More info at American Life League.

Internet access limited over next couple days. If you have a moment,
please blog a time sensitive prayer request for a soldier's child in
need.

I cannot share any more details. However, I appreciate your help.

Would he really spend a month there? That does sound odd, for a sitting bishop. Maybe something has been lost in translation, and the trip is going to take place some time between those dates.

But what looked like favorable publicity for Medjugorje has turned into an embarrassment for the Cardinal. His travel and the boasting of apparition supporters about it told the world that the Cardinal was showing support for the "seers", even on the territory of another bishop.

Now, this sort of public interference in another country's and another bishop's local controversy is, well, highly irregular, and Cardinal Schönborn has been forced to make a statement. Catholic News Agency writes:

Medjugorje, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nov 16, 2009 / 02:55 pm (CNA).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn will visit Medjugorje, the small town in Bosnia-Herzegovina where six young people have allegedly been witnesses of apparitions from the Virgin Mary. But according to the Archdiocese of Vienna, the trip is "completely private" and does not imply a statement from the cardinal on the veracity of the apparitions.

"It was supposed to be a completely private visit, it was not supposed to go out to the internet," Fr. Johannes Fürnkranz, personal secretary to the Archbishop of Vienna, explained to CNA.

Really? It wasn't supposed to be known to Internet readers (i.e., to the public)? What quaint and old-fashioned expectations Fr. Fürnkranz has!

The cardinal's visit will take place between December 8th and January 4th.

"The cardinal's visit was supposed to be absolutely personal and not public, but since it has been leaked, I can only confirm that it will take place. There is no statement whatsoever involved (in the visit)," Fr. Fürnkranz told CNA.

On the face of things, the Cardinal's secretary is indicating that Cdl. Schönborn is not changing his plans. and nothing unusual is happening. On the other hand, the statements that this visit was supposed to be "completely private", not even known to the public, and certainly not a "statement" of any kind, are an admission that His Eminence is violating protocol -- and markedly so because of the public statements of the local bishop against the apparition claims:

The local Church authorities, including Bishop Ratko Peric, whose diocese encompasses Medjugorje, have declared that the alleged apparitions are not to be published or promoted.

Bishop Peric has reaffirmed the official statement of his predecessor, Bishop Pavao Zanic, who in July 1987 wrote to the pastor of Medjugorje:

"I demand from you that you remove the 'visionaries' from public display and put an end to their 'visions' in the parish church. They have had 'visions' in Mostar, and earlier in Sarajevo, Visoko and Dubrovnik. Let them now have them at their homes: people say that they had them at their homes during 1981... You must stop talking about apparitions and also cease publicizing messages. The devotions that grew out of the 'apparitions' and their messages must be eliminated, sales of souvenirs and printed material which propagate the 'apparitions' must also stop."

In June 2009, Bishop Peric addressed the parish in Medjugorje and insisted that "the presumed daily apparitions, known as the 'phenomenon of Medjugorje,' have not been declared as authentic by the Church. Not even after the investigations of various commissions nor after 28 years of media hype. Therefore, brothers and sisters, we cannot behave as if these 'apparitions' are authentic and approved."

Nevertheless, 22 years later, the popularity of Medjugorje as a Marian destination for pilgrims remains.

But even if Cardinal Schönborn doesn't accept the bishop's position, there is someone whom he should (and of course will) respect: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Any remaining doubts about CDF's position should be fading, if this leak to the press -- probably a planned and wanted leak -- is correct.

The official's key statements (which I've emphasized) use some very firm language:

Speaking on background, an official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith told CNA that the Roman dicastery remains behind the bishops of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"The local bishops have the ultimate authority on this matter, and their arguments against the alleged apparitions are doctrinally solid," the official said.

Asked if Medjugorje should not be judged by its fruits of many conversions and vocations to the Church, the official responded: "It is not the duty of this Dicastery to make a pastoral assessment, but a doctrinal one. But regarding the argument, it can equally be argued that God can write straight with crooked lines, just as it has been proven in several previous occasions with patently false apparitions."

It's understandable that a CDF official has been thinking about the issue. Cardinal Puljic, the chairman of the Bosnia-Herzegovina bishops, has already said that CDF will soon make a statement, and he is traveling to Rome this month. At the bottom line, Cdl. Schönborn's interference may help the critics, as an illustration of how very much CDF's intervention is needed.

It's too bad that the bishops would pass up the reliable service they've had from EWTN, and turn the job over to an outfit that has only had satellite capability for less than one year. The result has been a TV blackout of the meeting for most of the country.

