Boris Tadic

Follow Boris Tadic Updates:

. . .

Bishop Ratko Peric Of Mostar Breaks A Self-Imposed Silence On Medjugorje For The Third Occasion Saying That His Predecessor Failed To Collaborate With The Ruling Communists In Repressing Medjugorje.

The ruling Communists of next Yugoslavia tried to manipulate Bishop Pavao Zanic of Mostar as part of their plan to suppress Medjugorje and the statements of apparitions. Spies were around him and his telephone ended up being wiretapped.

But Bishop Zanic did not collaborate with all the Yugoslav regime or with UDBA, the key police, and the threats and repressions against Medjugorje were not decisive once the Bishop replaced his initial opinion in the apparitions with a stance involving disbelief and opposition.

Consequently says Bishop Ratko Peric of Mostar, the successor of Bishop Zanic, in a new write-up published on the diocesan website.

Response to secret police revelations

Bishop Peric’s write-up comes in response to the book “Medjugorje Misterij”, posted in June 2011, and later on coverage by Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli. Within the book, four Croatian journalists noted how the Yugoslav secret police (UDBA) repressed Medjugorje within the 1980s, through papers uncovered from UDBA’s archives.

Leaving the matter open to interpretation, the experts cited a collaboration among Bishop Zanic and UDBA as one possible way involving understanding a certain document. In the article Bishop Ratko Peric denies this option, and additional points to factual blunders in UDBA documents. Early on, the Bishop clarifies his motives with regard to writing:

“Since the late Bishop Pavao Zanic is mentioned in numerous pages with the book, and not in a free of charge way, it is our duty, for the love of truth and out of respect for Bishop Pavao, who had 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 fresh 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 paperwork translated into Italian, Tornielli extracted four conclusions:

1) The solution police used Bishop Zanic as a “main tool” throughout compromising Franciscan priests associated with Medjugorje.
2) As “the second part” of the secret police prepare, Tornielli cites “using the ancient conflict that exists in Herzegovina between the high-end clergy and Franciscans, foreseen to make chaos in the local Church by turning everyone against every person.”
3) Bishop Zanic’s hostility to Medjugorje ended up being “fed by a series of documents come up with ??by the men of the solution police, which were circulated amid Mostar, the Vatican and some European countries.”
Four) A secret police report involving November 17th 1987 “shows just how Bishop Zanic was willing to accept any kind of document against the Franciscans and contrary to the apparitions, even if of dubious beginning.”

“These documents will also be scrutinized through the Holy See committee called upon to pronounce itself upon Medjugorje” Andrea Tornielli concluded.

Bishop Peric’s recent article has Tornielli’s subsequent coverage in Vatican Specialized from the first paragraphs, discussing “very grave accusations”. In addressing Tornielli’s findings, the Bishop allows a Medjugorje opponent in Canada to speak with regard to him, from a short postal mail exchange between the Canadian and Andrea Tornielli:

Tornielli is “attacking the intellectual, faith based, and pastoral integrity of the previous Ordinary of Mostar, Msgr. Pavao Zanic” but “does not necessarily ‘document’ anything, does not verify anything at all: he copies/pastes very serious allegations without granting his readers any kind of factual historical retrospective” Bishop Peric’s recent write-up says.

Andrea Tornielli has informed that his article in Vatican Specialized was based on translations of the original paperwork from the secret police, given to him by “Miserij Medjugorje” main author, journalist Zarko Ivkovic.

Bishop Peric’s article does not that address the conclusions that the secret police gave his or her predecessor false documents, understanding that the Communists used the centuries-old discord among the Hercegovian clergy in combating Medjugorje.

One out of five book blunders touches issue

Bishop Peric numbers 5 factual errors in “Misterij Medjugorje”. The 1st four do not deal with their bond between his predecessor along with the secret police:

1) The e-book mentions June 25th 1981 because day of the first apparition when genuinely it took place on the day just before.
2) In 1986, Bishop Zanic went to The italian capital 7 times, not Fourteen as claimed in the e-book.
3) A UDBA document claiming that 10 priests had disobeyed Bishop Zanic over recommendations is incorrect, as no one disobeyed.
4) A UDBA document saying that Bishop Zanic got left a meeting with the other Yugoslav bishops throughout protest after his bad stand on Medjugorje had been criticized by Cardinal Franjo Kuharic of Zagreb is likewise wrong.

The book’s fifth factual mistake, as found by Bishop Ratko Peric, relates to a new 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 Ratko Peric himself, during his time because rector of the College of St. Jerome in Rome.

In his write-up, Bishop Peric acknowledges that “the document claims that the letter was provided for UDBA superiors for approval”. Possibly, no letters were sent. Bishop Peric then writes:

“Peric, the former rector and current bishop involving Mostar, affirms responsibly that he by no means received any anonymous page, then or ever, versus Bishop Zanic.”

“But who will be able to rebut all the insinuations via UDBA, which the fans of Medjugorje pass on as the greatest discovery!” Bishop Peric furthermore writes, as reported tagza.com.