Sunday, May 21, 2017

Medjugorje envoy prepares to submit report

Archbishop Hoser, appointed in February as the Pope’s special envoy at Medjugorje, has now returned to his Warsaw-Prague diocese. In a telephone interview with the Italian daily newspaper Avvenire, the Polish prelate said he has not completed his mission and is in the process of writing his report which he expects to deliver by the end of June, and afterwards probably meet with Pope Francis.

He told Avvenire, “The pastoral work carried out in Medjugorje is very intense, developed and diversified. It is based on Marian worship but at the same time Christocentric: Eucharistic worship, Via Crucis, Rosary... Certainly I haven’t seen anything imaginative or deviating. I have seen a climate of recollection, prayer, contemplation – in short, a great spiritual fervour.

“What is striking is undoubtedly the amount of Confessions, but also very positive is the work of formation of consciences with the organised meeting and seminars. Pilgrims are not diminishing.”

“I did not perceive great differences between the parish of Medjugorje and the Franciscans on the one hand, and the diocesan cleergy and other religious on the other. Several parish priests in the neighbourhood are coming to help. Of course, Mostar’s bishop Ratko Peric reaffirms his position clearly contrary to the veracity of the apparitions, and emphasises that what is false cannot be built on.”

Commenting on the recent personal comment made by Pope Francis expressing his doubt about the alleged ongoing apparitions at Medjugorje, the Archbishop said, “The Pontiff has delivered his personal point of view on what we call the second phase of the apparitions.”

Archbishop Hoser then referred to the ‘leaked’ report of the Medjugorje Commission and its acceptance of the first seven apparitions, comparing the process to the apparitions at Kibeho and how the examining commission there separated the phases to reach a conclusion for the Church to give official approval to the first phase of the phenomenon and only three of the visionaries.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Uncertain but joyful...

There has been much confusion and uncertainty in Medjugorje circles and the media during the past week over the Pope’s personal comments and the report on the outcome of the Medjugorje Commission investigation. Should we surprised? The life of the Mother of Jesus teaches that there is joy to be found in uncertainty.

Donald Rumsfeld, the former United States Secretary of Defence, once said: “As we know, there are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. That is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”

None of us, it seems, have all the answers – not even Donald Rumsfeld. But for all the unknowns and uncertainties in life, we can also be assured of, through God’s goodness, the certitudes of joy. Sometimes the two feelings go hand in hand. Uncertainties can raise questions, even when we experience joy in our heart. The Joyful Mysteries of the Rosary illustrate this truth. Each occasion of joy, each bead, is threaded and tied with a question of uncertainty.

In the mystery of the Annunciation, the news that she is chosen to be the Mother of God prompts Mary to ask with uncertainty: “But how can this come about, since I am a virgin?”

Her cousin Elizabeth, overjoyed and excited by Mary’s visitation also raises a question: “Why should I be so honoured with a visit from the mother of my Lord?”

And surely there is uncertainty for Mary and Joseph as they make their way to Bethlehem to register for the census, aware that the birth of Jesus is imminent. No hospitals in those days, not even room in a warm guest-house.

Then the time arrives for Joseph and Mary to fulfil the law and present Jesus in the Temple – a joyful occasion, notably for Simeon who has waited so long to set eyes on the Saviour of the world. But for Mary and Joseph, they can only stand and wonder at the things Simeon is saying about Jesus, especially when he speaks to Mary of a sword that will pierce her heart.

Life’s unknowns for Mary and Joseph manifest again in the final joyful mystery when Jesus goes missing. It’s a joy to discover that he is safe in the Temple. But this joy is mixed with uncertainty when Mary asks her Son, “My child, why have you done this to us?” And even when Jesus explains, his parents fail to understand his answer. The question of uncertainty remains.

Each joyful mystery is a journey, each bead a stop on the journey, a station, an incident – an episode in our life. And we know there is a degree of uncertainty with any journey we undertake.

The journey for Mary begins with the arrival of the Angel Gabriel. Pregnant, she sets out on a long journey from Nazareth to the hill country of Judea, some 70 miles away. Three months later Mary returns to Nazareth. Almost six months pass before Joseph and Mary are on the move again, this time to Bethlehem. From Bethlehem it’s just a short passage to Jerusalem for the Presentation; and then follows the long journey into Egypt before the Holy Family eventually move back to Nazareth.

