Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:10:42 CDT
From:         Elizabeth Stevens <CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Direct Revelation, passe?

On Fri, 21 Aug 1992 07:51:15 EDT Marty Helgesen said:

>I do not understand why you emphasize the fact that the local bishop
>is the local bishop.  The local bishop is the man responsible for the
>administration of his diocese and the spiritual well-being of people
>in it.  Unless Rome intervenes his judgement should be given respect,
>and Rome has not intervened.  The authenticity of some quotations

Marty,
I wasn't sure if you had the information about the situation with
Bishop Zanic, and you must not have been informed. Rome has most
certainly intervened with his judgement. He created two commissions
to study Medjugorje, the first was only 4 members and failed to
do much. The second had 14 members, 10 of whom were known opponents
of the apparitions. He declared himself to be president and chairman
of the commission, and then went on record as saying he would
"crush the apparitions".

In April of 1986 the Bishop of Mostar flew to Rome with his
preliminary findings. He confided to pilgrims on the way home that
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of Faith had chastised him. Then, in an *unprecedented* move, the
Vatican dissolved his commission and established a new one comprised
of all the bishops of Yugoslavia and headed by their cardinal.
Bishop Zanic was instructed to not involve himself, and to not
speak on the matter. Since this time Bishop Zanic has readily
spoken to journalists who are looking for a negative story.
Meantime the Pope has remained favorable, telling  12 Italian bishops,
"Why do you even ask! (about letting parishoners go to Med.) "If
they are converting, praying, fasting, going to confession, and
doing penance, let them go to Medjugorje."

>To answer Kerry's question, I am skeptical about Medjugorge, but I
>recognize the possibility that God is behind it.  The basic message
>of Medjugorge--a call for increased prayer and penance--is good,
>whether it comes directly from God in this case or not.  Many people
>are being converted or drawn closer to God as a result of the events
>at Medjugorge, which is good, but that does not prove that God has
>sent the Virgin Mary with a message.  I don't know whether the local
>bishop considers the alleged visions a hoax, a delusion, or something
>worse.  Of course there could be a combination of delusion and hoax.
>Medjugorge is an issue on which good Catholics disagree.  I do not
>take a strong position, but I am basically skeptical.  If the message

No one is forced to have any feelings at all about apparitions
anywhere. It seems to me, however, that before one becomes
decisive about them, or especially before one denounces them to
others, they should make a careful examination of all aspects,
including their own soul. I'm reminded of Matthew 7:7 " The world
cannot hate you, but it hates me, because I testify to it that
its works are evil". ( Marty this is *NOT* directed at you!)

One other point, the messages to Cyndi Cain are specifically for
the United States. There are apparitions all over the world now
that have the same basic message, with specifics tailored to
the regional population. This seems to suit the "private" vs.
"public" or "universal" revelation problem.

It is not for me to try to coerce anyone into believing the source
of these messages. But everyone has a right to *hear* them, and
those who do are asked to make them known to all. Since I myself
am convicted that this is my God, I am attempting to do His Will.
Whether anyone else believes its His Will or not is their choice.

In His Love,
Elizabeth

"Jesus I adore You, lay my life before You, how I love You."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU