Kevin Symonds started his reply to my article on Medjugorje by informing readers who he is (TMIS, 31 August). This most probably was done to give more weight to his article. It would have been enough for him to say that he is a Roman Catholic. This American-style tactic is used by some writers to try and impress readers by telling them a lot about themselves.

This was also the same style used by Bishop Andrea Gemma who tried to give the impression that he was writing on behalf of the Vatican, when in fact he was writing in his own capacity, and what he believes in.

I believe in a free press and there is nothing wrong when someone expresses his opinion. On the other hand, as Roman Catholics, we have to be careful not to harm our religious image.

I appreciate that Mr Symonds recognises that what was stated in the British tabloid was incorrect. The reason why I wrote the article was to clear the lies and half-truths.

One thing Mr Symonds totally ignored in my article and which I consider very important was when I said that, if the Vatican decides that Medjugorje is the work of the devil, as Bishop Gemma described it, I would be the first one to accept the Vatican verdict. The Vatican has not decided on this issue, thus no one has the right to misguide readers or try to make sweeping statements. I have the right to express myself like Mr Symonds and many others did, but it is the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith that has to decide, and we, as Roman Catholics have to abide by the decision. I hope that those who are writing against Medjugorje will have the courage to state publicly that whatever the outcome of the Vatican’s decision they will abide by it as I will. I am sure that this Congregation is not going to be influenced by what Mr Symonds, retired Bishop Gemma, Bishop Peric, myself and many others have written.

As regards Mr Symonds’ comment “Farrugia’s insertion of the word ‘negative’ comes across as if he is saying that the Vatican has removed the jurisdiction of the Episcopal Conference of Bosnia Herzegovina because the Vatican supports Medjugorje and not the Conference” is purely Mr Symonds interpretation and not what I stated. I never said that the Vatican supports Medjugorje and will not say it until there is an official decision. I stated in my article that Rome so far has not pronounced itself on Medjugorje. Mr Symonds picked up parts of my article to be able to build his own story. I never said that Bishop Peric of Mostar, who is well known, by his writings to be anti Medjugorje, is not involved in the investigation. I am sure the Vatican involved in the past will continue to involve Bishop Peric in the investigations because his feedback is important.

Yes, as a rule Bishops remain in contact with the Vatican, but it is also a fact that retired Bishops do not try to give the impression that they are speaking on behalf of the Vatican. I am not sure which type of contacts Mr. Symonds refers to in his article when speaking about Bishop Gemma. Are these official contacts, or with individuals who roam the corridors of the Vatican and spread certain unofficial information, which on occasion harms the image of the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr Symonds stated that Bishop Gemma also happens to be an Italian Bishop with close geographical and cultural proximity to the Vatican. He added that Bishop Gemma mentions that he worked with the Bishop of Mostar and spoke with him on the subject of Medjugorje. He went on to say that all things considered it could be argued that Bishop Gemma is informed of things of which we are not aware. Mr Symonds argument that Bishop Gemma knows things that we do not know, is only his assumption to try and give weight to what he originally wrote. On the same lines, I can argue that Bishop Gemma is being fed certain information and being used by sources that are anti-Medjugorje. Mr Symonds all the way through his article defended what Bishop Gemma said. He has the right to do so in a democratic world. By the same token, I have the right to doubt that certain statements are being orchestrated.

As has been rightly stated, the Bishop is the Church in the Diocese. When he speaks the Church speaks. This statement is true only when what he says is not his personal opinion. When Bishop Peric speaks about Medjugorje he speaks as an individual expressing his opinion and not as the Bishop. He has no right to speak about Medjugorje as a church official because there is no confirmation yet from the Vatican. If Bishop Peric is a 100 per cent sure, and also has documents that Medjugorje is not supernatural in origin, he can pass all the information to the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith to be examined and studied. Bishop Peric has no right to spread doubts about Medjugorje simply because he does not agree. This in my humble opinion is not accepted in a democratic world. I am of the opinion that Bishop Peric and those with the same ideas will do less harm to the Church if they shut their big mouth.

I would like to conclude that until the Vatican issues an official statement about Medjugorje, I stand by my arguments. Still, I respect what others write but have the right to disagree with their way of thinking. Since Mr Symonds is anti Medjugorje and I am pro-Medjugorje the chances of us agreeing on this issue is very difficult, but he will remain my brother in Christ and I will pray for him even though we never met. My last appeal is to pray so that we will have an official decision from the Vatican on this issue. Whatever the decision is, I once more appeal that all of us abide by it.