St Luke tells us that Mary and Joseph would journey to Jerusalem every year for the Passover. On one occasion on their way back to Nazareth, they discover that Jesus is missing from the caravan. And so yet another journey, another step of uncertainty, is undertaken to search for the twelve-year-old.

The journeys for Jesus and Mary continue with the Mysteries of Light, the Sorrowful Mysteries, and the Glorious Mysteries.

In her messages from Medjugorje, Our Lady often refers to the journey with Jesus as the path – of perfection, of peace, of love, of salvation, the path towards eternal life.

It is impossible to share in this journey and its joys and illuminations, its sorrows and glories, without confronting uncertainty and the unknown. There is no easy by-pass to Heaven, just the certainty of faith knowing that Jesus has prepared a place for each of us that desire to make the journey and follow him.

I desire that through you the whole world may get to know the God of joy. By your life bear witness for God’s joy. Do not be anxious or worried. God himself will help you and show you the way.  part Medjugorje message, May 25, 1998

What’s happening?

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Medjugorje: the first seven apparitions

If I find fifty just men in the town, I will spare the whole place because of them. (Gen 18 : 26)

Medjugorje Commission report revealed...

Published today by VATICAN INSIDER, details of the Ruini Report...

Medjugorje; the findings of the Ruini report... Esteemed by the Pope Francis, the report is positive on the first appearances, much less on the current ones while it proposes to turn the church into a pontifical sanctuary. Doubts from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that discussed the phenomenon in 2016.


Thirteen votes in favor of recognizing the supernatural nature of the first seven appearances in Medjugorje, one vote against and one “suspensive” ballot, which will give a final answer later. A majority of suspensive votes and many doubts instead, concerning the apparition phenomenon from the end of 1981 to today.

These are the results of the work done by the commission on Medjugorje established in 2010 by Benedict XVI and chaired by Cardinal Camillo Ruini.  

Pope Francis mentioned this report in the press conference on the return flight from Fatima when he revealed the distinction between the first apparitions and the later ones, saying, “A commission of good theologians, bishops, cardinals. Good, good, good. The Ruini report is very, very good. It is well known that the signal emerged from the Pontiff’s words is positive about the spiritual fruits and the conversions (”people who go there and convert, people who meet God, who change life”), but is negative with regard to the current apparitions “I prefer Our Lady Mother, and not the head of the telegraphic office, who sends a message every day”. 

A commission wanted by Ratzinger
     From 17 March 2010 to 17 January 2014, a commission chaired by Ruini was set up for the will of Benedict XVI. In addition to the former chairman of the CEI, Cardinals Jozef Tomko, Vinko Puljić, Josip Bozanić, Julián Herranz and Angelo Amato took part. The psychologist Tony Anatrella, the theologians Pierangelo Sequeri, Franjo Topić, Mihály Szentmártoni and Nela Gašpar, the Mariologist Salvatore Perrella, the anthropologist Achim Schütz, the canonist David Jaeger, the speaker of the causes of the saints Zdzisław Józef Kijas, the psychologist Mijo Nikić and the official of the Doctrine of the Faith Krzysztof Nykiel. Their task was to “collect and examine all the material” about Medjugorje and to present “a detailed report” followed by a vote on the “supernatural nature or not” of the apparitions as well as the most appropriate “pastoral solutions”. The committee met 17 times and screened all documents filed in the Vatican, the parish of Medjugorje and the archives of the secret services of the former Yugoslavia. The commission heard all the seers and witnesses involved, and in April 2012, they carried out an inspection in the village of Herzegovina.   

Positive Findings on First Appearances
     The commission noted a very clear difference between the beginning of the phenomenon and its following development, and therefore decided to issue two distinct votes on the two different phases: the first seven presumed appearances between June 24 and July 3, 1981, and all that happened later. Members and experts came out with 13 votes in favor of recognizing the supernatural nature of the first visions. A member voted against and an expert expressed a suspensive vote. The committee argues that the seven young seers were psychically normal and were caught by surprise by the apparition, and that nothing of what they had seen was influenced by either the Franciscans of the parish or any other subjects. They showed resistance in telling what happened despite the police arrested them and death threating them. The commission also rejected the hypothesis of a demonic origin of the apparitions. 

