Student & Blogger (Miles Immaculatae) on how the Church crisis shows at the Catholic Chaplaincy in the University of Glasgow…editor
Below is an account of a recent visit to the Catholic chaplaincy at Glasgow University, Turnbull Hall.
A fully fledged parish and one of the more apparently vibrant centres of Catholicism in the diocese, (Turnbull Hall) is often alleged to be a haven of doctrinal orthodoxy. On the foyer’s large notice board there were a number of posters and adverts, typical parish stuff. I decided to put up an innocuous flyer recalling the Blessed Virgin’s request at Fatima to pray the daily Rosary, and a small but potentially more incendiary flyer which concisely outlined John Paul II’s judgement on receiving Communion in the hand and the use of lay ‘extraordinary ministers’. Specifically, that “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another” (Inaestimabile Donum). My motive was that the more informed these impressionable students become, the more likely they are to ask questions about their pastors’ permissiveness towards liturgical abuses.
A short time later I returned and upon inspecting the notice board I saw the Fatima flyer. To my astonishment the flyer quoting John Paul II quote had been removed and the vacant space was accompanied with a new notice stating that only articles authorised by the secretary or parish priest were allowed from now on. Fair enough. And no surprised, because like many of its sister parishes, Turnbull enlists lay persons to minister the Chalice (although unlike neighbour churches not the Sacred Host).
Did I have reason to be astonished? After all, these practices are the near exclusive norm in Scotland, so wasn’t I setting myself up for having it removed? Well perhaps, but consider how a sizeable troop of self proclaimed ‘conservatives’ have been infected with the Weigel-esque hyper-reverence for all things John Paul II, not least at Turnbull Hall, where the sickly cult for the late pontiff has taken a feverish hold. Indeed, it acts as the de facto diocesan shrine: the chapel houses a thoroughly adorned plinth on which rests a statue of the Polish Pope, posing heroically upon a lovingly appliquéd doily showing his coat of arms. In front, are stands for flowers and a candle rack on which burn not less than a few votive offerings, almost perpetually. This affection for the new Beatus is not contrived, it looks strikingly genuine, which makes this all a more unsettling sight.
So there seems to be a contradiction. Traditional minded Catholics are used to having the writings of John Paul thrown at them by Neo-Catholics wanting to undermine our position, and to support theirs, whether it be Wojtyla’s novel ecclesiology or his hearty openness towards the false religions of the world. However, they discreetly put aside the pronouncements of this very same Pontiff when they are in accord to what others have been saying for decades, namely that Communion in the hand and the use of lay ministers is a grievous practice, what would have been considered sacrilege only two generations ago.
To claim all the young parishioners of Turnbull are happy clappy, Medjugorje obsessed World Youth Day types is inaccurate. In the past, a small number of curious young patrons have asked for the Traditional Rite of Mass, perhaps fed up with the guitar liturgies which are commonplace there. They have been left disappointed. And since the offer to communicate irregularly continues, they will inevitably conform with the general trend, and their supernatural faith is left vulnerable to decay. What is this but an example of resisting the known Truth?
I wonder what would happen if a flyer advertising the when and where the Tridentine Mass is being offered up?
No permission would be granted to place that on the notice board.
One way of getting round the problem in the short term would be for the bishop to introduce intinction. This would put an end to Extr ord min as only a priest can use this method. This was favoured by Benedict and I wonder if he was hoping ti implement it in the future had things not taken a turn
Welcome back, may St. John Vianney continue to intercede on your behalf, and for your brother priests.
Surely it’d be preferable to receive the body, blood, soul and divinity under one form, in the absence of multiple ordained priests/deacons, than to introduce a quite foreign innovation to a Scottish Church which has had quite enough of that already. I attend a lunchtime Mass occasionally, attended by less than 20 people. When the deacon is absent the PP calls upon the services of an ‘extraordinary minister’ for the sacred chalice, where no necessity exists. Were intinction to be introduced to solve such a problem, I doubt the same church with 100, 200, 500 would be free from ‘extraordinaries’ terribly long, given the rationale which has led us to this most habitual or abuses.
it works well in Rome without EOms and seems to be gaining ground and is historically sound
HA! It works ! I have had major difficulty in getting posts up thanks to Editor for finding a way.
