FATIMA CRUSADER SPECIAL REPORT

Modernist Assault on Fatima
Father Fox’s

Part II of III

Nullifying the Fatima Prophecies While Professing to Believe Them

Now it is obvious that men who think as Kasper does would view the conversion of Russia and the Triumph of Mary’s Immaculate Heart as utterly inadmissible. But, being neo-modernists — that is, modernists of today, no different from the modernists of St. Pius X’s time — men like Kasper are far too clever simply to say that the Message of Fatima must be discarded, since this might arouse the ire of those they like to call "the simple faithful." The trick is to pay lip service to the Fatima mMessage, while giving it an interpretation that effectively nullifies it.

For example, in his distinctly neo-modernist "commentary" on the Message of Fatima and the Third Secret, Cardinal Ratzinger disposed of the conversion of Russia and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart in this way:

I would like finally to mention another key expression of the "secret" which has become justly famous: "My Immaculate Heart will triumph." What does this mean? The Heart open to God, purified by contemplation of God, is stronger than guns and weapons of every kind. The fiat of Mary, the word of Her heart, has changed the history of the world, because it brought the Savior into the world — because, thanks to Her Yes, God could become man in our world and remains so for all time.14

According to Ratzinger’s neo-modernist interpretation, the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart foretold by Our Lady in 1917 as a future event, actually took place 2,000 years ago, when Mary consented to be Mother of the Redeemer. Ratzinger accomplished this exegetical trick by conveniently excising the words "In the end" from Our Lady’s prophecy. He also avoided any mention of Mary’s promise that the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart would be seen in the conversion of Russia and a period of world peace, which events are the very culmination of the entire Message.

The trick is to pay lip service to the Fatima Message, while giving it an interpretation that effectively nullifies it.

Mark this well: Knowing that Our Lady’s prophecy begins with three crucial words — In the end — Ratzinger deliberately excised those words from his discussion of the prophecy, knowing full well that he was also hiding a prediction of three future events he preferred not to mention and which are yet to be realized in Her future triumph:

"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph;

1. the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me,

2. which will be converted, and

3. a period of peace will be granted to mankind."

There can be no other conclusion: Ratzinger’s "interpretation" of the Message of Fatima was calculated to destroy it. For what is left of the Fatima prophecy if one ignores the conversion of Russia and a future period of peace for mankind and equates the triumph of the Immaculate Heart with Her fiat 2,000 years ago? Obviously, nothing is left. The prophecy becomes a mere statement about the past, or at best a reference to the present. The neo-modernist version of the prophecy is, therefore, no prophecy at all. Hence even the Los Angeles Times observed that Ratzinger had "gently debunked the cult of Fatima"15 — or rather, he attempted to do so.

Affirming and debunking at one and the same time — all with the appearance of authority, legitimacy and respect for the truth — is precisely how the neo-modernist tries to undermine Catholic belief. And that is precisely how the neo-modernists are attempting to undermine the Message of Fatima, even as they pretend to give it deference — and worse, even as they dare to profess devotion to Our Lady of Fatima.

Fr. Fox Promotes the Neo-Modernist "Consecration of Russia"

This same neo-modernist modus operandi is now being followed by Fr. Fox, who holds himself out as a great defender of the authentic Fatima Message. Fr. Fox’s "interpretation" of the Message is, like Ratzinger’s, really an attempt to debunk it. Like Ratzinger, Fr. Fox pays lip service to Fatima at the same time he eviscerates its prophetic content, leaving us with nothing that would offend the proponents of "ecumenism" and "dialogue" — Fr. Fox included. Let us see how Fr. Fox does this.

First there is Fr. Fox’s neo-modernist "interpretation" of the consecration of Russia. To "consecrate" means to set a person or place or thing apart for a sacred purpose. It is self- evident that in order to consecrate a place, one must mention the place being consecrated. It would be absurd for a bishop to insist that he could consecrate a new cathedral by consecrating his whole diocese without mentioning the cathedral, on the theory that the cathedral is part of the diocese. Yet Fr. Fox, following the party line of Cardinal Sodano, seriously proposes that the Pope could consecrate Russia by consecrating the world, even if all mention of Russia is deliberately avoided so as not to offend the Orthodox.

