Catholic Light

(Translated from the German-language Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost. Thanks to reader budapestinensis for spotting a translation error on my part. The corrected word is marked in red below.)

The Medjugorje phenomenon and the discernment of spirits: a conversation with dogmatic theologian Manfred Hauke

For years there has been discussion of the phenomenon of the alleged "Marian apparitions" that took their origin in Medjugorje: Does the Mother of God really appear to the seers who originated in Medjugorje? Or are the experiences parapsychological fruits of the seers' unconscious? Are they a deceptive manipulation or even a trick of evil forces? According to reports, there are plans at the Vatican to have the Medjugorje phenomenon conclusively investigated by a commission. Regina Einig asked the chairman of the German Mariological society, professor of dogmatics and patristics at Lugano, Manfred Hauke, about the subject.

Wherein can we find the theological meaning of Marian apparitions?

Appearances of the Mother of God belong to the charism of prophecy, in which the mysterious working of the Spirit of God comes to expression. St. Paul emphasizes: "Do not quench the Spirit! Do not despise prophetic utterances!" (1 Thess. 5:19-20). The book of Proverbs already emphasizes: "Without prophecy, the people become demoralized" (Prov. 29:18). According to Thomas Aquinas, prophetic revelations after the Apostolic era are not given in order to spread a new teaching of faith, but serve to guide human action. Theology speaks here of "private revelations", inasmuch as the content conveyed does not belong to general and public revelation, which closed with the Apostolic era. "Private", then, means a reference to an individual person, a group or even the whole Church in a particular historical situation. "Private revelations", or (better) prophetic revelations help us to recognize the "signs of the times" (Lk. 12:56) and act accordingly. Following Pope Benedict XIV, the recognition of a private revelation by the responsible bishop is not the basis of any duty to believe, in the strict sense (fides divina), but it states that one can approach the apparitions with a purely human faith (fides humana) based on reasoning. So no Catholic is obliged to believe that the Mother of God appeared in Lourdes and Fatima; but the Church states that the reports of the apparitions are worthy of belief and a Catholic may believe in them and cultivate a corresponding spirituality. Yes, the Church has even set several memorial days in the liturgical calendar and issued corresponding Mass formulas. Prophetic revelations are not the normal case of Christian life, but an exception: "Blessed are they who do not see and yet believe" (Jn. 20:29). The Catechism of the Catholic Church stresses with St. John of the Cross: In Jesus Christ, the eternal divine Word, God the Father has shared everything with us (cf. Hebr. 1:1-12). "Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty" (CCC 65).

It's good to see, via Cardinal Rode, that there is going to be a teaching document this year on the vocation of the religious brother. The lack of attention given to brothers, and the consequent devaluing of this sacred vocation, is a significant problem: I expect it contributes to confusion about the parallel vocation of religious sisters.

Comcast Account Rep: May I call you Richard?

Me: (silence, and then:)
Me: Well, I hardly know you. It's all right to call me Mr. Chonak; that would be fine.

Comcast Account Rep: Thank you, Mr. Chonak.

Who do these people think they are? Some anonymous schmoe who took my call wants to pretend we're best buddies? Let's not.

For his birthday today, 65-year-old Cardinal Schönborn has given an interview to a friendly local church-news outlet. Kath.net is also friendly to the alleged Medjugorje apparitions, and in fact sells videos of the Cardinal's recent "pilgrimage" there. In the interview, he confirmed a bit of news from a Petrus article that appeared here on January 12: that Pope Benedict will soon create a new commission to evaluate the controversial site of alleged apparitions.

My translation:

KATH.NET: In the past few days, you visited Pope Benedict XVI. Did you tell him about your positive experiences of Medjugorje? Did he express any opinion about it?

Cardinal Schönborn: It's not customary to talk about audiences. But I can naturally say this much: that Medjugorje was a topic in Rome during those days, due to the public awareness of my pilgrimage. I reported about my impressions in Rome. And I am very confident that the Commission, which the Holy Father is setting up to examine the events of Medjugorje, is very good and will work very conscious of its responsibility, and that the result will certainly be good. And I am confident that it will proceed with great prudence and great sensitivity to a phenomenon that has attracted about 30 million pilgrims and brings very many good fruits, but certainly also some open questions.

As a skeptic about the phenomenon, I didn't appreciate his recent highly publicized visit there, but I am glad to see the Cardinal acknowledge that there are some, ahem, questions to be examined.