I see the contradiction but it would take the Bishops Conference to apply this.No priest will do this independently for many reasons. I think Glasgow Uni is known generally for being pretty traditional leaning to be fair.. and to the priest there. I’ve heard he celebrates Mass in Latin if not the Old Rite I would favour intinction and only priests and deacons would be licit and canonically entitled as it were. This would slow Mass down and perhaps inculcate a new reverence. I am sure there are many out there who would find faults with it but it would be better than what we have at present. I witnessed in another diocese and in another country while distributing the precious blood to the faithful at a funeral, some old man who on receiving the Holy Eucharist then attempted to dunk the host… with Ninja like reflexes I covered the chalice with the purificator and said “That’s forbidden” with a steely Scottish look to follow.. I did however get the impression that he knew but was chancing it under the “ahm no well wae a limp” liturgical ahm allowed tae book of personal relijin. With a very English face he was clearly insulted that HE! had been refused his “right” as an invalid etc etc.. You are never allowed to self donate..or pass the host etc.. as well as false candles with oil; eom’s distributing while there were clearly enough priests and a deacon; inappropriate music at the crematorium AND A 15 MINUTE HOMILY ON THE DECEASED AND 1 minute on the gospel.. I see why those with traditioonal tastes get very disheartened with New Rite when such abuses are common and widespread.
Welcome back, Scottish Priest. Your steely Scottishness has been missed 🙂
You made an interesting remark about false candles with oil not being allowed. I’m not sure I understand the practice…..could you expand?
candles ought to be made of wax and tradition has it unbleached (more expensive). The use of oil filled replica candlesor indeed any other false typer is prohibited or at least ill advised. The wax is in a sense a symbol of the purity of Christ and “virgin” bees wax is or was the norm. In the same way as the paschal candle speaks of the person of Christ (the five incense studs speak of the fragrant offering tothe father and tot he five woulds of Christ, hence there can be only ONE paschal candlee; you cant have two or put a sticker on last years candle as you still huv a big bit left o’er!so too do the altar candlesspeak of teh person of Christ, in a sense, although not in the same way. More to do with honouring the sacrifice of the Mass as the sinless, spotless victim is offered to the Father pure (min of 18% beeswax – 100% would bankrupt most Churches, must be present). This is from memory while visiting a monastery in the USA some years back. Candles should be made of wax and flowers should be real, nothing fake should accompany the sacrifice if that makes sense
Also!! Annnd I would imagine many places still don’t do this either – they ought/should /must ( pick your imperative) to be BLESSED before they are used for Holy Mass
I didn’t know that – thanks for explaining, Scottish Priest.
You will have learned by this experience that putting up an unauthorised notice is not the best way to address this kind of issue. Have you spoken directly to the Chaplain / PP about your concerns?
Do you not think it rather strange that anyone would remove a notice aimed at improving reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, quoting a pope whom they are already venerating (illegally) by having a statue of him on the premises?
Only the most officious person would remove such a notice on the grounds that no permission had been obtained to post the notice, especially when – as I understand it – there had been no prior rule about obtaining authorisation.
What this demonstrates is that the modernist mindset is to fly in the face of the liturgical “rules” because they don’t like the rules. Catholic? I don’t think so…
Miles described the respective leaflets as an ‘innocuous flyer’ and the other as ‘potentially more incendiary’, so it’s fair to say regardless of the professed astonishment it doesn’t seem to have been entirely unexpected that the latter flyer was removed.
