, the alleged apparitions continued, and still continue to this day. A blatant lie, therefore, one might say.
Medjugorje supporters, of course, disagree. Let's see on what basis.
In an attempt to justify this sensational event, Saverio Gaeta (like other supporters), seems to consider the importance of two excerpts from a conversation that took place on the morning of the same day (i.e., before the "apparition") between parish priest Father Jozo Zovko and Mirjana herself:
Responding to the pastor's prompt, "How many more days do you think you'll see her?", the girl said, "Something tells me two or three more days. Something tells me. I was just thinking about it. I mentioned this to them [the other visionaries, AN]."
[Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 125]
Shortly thereafter, Mirjana says something else:
Shortly thereafter, Mirjana added that Marinko [Vicka and Ivanka's uncle, who, in the early days, established a continuous presence alongside the youngsters, AN], evidently concerned about the turn of events and the threats made by the police, "Suggests that we tell people that Our Lady told people not to come anymore. That she wouldn't appear again."
[Ibid.]
Well, Saverio Gaeta argues that I did not draw from this "the obvious consequences" [ibid., p. 126].
Namely, which ones?
Let's reread Mirjana's two statements above and ask ourselves: In short, in the end, and according to the supporters' arguments, would the "three days" have thus arisen from Mirjana's personal opinion ("two or three days") or from Marinko's suggestion (to tell people that, from now on, Our Lady will no longer appear)?
What's the obvious conclusion?
Saverio Gaeta writes:
The summary outlined by Laurentin turns out to be plausible. "In the extreme difficulties under which the visionaries struggle, faced with the irreconcilable demands of the crowd, priests, police and the Gospa, the end of the apparitions emerges as the only possible solution, and this hypothesis flashes here and there within this conversation and in others. A rumor circulates that "there will be 18 apparitions just like at Lourdes!" The analogy with Lourdes was entirely delusional because Friday the 3rd would not be the 18th day; only the 10th, not counting the time between the 18 Lourdes apparitions taking place over the course of five months. The hypothesis was reinforced, overwhelmingly, as a way out of the inextricable event."
[Ibid.]
In essence, one can't understand anything. French theologian René Laurentin (the best known apologist Medjugorje has had in its history) is saying that this was a legitimate stratagem? Or that it was a naive unfounded belief? Or both?
An explanation that fails to explain isn't an explanation. It's a smokescreen.
However, let's now take a look at what happened in the afternoon.
All the "visionaries" except Ivan were present at that "apparition" on June 30, 1981. It took place a few kilometers from Medjugorje, in Cerno, where the youngsters had arrived by car, along with two women, Mica Ivanković (a relative of some of the "visionaries") and Ljubica Vasilj-Gluvić.
Here are Father Jozo Zovko's questions and Mirjana's answers from the interview after the "apparitions":
FRA JOZO ZOVKO: Please, describe to me what you were talking about with the Gospa.
MIRJANA: I asked how many days will she stay with us. She said, "Three days."
FRA JOZO ZOVKO: More?
MIRJANA: Three days more. That means until Friday.
[James Mulligan, Medjugorje. The First Days, Boanerges Press, San Bernardino 2013, p. 228. Cf. Ivo Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, Psilog, Saint-François-du-Lac, 1989, p. 346]
Canadian scholar Louis Bélanger, who was also the publisher of Father Sivrić's 1989 book, also provided the original audio of an excerpt from this interview to the public. Here it is:
And here is the English translation:
MICA: Then Mirjana asked again how many more times she would appear. She said: "Three more times!"
FRA VIKTOR KOSIR: Who said that?
UNIDENTIFIED VISIONARY [Ivanka, according to Daria Klanac]: The Gospa.
FRA VIKTOR KOSIR: Which of you said that?
MIRJANA: I did.
FRA JOZO ZOVKO: Well, this interests me. "Three more times!" Well, when is all this going to end?
VISIONARIES [together]: On Friday.
MICA: Later on they said, "On Friday".
FRA JOZO ZOVKO: Where is it going to end on Friday?
JAKOV: In the church.
MIRJANA: Except perhaps if the Gospa tells us that she would prefer to apper on the hillside on the last day. We shall see.
[Mulligan, Medjugorje. The First Days, p. 252. Cf. Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 371, D. Klanac, Aux sources de Medjugorje, Sciences et Culture, Montréal 1998, p. 184]
Three days later, on Friday, July 3, during the "last apparition", the visionaries are staying in a room in the rectory, and several priests are present for the occasion, including the pastor of Gradnići, Father Umberto Lončar. Also present is journalist Mijo Gabrić, of the Catholic periodical, Glas Koncila.
After the "apparition", according to the testimonies gathered by Father Sivrić, all the "visionaries" said that "the Gospa told them that it was her last apparition" [Sivric, The Hidden Side of Medjugorje, p. 67].
Father Lončar, supporter of the phenomenon, notes in his diary the actual words spoken subsequently by Vicka and directed at the faithful:
The Gospa appeared to us several times. Tonight, she gave messages to us and not to the world. Tonight, she appeared for the last time and said, "My angels, my angels!" I bless you, you will be happy and at your Father's side. Keep your faith."
[René Laurentin, Dernières nouvelles de Medjugorje, n. 9, O.E.I.L., Paris 1990, p. 142]
Saverio Gaeta believes (but it would be more correct to say "hypothesizes") that the above quote, "Tonight, she appeared for the last time", not being part of the "message," was an addition - additional information provided by the "visionary".