The doubts about the development of the phenomenon
     With regard to the second phase of the apparitions, the commission took note of the heavy interference caused by the conflict between the bishop and the Franciscans of the parish, as well as the fact that the apparitions, pre-announced and programmed individually for each seer continued with repetitive messages. These visions continued despite the youngsters had said they would end, however that actually has never happened. There is then the issue of the “secrets” of the somewhat apocalyptic flavor that the seers claim to have been revealed from the apparition. On this second stage, the committee voted in two steps. Firstly, taking into account the spiritual fruits of Medjugorje but leaving aside the behaviors of the seers. On this point, 3 members and 3 experts say there are positive outcomes, 4 members and 3 experts say they are mixed, with a majority of positive, effects and the remaining 3 experts claim there are mixed positive and negative effects. If, in addition to the spiritual fruits, the behaviors of the seers is also taken into account, eight members and four experts believe that an opinion cannot be expressed, while two other members have voted against the supernatural nature of the phenomenon. 

The Pastoral Solution
     Having noted that Medjugorje’s seers have never been adequately followed on the spiritual side, along the fact that for a long time they have no longer been a group, the commission has endorsed the end of the ban on pilgrimages organized in Medjugorje. In addition, 13 members and experts out of the 14 present voted in favor of the constitution of “an authority dependent on the Holy See” in Medjugorje as well as the transformation of the parish into a pontifical sanctuary. A decision based on pastoral reasons - the care of millions of pilgrims, avoiding the formation of “parallel churches”, clarity on economic issues - which would not imply the recognition of the supernatural nature of the apparitions. 

The doubts of the Doctrine of the Faith
     Francis mentioned them on the airplane. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith led by Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller expressed doubts about the phenomenon and about the Ruini report, considered an authoritative contribution to be compared with other opinions and reports. In 2016 a “Feria IV”, the monthly meeting of Dicastry members, was summoned to discuss the Medjugorje case and the Ruini report. Each of the cardinals and bishops who members of the Feria IV received the text of the commission but also other material in the hands of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. During the meeting, members were asked to give their opinions. However, Pope Francis, unwilling to have the Ruini report, which he esteems, to be put up for “auction”, decided that the opinions of the Feria IV members had to be sent directly to him. And that’s exactly what happened. 

Francis’ decision
     After examining the Ruini report and the opinions of the members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope decided to entrust to the Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser a “special mission of the Holy See” to “acquire more in-depth knowledge of the pastoral situation “In Medjugorje, and “above all, the needs of the faithful who come to pilgrimage” to “suggest any pastoral initiatives for the future.” By summer 2017 the Polish Archbishop will deliver the results of his work with which the Pope will make a decision. 

Monday, May 15, 2017

Reading between the lines

Pope Francis’ comments about Medjugorje, given in response to a question put to him on the return flight to Rome from Fatima on Saturday, are very revealing; not just because the Holy Father has expressed his personal doubt about the ongoing claims of apparitions, but for the divided opinion it presents between the recommendation of the (Cardinal) Ruini report and that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) represented by its Prefect Cardinal Gerhard Müller.

Mentioning the Ruini report, the Pope said it concluded “the first apparitions, when the seers were young, must be distinguished from the others, and that investigation should be done on those first ones.”

This suggests that the Commission is favourable towards the early apparitions and so may provide a basis for some form of acceptance by the Church, which would also be able to take into account and acknowledge the apparent ‘good fruits’ produced at Medjugorje.

It also explains the reason why, in February, Pope Francis nominated a special envoy, Archbishop Henryk Hoser, “to acquire a profound understanding of the pastoral situation” in Medjugorje, with special concern for the “needs of the faithful who come on pilgrimage;” and on the basis of that understanding “to suggesst possible pastoral initiatives fro the future.”

The Church will always protect the tree that produces good fruit.

Not unexpectedly, the local ordinary Ratko Perić, published an extraordinary statement a week before the arrival of the Pope’s envoy in March. It was a vigorous attempt to undermine any claims that the early apparitions were genuine, quoting from taped interviews that have long been proved to have been tampered with. (Copies of the original tapes exist and are published in book form).

