Talk:Medjugorje/Archive 1

Undated, unsigned
THESE THINGS SHOULD BE ADDED

Right now these are the things this article is missing for a good objective article. Since Medjugorje has a complexity, this article should be as long as possible. So here's some things that should be Added I feel. Anyone of you should Speak up if you have problems with these. - ---Mention of call to fasting on bread and water on wednesday and friday and saying 15 decades of the rosary a day.---

This should be mentioned because it's the bigtime request of Medjugorje. It's a very defining characteristic.

---Janice T. Connell "The Visions of the Children"--- This is a bestseller in stores everywhere.

---Mention that the claim is that the apparitions are for every person on earth and not just catholics.--- This changes the stereotypical nature of the apparitions.

---The letter to Gorbachev and Reagan, and the response from Reagan.--- The letter from Reagan will have to be proved.

---The Nature of the secrets.--- This follows the interesting nature of the secrets which makes Medjugorje sensationalistic in a balanced way. The first 3 stand out in a certain context. The first breaks the reign of satan in the world. Our Lady ceases appearing after the 3rd secret. When all of the secrets come to pass satans reign will entirely cease.

---The Main Messages of Medjugorje--- I think this is incredibly obvious. However the children seem to give one-word messages such as FAITH, FASTING, CONVERSION, etc. which appear to be different. This needs to be researched and put into context.

---The Movie "Gospa".--- Starring Martin Sheen and Morgan Fairchild

---James Caviezel influences with the Passion of the Christ--- "The catharsis for me to play this role was through Medjugorje, through Gospa." http://www.medjugorje.hr/int%20Caviezel%20ENG.htm

---Communist Persecution and the imprisonment of the parish priest.--- I think this is obvious.

---The fact that her title is The Queen of Peace.--- This is obvious. - ---There are two lesser people who claim to receive locutions from Our Lady--- They are accepted by Medjugorje. So that's very important. - ---Estimated number of people who have been to Medjugorje.--- This shows a popularity. - ---That Our Lady has come to convert the whole world.--- This should be a quote from the Janice Connell bestseller. --- ---Monthly Messages.--- This shows hows the apparitions follow a current spotlight on a regular basis. --- ---General mention of pilgrims reporting signs and wonders.--- This is defining characteristic. - Juan T. I made some changes. If anyone objects then mention it somewhere here. I guess that's the way it works. I only changed things I was sure of. - Juan T.

PLEASE REMOVE THESE THINGS
I'm new to Wikipedia. Saw things right off the bat wrong in this article. There are other things I have to research as well. Here are some things that need to be removed. Also there are objectively good things that need to be added.

---"While the girls initially reported that the lady said she would only come back "three or four more times", they continued to report daily visions long after they were supposed to have ceased."--- Because.. "When the apparitions began visitors began speaking to the visionaries about these other apparitions. From what they heard from these visitors they assumed that Our Lady would appear for the same short length of time. This was merely an assumption and proved incorrect. The important point here is that Our Lady did not say she would only appear for a short time." http://www.medjugorje.org/faq.htm#no23 -- ---"and continue to claim daily visitations as of 2006."--- Well known that only a few of them claim apparitions now and for some time. -- ---'promised the six visionaries ten “secrets”--- The secrets were not a promise OR this is misleading. -- --- "These ten secrets, which will affect the Church and the world, were written on a special parchment listing the timing and description of each event." ---

The secrets may be different for each visionary OR are different for each visionary. Only Mirjana's is written on a special parchment. No one can see the message unless they are supposed to because its claimed to be miraculous. This would theoretically be important to mention so that nutty people don't go about searching for it and try to read the message. -- ---"be left on Apparition Mountain"--- I think that should be Apparition Hill. -- ---"One of the messages of the "Gospa" delivered only to the seers is:"--- What does this sentence mean? -- ---"They say that no amount of prayer, fasting, or good works can entirely prevent the dire events forecast in the secrets."---

I think that's only the 9th and 10th secrets.