As to why, look no further than the widespread liturgical practice (abuse) in Scotland, and the inconvenient truth that it is illicit. This appears to be off-topic on EWTN and the Catholic Answers phone-in, which can be pretty orthodox in other, less pertinent, matters liturgical. (Similarly the SSPX is not commonly acknowledged on these outlets.
I’m with Eileenanne’s suggestion to speak with the PP in such instances, though though this is more difficult and likely to ‘out’ you as a trad-troublemaker. I’d always give the ordained clergy the opportunity to surprise you first and then resort to guerrilla activities if stymied, rather than give reason to attack the means rather than message from the outset.
‘A trad-troublemaker’. He already thinks I’m one of them.
Oh don’t worry Eileenanne. I know this priest very well and he has received a fair amount of correspondence from me in the past, concerning various issues: dissent, the crisis, the Liturgy, ecclesial corruption etc..
The chaplain is a good example to his confrères and he cares about the faith, however he is very disorientated and I feel his disorientation is exacerbated by his unhelpful and what in my opinion is a sentimental attachment to John Paul II.
A friend of mine had made these flyers and they looked rather good, so I thought I would put one to good use. The flyer was meant for everybody in that building, not just the chaplain. I do not have the time to personally tell everybody directly! (Besides, I have in the past made known to various members of that congregation my issues about various things, only to be called a ‘schismatic’, ‘disobedient’, lacking in ‘trust’ in the Church, ‘Not Catholic” etc..
Tell me, why would a statement from John Paul the Great not be authorised? Is he not Catholic either?
(Havn’t sorted out my old avatar yet)
The chaplain is a good example to his confrères and he cares about the faith…
Really? Would someone who genuinely cares about the faith permit every dissenter in Scotland to use Turnbull Hall for their meetings? It’s not as if he doesn’t know what is going on, because our former Media Officer has phoned him more than once to point out that this or that speaker is a public dissenter on this or that doctrine and got a Pontius Pilate “nothing to do with me” response.
Not my idea of caring about the faith.
Perhaps I’m being too nice to him Editor.
What I meant to say is that compared to some really, really bad confreres, although he is thoroughly concilliar in his outlook, he is still among the the few remotely faithful priests in Glasgow left (in the sense he believes in God and Transubstantiation and all that).
Perhaps I should say he is part of a very small section of modernist priests who are the least modernist of Glasgow’s eclusively (99%) modernist group of priests. So I suppose that’s what I meant by good example. But of course, a true good example for any priest is one who is not a modernist!
I understand what I have said is ambiguous. As I’ve said to you before, he really confuses me. As Petrus says below, he is indeed mixed up. But when it comes down to it, if a good priest is tainted by modernism, he is still a modernist. I agree that you are either/or. There is no such thing as in between.
I had no idea about the dissident speakers thing. Thank you for informing me of that.
“Tell me, why would a statement from John Paul the Great not be authorised? Is he not Catholic either?”
If you had asked permission to put up the notice you could have found out why the priest didn’t want it there.
I bet Miles Immaculatae would not be surprised if an unauthorised notice were removed from any other board in the university. It is normal practice in most if nor all organisations.
Well Eileenanne, the other unauthorised notice was kept up. So that argument doesn’t quite make sense.
Scottish priest. When I was an altar boy in “the great old days” the 6 large candles were false. I understood they were spring loaded. Surely these were acceptable.
I would think the exterior would be false and the candle inside the spring was real. If it’s that type I have seen them although many years ago. Still they are supposed to be wax or true candles. This would be a liturgical abuse in my book for sure
Well done for trying to educate the masses at Turnbull Hall. I always found the chaplaincy very liberal. I don’t see it being Traditional leaning in any way.
I’ve known the chaplain at Glasgow University for almost 13 years. He’s one mixed up priest. I remember they used to run weekend trips to the House of Prayer in Dalmally. This place is pro-Medjugorje. I’m not sure what the chaplain’s views on these false apparitions are, but he certainly encourages this false devotion.