Ultimately, according to Gaeta's interpretation, confirmations of the end of the apparitions given by the visionaries on July 3 would come from their "spontaneous feelings" and "personal appraisals" [Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 161], evidently prompted by Mirjana's opinion (which, quite frankly, seems rather unfeasible).
On July 4, however, according to the official version, the youngsters are "surprised" by the unexpected "apparition".
Hence, we see the confusing attempts at explanation that we saw at the beginning, which contradict some of the facts.
The proclamations given cannot come from Mirjana's personal opinion, because on June 30, as we have seen, it's the "visionaries" themselves who, during and after the "apparition", report the Gospa's message of "three more days".
Much less can be derived from Marinko's suggestion (who, by the way, had never mentioned three days) because there is no point in making a "strategic" proclamation and then immediately refuting it with facts.
In fact, the most obvious proof that the event has no plausible explanation lies in one single detail. If a plausible explanation had existed, supporters would not have had to systematically search for it.
It would have been enough to ask the people involved.
A linear explanation with internal and external consistency, of course.
Instead, there were only contradictions.
Here is an excerpt from Father Janko Bubalo's conversation with Vicka in 1983:
JANKO: One of you said that the Virgin told you in Cerno that she would only appear to you three more days.
VICKA: I really don't know that. I don't recall. Someone said that just so that they would leave us in peace. Fra Jozo really wore us out. Here, there. Ask this, then that. Your mind stands still!
[Janko Bubalo, A Thousand Encounters with the Blessed Virgin Mary in Medjugorje. The Seer Vicka Speaks of Her Experiences, Friends of Medjugorje, Chicago 1987, p. 42]
In 1990, Ivanka, when questioned by Laurentin, who reminded her how she herself had confirmed that Our Lady had spoken of three more days, responded in a radically different way:
I don't remember. I don't know. If I said it, it undoubtedly means that the Virgin said it. There's no need to worry about it. God knows. The important thing is to pray and to do everything with love.
[Laurentin, Dernières nouvelles de Medjugorje, n. 9, p. 13]
Gaeta, quoting Mirjana's autobiography (from 2016), writes:
As Mirjana explained: "A day or two earlier (June 26 or 27, AN), a local man had given me a book about the Lourdes apparitions in France [...]. When I read that Our Lady had appeared 18 times to Bernadette, I thought it would be the same in Medjugorje. Something kept telling me that she would only appear for a few more days, and I told this to the other visionaries."
[Gaeta, Medjugorje, p. 127]
We have already seen that, contrary to what Mirjana would have us believe, this was not merely her opinion as discussed with the other "visionaries" before the apparition, but a message later actually put into the mouth of the Gospa (Our Lady) herself.
This "detail" also clearly disproves Vicka and Ivanka (who, of course, could never have forgotten such an important statement from the Gospa).
*****
When he finds himself recounting the continuation of the "apparitions" after the fateful July 3, Gaeta writes:
The question of "three more days" is effectively shelved without the youngsters themselves being able to give an explanation. As Laurentin confirms, "I systematically questioned them on this point. They have no chronological recollection or clarification to provide on this subject, which will remain a dark page in history, as is often the case."
[Ibid., p. 164]
Note that these puzzling words from Laurentin were written four years after his earlier and far from clear attempt at justification (also reported by Gaeta), which we have already seen.
Saverio Gaeta, however, plays one last card:
Without wishing to be pedantic, however, must at least be mentioned that the "three days" and the "third day" are phrases with high levels of symbolic significance in the Bible...
[Ibid., p. 165]
In this hypothesis, then, the young "visionaries" would ask a very simple question, and the Gospa would give them an answer with arcane language.
Why? Simply not to be understood and to cause problems for the youngsters and their credibility?
Moreover, then, Mirjana's personal opinion no longer has anything to do with it, and Marinko's advice no longer has anything to do with it....
And how is it that none of the "visionaries" say they remember this arcane response and, regarding the subject, have always tried to deflect, saying contradictory and inconsistent things?
And finally, if there had been this arcane response on July 4 (or thereabouts), the "visionaries" would have asked for clarification from the Gospa ("Why did you tell us "three days"?), especially since, as is well known, they say they have so much confidence with her that they touch her, kiss her, receive and give birthday wishes, talk about their personal problems, etc.
They would have calmly communicated the "authentic interpretation" to us....
Considering the overall context of the event, in the writer's opinion, the most realistic, coherent and straightforward reconstruction appears to be that the youngsters were indeed intent on finishing it all up on Friday, July 3, 1981.
In the 24 hours following the July 3 "apparition", however, someone (even just one of them) decided he or she did not want to return to the boring life they had before, in the desolate village in which they were forced to live. The others didn't want to be left out.
After all, "visionary" Ivanka, interviewed on September 13, 1984 by Cristina Maggioni, responded as follows:
How do you spend your days?
It's very beautiful. There are people, and there is work and prayer.
[Svetozar Kraljević, Cristina Maggioni, Incontri a Medjugorje, Mursia, Milan 1988, p. 203]
Lastly, it's worth pointing out that the June 30, 1981 event is within the timeframe of the first seven "apparitions" which were deemed "intrinsically credible" by the papal commission of inquiry into Medjugorje...
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
On July 7, 2020, Saverio Gaeta kindly sent me the following comment:
Even with respect to this fourth part, it seems to me that we're confirming our positions. And the issue of the "three days" is undoubtedly all about personal interpretation, both being aware of the overall problematic nature, but also of its importance in assessing the credibility of the Medjugorje apparitions.
Marco Corvaglia
.