Archbishop Hoser Speaks on Medjugorje

Hi Everyone! The Pope’s special envoy to Medjugorje, Archbishop Henryk Hoser of Warszawa-Praga (Poland), has given an interview on Medjugorje. His remarks are lighting up the Catholic blogosphere and I think it important to make some observations.

The remarks were apparently made in Polish and have seen some excerpts into English but the entirety of the interview is not yet available in English. Thus, let me stress that this is a growing news story. I provide for you here a skeletal outline of some points of interest. It is submitted with the utmost respect for His Excellency and only for the purpose of providing discussion on a topic of interest to many people.

The interview opens with a question on the broad arc of the Archbishop’s mandate of “gaining a profound knowledge of the situation in Medjugorje.”[1] The Archbishop responds with a general statement expressing his personal opinion that it is impossible to have an in-depth knowledge on the events of Medjugorje. He explains that Medjugorje involves the mystery of God and man and in that dynamic are secrets (no pun intended) that cannot be seen.[2]

The Archbishop admits that he did not research the theological content of Medjugorje.[3] He then proceeds to give his personal opinion that there are “basically no doctrinal errors in their content.”[4] The Archbishop does not discuss some difficult matters that can be found in my response to Fr. Lovrić. See also my commentary to Pope Francis’ remarks back in May.

The Archbishop makes a comparison between the later visions to Sr. Lúcia with the continued “apparitions” in Medjugorje.[5] Here, the Archbishop unfortunately does not qualify his discussion. Later visions were afforded to Sr. Lúcia, but they were not a daily occurrence at a specified time and date on the dot. This phenomenon is associated with Medjugorje.

Immediately following this point, the Archbishop then discusses another objection various people have on Medjugorje—that the alleged “seers” did not become priests or religious.[6] This argument is not about this fact alone. To my recollection, it is about how the “Gospa” of Medjugorje spoke with the “seers” about their vocations, telling them that she’d “like to see” them as such. That aspect of the story is not discussed by Archbishop Hoser.

Hoser was, a little further down in the interview, asked about how the criticism that the “Gospa” of Medjugorje is a bit talkative.[7] Hoser responds that St. Faustina of the Divine Mercy devotion, spoke to Jesus every day for several years.[8] His claim is new to me and I cannot help but wonder if he made a factual error. I have no recollection of this aspect of her life. If anyone else has a better understanding, please contact me with more information.

Hoser acknowledges the fact of Pope Francis’ remarks from May later in the interview.[9] He reiterated what the purpose of his mission was in Medjugorje earlier this year and concluded that pastoral activities in Medjugorje are consistent with the teaching and practice of the Church.[10] Here, I do not believe Hoser to be commenting about the doctrinal content of the alleged apparitions themselves. Rather, he is speaking about the various activities taking place in Medjugorje.

At the end of the interview, the Archbishop is asked whether or not his report will contribute to the recognition of Medjugorje.[11] Hoser responds that he does not think his report will have a direct effect because his mission was of another nature, and then proceeds to opine that Medjugorje may be recognized this year.[12] He does, however, qualify his opinion on approval by discussing the first seven “apparitions” distinction.[13]

At the same time, the Archbishop also states that he finds it hard to believe the “seers” would lie for 36 years and that they have been “consistent” in their stories.[14] He further states that the powerful argument in favor of Medjugorje is its faithfulness to the doctrine of the Church.[15] He does not, unfortunately, reconcile this statement with some aspects of Medjugorje’s history.

In the end, a good portion of this interview concerns the private opinions of Archbishop Hoser. One cannot accept it as being expressive of the entirety of the investigations into the authenticity of the alleged apparitions.


Notes:

[1] “Zyskanie dogłębnej wiedzy na temat sytuacji w Medjugorju….”

[2] “Sądzę, że dogłębna wiedza o wydarzeniach w Medjugorju nie jest możliwa, dlatego, że wnikamy w tajemnicę Boga i tajemnicę człowieka. A to są tajemnice, których dna nie widać.”