Yes. There are some very fiery Medjugoristas there.
I asked him directly about this. I told him it was phoney. He said — regarding the phenomena at Medjugorje — “the Church isn’t sure”. Obviously that’s a lie (not sure if he believes it though).
Perhaps he is telling himself that, because he would face a lot of opposition and lose a lot of favour if he criticized Medjugorje. So I reckon he takes the non-confrontational, diplomatic, permissive attitude and justifies it by holding the-Church-isn’t-sure-so-we’re-free-to-decide position (which of course is utterly false).
Yes, he does give talks at Dalmally. Usually about JPII’s Theology of the Body. He definitely gave one there recently. There used to be Dalmally leaflets on the foyer table.
As far as the alleged apparitions I am led to believe that until the Church makes a definitive on it we are free to believe or not believe.. the same criterion would apply to any private revelations as laid down by the Church. has there been a definitive response from the Vatican on this? The history of the place between diocesan and Franciscan is warped with lie and counter lie etc.. so when he says the Church isnt sure – is that not pretty accurate? Given the chaplain’s high profile connections in the Vatican I dont think he is disorientated… as for the JPII talks at dalmally I am not sure the objection to these as if properly understood theya re completely in line with Church teaching and serve really as a catechesis on Humanae Vitae? astonished to think this would cause alarm..
You are being very naughty indeed. How many times does a gal have to explain that the bishop is the authority in the matter of private revelations?
Suppose I claimed to have a vision. Stopped laughing? Right, well just imagine it. The archdiocese has to go through the process of checking out the truth of my claims (and boy would they love that).
Anyway, at the end of the diocesan investigation, the Bishop finds that I am not having visions at all – that nothing supernatural is happening here.
Are you seriously suggesting that the world would have to wait for the Vatican to pronounce the same before they all stopped lugging statues of me to the nearest beach and announcing a World Senior Citizens Day on the spot? Adverts in Flourish and the Scottish Catholic Observer? You kidding me? Would you book a ticket for a pilgrimage to Sandyford Place? Bring a busload of parishioners?
The Vatican set up a commission on Medjugorje ONLY BECAUSE OF THE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE ALLEGED SEERS and their followers, who refused to accept the verdict of successive bishops. How likely is it, thinkest thou, that those scoundrels are receiving personal messages from Our Lady?
As for the so called theology of the body of Pope John Paul II – words fail me that any priest would promote it, especially a university chaplain. Pope JP II should have spoken out on purity and chastity loud and clear, not made up his own guide to marital intimacy.
Then why a commission at the highest level? I suppose we will find out what the commission decides in due course. Sorry I took so long in replying haven’t stopped laughing at the idea of you having a vision y… still anyone who has a mobile with 666 in it needs a vision:)
Clearly yo have not read the Theology of the body.. its ALL about purity and chastity.. couched in the language of philosophy I grant you but his purpose then was to examine Humane Vitae as a true and robust foundation for everything that needed to be said about it. In love and responsibility(1955). Long before Humane Vitae.. he places at the heart of his teaching what we see before us today – . He said the opposite of love in the modern world will be the willingness of another to use another person. because he understood that without purity and chastity the modern person would look at the other as an object. A theme Paul VI develops in said document. The whole corpus is an exegesis of Church teaching that begins in Genesis 1;27 that we are made in the image and likeness of God. This is the premise and indeed the conclusion in a sense. What does it mean to be human? what doe s it mean to love? Not in an airy fairy reflective way ! No! HE realised the way the world was going and his teaching is not only crucial but desperately needed.. even tonight in the evening times we are seeing the fruits of what he wrote against tirelessly.. The number of twins beginning primary school..Eh? I hear you say? Aye twins!! why so many?? coincidence or the fruit of IVF the predominance in successful babies to term is highest in IVF with twins being the outcome.. This is Exactly what the theology of the body is about .. another fact the predominace of homosexuality in IVF babies is more than noteworthy.