"The ninth and tenth secrets are grave matters. They are a chastisement for the sins of the world. The punishment is inevitable because we can not expect the conversion of the entire world." http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm -- ---"He will fast and pray for six days."---

7 not 6 days.

"Ten days before each of the warnings, she will advise the priest she chose for this task (Father Petar Ljubicic), who will then fast and pray with Mirjana for seven days." http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm -- --- "She insists that the painful events for humanity are very near, and that the important thing is to pray, to pray in the family, and to pray for the young who do not believe." ---

Very very misleading.

"Those who are still alive will have little time for conversion. For that reason, the Blessed Virgin calls for urgent conversion and reconciliation." http://www.medjugorje.org/overview.htm - Medjugorje is not condemned. The Vatican has set up a new commission on Medjugorje.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/607/135.php -- --"According to Catholic authors E. Michael Davies and Michael Jones, it is possible that the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje were used by the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Croat Franciscan Order to challenge the authority of the diocese."--- "it is possible" indicates something that is made-up. Unprofessional wording. -- --"Jones investigated the background of the alleged visionaries and found that they were a group of "punkers", which in that region meant that they listened to rock and roll, wore jeans and smoked cigarettes (in fact, they had confessed that they had gone up the hill to smoke, rather than to look for sheep, on the first night)."---

This is purely to make Medjugorje look bad. - ---"Jones speculates"---

Unprofessional wording. -- ---"Because Church Law leaves the question of whether apparitions are valid to the local Bishop, this statement on the part of Bishop Peric is the declaration that the claimed apparitions cannot be considered valid by the Roman Catholic Church."---

The bishops authority was taken away by then Cardinal Ratzinger. -- - Juan T.

I'm new to Wikipedia and a believer in the apparitions at Medjugorje. I see that there are a few things to correct. One of which is that there is a new vatican commission on Medjugorje. Evidently there are things that are not true that are being posted. Objectivity is obviously important. Rumor and falsehood is not.

- Juan T. -- I still maintain that the best translation of zapadnohercegova&#269;ki is not West-Herzegovina, but as long as the link isn't broken, I won't bother fixing it. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93;   10:51, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

little bit too passionate
I'm catholic myself but i think that comentaries like "All Catholics must respect and obey what the Church teaches, rather than follow false apparitions out of pure emotion." or "Medjugorje fanatics" doesn't belong to a equanimous resource like the wikipedia. Should be corrected.

Josesito78 (j_chavez_s@hotmail.com)

I think the entire Criticism section is biased and should be removed. No criticism should be necessary if the main body of the article is objective. --Ronconte 22:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The statement, in the Criticism section, that the Vatican has disavowed Medugorje should be removed unless some supporting evidence can be cited. It is my understanding that the Vatican has taken a "wait and see" approach to Medugorje. I do not believe that there is any basis for saying that the Vatican has taken the position that nothing supernational has occurred or that the local Bishop is correct.


 * OK, I've change the text to say that the Vatican has not decided the matter definitively. --Ronconte 20:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many opinions
Acortis 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC) this article contains too many opinions that should be removed.

1) Some Medjugorje supporters have claimed that Pope John Paul II expressed a wish to go there himself. This seems, unlikely, however, given the Vatican's own scepticism about the alleged sightings.

The second sentence is an OPINION: remove.

2) There is substantial evidence that the messages and "secrets" supposedly given by the Virgin Mary are actually being written by Fathers Tomislav Vlasik, Ivica Vego and Ivan Prusina, the chaplains of Mostar, who were subsequently expelled by Mostar's Bishop Zanic for insubordination.

Provide the "substantial evidence" or remove.

3) Some say that the Church's criteria, which must be followed in order to prove that an apparition is authentic or not, is being disregarded by Međjugorje faithful.

I really wonder who is writing this stuff:

- Who is the "some say ..."? - What is the Church criteria? - Provide evidence for Međjugorje faithful disregarding the Church's criteria

4) Perhaps encouraged by the Franciscan priests who officiated at the local church, the young people began reporting visions every day inside the church, and continue to claim daily visitations as of 2006.

