To be, or not to be a pilgrim

Fr George Tutto reports on the pilgrimages to the Medjugorje shrine
IT should be put on record that in view of the information sent out by the Yugoslav Bishops' Conference concerning pilgrimages to Medjugorje, interpreted differently by the various Church quarters, from the position taken by the Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle to a more objective reporting by other Diocesan information papers to the clergy, eg Ad Clerum of the Nottingham Diocese, perhaps for the first time in the history of the Church, pilgrimages are discouraged by Church authorities with an unprecedented publicity, without any special reason, and despite the unprecedented fact that theologians, scholars and scientists of name have accepted the authenticity of the events of Medjugorje, and millions of faithful have benefited spiritually by going to Medjugorje.
It is far from me to question the wisdom of higher authorities, but I am entitled to seek answers to some important questions, for my peace of mind and for the peace of mind of many faithful who sincerely believe that the Mother of God, the Mother of the Church, the Queen of Peace, in response to the Church's faith in Her motherly role in the salvation of souls /cf Lumen Gentium, Chapter 8, and the recent Encyclical letter Redemptoris Mater/reveals Herself in that role at Medjugorje, with the urgent Gospel message calling for conversion, for the sake of peace in the world.
Here are my questions.
Firstly are not the pilgrimages and devotions of the faithful stemming from the sensus fidelium, the very raison d'etre for setting up Church Commissions in the first place, to investigate the cause for such popular response, and to investigate the spiritual fruits manifest in the lives of the faithful like miracles, conversions, holiness of life etc.?
Also by what legal grounds can pilgrimages and popular devotions be banned prior to the verdict of the investigating Commission whether the alleged events come from God or from the devil?
Was Gamaliel's advice wrong after all (Acts 5:34-41)? And was Archbishop Frane Frani of Split wrong when he as
President of the Yugoslav Bishops' Doctrinal Commission in response to the Bishop of Mostar's attempt to stop pilgrimages to Medjugorje stated in Glas Koncila, the Croat Catholic Weekly, in December 1984, the following:
"I think it is absurd to demand suspension of pilgrimages until the Episcopal Commission does decide whether it all comes from God or devil. If we were to stop all pilgrimages, prayers, conversions; if we were to stifle and kill all that, then no one would be interested any more, whether it was from God — as it would not exist any more.
We would possibly be only interested in whether it died of itself, or had been killed off by illegal and violent measures."
When is a pilgrimage not a pilgrimage? If I join a diocesan pilgrimage to Lourdes, led by a bishop, but instead of praying there I would spend my time in "enjoying" myself, am I a pilgrim? And if I as a tourist joined to a "tourist group" to Medjugorje (no bishop can object to that), and I spend all my time there in prayer and fasting, am I then not a pilgrim?
If visitors (pilgrims?) to Medjugorje "should not be motivated by the supernatual character attributed to the facts of Medjugorje", then, by the same reasoning, no one should pray for help to any Servant of God until the Church canonised that person.
In that case how would you explain that at least two miracles are required, effected through the intercession of the candidate for sainthood before the Church would consider canonisation? Could any pilgrimage, any genuine religious manifestation of the faithful be without supernatural motivation? That would be a contradiction in terms.
When the visionaries of Knock in Ireland claimed to have seen, once, a motionless picture of Our Lady, St Joseph and St John at the gable of the village church on August 21 1879, the Most Reverend Dr John MacHale, Archbishop of Tuam, set up an ecclesiastical Commission of inquiry within weeks, and even before any official approval could have been arrived at, the same Archbishop welcomed the first organised pilgrimage from Limerick a few months later, reported in The Limerick Reporter and Tipperary Vindicator and also in The Daily Express on March 19 1880, quoting the Archbishop saying: "it is a great blessing to the poor people of the West, in their wretchedness and misery and sufferings, that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God has appeared among them."
The Commission's verdict was a simple statement that the "testimony of all the witnesses taken as a whole is trustworthy and satisfactory."
A second Commission of inquiry was set up by Archbishop Gilmartin of Tuam in 1936 to examine the three surviving witnesses of the apparition.
All three confirmed thm original statement made in 1879. However, there is no official declaration, given yet by Church authority regarding the authenticity of the Apparition, although millions of pilgrims flocked to Knock ever since the alleged Apparition, including the present Holy Father in the centenary year, September 1979, and it did not occur to any bishop to stop pilgrimages to Knock until an official declaration of authenticity is being given by the Church.
For me the fact that pilgrimages to the Shrine of Our Lady, Queen of Ireland, at Knock are on the increase, especially thanks to the efforts of the late Mgr James Horan, parish priest of Knock, is a more convincing evidence for the authenticity than any legal document.
Who did act more correctly regarding the reported apparitions in their dioceses: the Bishop of Mostar who turned against Medjugorje because of his conflict with the Franciscans of his diocese? Of the Archbishop of Tuam who has recognised the sign of God's visitation and acted in the spirit of St Paul's injunction: "Do not stifle the Spirit or despise the gift of prophecy with contempt; test everything and hold on to what is good and shun every form of evil." (1 Tess. 5:19-22).