liturgical rubrics, current events in a biblicalrnperspective, and a Christian approachrnto psychotherapy.rnThe Fathers of the Egyptian Desertrnwould have recognized the problemrnright away: illusion. A self-conscious “orthodoxy,”rnespecially with all its hyphenations,rnis no guarantee against spiritualrndelusions, hi fact, in today’s Church, itrnmay become a proximate occasion ofrnthis sin. Perhaps a more precise, andrntherefore more charitable, title for thisrnbook would have been The MedjugorjernIllusion. The seers and their promotersrnare not necessarily engaging in deliberaterndeception, but are rather the victimsrnof their own illusions. This is, in fact,rnone of Jones’ suggested explanations.rnThe Medjugorje seers have been seeingrnsomething, but they are under the illusionrnthat it is from heaven, when its originrnmay be merely, albeit ominously,rnpreternatural.rnIn 1981, the Blessed Virgin is allegedrnto have appeared to some teenagersrnon a iiill by a village in Bosnia, beginningrna movement which is still continuing,rnalong with its apparitions, and whichrnhas had a tremendous impact on manyrnRoman Catholic faithful in the UnitedrnStates. The parish church of Medjugorjernis the focus of numerous pilgrimages,rnand the movement which promotes thernmessages of the apparitions is found inrnprachcally every parish in our country.rnConversions, souls returning to thernsacraments and to a fervent life of prayerrnare attributed to the experiences undergonernas a result of contact with the messagesrnof Our Lady, the “Queen ofrnPeace.” A serious Catholic would not rejectrnthese apparitions out of hand, givenrntheir “fruits” and the orthodoxy of theirrnmessage of prayer and penance. E.rnMichael Jones shows us why they shouldrnbe rejected, even though it is unlikelyrnthat he will convince anyone who doesrnnot already tend to agree with him.rnWliat is it that made a series of adolescentrngroup experiences into an internationalrnreligious phenomenon of nearlyrntwo decades’ standing? There is, ofrncourse, an ecclesiological explanation:rnon this, more later. But Jones’ explanationrnof the Medjugorje movement hasrnseveral angles of approach. There arernpolitical, economic, and sociologicalrncauses, seen in the light of the historicalrnonera of the Ustasa, communism, andrnthe dubious alliances of the Cold War. Irnwill not comment on this aspect of Jones’rnanalvsis, except to point out that thernbook’s way of treating these matters isrnwhat will make it in large part a rhetoricalrnfailure. The audience which mostrnneeds the insights of T/ie Medjugorje Deceptionrn(the kind of pan-orthodoxrnCatholics who subscribed to Jones’ Fidelityrnmagazine until he questionedrnMedjugorje) will not be able to followrnthe ramblings of Jones’ powerful journalisticrnintuitions. He is preaching to thernsaved (perhaps a Serbian Orthodox hieromonk,rnor that aforementioned —andrnundersigned —intellectually irritable ex-rnAnglican Thomist), the sort of readerrnwho is a devotee of Chronicles and occasionallyrnglances at the New American.rnJones’ insights are worthy of the former,rnbut, alas, his prose and editorial acumenrnare more akin to the latter. He shouldrnhave written a work in which the politicalrnanalysis was as distinct as possiblernfrom the ecclesiological. As the book isrnwritten, it will allow the Medjugorje followerrnto discount his analysis of the apparitionsrnas politically motivated, or asrnunrelated to their strictly religious aspect.rnAn enthusiast can hardly be expected tornabstract from the geopolitical aspects inrnorder to see the point for his own spirihialrnlife.rnAs any examination of various apparitionsrnsince the 17th century will bearrnout, both authentic and spurious apparitionsrncan have significant political connotations:rnfor instance, the banners andrnbadges of the Sacred Heart in thernVendee in revolutionary France, or therntravels of the Pilgrim Virgin of Fatimarnthroughout South Vietnam in the earlyrn70’s. Indeed, unless one is a Freemason,rnit is hard to see what is wrong with heavenlyrnrealities mixing with history andrnpolitics. As an intensely devout Catholic,rnJones would surely agree. The politicalrnmanipulation of the Medjugorjernapparitions in favor of Croatian nationalismrnor a papal strategy for destabilizingrncommunism would not in itself provernthat the apparitions are fake, unless thosernpolitical ends inferred from the apparitionsrnare evil in themselves, and this, ofrncourse, Jones does not intend to say. Tornattack manifestations of supernatural religionrnas false because they have the effectrnof promoting political as well as religiousrnends is a typically leftist, secularistrnapproach.rnThe strength of Jones’ argument liesrnin the accumulation of evidence of arnstate of spiritual illusion afflicting thernseers, devotees, and promoters of the apparitions.rnHe gives the general key to understandingrna certain disposition forrndelusion on the part of orthodox RomanrnCatholic faithful when he remarks thatrnevery time the bishops neglect to disciplinerna single pro-abortion nun, theyrnsend a planeload of pilgrims to Medjugorje.rnThe followers of Medjugorje,rnwhen push comes to shove (as it literallyrndid in the case of the violent abductionrnof the bishop of Mostar, an opponent ofrnthe apparitions and the ordinary’ of Medjugorje),rndo not trust the authority ofrnbishops, since the bishops do next-tonothingrnto hinder the widespread doctrinalrnabuses in the Church. They are farrnmore likely to believe some seers whornseem to be reaffirming central verities ofrnCatholic faith and practice. Bishops andrnpriests are judged by their acceptance ofrnthe apparitions, rather than the converse.rnThis leaves the right-believing faithfulrnopen to every kind of fakery, as long as itrnis “orthodox.” Jones chronicles numerousrnexamples of this from within thernMedjugorje orbit with entertainingly savagernclarity. His descriptions of the fadedrnvirago Vassula Ryden, of the “seer fromrnWendy’s,” or of the Assembly of Codrnarchimandrite seeking work in thernPhilippines do not disappoint as a sort ofrnworking-class Firbankian church satire inrnthe so-ftmny-I-forgot-to-laugh category.rnAt times, Jones seems bewildered byrnthe inaction of Church authorities in regardrnto the numerous irregularities connectedrnwith the Medjugorje movement.rnThe local bishop’s flat condemnation ofrnthe apparitions is not supported, it seems,rnbv his brother bishops or the Holy See.rnYet the explanation should be clearrnenough. Church authorities, faced withrnmassive dissent from Catholic teachingrnand practice (and being unable or unwillingrnto do anything about it), are onlyrntoo ready to content themselves with thernthought that at least the faithful are prayingrnand having recourse to the sacraments,rnand supporting the Church inrngeneral as a result of their involvement inrnthe apparitions. They can overlook, orrneven benefit from, the instrumentalizationrnof the faithful’s piet}’ for the ends ofrnecclesiastical or secular politics, as longrnas the faith of the people is strengthenedrnor at least not disturbed. This, too, is arnspiritual illusion which leads one to wonderrnif such prelates and pastors got theirrnnotions of the cura animarum from Plato’srnRepublic rather than from the HolyrnGospels. These clerics undermine theirrnown authority by increasing the influ-rnMAY 1999/27rnrnrn