The ruling Communists of next Yugoslavia tried to manipulate Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar in their plan to suppress Medjugorje and the boasts of apparitions. Spies were close to him and his telephone had been wiretapped.
But Bishop Zanic did not collaborate with all the Yugoslav regime or with UDBA, the secrets police, and the threats and also repressions against Medjugorje were not decisive once the Bishop replaced his initial belief in the apparitions with a stance of disbelief and opposition.
Thus says Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar, the successor of Bishop Zanic, in a new article published on the diocesan website.
Reply to secret police revelations
Bishop Peric’s article comes in response to the book “Medjugorje Misterij”, released in June 2011, and then coverage by Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli. Inside the book, four Croatian journalists recorded how the Yugoslav secret police (UDBA) repressed Medjugorje inside the 1980s, through papers uncovered from UDBA’s archives.
Leaving the problem open to interpretation, the writers cited a collaboration among Bishop Zanic and UDBA as one possible way of understanding a certain document. In his article Bishop Ratko Peric denies this option, and further points to factual problems in UDBA documents. Early on, your Bishop clarifies his motives for writing:
“Since the late Bishop Pavao Zanic is mentioned in numerous pages in the book, and not in a complimentary way, it is our responsibility, for the love of truth and also out of respect for Bishop Pavao, who had been a bishop in Herzegovina for 12 years, to respond to such arbitrary claims and insinuations” Bishop Ratko Peric writes.
In the event the book “Medjugorje Misterij” had lend fresh insight into the Yugoslav secret police’s take on Medjugorje, expert Vatican journalist/commentator Andrea Tornielli took up the issue within Vatican Insider. From the original paperwork translated into Italian, Tornielli produced four conclusions:
1) The secret police used Bishop Zanic as a “main tool” within compromising Franciscan priests associated with Medjugorje.
2) As “the 2nd part” of the secret police plan, Tornielli cites “using the ancient conflict in which exists in Herzegovina between the high-end clergy and Franciscans, foreseen to generate chaos in the local Church simply by turning everyone against everybody.”
3) Bishop Zanic’s hostility to Medjugorje had been “fed by a series of documents come up with ??by the men of the secret police, which were circulated amid Mostar, the Vatican and some European countries.”
Some) A secret police report of November 17th 1987 “shows precisely how Bishop Zanic was willing to accept just about any document against the Franciscans and up against the apparitions, even if of dubious origins.”
“These documents will also be scrutinized through the Holy See committee asked to pronounce itself upon Medjugorje” Andrea Tornielli concluded.
Bishop Peric’s recent article has Tornielli’s subsequent coverage in Vatican Insider from the first paragraphs, discussing “very grave accusations”. In addressing Tornielli’s a conclusion, the Bishop allows a Medjugorje adversary in Canada to speak for him, from a short mail exchange between the Canadian and also Andrea Tornielli:
Tornielli is “attacking the intellectual, religious, and pastoral integrity of the ex- Ordinary of Mostar, Msgr. Pavao Zanic” but “does certainly not ‘document’ anything, does not verify anything: he copies/pastes very serious allegations without granting his readers just about any factual historical retrospective” Bishop Peric’s recent article says.
Andrea Tornielli has informed in which his article in Vatican Insider was based on translations of the original paperwork from the secret police, provided to him by “Miserij Medjugorje” main publisher, journalist Zarko Ivkovic.
Bishop Peric’s article does not in which address the conclusions the secret police gave his predecessor false documents, understanding that the Communists used the centuries-old conflict among the Hercegovian clergy in battling Medjugorje.
One out of five book problems touches issue
Bishop Peric numbers several factual errors in “Misterij Medjugorje”. The first four do not deal with the connection between his predecessor as well as the secret police:
1) The book mentions June 25th 1981 because day of the first apparition when genuinely it took place on the day before.
2) In 1986, Bishop Zanic went to Rome 7 times, not 14 as claimed in the book.
3) A UDBA document claiming in which 10 priests had disobeyed Bishop Zanic over recommendations is incorrect, as no one disobeyed.
4) A UDBA document saying that Bishop Zanic experienced left a meeting with the other Yugoslav bishops within protest after his damaging stand on Medjugorje had been criticized simply by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic of Zagreb is likewise completely wrong.
The book’s fifth factual error, as found by Bishop Ratko Peric, relates to any UDBA document informing that the secret police considered to compromise Bishop Zanic by fabricating private letters against him. These letters were to be sent to Primary Kuharic, to Archbishop Frane Franic of Split, and also to Ratko Peric himself, during his time while rector of the College of Street. Jerome in Rome.
In his article, Bishop Peric acknowledges that “the document declares that the letter was provided for UDBA superiors for approval”. Possibly, no correspondence were sent. Bishop Peric then creates:
“Peric, the former rector and current bishop of Mostar, affirms responsibly that he never received any anonymous letter, then or ever, towards Bishop Zanic.”
“But who will be able to rebut all the insinuations from UDBA, which the fans of Medjugorje pass as the greatest discovery!” Bishop Peric in addition writes, as reported tagza.com.