No JPII’s work is misunderstood and misrepresented but highly necessary today. His was not a personal guide to marital intimacy, a common error! rather it was expounding and catechising what the Church has already taught and in theologicalanthropology is now able to defend with more vigour as a consequence .. as for chastity and purity he spoke about it every week for 5 years at his Wednesday audiences.
Then why a commission at the highest level?
As I said in my previous post – the Commission is the Vatican’s response to the sheer disobedience of the alleged “seers” to the Bishop. In keeping with the post-Vatican II avoidance of any sign of discipline and papal authority in the Church today, the pontiff prefers to set up a committee to advise him and then he can presumably shift the blame on to them. There is a real fear of a schism if (when) there is a Vatican ruling on this matter, so they are playing games to put off the dreaded day. THAT’s why there is “a commission at the highest level”.
Name any other private revelation, including the public prophetic revelation of Fatima, where a Vatican commission was required. Did Sr Lucia stamp her feet and call those who ignored the Fatima Message “disbelieving Judases” as the fictional Lady of Medjuorje calls those of us who know she doesn’t exist? Answer: a resounding “no”.
Frankly, anyone who can’t discern the truth (or rather the lies) evident in the alleged apparitions of Medjugorje should not be out alone after the post is delivered.
Clearly you have not read the Theology of the body…
You can say that again. All I need to know is the title, and the way it has been seized on by modernists posing as liberals, and been the subject of interminable talks and retreats – check out Christopher West for starters. Like the Gluminous Mysteries of the Rosary, the moderns love it. That is all I need to know, Father dear. All I need to know.
Off topic: are you, or are you not, appalled that Bradford’s Tearoom in Sauchiehall Street has gone to the wall, closed down, finito, a victim of the recession? Has the world gone completely mad?
I thought of you today as I passed by Bradfords and was guided into the Willow tea room.. a tad pretentious but great tea and decent alternative worthy of a visit soon methinks!
Excellent point on what other apparitions needed a commission.. as I have told you before I have no real interest in it. fatima seems to be the safe place.. I do hope to get there .. one day.. As for TOB – you have to avoid the C West stuff and look at dawn Eden and Von Hioldebrand much more erudite and authentic analysis.
If you read his material in the light of the Mass of ages it makes total sense ironically not as much in the NO
The Willow Tearoom is fine but not to be compared with Bradford’s which is, or rather was, a shrine to fresh cream meringues. Bad enough that we have to keep the clergy straight on theology and all matters ecclesiastical, but to have to guide them in the important matter of where to find the best cream cakes in Glasgow, well, a girl’s work is just never done…
I suppose we will find out what the commission decides in due course
I hope it will be soon. However, my personal opinion is that they will keep it going and going as long as they can. They haven’t made a pronouncement and I don’t think they will any time soon. They keep on postponing the date. Last time it was December 2012. I think they are just going to keep us waiting. That way they can avoid the negative fall out.
Once again the Truth is compromised for the sake of diplomacy.
I know about the lies, the murders and the ruined lies. I know about the occult grave-yard rituals that occurred there, and the violent organised gang assault of the diocesan bishop. And the fatherless Franciscan baby (babies?).
Yes, I am a Medjugorje sceptic, or an ‘unbelieving Judas’ as the Gospa likes to call us!
predominace of homosexuality in IVF babies
That is very curious. IVF is demonic. Obviously there will be spiritual consequences. Common sense tells you children conceived by this unnatural and undignified process will experience psychic fragility.
If the Church isn’t sure then She’s obviously gone a bit senile in Her old age.
The Church is sure. She has made a definitive pronouncement on the issue. It is not worthy of belief. This has been the ruling of the successive bishops of Mostar-Duvno. There was even a ruling from a commission of the Yugoslav bishops called the Zadar declaration which upheld the Bishops of Mostar.