UPDATE: I'll put the links to the recorded video from Monday below:

Well . . . I don't deny that there are good "fruits" associated with Medjugorje, but even so, I am strongly disinclined to believe that it is the site of authentic Marian apparitions. And, as I explained to the caller, I personally do not agree that the "good fruit" argument constitutes proof of its authenticity.

More at Patrick's blog.

Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours, Yours are the eyes through which is to look out Christ's compassion to the world; Yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good; Yours are the hands with which he is to bless men now. ~St. Teresa of Avila, Mystic and Doctor of the Church

And that certainly is an inspirational saying. Indeed, it's our calling to live out the truth that we in the Church are the mystical body of Christ.

However: does it sound like St. Teresa of Avila?

Surely she was too good a writer to put the following convoluted sentence on paper:

Yours are the eyes through which is to look out Christ's compassion to the world.

And think about the doctrinal message those words contain: considering that we Catholics hold that the holy Body of Jesus Christ is present here in the world in the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, would a Doctor of the Church make such a contradictory statement as "Christ has no body now on earth but yours"? No; nobody gets the title of Doctor of the Church if they write such imperfect expressions of Christian doctrine.

To get to the root of the question, an interested person contacted the Institute of Carmelite Studies in Washington, DC, which translates, edits, and publishes the works of Saint Teresa, and asked them about it. They told her that the passage does not come from the writings of the saint, or from oral tradition of her sayings.

Now, this sort of thing happens all the time on the Internet. There are quotations of inspiring material: sometimes inspiring pious treacle, or inspiring humanistic pep-talk, or even sometimes inspiring heretical new-age nonsense which people pass around and re-quote -- even ministers and pastors who should know better -- all because it comes attributed to some popular saint. Sometimes it's perfectly acceptable Catholic material, but just not correctly attributed. Be on guard about this erroneous stuff. I think the most common names used are St. Francis of Assisi, St. Therese of Lisieux, and St. Teresa of Avila.

Did St. Francis say, "Preach, and if necessary, use words"? Probably not.

For someone who preached as much as St. Francis, those words may be out of character. The message of the saying is that we should favor preaching without words over preaching with words. This is the kind of saying that moderns love, 'cause they don't want to hear Catholic preaching.

It's someone's summary of a legend of St. Francis. It may be a modern legend: I don't know, 'cause I haven't been able to find it in print. Supposedly, the saint took one of the brothers with him to go and preach in the town; Francis led him through the town as they walked in their habits, and to the brother's puzzlement he did not stop in a square or at a church or anywhere to address the people; in fact, they spoke to no one. Eventually their course led them back to their home, and Francis thanked the brother for helping him preach, and left it at that, without an explanation.

Now, this could be a legitimate story, expressing the point that the habit itself is a silent reminder of the Gospel message. But so far I haven't found any reliable source for the legend, let alone the cutesy one-liner that sums it up.

For another matter: did St. Francis write the prayer, "Make me a channel of your peace"?

No, those words first appeared, without attribution, on the back of a holy card, around 1915 in Normandy. Because the holy card was an image of St. Francis, and it expresses St. Francis' zeal for reconciliation, the prayer has since been erroneously attributed to him.

What's important about this? The Internet gives people the ability to send the Gospel out to the world in seconds, and also gives the ability to send out half-truths or total rubbish. There's more good communication going on than ever before, and more spreading of error and confusion.

If you want to participate in sharing the Faith on the net, spreading erroneous material hurts your credibility, and makes you a less effective witness for the Faith. Let's all learn to be smart Internet users, using reasonable caution: check the sources of material that people send you.

Link: Diocesan website. Also, a 1999 caution from the diocese on the matter.

(Hat tip To Wendy Cukierski for the news.)

UPDATE (8 pm): For those who (like me) don't know much of the history of this affair, here's a summary of the story from an unusual web site: it presents "reviews" of apparition web sites. [NB: I don't agree with some of the anonymous author's opinions about other subjects, but on apparitions, he's doing some good work.]

The story of Mrs. Sweeney Kyle takes a weird turn when she dumps her husband 'cause he doesn't believe in her apparitions: hm!

The adulterous "professional" never will have to repent. He can divorce his wife with the blessing of the Church, knock up his little baby girl and stay with her for the good of the children and even apply for nullity, which some canonist quack like Vere or his ilk can't wait to grant. [cut]

I know this to be true. I am living it. Pete knows this to be true as well, but I am sure has some lame excuse. All canonists do.

This story is stupid.

I'm on record several places as to why the surge of annulments among Catholics who did not practice Church teaching in Humanae Vitae: it's the consequences of theCulture of Death. For instance, see this Catholic Light post from 2003.