Bishop Peric Does Not Addresses All Points Elevated, And Cites The Onset Of A Case That Bishop Zanic Later Misplaced As The Starting Point Of Zanic’s Shock In The Apparitions.
The ruling Communists of next Yugoslavia tried to manipulate Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar in their plan to suppress Medjugorje and the boasts of apparitions. Spies were close to him and his telephone had been wiretapped.
But Bishop Zanic did not collaborate with all the Yugoslav regime or with UDBA, the secrets police, and the threats and also repressions against Medjugorje were not decisive once the Bishop replaced his initial belief in the apparitions with a stance of disbelief and opposition.
Thus says Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar, the successor of Bishop Zanic, in a new article published on the diocesan website.
Reply to secret police revelations
Bishop Peric’s article comes in response to the book “Medjugorje Misterij”, released in June 2011, and then coverage by Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli. Inside the book, four Croatian journalists recorded how the Yugoslav secret police (UDBA) repressed Medjugorje inside the 1980s, through papers uncovered from UDBA’s archives.
Leaving the problem open to interpretation, the writers cited a collaboration among Bishop Zanic and UDBA as one possible way of understanding a certain document. In his article Bishop Ratko Peric denies this option, and further points to factual problems in UDBA documents. Early on, your Bishop clarifies his motives for writing:
“Since the late Bishop Pavao Zanic is mentioned in numerous pages in the book, and not in a complimentary way, it is our responsibility, for the love of truth and also out of respect for Bishop Pavao, who had been a bishop in Herzegovina for 12 years, to respond to such arbitrary claims and insinuations” Bishop Ratko Peric writes.
In the event the book “Medjugorje Misterij” had lend fresh insight into the Yugoslav secret police’s take on Medjugorje, expert Vatican journalist/commentator Andrea Tornielli took up the issue within Vatican Insider. From the original paperwork translated into Italian, Tornielli produced four conclusions:
1) The secret police used Bishop Zanic as a “main tool” within compromising Franciscan priests associated with Medjugorje.
2) As “the 2nd part” of the secret police plan, Tornielli cites “using the ancient conflict in which exists in Herzegovina between the high-end clergy and Franciscans, foreseen to generate chaos in the local Church simply by turning everyone against everybody.”
3) Bishop Zanic’s hostility to Medjugorje had been “fed by a series of documents come up with ??by the men of the secret police, which were circulated amid Mostar, the Vatican and some European countries.”
Some) A secret police report of November 17th 1987 “shows precisely how Bishop Zanic was willing to accept just about any document against the Franciscans and up against the apparitions, even if of dubious origins.”
“These documents will also be scrutinized through the Holy See committee asked to pronounce itself upon Medjugorje” Andrea Tornielli concluded.
Bishop Peric’s recent article has Tornielli’s subsequent coverage in Vatican Insider from the first paragraphs, discussing “very grave accusations”. In addressing Tornielli’s a conclusion, the Bishop allows a Medjugorje adversary in Canada to speak for him, from a short mail exchange between the Canadian and also Andrea Tornielli:
Tornielli is “attacking the intellectual, religious, and pastoral integrity of the ex- Ordinary of Mostar, Msgr. Pavao Zanic” but “does certainly not ‘document’ anything, does not verify anything: he copies/pastes very serious allegations without granting his readers just about any factual historical retrospective” Bishop Peric’s recent article says.
Andrea Tornielli has informed in which his article in Vatican Insider was based on translations of the original paperwork from the secret police, provided to him by “Miserij Medjugorje” main publisher, journalist Zarko Ivkovic.
Bishop Peric’s article does not in which address the conclusions the secret police gave his predecessor false documents, understanding that the Communists used the centuries-old conflict among the Hercegovian clergy in battling Medjugorje.
One out of five book problems touches issue
Bishop Peric numbers several factual errors in “Misterij Medjugorje”. The first four do not deal with the connection between his predecessor as well as the secret police:
1) The book mentions June 25th 1981 because day of the first apparition when genuinely it took place on the day before.
2) In 1986, Bishop Zanic went to Rome 7 times, not 14 as claimed in the book.
3) A UDBA document claiming in which 10 priests had disobeyed Bishop Zanic over recommendations is incorrect, as no one disobeyed.
4) A UDBA document saying that Bishop Zanic experienced left a meeting with the other Yugoslav bishops within protest after his damaging stand on Medjugorje had been criticized simply by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic of Zagreb is likewise completely wrong.
The book’s fifth factual error, as found by Bishop Ratko Peric, relates to any UDBA document informing that the secret police considered to compromise Bishop Zanic by fabricating private letters against him. These letters were to be sent to Primary Kuharic, to Archbishop Frane Franic of Split, and also to Ratko Peric himself, during his time while rector of the College of Street. Jerome in Rome.
In his article, Bishop Peric acknowledges that “the document declares that the letter was provided for UDBA superiors for approval”. Possibly, no correspondence were sent. Bishop Peric then creates:
“Peric, the former rector and current bishop of Mostar, affirms responsibly that he never received any anonymous letter, then or ever, towards Bishop Zanic.”
“But who will be able to rebut all the insinuations from UDBA, which the fans of Medjugorje pass as the greatest discovery!” Bishop Peric in addition writes, as reported tagza.com.