Bishop Perić obviously had deep concerns that the Holy See was about to legitimise Medjugorje on the basis of the early apparitions.

He was not alone in his concern. The Prefect of the CDF, cardinal Müller, told Poland’s Catholic Information Agency last month, “A pastoral phenomenon cannot be built on false foundations, and we can’t separate pastoral concerns from questions around the authenticity of the visions.”

It is this comment which provides an insight into just why the Prefect made a move to ‘auction’ the Ruini report as mentioned by Pope Francis on Saturday.

The report, commissioned by Pope Benedict XVI, was presided over by Cardinal Ruini, “composed of good theologians, bishops and cardinals.” It seems that Cardinal Müller was not prepared to recognise the work and authority given to the Commission and so attempted to garner opposing views – ‘bidding’ against the Ruini report – by soliciting opinions from some members of his own Congregation. It must be remembered that the Ruini report was presented directly to Pope Francis.

Pope Francis wasted no time informing Cardinal Müller to redirect any opposing views and opinions to himself and not to the Feria IV.

Before his appointment as Archbishop of Warsaw Praga in 2008, the Pope’s special envoy at Medjugorje, served as Secretary Adjunct of the Congregation for the Evangelisation of Peoples and was President of the Pontifical Missions Societies. His experience in these roles provides an insight to plans the Holy See may be considering in regard to Medjugorje’s status as a shrine or at least legitimising the parish as a place of prayer and reconciliation. Archbishop Hoser also served in Rwanda for 20 years and his experience and knowledge of the Kibeho apparitions and outcome may also be the reason why Pope Francis has placed him at Medjugorje. The events at Kibeho may prove to be a model for Medjugorje.

Sunday, May 14, 2017

Events at Kibeho... a model for Medjugorje

• The events at Kibeho and subsequent part approval and acceptance are probably a good indicator to the way the Vatican is viewing similar events at Medjugorje, and also an insight into the Pope’s thinking on the matter and probable outcome of any declaration he has promised later.

Archbishop Henryk Hoser, recently appointed as the Holy See’s special envoy at Medjugorje, spent 20 years as a missionary in Kibeho

This is from the EWTN website:

JUDGEMENT ON THE APPARITIONS OF KIBEHO Bishop Augustin Misago of Gikongoro, Rwanda


On Monday 2 July, the Holy See released the declaration of Bishop Augustin Misago of Gikongoro, on the apparitions that took place in 1982-83 in Kibeho, Rwanda. The text we offer is a translated summary from the original 23-page French report on the apparitions of Our Lady in Kibeho and on the work of the two commissions (medical and theological) that studied them for the past twenty years.

Twenty years have already passed since the beginning of the study of the dossier on the apparitions of Kibeho. These unusual phenomena began on 28 November 1981, in the college of Kibeho.

The apparitions continued for a considerable length of time. Many words have been spoken by the alleged visionaries, and many facts, more or less mysterious, have taken place over the years. However, the phenomenon of the proliferation of alleged visionaries in the region of Kibeho and in the rest of the country might have really disoriented public opinion.

Two study commissions, one of doctors and one of theologians, were immediately set up by the local Bishop; they have been at work since April 1982.

On 15 August 1988, the local Bishop decided to approve a public devotion linked to the apparitions of Kibeho. Recognizing the legitimacy of this devotion, he deliberately put aside two questions whose solution was of capital importance for the future:

—Did the Virgin Mary and Jesus appear in Kibeho as some alleged visionaries affirm?

—If so, what visionary, man or woman, can be believed, in view of the large number of people who in those days began to talk about visions and messages from heaven?

The advanced state of the study commissions' work now offers sufficient elements to allow competent ecclesiastical authorities to pronounce definitively on this question.

As a result, Bishop Augustin Misago of Gikongoro, who represents this authority, has published his declaration concerning the definitive judgement on the apparitions of Kibeho, Rwanda. This important event in the history of the Diocese of Gikongoro, as in the life of the Church in Rwanda, took place on 29 June 2001, on the solemnity of Sts Peter and Paul, during a solemn Mass concelebrated in the cathedral of Gikongoro.