In support of his contention, Fr. Fox once again trots out what he claims is "a personal letter from Sister Lucia saying that the Collegial Consecration was accomplished" in 1984. This "personal letter," from 1990, was one of five "personal letters" generated by a word processor and purportedly signed by Sister Lucia, who does not type letters on word processors but rather has written her entire voluminous correspondence (not to mention hundreds of pages of memoirs) by hand. One of these "personal letters," to a Mr. Noelker, states that during his visit to Fatima in 1967 Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart — an event that never happened. Since Sister Lucy, who witnessed Pope Paul’s visit, could not have made such a mistake, it could only have been made by the uninformed person who created the "personal letters" on a word processor. Oddly enough, the plainly discredited Noelker letter is the one and only piece of evidence cited in Card. Ratzinger’s Commentary to support the claim that the Consecration has been done. No effort was made to obtain Sister Lucy’s personal testimony on the matter, even though she was readily available; she was not even asked to authenticate the Noelker letter — an omission that speaks volumes.16

Maria do Fetal: Fr. Fox's star witness. When Fr. Fox began his campaign in 1989 claiming that the consecration of Russia is done and that Gorbachev and the changes in Russia are the beginning of the triumph of Our Lady, he relied upon his star witness, Maria do Fetal (above) whose bona fides he claimed to have checked out beforehand.

She lasted from August 1989 to early 1990 when she admitted to Father Pierre Caillon that she "invented" her stories regarding Sister Lucy and the Consecration of Russia.

Since then she has stayed out of the limelight and not given any interviews. Fox would be well advised to follow her example. Instead of doing this, he continues his campaign of disinformation against the consecration of Russia.

Neither Fr. Fox nor anyone else in his camp has made the least effort to explain how the purported "personal letters" of 1989-90 can be squared with Sister Lucy’s constant testimony, both before and after the 1984 ceremony, that Our Lady specified a consecration of Russia by name, not a consecration of the world. Again and again Fr. Fox has been confronted with Sister Lucy’s prior testimony; again and again he again has ducked the challenge to explain how his "personal letter from Sister Lucy" can be reconciled with that testimony. Let us recall a few examples of the prior testimony here:

Precisely because the attempted consecration in 1982 made no mention of Russia (and the bishops did not participate), Sister Lucy told the Papal Nuncio to Portugal on March 19, 1983 that the 1982 Act of Consecration was insufficient because Russia was not the object of the consecration and the bishops did not participate in a solemn public ceremony consecrating Russia. She concluded: "The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady requested. I was not able to make this statement before because I did not have the permission of the Holy See."

On May 12, 1982, the day before the attempted 1982 consecration, L’Osservatore Romano (Italian edition) published a 1978 interview of Sister Lucy by Father Umberto Maria Pasquale, a Salesian priest, who was "the confidant of the seer of Fatima since 1939."17 Father Pasquale had received by that time 157 letters from Sister Lucy. During this interview, which took place on August 5, 1978, Sister Lucy told Father Umberto in no uncertain terms that Our Lady had not requested the consecration of the world in general, but of Russia specifically, and only Russia:

After this conversation, Father Umberto asked Sister Lucy to put this clarification in writing. Her handwritten note — no word processing or typing involved — was first published in a 1980 pamphlet produced by Cavaleiro da Imaculado, establishing beyond any doubt that the consecration of "the world" did not suffice to fulfill Our Lady’s request at Fatima, as Sister Lucy herself would later say after both the 1982 and 1984 consecration ceremonies. Here is the photographically reproduced copy of Sister Lucy’s letter to Father Umberto, dated April 13, 1980.

Below is a translation of the letter written by Sister Lucy to Father Umberto on April 13, 1980.

Here Sister Lucy confirms to the whole Church, in her own handwriting, that the consecration of the world is extraneous to the Message of Fatima, and represents, at most, the suggestion of her confessor. This suggestion seems to have resulted from a command by the Bishop of Gurza that Sister Lucy address to Pius XII a request for the consecration of the world (in addition to Russia), in her letter of December 2, 1940.19 What this seems to suggest is Sister Lucy’s willingness, under pain of "obedience," to refrain from insisting clearly and unequivocally on what Our Lady specifically requested.

On March 21, 1982, Sister Lucy met with the Papal Nuncio to Portugal, Most Rev. Sante Portalupi, precisely to discuss how the consecration the Pope had planned for May 13 of that year should be carried out. The Nuncio was informed as follows:

On December 26, 1957, Sister Lucy gave the following testimony to Father Fuentes, the Vice Postulator of the cause of Jacinta and Francisco:

On July 15, 1946, the eminent author and historian, William Thomas Walsh interviewed Sister Lucy for his book Our Lady of Fatima, which sold over one million copies. Walsh asked precise questions about the requisites for the consecration of Russia, with a view toward Pius XII’s recent 1942 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart — a ceremony Sister Lucy clearly did not view as having fulfilled Our Lady’s request:

Sister Lucy responded: "Yes."21a

Clarifying further, Professor Walsh asked: "Does that mean the United States of America too?"