Aid to the Church in Need is continuing to work toward the Church's recovery in Haiti.

(Photo: the cathedral in Port-au-Prince; source: foxnews.com blog)

The German-language service of Vatican Radio has an article on Cardinal Schönborn's private audience with the Holy Father last Friday, and the letter he faxed to Bishop Perić the same day.

My translation:

Schönborn: Apology for Uproar about Medjugorje Visit

After his controversial pilgrimage to Medjugorje Cardinal Christoph Schönborn has apologized to the local bishop of the place, Ratko Perić. In a letter published in excerpts on the official home page of the Mostar diocese, the Vienna cardinal emphasizes that he had no intention of "harming peace." Schönborn had visited the village of Medjugorje in Bosnia-Herzegovina at the end of the old year and argued for "an integration of the Medjugorje phenomenon into normal pastoral practice". He had declared his visit to the ecclesiastically unrecognized site of Marian pilgrimages a private trip. However, he provided for considerable visibility to it in media publicity. The letter of apology is dated January 15, the day on which Schönborn was in Rome for a private audience with Pope Benedict. With his letter, Schönborn answered a letter from Perić, who had sharply criticized the visit of the cardinal to Medjugorje and emphasized that the visit implied no recognition of the "apparitions". Furthermore he recalled that the so-called seers of Medjugorje had repeatedly manipulated the alleged Marian apparitions. With Schönborn's letter the discussions are now considered closed, said a spokesman for the Mostar-Duvno diocese this Tuesday. -- Since 1981, Marian apparitions are said to be taking place in Medjugorje. They are not recognized either by the local diocese or by the Vatican.

Whenever I turn on the TV or radio, the news is right in my face: there's obvious danger, desperate people are crying for help, trapped in wreckage that has collapsed after decades of corruption and shoddy work; outsiders are trying to rescue them, appealing for money, but it may be too late to save Martha Coakley.

I gave twenty-five bucks to Scott Brown's senatorial campaign yesterday. I rarely donate to political campaigns, since we usually blow our money on extravagances such as food and chidren's clothing (can't they stop growing, at least for a year or so?) I'm quite sure I've never given money to a candidate who wasn't completely pro-life. I don't think I've ever donated to an out-of-state campaign, either.

But this seems important. Brown might be ostensibly "pro-choice," but on life issues that are likely to come up in the Senate in the near future (the "conscience clause," Federal funding for abortion, partial-birth abortion) he is on the right side. Even more than that, he has promised -- in explicit terms -- to fight the monstrous health-care legislation that is oozing its way through Congress.

I'm sure most pro-lifers in Massachusetts are planning to vote for Brown on Tuesday. For those who aren't, do you honestly think that if the Federal government regulates all aspects of our health care that our country will be more friendly to life? Nonsense. Look at Western Europe -- not, as many conservatives do, because of the quality of their health care. No, look at how they treat their own population. Once a national government starts taking care of its citizens like pampered children, it will start regarding its citizenry as a burden, and will take steps to lighten that burden. A look at Europe's birthrates will help confirm that theory.

President Obama is a committed statist, believing that there is no area of human life outside the government's regulatory sphere. Statism is the political ideology of the cuture of death, squeezing out the family, religion, businesses, private associations, and all the other institutions of free peoples. Absurdly, he spoke out today in the name of independence, saying that Attorney General Coakley would represent the people of Massachusetts over her party.

This is one of Obama's favorite verbal ploys: accusing opponents of something he himself is doing, or saying he isn't doing X, when he is indeed doing X. The whole reason he was in Massachusetts was to support a member of his own party's senatorial campaign, so she would vote in lockstep with the 59 other members of the Democrat caucus. If he had promised to oppose the health care bill, or any other item on Obama's agenda -- which would signify something like independence -- you can bet that he wouldn't have made the trip.

"...[I]t's easy to say you're independent, and you're going to bring people together, and all that stuff, until you actually have to do it," said Obama at the 14:50 mark in his speech. He should know, since he's managed to alienate virtually all Republicans since his inauguration a year ago. But maybe that's not giving him enough credit. The polls tell us that independent voters across the U.S. oppose Obama by a 2-1 ratio, and that Massachusetts independents are going for Brown by a similar proportion. So it looks like Obama is uniting the country after all, just not in the way he had hoped.

May I commend to your attention the very fine charity Aid to the Church in Need, which has been providing direct aid to the Church in poor countries and situations of persecution for over 50 years?