But what about the breakdown (or major strain) in marriages among Catholics who accept Church teaching in Humanae Vitae? What about the breakdown in marriages between couples who practice NFP and are active in pro-life and Catholic apostolate (Which I imagine describes most of you reading this blog)?

Some whisperers will find it lame, but here's my excuse: It's taken from my experiences watching the breakdown of such marriages... As married laypeople, some people lose sight of the fact God called them to the married state, and not the consecrated or clerical state.

It's that simple. It's also tempting to overlook when one believes oneself engaged in God's work. Yet it's the reason I've dropped off the Catholic circuit and slowed down my writing apostolate since God blessed us with child number four last year. It's the reason I will blog two or three times a day for a month, then stop for months at a time. As much as I love you, dear readers, my first duty is toward my wife and children.

A couple years ago, Jacqui Rapp - who often co-authors with me on issues concerning marriage, family life, and annulments - and I, noting the breakdown of marriages involving several people in high-profile Catholic and/or pro-life apostolates, wrote the following article: Family Before Apostolate: Pro-Life Activism Begins at Home.

The article was written (originally for Catholics United for the Faith) as a conversation between Jacqui and me. One of Jacqui's more important points is the following:

As our Lord teaches in the Gospels, "The harvest is bountiful but the workers are few." It is not unusual for the few to find themselves overworked. Given the persecution of marriage and family within modern society, we can become so committed to combating the culture of death that we lose sight of our own marriages and families. This is one of the reasons the Roman Church has traditionally required her clergy to remain celibate.

Now, this is not to say that the married state is incompatible with ministry or apostolate. Personally, having a family has helped me become more compassionate, while at the same time remaining faithful to the Church's teaching in my work as a lay canonist. Being married and having children often opens us to graces and personal discoveries not previously experienced. As lay judges, both Pete and I understand certain nuances of marriage and family life that can easily be overlooked by our peers in the world of canon law who are celibate priests..

To which I responded:

In contrast, as married laymen we cannot devote the same time and effort to spreading the Gospel as that devoted by our ordained colleagues. Spouses have needs, as do children. Each of us undertakes these responsibilities toward our respective spouses and future children when we get married. The legitimate needs of spouse and children must come before the needs of our apostolic work.

Coincidentally, given that it just arrived back from the printer yesterday and is being shipped out to bookstores this week, Jacqui and I expanded this essay into the last chapter of our new book on marriage and annulments, which you can order from publisher Saint Anthony Messenger Press here.

So yes, changing diapers and plunging a toilet after my three-year-old flushed his rubber dolphin is rather lame when compared to the cloak-and-dagger excitement of taking on a codename and engaging in whisper campaigns for the Kingdom of God. But as lame as it is, it's my vocation as one called to the married state.

1 - The reason Maciel's earlier victims have not received an apology is because LC/RC leadership reportedly don't want to admit the probability of Maciel's guilt.

2 - The Holy Father is reportedly concerned that LC/RC are still following the "vow of charity" in spirit, even though His Holiness has suppressed it in law.

If both these allegations (reportedly alleged by LC rank-in-file troubled by their superiors' response to crisis) are true, then we're looking at a deeper question. Namely, are LC/RC leadership capable of repentance?

I cannot claim credit for the question. It comes from a friend of mine who asked me to preserve his anonymity, citing his ecclesiastical status as a local ordinary. He has been following the LC/RC meltdown with great interest because of the effect he feels the movement has had on the people of his diocese.

The question arose as he was telling me about about a pastoral situation he found himself in as a young priest. A successful professional wanted to divorce his wife of several years, abandon their children, and run off with his much younger assistant. My friend asked the professional to think it over, reminding him of his marriage vows and explaining the after-effect this would likely have on the couple's children. "Can you face God on Judgment Day knowing full well that you have torn your family apart for selfish reasons?" my friend asked.

However, the professional was obstinate. The spark had died in his marriage, he protested, and he was madly in love with his young assistant. "Besides," the man said, "I'm basically a good person. I volunteer at the food bank and donate my time and money to many local charities. God sees the good things that I do in this community. And speaking of God, you priests are always preaching God's forgiveness. Are you telling me now that it's a lie? That God cannot forgive me if I follow my heart, despite all the good things I do?"

My friend was stumped. How to explain to a man looking for any excuse to bolt his marriage that God could forgive him, without appearing to retreat on the importance of remaining faithful to one's marriage vows and seeking marital counseling. My friend sought advice from a more senior pastor who was experienced with these types of pastoral intervention.

The more senior pastor said: "Tell him that God can forgive him if he follows through with his plan. Then add: 'But in making this decision with full knowledge of the consequences it will bear on your family, will you be capable of repenting?'"