“Given the chaplain’s high profile connections in the Vatican…”
Well that proves it then. He definitely is disorientated!
What kind of an argument is that anyway? Hans Kung personally knows Benedict XVI. Next you’ll be telling us Hans Kung is a Traditionalist.
I know a radical feminist who is employed as a theological advisory for the Bishops’ Conference for England and Wales. I would say that’s a high profile connection.
If his contacts with the Vatican were good in enough he’d be a bishop by now. Besides, any Tom, Dick and Harry who has studied at their national college in Rome can claim to have ‘connections with the Vatican’…
I happen to know Monsignor Toasted T. Cake, secretary for the Pontifical Council of Silly Walks. I meant him in a Gelato bar outside the Colosseum.
Considering the state of the Vatican, if I was a priest, if I cared anything about my reputation, I certainly would not put ‘high profile connections with the Vatican’ on my CV.
If a priest gives a talk on the Catholic Faith at the the de facto National Scottish Shrine of Our Lady of Medjugorje, then in my opinion, even if this talk is ‘orthodox’, an obedient Catholic should be as alarmed as much as MI6 would be alarmed if somebody were giving a presentation on commercial aviation at an Al Quida training centre, even if the presentation be entirely innocuous.
You know full well the esteem a priest has in the minds of many Catholics, and that the presence of a priest in such a place is a silent affirmation. I am not opposed to clergy giving talks, I am opposed to the confusion it causes when priests give talks there.
are we then to believe that the vatican commission has no bearing on the matter? I was of the understanding that the Church would either accept or reject the findings as true or false. It would surely help if we had that kind of guidance from saying clearly: this is a hoax and Catholics are advised not to go, the seers are deluded.
You said earlier:
“…I am led to believe that until the Church makes a definitive on it we are free to believe or not believe.. ”
My undersatnding is that we are NOT free to believe in any alleged apparitions unless and until the Church has given them the OK. The Church doesn’t usually declare the apparitions true or false, but declares them “worthy of belief”. There is never any obligation to accept or pay any heed to any private revelation, even an approved one.
I haven’t a clue as to whether or not the alleged apparitions at Medjugorje are genuine so I wouldn’t voice any opinion in case I got egg on my face. If, in fact, they are a hoax then it must be the longest running con trick ever perpetrated. How a group of people could carry on with an act for many years without even one of them faltering is beyond my comprehension. I know some really devout people who love the place and out of respect for them I would never try to pretend that I know the answer. As for the local bishop’s pronouncements: if they are anything like the ones in this country I certainly wouldn’t put too much faith in them.
(1) the seers have been caught lying on tape right at the start of these “apparitions”
(2) it is a classic error to undermine the bishops in this matter, in light of the crisis in the Church. That is the devil at work. We, at Catholic Truth, criticise the bishops – any bishops – for NOT doing their duty to protect the faith. When a bishop exercises his legitimate authority in any area of the Faith, we are obliged to obey. Can you see the difference?
So, for example, in the current edition I’ve given Archbishop Tartaglia a run for his money over his appalling comments about the Church “not being complete” – see the August edition on our newsletter page. However, were he to pronounce on some alleged apparition (say, Scottish Priest, since he’s got the cheek to laugh at the idea of moi having visions!) and pronounce against it, saying there is nothing supernatural happening there, and asking us to not call his home a shrine, not organise pilgrimages there etc. we at Catholic Truth would be among the first to support him even if we personally thought it was likely that Scottish Priest did have visions (as if!) It’s not about what individuals believe but about who has the authority to make judgments in such matters and the answer is, the local diocesan bishop. It’s because the bishops are NOT exercising their legitimate authority that the Church is in chaos and it’s why we take them to task. Thus, due to the crisis we are currently suffering, it is crucial to understand the extent and limits of our right to criticise our bishops. When they are exercising their legitimate authority, we must obey.
