I don't know if I posted about Medjgorje. I think it is a tough nut to crack. Also, I'm fairly certain it is supposed to be pronounced: Med-ju-gor-ji (or med-ju-gor-gee with the "soft" g in gee if you prefer gee to ji).
One thing that many Catholics point to as for a reason it is fake is that in response to a question about who is the most devote person there at the moment (a weird question to ask) the seer present (I don't know which one, and that's already a complicating factor in this set of apparitions) said Mary told her it was some woman who was praying in the crowd who was a Muslim. This bothers some people, but on the one hand it could be a statement about how less-devote everyone else was there, but it also calls into questions assumptions people had about that specific woman or about all Muslims. It's a can of worms not worth opening, imho.
To continue on this tangent, it seems that the Koran started off in life as a set of lectionary notes in a specific dialect of Aramaic used by a Syriac priest who was of some eastern or oriental orthodox sect. There are many legitimate questions about the history of these texts used in Islam, and I do not pretend any expertise in it but I suspect a combination of rebranding of a religion, bad translations into Arabic, and the need to create a creation myth of a newly forming empire that was in conflict with the Jewish kingdoms in the area and the Byzantines all lead to what we see as the founding if Islam. That Petra is the original location of Mecca seems undeniable, and the change reflects a political shift and a military conflict. If Mohammad actual existed is questionable. One the one hand the very uncomplimentary things said about him in some of their texts (basically his clothing was so semen stained that Aisha had trouble cleaning them is not something you'd put into a foundational text of a religion) make me think something real was accounted. But the origin of the word Mohammad appears to come from an Aramaic word that means something like beautiful. It is all very interesting and complicated, but I do not see a single account of the history of it all that seems coherent to me yet.
Back to the matter at hand. One thing that troubles me about Medjugorje is that one of the seers was jarred out of the trance when jabbed with a pin or something like that. Her explaination was that it was not that the pin did it, but that Our Lady almost dropped the baby Jesus. Uhm, no. I don't know why anyone is sticking pins in seers or why people do any of the things they do to test them because it usually involves something painful (like matches or lighters) or some invasion of their personal space (like trying to lift the children at Garabandal when in trance and shining lights into their eyes). But they do these things to seers as a test, and as a rule they do not react to the outside stimuli. When one does, as one of the Medjugore seers apparently did, it is a red flag.
Another red flag is that Our Lady seems constantly at the seer's disposal, this was not true of Fatima, nor of any other generally accepted apparition. There are accepted and not very controversial apparitions where our Lady seems very frequently present to the seer, like Father Stephano Gobi.
The claims about Medjugorje being a cash cow for the people there seems not true, though there obviously had to be construction for the massive amounts of people coming to visit. Greed is often an accusation the world makes against things it does not like, but it is often projection. I do not think greed is behind Medjugorje in general, but I am suspicious of some seers.
Thing to remember is that seers are human. If Our Lady appears and then stops appearing to them, do they always do the right thing? How do they react when the world attacks them? Garabandal and Fatima show how badly the governing authorities react, the government in the case of Fatima, and the church in the case of Garabandal. Lucia, a seer of Fatima, was basically imprisoned and some think she died and was replaced by an impostor. Her story is tragic. The mayor imprisoned and terrorized the three kids to try to get them to recant. Conchita of Garabandal was subjected to long and cruel interrogations by the church officials.
I don't know what may or many not have happened to the seers at Medjugorje, but I do not think it was what happened to those of Fatima or Garabandal.
Their messages seem different, but I think they are not really that different or not irreconcilable anyway.
Anyway, here are two youtube videos of an important exorcist who has been looking at Medjugorje for a long time, from before he became an exorcist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkoOJ-7sqsU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITVf7Th08ew
The "music" and the computer-narration are not great. Maybe it's fitting.
The important thing in any of this, in our lives really, is to take the focus away from what we want both materially and like metaphysically (that is to say what we wish to be true or not true). The big thing, I think, is if we are putting God first-- how ever you define God (because ultimately God is tough for us to define. I think Aquinas works with the idea that God is the First Cause, the uncaused Cause, Creator). I think once we get our own petty desires out of the way, in spite of us having very real material needs in order to survive and to not suffer, what ever reasonable and not selfish way we try to define God will lead us to a more workable understanding of God that will lead us in the direction we must go.
Thus, when thinking about Medjugorje or any apparition or anything at all really, find the truth in it and discard what is not true, and ponder or hold in reserve that which is unclear-- and revisit these categorizations often to be certain when needed. This is why Catholic theologians are not afraid of Aristotle (Aquinas even quotes an Islamic theologian on occasion) because if what they are saying is right and well said, why not use it? It is the view of such theologians that God reveals Himself through nature and divine revelation like scripture, so the two can not be in contradiction of each other. Thus, the truth in this view must exist in theology and at the intersection of theology and philosphy, or science, as well as in those fields alone, and we should discard what is not true in any and all of them.
there doesn't seem to be anything here