Medjugorje has overshadowed the authentic message of Fatima

From Mr Donal Foley SIR Regarding the letters (June 13) from Medjugorje supporters in response to the interview with Bishop Gemma, a few points need to be made.
First, Mgr George Tutto's point about the Holy See not making rulings about claimed apparitions while they are going on is open to question. In fact, the Holy See intervened in the case of the false visions at Heroldsbach in Germany, in July 1951, even though these were said to have continued until October 1952. There have also been visions which have been condemned as false by the local bishop, even while they were going on, including those at Palmar de Troya, in Spain in 1968, and at Bayside in the United States, in 1970. So there is no intrinsic reason why Medjugorje could not be condemned by the Church, even while it is alleged that the visions continue.
An impartial investigation of the transcripts of the original taped interviews of the Medjugorje visionaries, made during the first week or so of the alleged visions, reveal that a demonic influence is by far the most likely cause for them. The Devil can appear as an Angel of Light. and so it is quite easy for him, or for malign individuals, to produce "messages" which are apparently sound.
I'm not questioning Fr McCaffrey's assertion that there have been conversions and so forth at Medjugorje, but we have to look at all of this from a larger and longer perspective. The fact is that Fatima has been overshadowed in many respects by Medjugorje in recent years, and the central themes of the Fatima messages, which have received overwhelming support from the Church, are not really present in the "messages" issuing from Medjugorje. So it is in effect a stumbling block and obstacle in the way of the diffusion of the completely genuine message of Fatima.
Regarding Bernard Ellis's letter, the fact is that the numbers or status of those who have been to Medjugorje does not have any bearing on its authenticity. Not is the fact that Pope John Paul II apparently had some private devotion to Medjugorje crucial, since he never made any official statement supporting it.
The most worrying thing about all this is that many good people will undoubtedly be disillusioned when Medjugorje is finally condemned which is a distinct possibility in the not-too-distant future. I hope such individuals will realise that Fatima remains as a legitimate outlet for their genuine Marian devotion. Rather than worrying about whether Bishop Gemma's comments will upset Medjugorje supporters, the letter writers ought to be considering what they will be saying to them when a negative judgment is issued.
Yours faithfully, DONAL ANTHONY FOLEY Castle Donington, Derbyshire