[3] “Natomiast nie zajmowałem się badaniem treści objawień, bo nie jest to moja rola.”

[4] “…że w zasadzie nie ma błędów doktrynalnych w ich treści.”

[5] “Mogła publikować, i podobnie jak ci z Medjugorja, miała objawienia przez całe życie. Widzący z Medjugorja też mają do dziś objawienia, obliczono, że dotychczas było ich w sumie 40 tysięcy. Moim zdaniem nie jest to jakaś istotna przeszkoda.”

[6] “Niektórzy zarzucają widzącym, że nie zostali księżmi czy zakonnicami, jak np. Łucja Santos. Ale świat zmienił się od tego czasu a zakon nie jest jedyną drogą do realizacji chrześcijańskiego powołania. Ludzie ci żyją w świecie i poszli drogą sakramentu małżeństwa. Bardzo dobrze, gdyż mogą pokazać piękno życia rodzinnego, które w dzisiejszym świecie jest bardzo zagrożone.”

[7] “Padały zarzuty, że objawienia w Medjugorje są zbyt liczne, że Matka Boża jest zbyt gadatliwa?”

[8] “Można przywołać św. Faustynę, która codziennie rozmawiała z Panem Jezusem przez wiele lat. Nie powinna to być istotna przeszkoda.”

[9] “Zresztą Ojciec Święty już w samolocie, wracając z Fatimy, wypowiedział się na temat Medjugorja….”

[10] “Sądzę, że wszystko zmierza w dobrym kierunku. Zresztą moja misja nie miała na celu zamknięcia Medjugorja, ale ocenę, czy prowadzone tam duszpasterstwo jest właściwe, zgodne z doktryną i nauczaniem Kościoła, skuteczne i dobrze zorganizowane. We wnioskach stwierdzam, że tak jest. Od strony duszpasterskiej moja ocena jest bardzo pozytywna. Zatem prowadzone obecnie działania duszpasterskie, porządek liturgiczny oraz konferencje, powinny być kontynuowane.”

[11] “Czy raport Księdza Arcybiskupa może przyczynić się do uznania objawień?”

[12] “Bezpośrednio nie, gdyż dotyczy czegoś innego. Wszystko wskazuje na to, że objawienia będą uznane, być może jeszcze w tym roku.”

[13] “Konkretnie rzecz biorąc, sądzę, że możliwe jest uznanie autentyczności pierwszych objawień, tak jak to zaproponowała komisja kard. Ruiniego.”

[14] “Zresztą trudno o inny wyrok, gdyż trudno wierzyć, aby sześcioro widzących kłamało przez 36 lat.”

[15] “Potężnym argumentem za autentycznością objawień jest wierność doktrynie Kościoła.”

Fátima and Zavala

Hello Everyone! Summer is winding down but life is still as busy as ever!

I want to write about the book El secreto mejor guardado de Fátima by the Spanish writer José María Zavala. Earlier this summer, Zavala received some publicity from the famous Italian journalist and vaticanista Marco Tosatti. I have seen that Zavala’s work is being discussed in various circles and decided to take a look at the book. The present post is not intended to be a strict book review. Rather, I want to highlight some things that are of interest.

In summary: I am not a fan of El secreto mejor guardado de Fátima.

Zavala attempts to talk about Fátima, matters pertaining to the famous third part of the secret are a special focus. I am reluctant to say that Zavala has a mind for conspiracy, but neither does he shy away from it. In fact, he adds to the headache of existing conspiracies with the introduction of a letter attributed to Sr. Lúcia and dated 1 April, 1944.[1]

This document gives a much sought after “interpretation” of the third part of the secret of Fátima. Zavala came across the document, found it interesting, and provides the conclusion(s) from a professional analysis of the handwriting in the back of his book (297-320). Zavala earlier prefaced the report in his book with an entire chapter (10) entitled La carta (233-268). I believe the document to be a fraud and I state my belief unequivocally.[2] I will here explain my reasons.

