Comprehending Medjugorje : Original Documents And Conversations with Arnaud Dumouch
Reference (French Edition) :
Daria Klanac, Comprendre Medjugorje : Regard historique et théologique, avec la collaboration du théologien Arnaud Dumouch, Informativni centar Mir, Medjugorje, en coédition avec les Éditions Sakramento, Paris, 2012, 2e éd. (1re éd. 2008, ISBN 978-2-915380-19-4 & 978-9958-36017-6), entretien avec le théologien Arnaud Dumouch, pages 147 à 150.
English Translation by Duško Čondić
Daria Klanac : Is research on those questions actually so important?
Arnaud Dumouch : One must understand that at the start, evaluation must relate to three central canonical standards:
– Consistency with Dogma.
– Spiritual fruits
– True miracles that transcend the natural laws.
In the meantime, the first of the above standards is obvious: God could not teach heresy. Besides, this standard is practical since it makes possible for one to filter out, and a priori reject certain false apparitions. I recall a recent case. Prior to the death of Pope John Paul II, certain mystics began to predict that he would be replaced by “one who is not of God,” and that he would be selected to that honor by the Cardinals. This sort of pronouncement was entirely contrary to the Faith. A Pope selected according to Canon Law, by virtue of the duty of his office and independent of his personal sanctity or lack thereof, receives the charism of “infallibility” in matters of Faith, and the grace of the Shepherd, as promised by Christ. This standard helped me to see with certainty that such mystics do not come from God. Many did not believe me, but subsequently dropped their weapons when confronted with the fact of the election of Benedict XVI, a friend and loyal collaborator of John Paul II.
D. Klanac : On the 29th of June, 1981, the Director of the Health Clinic in Čitluk, asked Dr. Darinka Glamuzina, (cf. supplement II), to accompany him to Bijakovići for an “eye-witness” investigation, and to observe the children. The young doctor, Darinka Glamuzina, wished to observe the behavior of the children. Through one of the visionaries (Vicka) she posited several questions to the Virgin, and subsequently, asked to touch the Virgin. However, the Virgin departed saying: “There always were perfidious Judases.”
I met Dr. Glamuzina on more than one occasion. She said to me: “Many people were shocked with that response at my request to “touch” the Virgin, but I was not. I think that the Virgin wished to indicate that she saw through my intentions (faithlessness and betrayal), and I understood that message clearly. At that moment, I was exactly that. The words of the Virgin shook me deeply, and elicited a complete transformation in my spiritual being. I am grateful for those words since only they were able to penetrate the hard shell of my disbelief and plow my path leading to God and to a mature belief.”
Is their a theological difficulty in her response?
A. Dumouch : There is no theological difficulty, all the more so, since what is at work is a practical response adapted to the thoughts of a concrete person. If the response in question relates to doctor Glamuzina herself, and if she acknowledges that her interior motivation at that moment was truly one of deceit and a ruse, then, in such a case, those words serve as a good sign: it would suggest that the apparition directly read the thoughts of the doctor.
It seems to me that those who respond by saying: “Those words are too harsh for the Virgin!” are in the wrong. Love must sometimes speak the Truth without embellishment. Jesus speaks many “harsh” words in the Gospels (Mt 23: 13): “Woe to you Scribes and Pharisees. Hypocrites! Because you shut the kingdom of Heaven against men; for you yourselves do not go in nor do you allow those going in to enter.” This is truly Jesus who speaks. In this case, Dr. Glamuzina received salvific grace because of those words. That is a good sign.
D. Klanac : She also posed one other question to the Virgin: “How are the people suppose to make peace—is it through the same faith or some other faith?” The Virgin responded: “There is only one Faith and one God. There is only one Spirit and one Faith.”
What is the difference between “faith” in this message, and “religion” in the message we have spoken of before?
A. Dumouch : In this instance (and so that it would make sense and be in harmony with Christian teaching) Faith means that form of correctness of heart that pleases God and that draws the Holy Ghost towards a given person. The Divine presence in a person whose soul is correct (regardless of his religion) is not a theological grace; rather it is the effect of an ordinary gesture on the part of God as St. Thomas Aquinas might say (Ia—Iae, Question 9). However, it allows a person to instinctively recognize the presence of the True God, where ever that presence is found; hence, in that which is good, true, and beautiful.
Meanwhile, in the New Testament, we have several examples of the particular meaning of the word “Faith.” Jesus, for example, says to a person who does not share the Jewish Faith (to the Roman Centurion—Mt 8: 10): “And when Jesus heard this, He marveled, and said to those who were following Him: “Amen I say to you, I have not found such great faith in Israel.”
By way of contrast, He rebukes the Jews who are nonetheless followers of the true Faith at that time for not having “an interior Faith” which would have allowed them to recognize and acknowledge Him (John 8:39): “They answered and said to Him, ‘Abraham is our Father.’ Jesus said to them: ‘If you are the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.” In this instance, “religion” designates a system of organized worship of God.
Hence, if we were to theologically analyze the Virgin’s response, this is how it would appear:
1. The cult of worship and the theological system are of different sorts, and hence, they are separate.
2. However, a man of faith, when he appears in any religion whatsoever, and is the sort that Jesus envisioned in the Gospels, one immediately recognizes, as though by some internal sort of radar, the presence of the True God regardless of where that person is found. At the same time, peace ensues—in fact, among men who do not belong to the same religion. Hence, that which was said in this instance, has a powerful evangelical meaning and sense, namely, “True men of God possess such faith, regardless of their particular religion which allows them to acknowledge and stand in agreement.”