Foley's Folly

Denis Nolan

In his response to “Misunderstanding Medjugorje,” my article on his work (see "NEWS FROM DENIS" in the column at left), Foley, as is his wont, sidesteps the arguments that are fatal to his case and triumphantly knocks down self-created straw men.  It was apparent long ago that he had no serious interest in the truth about Medjugorje.  But now it is becoming clearer that he is not only indifferent to the facts but has sunk so deep into his own fantasy world of mendacious visionaries and sinister Franciscans that his responses have become meaningless sound bites reminiscent of politicians denying the obvious.

Let’s consider a few of the obvious howlers in Foley’s latest response.  He persists in ignoring the relevance of Fr. Sivric’s family ties with the earliest and most prominent opponents of Medjugorje.  Is Foley not familiar with the system of jury selection where a person who has any link to the accused is not allowed to sit on the jury?  That Fr. Sivric’s nephew and niece (whom I called cousin in my book – sorry!) tried to “stop” Medjugorje and were subsequently ostracized by the natives has no bearing on the matter according to Foley.  This priest (in Foley’s narrative) had long ago emigrated to the US and had no interest in what took place in his homeland.  Why, one wonders, did he then take the trouble to write a book on Medjugorje and why did he choose his relatives as the primary sources?  That the book (which in this case is the equivalent of a jury trial) turned out to be highly negative on the phenomenon apparently is entirely coincidental!  And as for the transcripts on which Foley rests his whole case – he now has to appeal to a Canadian anthropologist to vouch for their veracity (he cautiously acknowledges that there may be a few problems with these tapes: “No one is saying that the tapes are perfect”!).  If his whole case depends on dubious transcripts of doctored tapes from three decades ago, he has more problems that he is ready to let on.

In Medjugorje – A Time for Truth, A Time for Action, I wrote about another Englishman who had fallen into the same folly as Foley, namely Peter Hebblethwaite. Hebblethwaithe, an ex- priest critical of Medjugorje (and, incidentally also of John Paul), also took Sivric as his primary source.  Writing in the July 15, 1988 issue of National Catholic Reporter, Robert Bela Wilhelm observed:  “Hebblethwaite is like the anthropologist who has just been hoodwinked by his informant and doesn’t have the foggiest notion he has just been had.  Yugoslavs are a passionate people and paradoxically both quite individualistic and communal at the same time.  Sivric himself is – of course – another actor on the scene, part of the quarreling families of Pavlovics, Vlasics, Ivankovics and Zovkos.  The notion of an impartial observer is untenable in the culture of Medjugorje.”

Of course the same Foley who hangs on to every word from Fr. Sivric is equally adamant in rejecting any word that comes from a Franciscan.  Apparently if you’re a Bosnian Franciscan you are incapable of telling the truth! Thus, in one fell swoop, Foley tells us to turn our backs on the mountains of documentation on Medjugorje gathered by the holy men of God who have served the Catholics of the region for centuries often at the cost of their own lives.

Foley tries to undermine Janet Smith’s defense of Medjugorje by pointing out that some of the priests she referred to in her essay, specifically Frs. Zovko and Vlasic, were later discredited.  This is typical sleight of hand from an apparent master.  The particular allegations used against them by Medjugorje critics turned out to be entirely false (Fr. Vlasic did not father a child as E. Michael Jones scandalously claimed – and the true father of the child has admitted this).  By drawing attention to their positions on Medjugorje in the earliest days of the apparitions, Professor Smith did not mean to suggest that they were canonized saints who were incapable of sin for the rest of their lives!

In addressing the comparison I drew between Medjugorje and St. Faustina, Foley writes, “He then goes on to try and make a comparison between this situation, and what happened regarding St Faustina whose Cause was under a cloud for many years, until John Paul II became pope. But it is a false analogy, because Nolan is trying to compare the case of someone who has now been recognized as a saint, with alleged visions which show no signs of being authentic. So it’s something which is true, St Faustina’s sanctity, which was under suspicion for a while, but then vindicated, being compared with Medjugorje, which has been under suspicion from the beginning.”   Reading and re-reading this passage, I still cannot figure out how Foley can consider his write-up here to be a rebuttal.  He admits that Faustina was under a cloud but this, he says, cannot be compared to “alleged visions (i.e., Medjugorje) which show no signs of being authentic.”  Doesn’t he realize that to be under a cloud means that the authorities hold that the subject’s visions “show no signs of being authentic.”   Many of the major (now approved) Marian apparitions, including Lourdes and Fatima, were “under a cloud” until exhaustive investigation authenticated them. Even at Fatima the visionaries were believed to be diabolically deceived.  Initially being under a cloud is the fate of any authentic Marian apparition or Faustina-type vision that is destined to have a significant impact.  And the critics of these phenomena often belong to the “more Catholic than the Pope” variety.

Of course, Foley continues his intrepid defense of the Bishops of Mostar.  Let me point out the obvious again:  the Vatican has taken over the investigation of Medjugorje as well as jurisdiction over the phenomenon.  The opinions of the past and current Bishops of Mostar on Medjugorje are no more relevant or authoritative than that of any other Bishop in the Church – and hundreds say Our Lady is appearing in Medjugorje ("Medjugorje and the Church" pp. 36 - 111).  Foley is fully aware – though dishonestly chooses not to cite – an official clarification from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pr. No 154/81-06419, dated May 26, 1998, written by the present Vatican Secretary of State, stating the present Bishop of Mostar's conviction that Our Lady is not appearing in Medjugorje "is and remains his personal opinion."

The fact that the present Mostar Bishop’s position on Medjugorje aligns with that of Foley’s is the only reason why Foley keeps gesturing in his direction (Foley even has the chutzpah to dismiss John Paul’s views on Medjugorje on the grounds that the Pontiff was deceived by Laurentin!).  It is a well known fact that many of the anti-Medjugorje defenders of the Bishop of Mostar are equally intense in their criticisms of their own bishops.  Apparently some bishops are more equal than other bishops!  But the point here is that any further reference to the opinions of the Bishop of Mostar can only be regarded as a cynical charade.

It must be said in closing that Foley’s latest response did add something new to the discussion by revealing the depth and ferocity of his hatred for Medjugorje.  Medjugorje is, he says, a spiritual tsunami “which has erupted from the depths of hell”.