All the Catholic bishops of Rwanda with the Apostolic Nuncio of Kigali were present, together with many priests, religious and lay faithful from various parishes and religious communities of the Diocese of Gikongoro, but also from other Dioceses of the country.

Bishop Misago, who was the main celebrant of the Mass, personally read, in front of the assembly, the long-awaited Declaration, but only its most significant passages, for lack of time. The 23 page text is composed of three parts or chapters.

1. Explanation of the facts

The first part (pp. 1-10) consists in a brief exposition of the facts, in which the Bishop primarily establishes some historical reference points, then he presents the elements of the message and finally he shows how the apparitions of Kibeho have born fruit, good fruit, in spite of the difficult moments that Rwanda and the other countries of the Great Lakes region have lived in the last 10 years.

II. Studies and conclusions

The second part (pp. 11-19) is the heart of the matter. It begins by recalling the initiatives to promote the devotion to Our Lady taken by Bishop Augustin Misago of Gikongoro. In 1988 his predecessor authorized public devotion at the site of the apparitions. He was Bishop Jean Baptiste Gahamanyi, of the Diocese of Butare, from which the Diocese of Kibeho was cut off. After a comment on the new phases of the work of the commissions, the Bishop declared that the dossier is ready and so the moment has come to publish the conclusions, summed up in 16 points.

We mention here some statements that govern the rest of the document. The Bishop declared as follows:

The three initial authentic testimonies of the apparitions at Kibeho

1. Yes, the Virgin Mary appeared at Kibeho on 28 November 1981 and in the months that followed. There are more reasons to believe in the apparitions than to deny them. Only the three initial testimonies merit being considered authentic; they were given by Alphonsine Mumureke, Nathalie Mukamazimpaka, and by Marie Claire Mukangango. The Virgin appeared to them with the name "Nyina wa Jambo", that is "Mother of the Word", which is synonymous to "Umubyeyl W'iamna" that is, "Mother of God", as she herself explained.

2. Various reasons justify the choice by Our Lady of these three visionaries already recognized as visionaries. These witnesses, historically linked, were the only ones on the scene for some months, at least up to June 1982. They are the ones who made Kibeho known as a place of apparitions and pilgrimage causing crowds of people to flock there. What is more important is that Alphonsine, Nathalie and Marie Claire corresponded satisfactorily to all the criteria established by the Church in the matter of private apparitions and revelations. In contrast, the evolution of the alleged subsequent visionaries, especially after the apparitions were over, reflects disquieting personal situations, which have reinforced the existing reservations in regard to them and discouraged ecclesiastical authorities from proposing them to the faithful as points of reference.

3. In the evaluation of the facts and the messages, only the public apparitions are taken into consideration. Public are those apparitions that take place in the presence of various testimonies, which does not necessarily mean a crowd.

The most active period of these apparitions ended with the year 1983. Everything said or done after that date at Kibeho did not bring anything new with respect to what was already known, from the point of view of the messages and of the signs of credibility. This is also valid for Alphonsine who continued to attract many people up to the end of her apparitions.

First two years of apparitions at Kibeho

4. The first two years of the apparitions at Kibeho (1982 and 1983) constitute a decisive period for whoever wishes to know what happened and form an opinion. In fact it was during these two years that significant events were produced. These made Kibeho known and caused crowds to flock there. It was always in that period that the fundamental elements of the message of Kibeho were communicated and recapitulated and the apparitions of the major part of the first visionaries ended.

5. In the case of the three visionaries named above, who are at the origin of the fame of Kibeho, nothing that they said or did during the apparitions is contrary to Christian faith and morals. Their message is in conformity with the Sacred Scripture and the living Tradition of the Church.

The alleged apparitions of Jesus reported at Kibeho beginning in July 1982 are not taken into consideration in this Declaration for various reasons, primarily because the alleged visionaries of Jesus known to the pilgrims of Kibeho, developed disquieting personal situations. Regarding instead the first visionaries of the Virgin Mary, "no decisive objection has been formulated against the apparitions; the arguments in favour of their supernatural character appear to be very serious and the passing of the years has only made them more incisive".