This is an OPINION: remove.
 * Hey, come on, I said "perhaps." And as a matter of fact, the priests went on record that they did encourage it. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this Article is a BAD example of wikipedia. The italian voice for Medjugorje is much more balanced.

Improvements
Some improvements have been made following my last suggestions. Work still remains to be done.

1) It is not clear WHY "[Pope John Paul II] ... never ruled officially in favor of the apparitions."

The reason is that was simply not in its authority as the "apparitions" are ongoing (to the date I am writing 17-March-2006). Therefore, according to Church's regulations, he could not possibly rule in favor it.

Among the "some Medj. supporters" you might want to mention the declarations of Mons. Maurillo Kreiger,

 \begin[quote] Mons. Maurillo Kreiger, former bishop of Florianopolis (Brazil), visited Medjugorje four times. His first visit was in 1986. He writes as follows:"In 1988, I was with eight other bishops and thirty three priests on spiritual retreat in the Vatican. The Holy Father knew that many of us were going to Medjugorje afterwards. After a private mass with the Pope, before leaving Rome, he said, without having been asked anything,"Pray for me in Medjugorje". On another occasion, I told the Pope "I am going to Medjugorje for the fourth time". He concentrated his thoughts and said, "Medjugorje, Medjugorje, it`s the spiritual heart of the world". On the same day I spoke with other Brazilian bishops and the Pope at lunch time and I asked him:"Your holiness, can I tell the visionaries that you send your blessing?" He answered:"Yes yes", and embraced me. \end[quote]

this link contains other non-anonimous unofficial declarations by other trustworthy persons.

2) "Others have suggested that ... ", provide a link for this "anonimous opinion" to make it substantial as a "fact" or remove.

3) "Some critics argue against particular messages, such as those which say positive things about other religions, suggesting that all are equally God's children."

Give names to the "Some critics" and provide a direct link to the "messages" which are questioned. The sentence is also not well structured as it is not clear WHO is "suggesting that all are equally God's children": is the "some critics" or the "messages"?
 * The alleged messages from the Blessed Mother repeat several times that all religions are paths to God and the Catholic Church is only one of them. This goes against established criteria that any apparition of Mary, angels, Jesus or whoever has to completely agree with the R.C. Church in all particulars before it can be approved by the R.C. Church. --Bluejay Young 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a condemned apparition
This apparition has been condemned. The article is skewed in it's PoV. It is written to argue that this is an open invistigation, such an event is very very very unlikely. In my experience, the CHurch will rarely open an investigation after such an official condemnation. Dominick (TALK) 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The user above (who says he knows that the Catholic Church has condemned the apparitions) should not distort facts. He is *not* an expert or an authority and should not make a sweeping statement as if he is one. A certain objectivity would be welcome.(unsigned User:Ngc3532)

FACTS: Medjugorje is NOT condemned by The Catholic Church, that is: The Vatican. In 1998, Archbishop Bertone (secretary to The Congregation for the Doctrince of The Faith, back then led by Cardinal Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI) explicitly stated that local bishop Ratko Peric only states his own opinion on the matter, but that any Catholic is permitted to go to Medjugorje (see: Nolan, Denis: "The Church And Medjugorje"). In June 2006, American author Michael Kenneth Jones published the book "Medjugorje Investigated" based on documents he had obtained from the US State Department. Beyond any doubt, the book proves that former Mostar bishop Pavao Zanic's first "commission" to investigate Medjugorje was purposely flawed in as much as bishop Zanic had named a majority of known atheists (!) to make up the commission. Three weeks after the publication of Jones' book, The Vatican ordered a new commission (still working) to investigate the Medjugorje apparitions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.16.132 (talk • contribs)


 * I am repeating the CHurch's official statement, not my own. If the local Ordinary condemns this as not supernatural, then my saying it is condemned because the local ordinary condemned the apparition does not require me to have any authority in the Church. I have worked professionally for a Catholic Aposolate, and indeed, I understand the processes in these matters. This is not a sweeping statement, once it is condemned thats it. Dominick (TALK) 13:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me add one thing. Unless you have any document that states a new invistigation is undertaken, please do not revert my documented fact that the Apparitions were condemned by the local Bishop. Dominick (TALK) 14:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your statement, "The Catholic Church has condemned the apparitions,..." was misleading and had to be edited, as is your header here, "The is a condemned apparition".

