The ruling Communists of and then Yugoslavia tried to manipulate Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar as part of their plan to suppress Medjugorje and the statements of apparitions. Spies were close to him and his telephone ended up being wiretapped.
But Bishop Zanic did not collaborate with the Yugoslav regime or with UDBA, the secret police, and the threats and also repressions against Medjugorje were not decisive when the Bishop replaced his initial belief in the apparitions with a stance involving disbelief and opposition.
Therefore says Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar, the successor of Bishop Zanic, in a new report published on the diocesan website.
A reaction to secret police revelations
Bishop Peric’s report comes in response to the book “Medjugorje Misterij”, published in June 2011, and then coverage by Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli. Inside book, four Croatian journalists reported how the Yugoslav secret police (UDBA) repressed Medjugorje inside the 1980s, through papers discovered from UDBA’s archives.
Leaving the issue open to interpretation, the experts cited a collaboration in between Bishop Zanic and UDBA as one possible way involving understanding a certain document. In the article Bishop Ratko Peric denies this option, and further points to factual blunders in UDBA documents. Early on, the particular Bishop clarifies his motives for writing:
“Since the late Bishop Pavao Zanic is actually mentioned in numerous pages in the book, and not in a complimentary way, it is our work, for the love of truth and also out of respect for Bishop Pavao, who had previously been a bishop in Herzegovina for Twenty-three years, to respond to such haphazard claims and insinuations” Bishop Ratko Peric writes.
In the event the book “Medjugorje Misterij” had lend brand-new insight into the Yugoslav secret police’s accept Medjugorje, expert Vatican journalist/commentator Andrea Tornielli took up the issue throughout Vatican Insider. From the original files translated into Italian, Tornielli made four conclusions:
1) The key police used Bishop Zanic as a “main tool” throughout compromising Franciscan priests associated with Medjugorje.
2) As “the subsequent part” of the secret police prepare, Tornielli cites “using the ancient conflict in which exists in Herzegovina between the high-end clergy and Franciscans, foreseen to create chaos in the local Church simply by turning everyone against anyone.”
3) Bishop Zanic’s hostility to Medjugorje ended up being “fed by a series of documents put together ??by the men of the key police, which were circulated amongst Mostar, the Vatican and some European countries.”
Some) A secret police report involving November 17th 1987 “shows how Bishop Zanic was willing to accept any kind of document against the Franciscans and contrary to the apparitions, even if of dubious source.”
“These documents will also be scrutinized by the Holy See committee contacted to pronounce itself on Medjugorje” Andrea Tornielli concluded.
Bishop Peric’s recent article represents Tornielli’s subsequent coverage in Vatican Insider from the first paragraphs, speaking about “very grave accusations”. In addressing Tornielli’s conclusions, the Bishop allows a Medjugorje adversary in Canada to speak for him, from a short snail mail exchange between the Canadian and also Andrea Tornielli:
Tornielli is “attacking the intellectual, religious, and pastoral integrity of the past Ordinary of Mostar, Msgr. Pavao Zanic” but “does not ‘document’ anything, does not verify anything at all: he copies/pastes very serious allegations without having granting his readers any kind of factual historical retrospective” Bishop Peric’s recent report says.
Andrea Tornielli has informed in which his article in Vatican Insider was based on translations of the original files from the secret police, directed at him by “Miserij Medjugorje” main creator, journalist Zarko Ivkovic.
Bishop Peric’s article does not in which address the conclusions that this secret police gave his / her predecessor false documents, and that the Communists used the centuries-old clash among the Hercegovian clergy in fighting Medjugorje.
One out of five book blunders touches issue
Bishop Peric numbers 5 factual errors in “Misterij Medjugorje”. The initial four do not deal with the partnership between his predecessor along with the secret police:
1) The book mentions June 25th 1981 because day of the first apparition when genuinely it took place on the day ahead of.
2) In 1986, Bishop Zanic went to The capital 7 times, not 14 as claimed in the book.
3) A UDBA document claiming in which 10 priests had disobeyed Bishop Zanic over testimonials and referrals is incorrect, as no person disobeyed.
4) A UDBA document saying that Bishop Zanic had left a meeting with the other Yugoslav bishops throughout protest after his negative stand on Medjugorje had been criticized simply by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic of Zagreb is likewise inappropriate.
The book’s fifth factual problem, as found by Bishop Ratko Peric, relates to any UDBA document informing that the secret authorities considered to compromise Bishop Zanic by fabricating nameless 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 Saint. Jerome in Rome.
In his report, 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 produces:
“Peric, the former rector and current bishop involving Mostar, affirms responsibly that he never ever received any anonymous letter, then or ever, versus Bishop Zanic.”
“But who will be able to rebut all the insinuations coming from UDBA, which the fans of Medjugorje pass as the greatest discovery!” Bishop Peric also writes, as reported tagza.com.