The bishops of Mostar HAVE conducted rigorous investigations and found Medjugorje to be “dodgy” to put it mildly. It is to do the devil’s work to contradict the bishop in this matter.
Hope that clarifies the position. If you want to read further on this, there are original documents and all details of the investigations and bishops’ findings on our website links page. This is literally the hoax of the century – don’t be fooled by it just because nice people have been fooled by it or even gained spiritual benefit by going there. Folk have gained spiritual benefit by attending a Billy Graham rally. That proves nothing.
Medjugorje is built on lies, disobedience and immorality. The proper and legitimate authority in this case is the local bishop. Two successive local bishops have examined and rejected Medjugorje, as has the next authority up the line, namely the Bishops’ Conference of Bosnia Herzegovina. In addition to this, the Vatican has forbidden pilgrimages to be organised and run from parishes and it is well known that Pope John Paul II, when in Yugoslavia, did not visit the shrine.
Also, these so-called visions make a mockery of the Blessed Virgin by the very fact that they now total in excess of 33,000 communications – completely and utterly ridiculous! It only amazes me that so many otherwise decent Catholics could have fallen for this scam for so long and been so willing to commit sin by willful disobedience to the Church’s legitimate authority. They literally just ignore the bishops and do their own thing. That alone should sound alarm bells.
There seems to be some doubt as to whether the Medjugorje Commission will ever reach a conclusion, with Pope Benedict now retired.
It does seem that there are some strange goings on among the religious communities associated with Medjugorje, and it’s hard to equate those fruits with sanctity.
The Pope has begun a crackdown on the world’s largest illicit Catholic shrine – by suspending the priest at the centre of claims that the Virgin Mary has appeared more than 40,000 times.
Benedict XVI has authorised ‘severe cautionary and disciplinary measures’ against Father Tomislav Vlasic, the former ‘spiritual director’ to six children who said Our Lady was appearing to them at Medjugorje in Bosnia.
The Franciscan priest has been suspended after he refused to cooperate into claims of scandalous sexual immorality ‘aggravated by mystical motivations’.
He has also been accused of ‘the diffusion of dubious doctrine, manipulation of consciences, suspected mysticism and disobedience towards legitimately issued orders’, and is suspected of heresy and schism.
Father Vlasic was a central figure in promoting the apparitions that allegedly began in 1981 and continue to this day.
But the Bosnian cleric later took a back seat when it emerged that he had fathered a child with a nun called Sister Rufina, and that he refused to leave his order to marry her but instead begged her not to expose him.
Father Vlasic then moved to Parma, Italy, where he set up a mixed male and female religious community, called Queen of Peace, which was dedicated to the Medjugorje apparitions.
But the local bishops are convinced the claims are bogus and in 2006 complained directly to Pope Benedict. This led to a Vatican investigation which turned the spotlight on the role of Father Vlasic.
The priest has now been suspended by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith after he refused to cooperate with the inquiry into his conduct, instead ‘justifying himself by citing his zealous activity’ in initiating religious communities and building churches the Medjugorje area.
The decree confirming his suspension was signed with the Pope’s approval by Cardinal William Levada, head of CDF, and Father Jose Carballo, the Minister General of the Franciscan Minor Order.
It confines Father Vlasic to a Francisan monastery in Italy and bans him from contact with the Queen of Peace community, or with his lawyers without permission from his superior.
He is banned from making public appearances, preaching and hearing confessions and he will be required to make a solemn profession of the Catholic faith.
The Vatican has warned Father Vlasic that he will be excommunicated if he violates any of the prohibitions
My lack of comment or opinion on Medjugorje means that I haven’t a clue. This is a lot different from “being fooled” by it. So can I now take your word for it and decide to jump off the fence?
Let’s hope I don’t find in future that I landed on the wrong side.
Believe me, if you take our word for it and jump off the fence, you will never regret it. Study the official documents on our links page and ask yourself how anyone of even average intelligence could fall for such a blatant scam.
Comments are closed.