Only the Vatican, acting after a formal investigation by one of the bodies of the Roman Curia, for example, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, can make an official ruling on the matter which is binding on the universal Church. Please do not say (as above) that you "understand the processes in these matters" and then say, "once it is condemned thats it." The latter is an unfounded and sweeping statement, which, with respect, suggests that you do not "understand the process" as claimed.

I wonder whether you have been to Medjugorje, because I have, twice. If you haven't, you might to go and see it for yourself.

Neither you nor I are canon lawyers, so I think the lead paragraphs should be more balanced and objective, or a disservice is done to readers, or perhaps even to the divine. Unsigned User:220.255.87.36

Read my above statement. Objective paragraphs do not tell the reader to have an open mind, nor do the speculate that the Bishop has a other than honorable motive for his official condemnation. It also does not speculate that the Vatican has an upcoming investigation, when no investigation is documented. When the Church condemns an apparitions, and the CDF states this is to be respected, only the Pope can reverse the condemnation. No Pope has made any statement that does this. Dominick (TALK) 18:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Having an open mind especially on a matter such as claimed sighting of the Virgin Mary is the crux of objectivity, which you seem to lack, I'm afraid. Hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) of Catholic lay pilgrims, tens of thousands of priests and religious, and scores of bishops (and probably Cardinals) have been to Medjugorje on personal pilgrimmages. I would hesitate to say that they are all wrong.

Regarding the Bishop, it is not speculation, as you claim without basis. Please read this article, cited already, by a Franciscan:

"The History of the Tragic Conflicts between the Bishops and the Franciscans in Bosnia-Herzegovina" http://www.medjugorje.org/conditions.htm

Please do not try to tailor the article excessively to your views. It is against the spirit of wikipedia and proper standards of journalism. (unsigned User:Ngc3532)

Please sign your edits with four tildes ~ and please do not add bars to articles nor ro talk pages. They are not used on pages according to the wikipedia manual of style.

No, I am sorry. Claiming that the bishop has a axe to grind and is falsely claiming the apparitions are not supernatural, without actual proof is not objective. Telling people to have an open mind, when it is clear, in canon law that a local ordinary is vesting with the authority to make this declaration is not objective. Objectively the local Bishop declared this a "not supernatural" event. The CDF could have overturned this if it was unfair and part of bad blood. They sided with the Bishop, and the Bishop's condemnation. The CDF further stated that event promoters such as medjugorje.org who state the Pope secretly think these are supernatural, arespreading a falehood. The are complete "inventions". If the Pope desired this, a single letter would overturn the condemnation, it has not come.

I think the only conclusion to render is that the Vatican tacitly approves the condemnation.

Most of your edits are lifted from the event promoter website, medjugorje.org. It does not matter who attends. It doesn't matter if you have been there. If you have documents to back up your suppositions and opinions they are welcome on wikipedia.

The Vatican need not ratify every condemnation that any local Bishop makes. Stating that the question is open, when the local ordinary has stated this is condemned is a falsehood. Dominick (TALK) 01:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

That is true. The Pope could overrule the Bishop (although it's most unlikely that a pope would take such a step in the case of a private revelation), or the Bishop could reconsider, re-examine the evidence, and make a new judgment. But if neither of those has happened, then the apparition is, at the very least, discouraged. AnnH ♫ 01:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominick, "the Vatican tacitly approves the condemnation"??? Your bias and lack of objectivity is plain for all to see. The Secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Archbishop Bertone, has in an official letter dated 26 May 1998 stated that the statement by the Bishop of Mostar is his "personal conviction", and his "personal opinion". Further, that "it would now pertain to the members of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia-Hercegovina to eventually reopen the examination of this case, and to make any new pronouncements that might be called for." see: .