Usefulness of apparitions for applying Gospel to current events

"The recognition or negation of the authenticity of an apparition does not guarantee infallibility; it is based on proofs of probability more than on apodictic arguments". In the sphere of the apparitions there is then no absolute certainty for the witnesses, except perhaps for the visionary. The definitive judgement about the Apparitions of Kibeho should be interpreted in this spirit. The recognition of these apparitions should not be considered a requirement of faith. Therefore each Christian is free to believe or not.

"A recognized apparition, that strengthens the life of faith and prayer, is certainly a powerful help for Shepherds of souls, but the message linked to this apparition is not a new revelation; it is rather a way of recalling the ordinary teaching of the Church, which has been forgotten".

III. Pastoral directives: Shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows and public devotion

The third part of the Declaration (pp. 20-23) contains a group of pastoral directives that indicate to the faithful the line of conduct to follow in this context, in particular for all that regards the exercise of public Marian devotion linked to the apparitions of Kibeho already officially recognized. These practical instructions repeat in part what Bishop Jean Baptiste Gahamanyi had formulated in his three known Pastoral Letters on the events of Kibeho. The Bishop of Gikongoro completes them adding others, judged opportune in the present circumstances.

The name given to the Marian sanctuary at Kibeho is "Shrine of Our Lady of Sorrows", as the Bishop had anticipated when the first stone was laid, 28 November 1992, and repeated in his message of 15 September 1996, with fuller explanations.

"That Kibeho become a place of pilgrimage and of encounter for all who seek Christ and who come there to pray, a fundamental centre of conversion, of reparation for the sins of the world and of reconciliation, a point of meeting for 'all who were dispersed', as for those who aspire to the values of compassion and fraternity without borders, a fundamental centre that recalls the Gospel of the Cross" (from the Declaration).

The Declaration, formulating a definitive judgement on the apparitions of Kibeho, permits the clarification of a situation which was ambiguous for many faithful for a long time, and for public opinion, not only at Kibeho but in the whole country. "in the great number of celebrations for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 of the Redemption and of the Centenary of evangelization in Rwanda, this Declaration makes it possible to respond to the expectations of the People of God and to bring new enthusiasm to the public devotion recognized already for 13 years".

The complete text printed in Kinyarwanda and in French is available at the diocesan offices of Gikongoro.

Gikongoro, 29 June 2001

Rev. Ignace Mboneyabo Chancellor of the Diocese

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Pope doubts current apparitions at Medjugorje

On his flight back from Fatima to Rome this evening Pope Francis spoke with representatives of the media assigned to cover his visit. He had this to say about the Medjugorje situation.

Report by Andrea Tornielli, Vatican Insider

Question: In Fatima we have seen a great testimony of popular faith, the same one that is also found in Medjugorje. What do you think of those apparitions and the religious fervor that they have generated, in the light of having decided to appoint a bishop delegated for the pastoral aspects?

“All apparitions or alleged apparitions belong to the private sphere; they are not part of the ordinary public magisterium. For Medjugorje, Benedict XVI set up a commission presided over by Cardinal Ruini. I received the results; the commission was composed of good theologians, bishops and cardinals. The committee report is very, very good. There were some doubts in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Doctrine thought appropriate to send each of the members of the Feria IV - the monthly meeting of the Congregation - all the documentation, including the opinions contrary to the Ruini report. I received the notification on a late Saturday night. It did not seem right to me; it was like putting the Ruini report, which is very well done, at auction. On Sunday morning, the Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith received a letter in which I asked that instead of sending those opposing views to Feria IV, they should be sent to me personally. These opinions have all been studied - I would like to stress, all of them. The Ruini report states that the first apparitions when the seers were young must be distinguished from the others, and says that investigation should be done on those first ones. The report presents its doubts on the current alleged visions. Personally, I’m meaner: I prefer the Lady Mother, to the boss of telegraphic office, who sends a message every day. And these supposed apparitions do not have much value: I say this as a personal opinion. There are those who think that Our Lady is saying: Come, on that day I will give a message to that seer. Thirdly, there is the spiritual and pastoral fact, the core of the relationship: people who convert, who meet God, who change life. And this is not thanks to a magic wand. This fact cannot be denied. Now to see this, I have appointed a good bishop (Monsignor Hoser, ndr) who has experience in dealing with the pastoral side. In the end, you will hear some words.”