The biography of Sr. Lúcia from the Carmelites of Coimbra, Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria, goes a long way to offer some answers on this matter. Zavala was clearly aware of the biography. He cites it in his own book (pgs. 266-267) and included it in the bibliography (p. 321). Critical to my discussion is the fact that the biography provides us with an account from Sr. Lúcia about how the third part of the secret was written. I have written elsewhere on this history.

For our purposes here, Our Lady made a key distinction between the vision and its meaning (significado). She ordered that the vision be written, but not its meaning. This fact was previously unknown to the larger public until 2013 and helps to address some discrepancies that have arisen over the years. Nevertheless, Zavala evidences that it is apparent that the biography has yet to take firmer root in people’s understanding of Fátima.

As the above pertains to Zavala’s book and the alleged letter of Sr. Lúcia, I wish to point out a couple of things. First, notice the date of the letter: 1 April, 1944. The date is just shy of three months from the January 3rd, 1944 apparition of Our Lady to Sr. Lúcia. If the 1 April letter is authentic, what was the point of Our Lady telling Lúcia not to write down the meaning of the vision only for Sister to write it down less than three months later? Zavala does not ask this question (and other related questions), much less answer it.

Secondly, notice how the text of the document is 20-25 lines. The number of lines plays right into the argument from Frère Michel (FM) that Sr. Lúcia’s text was probably (probablement) comprised of 20-25 lines. I demonstrated in my book (chapter 2) that FM appeared to be giving his own interpretation to something Bishop Venâncio had told him. FM provides no quotation marks, thus there is difficulty in discerning the exact words of Bishop Venâncio from the interpretation of Frère Michel.

The fact that the alleged letter of Sr. Lúcia plays right into the above fact as well as it not being in harmony with the distinction between the vision and its meaning tells me that this alleged letter is fraudulent. I wish to point out one other consideration in Zavala’s book. On page 62, he discusses a famous hypothesis in support of a second text: the difference in dates between January 3 and January 9, 1944. Zavala asks, “Why did Lucia wait six full days to inform the Bishop of Leiria that she had already fulfilled his petition?”[3]

The Carmelites answered the question in their biography: Lúcia was permitted to write letters on Sundays.[4] Since January 3, 1944 was a Monday, Sister wrote down the vision in a non-epistolary style document. January 9, 1944 was a Sunday, hence the letter (in epistolary form) to Bishop da Silva. Either Zavala missed this reference or he addresses it later in his book and I missed it. One thing is for sure: in the section, wherein he raises the question, Zavala does not present the Carmelites’ answer. He finishes out the section with a discussion about the new vision afforded to Sr. Lúcia on January 3, 1944.

In conclusion, Zavala appears to have a good desire to examine a matter of interest to many people. Regretfully, he does not appear to see the problem(s) with his presentation despite the fact of the evidence staring him straight in the face. I applaud him for going to the trouble to obtaining a handwriting analysis. It appears, however, that he did not exercise the same caution when it came to checking the information against the known facts and history of Fátima for any potential inconsistencies that questioned his presentation.

Overall, Zavala provides a speculative discussion that cobbles together various sources involving the usual suspects (Socci, Frère Michel, Tornielli, Tosatti, et al.). To Zavala’s credit, he does go back to some of the earlier sources (for example: Canon Barthas). This fact, however, does not save his discussion from becoming a hodge-podge of speculation that employs all sorts of sources in what strikes me as being somewhat indiscriminate. Zavala has an eye for mysticism, not as a theologian but more so as a journalist. This deeply impacts his presentation and runs a serious danger of imparting to people the wrong idea about Fátima.


Notes:

[1] Tosatti noticed this letter and it appears to be one of the things that drew him to Zavala’s book.

[2] I do not believe that Zavala is the originator of the hoax. In fact, he clearly explains how he came across the letter (p. 233). He received it from an anonymous source in the spam folder of his E-mail account. I have no reason to doubt his account. Besides, this 1 April, 1944 letter has circulated around in the Internet in the past.

[3] ¿Por qué aguardó Lucia entonces seis días completos para comunicarle al Obispo de Leiria que ya había concluido su petición?

[4] Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria (1st edition), 274.

Continue reading