You (dominick) are vandalising Wikipedia by inconsiderately editing out other points of view which does not suit your liking. Do not treat it like you own it. Please be more honest.

Scientific Research on the Visionaries
Does this section even belong. It gives conclusions that just don't jive with what I would expect from a scentific or a theological investigation. In particular, number 4, "On the basis of information and observations that can be documented, for all and each of the visionaries it is possible to exclude that these manifestations are of the preternatural order i.e. under demonic influence." How can a scientific and theological commission make this determination? This is a determination for the local Ordinary.

I would suggest we excise this section as it sits, and replace it with a link and a few sentences. Dominick (TALK) 19:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not crazy about it either since it's all sourced from a website which is linked from the bottom of the article and viewers could look it up for themselves. I tried to clean it up, but I'd be just as happy to see it summarized and dropped.  --Bluejay Young 19:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK I clipped it. Take a look. Dominick (TALK) 19:27, 11 April 2006

(UTC)
 * Jibe, not jive. JGC1010 (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried
Acortis

I tried to fall in love with wikipedia, I tried to believe that this is a democratic encyclopedia, I tried to being factual and not distorted correcting factual information and removing unproved and outlandish claims, I tried to put more factual information ALL of which was substantiated by the appropriate sources and guess what??? "EXPERTS" in the field feel themselves in the right to judge what a commision says, to include unreferenced claims and so on. I have been in Medjugorje, I know what it is. In the end, each of us is left alone with his own conscience, and I do not want to mingle in this mud.

So long, wiki!


 * The problem is not if you think the apparitions are real or not. This article will be sileent on that issue, because wikipedia has no opinion on that matter. The point is it is easily shown by citation that this apparition were condemned by the local Bishop, and unless the Pope overturns this, that is final. If you have some citation that states this is not the case, you should post a link. I have pointed to the Bishop's documents, private letters, and to the CDF findings. This is not wikipedia's fault, nor are they my documents or opinions. Sorry you think you have to leave wiki for that reason. Dominick (TALK) 16:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Acortis, I'm sorry that you feel this way, due to the actions of some inconsiderate vandals. It's such a pity.

Separate visionary biographies
There are now two articles in place: If anyone would like to expand on them, please do so. This also means that there are still four to be done:
 * Vicka Ivanković
 * Marija Pavlović
 * Mirjana Dragićević
 * Ivan Dragićević
 * Ivan Ivanković
 * Ivanka Ivanković

what happened to jakov colo?

and who is ivan ivankovic?

here is some infomation on the visionaries courtesy of the tourist association of the municipality of citluk.

http://www.tzcitluk.com/en/medjugorje3.html

For those who wish to start with the missing pages, here is a site that has extended biographies on the visionaries: http://www.medjugorje.com/medjugorje/medjugorje-visionaries.html

MEĐUGORJE THE VISIONARIES Ivanka Ivanković – Elez was born in 1966. She had daily apparitions until May 7, 1985, when, by entrusting to her the tenth Secret, Our Lady told her that she was going to have apparitions for all her life once a year on the day the anniversary the anniversary of the apparitions.

Mirjana Dragičević - Soldo was born in 1965. She daily apparitions until December 25, 1982. By entrusting the tenth secret to her, Our Lady told her that she was going to have apparitions once a year – on March 18. Since August 2, 1987, each second day the month she hears the voice Our Lady, sometimes sees Her, and prays with Her for the un believers

Vicka Ivanković – Mijatović was born in 1964. She has daily apparitions.

Marija Pavlović – Lunetti was born in 1965. She has daily apparitions.

Ivan Dragičević was born in 1965. He has daily apparitions.

Jakov Čolo was born in 1971. He had daily apparitions until September 12, 1998. By entrusting the tenth secret to him, Our Lady told him that he was going to have apparitions once a year – on Christmas, December 25.