That is the question. (Although he could have added the following as well: "Or will you spend your life denying the consequences of your intended actions, refusing to admit you were at fault? Digging in to salve your conscience as you try to justify yourself to your children when they turn against you?")

This is the situation in which members of the LC/RC now find themselves. The good works to which they appeal does not justify the grave evil they appear to gloss over by their actions. Maciel's earlier victims are still waiting for an official apology, in public and in private. And can anyone show any attempt on the part of LC/RC officials to restore the good name of Maciel's victims?

Like many other orthodox Catholics, I was prepared to cut the Legion some slack when news first broke last January. This was a great shock to those who had previously believed Maciel to be a living saint. People needed time to absorb the news and understand its implications. However, over nine months have passed since this broke. Moreover, it now seems probable that LC/RC leadership knew about this beforehand. That's plenty of time to apologize in accordance with one's Catholic obligations, and obligation in justice as taught in every orthodox Catholic children's catechism.

And thus my question is as follows to those who, with knowledge of Maciel's probable guilt and the injustice done to his victims, continue to promote and defend the movement, citing its reported good works, while refusing to acknowledge the gravity of the injustice to Maciel's victims and the movement's responsibility to correct the situation: "If you continue along this road, will you be capable of repenting?"

And as an added question to fellow parents, should your children clue in and turn away from the movement before you do, will you be able to keep them from turning against the Church as well? Or will you be too busy engaging in apostolate, promoting your "good works" despite the naysayers?

I've managed to sneak away and find a location where I can access the Internet unrestricted a couple times a week. Usually my wife and I message back and forth, but tonight I wish to respond to Michelle's recent comment to this old thread. The reason being, she brings up a couple of points I have heard from other apologists of LC/RC, including a few high-profile ones.

Michelle writes:

[God] led me to RC. I joined because I fell in love with FAMILIA training.

Here's the thing. FAMILIA wasn't invented by the RC. Rather, it was taken over by the RC - the programme's founders given the boot - as reported here.

So what if the founder Maciel fell from grace? He won't be the first or last.

If it was just a matter of the founder falling from grace, this controversy would be over by now. As we have seen over the past nine months, there's some deeper issues troubling orthodox Catholics:

1 - It's become more-and-more clear that the LC/RC is an embodiement of the mindset that allowed Maciel to live his "double life". Thus the movement's charism and methodology are suspect.

2 - The lack of adequate apology or recognition of Maciel's earlier victims by the movement's leadership is very troubling, especially since the victims were for years made out to be liars by members of the movement. So orthodox Catholics recognize that the movement still owes a dept of justice to Maciel's victims.

Until these two issues are resolved, orthodox Catholics will continue to hold the entire movement as suspect. So will the world. Hence any good the LC/RC tries to accomplish will be overshadowed by the great evil perpetuated by Maciel and those who covered up for him and defended him.

Thus to answer LC/RC apologists asking: "Why can't we just focus on the movement's good works?" Good works alone won't cut it. We're Catholic, not Pelagians. As long as grave evils remain unaccounted for, the good is poisoned.

Here are the segments he has published so far:

In case any of you at home are keeping score, here are Wikipedia's lists of prominent people who have joined the Catholic Church and those who have left it.

This initiative is a response to a request from a group called the Traditional Anglican Communion, whose members broke with the mainstream Anglican Communion churches in the 1970s and 1980s over issues such as the question of women's ordination. A couple of years ago, TAC leaders wrote to the Pope declaring that they fully accepted the Catholic Faith, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that they were willing to take any steps necessary to achieve full unity with the Catholic Church. Now their leader, Archbishop John Hepworth, an Australian, has written to express his gratitude at the Pope's decision.

TAC is not a huge organization: its member church in England has just 19 congregations; its US member, the Anglican Church in America is more substantial, with several dioceses: about 100 parishes and 5200 members. TAC member churches have about 40 congregations in Canada and another 40 in Australia (including a few in Papua New Guinea).

It's going to take several years to set up these new jurisdictions, receive all these people into full communion, and have their clergy ordained after some suitable theological preparation, so there will be some interesting ecclesial events to look forward to, and the joy of welcoming our brothers and sisters to full sacramental and ecclesial communion.

For some of us Catholics, bringing Anglican traditions into Catholic life may strengthen our efforts to enhance the beauty and dignity of Catholic liturgy in conventional Roman-rite parishes. The new Anglican-use congregations may even end up offering some refuge and solace to conservative Catholics in places where conventional parishes have undignified liturgy and insipid preaching.