All the evidence suggests that the Medjugorje visions are false

From Mr Donal Foley SIR — Regarding Bernard Ellis's letter (July 28) on Medjugorje, which was critical of Bishop Peric because he voiced his opposition to Medjugorje during a confirmation ceremony in the town, surely as the local bishop he is perfectly entitled to do this? If he said nothing, then no doubt some would claim he was softening his opposition to the alleged visions.
Regarding the claim that responsibility for Medjugorje was removed from Bishop Zanic in 1986, this was the response of Mgr Henri Brincard, Bishop of Puy-en-Velay, in January 2001, during an assembly of the French bishops. He pointed out that following advice from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop Zanic had agreed that the Yugoslav episcopal conference should study the dossier which Ld been compiled on Medjugorje, given that it was having an effect well beyond his own diocese. Mgr Brincard emphasised that it was "not correct to state that Bishop Zanic was relieved of the dossier", as some Medjugorje supporters had claimed. This is one of the long-standing myths that is constantly being put forward by Medjugorje supporters, but it is just not the case.
Regarding Mr Ellis's claim that the primary purpose of the new commission announced by Cardinal Vinko Puljic is to "give consideration to sanctioning shrine status" on Medjugorje, the word "shrine" appears nowhere in the Catholic News Service report of his remarks. He merely comments on the need to "review pastoral provisions" regarding pilgrims and pilgrimages.
Mr Ellis then refers to the 1998 CDF letter, but fails to point out that this was a purely personal letter, addressed to one bishop, and not meant as a general response for the whole Church. Despite this, its author, Archbishop Bertone, spoke of the "so-called apparitions of Medjugorje".
Regarding John Paul II and Medjugorje, surely it is very significant that Mr Ellis has to rely on a private letter to back up his claim for papal support for the visions. The fact is that a Pope's private opinion on particular devotions has no binding authority for Catholics.
On the final point about a lack of vocations in the West, in contrast to the fact that vocations and conversions have arisen out of Medjugorje, it is simplistic to suggest that Medjugorje is some sort of solution to the Church's problems. This is especially so when all the available evidence indicates that the visions are not genuine, to say nothing of the many problems which have arisen out Medjugorje, and particularly disobedience to the local bishop.
Yours faithfully, DONAL ANTHONY FOLEY Nottingham