The Facts Prove:
Russia Has NOT Been
by Christopher Ferrara
TAKEN FROM THE WINTER, 2006 ISSUE
As I come before you
confess to being no little intimidated because I'm addressing not only
priests, which is serious enough, as well as my fellow members of the
laity, but successors of the Apostles.
My burden, however,, is lightened by the knowledge that I am not here
give anyone spiritual advice. I am here to convey certain facts-----to
make the factual case that the Consecration of Russia has never been
done and to demonstrate what the consequences of that failure are, and
will be, for all of us.
Answer to An Objection
Let me begin with an objection raised by one member of the
couple of days ago. It's a fair objection and it needs to be addressed
in some detail. And the objection is this: We know what Our Lady said
at Fatima, Portugal to the three seers on July 13, 1917. But, how are
we to know that Our Lady did in fact come here to Tuy, Spain in 1929,
to request the Consecration of Russia? The distinction is drawn between
Fatima I, so to speak, and Fatima II. We know Fatima I happened, but
how do we know Fatima II happened? It's a fair question, but the answer
is completely obvious.
The key to the answer is this: Fatima
I tells us about the Consecration of Russia and assures us that Our
Lady will come to ask for it.
Let me quote from the Message of Fatima as published on the Vatican's
own web site and reproduced in the Vatican's own booklet commenting on
the Third Secret in June of 2000:
"To prevent this (meaning the calamities that would befall the world) I
shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart
and the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays. If my requests
are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace. If not,
she will spread her errors throughout the world causing wars and
persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred. The Holy Father
will have much to suffer. Various nations will be annihilated. In the
end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate
Russia to Me and she shall be converted and a period of peace will be
granted to the world."
The Vatican itself recognizes that as part of the integral text of the
authentic Fatima apparition of July 13, 1917 Our Lady said She would
come to ask for the Consecration of Russia. And so She must have done so, for
the Mother of God does not make false promises.
So, to suggest that Our Lady never came here to Tuy, that the Mother of
God missed Her appointment and
forgot about the very purpose of the Fatima apparitions
is to cast doubt on the entire apparition from beginning to end, which
not even the Vatican is willing to do, despite the existence of
anti-Fatima elements within the Vatican apparatus. So that's the answer
to the objection.
And, of course, the Mother of God would not choose a lying witness, so
that if Sister Lucy recounted that Our Lady came to Tuy in 1929, it
must be the case that she is telling the truth. Otherwise, again, the
very Message the Vatican publishes to the world as authentic would be
meaningless and a
Sister Lucy's Unwavering Testimony
Now, Sister Lucy made it plain again and again that what
Our Lady called for is the Consecration of Russia, not the world. She herself
emphasized that distinction-----not once,
but many times. Let's talk about some of those occasions.
In 1946, she said: "Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the
world to Her Immaculate Heart. What She demanded specifically was the
Consecration of Russia." And the source for that is Professor William
Thomas Walsh's Our Lady of Fatima
on page 226. Walsh was one of the most eminent Catholic historians in
the Western world and his book must be considered an authoritative
That's not all Sister Lucy said in Walsh's book. She further declared:
"What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world
shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If
this is done She will convert Russia and there will be peace." You will
find that in Our Lady of Fatima,
the same historical text, on page 226.
Sister Lucy did not stop there. In 1949 she insisted: "No, not the
world, Russia, Russia." Here she was correcting one Father Thomas
McGlynn, and the source for that is Vision
of Fatima [by Fr. McGlynn], page 80. Notice that here she rebuked a priest.
This is an obedient, cloistered nun who felt compelled to rebuke and
correct a priest by emphasizing that Our Lady had asked for the
Consecration of Russia, not the world.
And again in 1952, the Virgin Mary had said to Sister Lucy: "Make it
known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the Consecration of
Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the Consecration of Russia,
Russia will not be able to convert nor will the world have peace." And
the sources cited: Il Pellegrinaggio
Della Meraviglie, published in Rome 1960, page 440.
Our Lady of Fatima Only Asked For . . .
Here is a particularly crucial example. In 1982, L'Osservatore Romano
reported that in 1978, Sister Lucy was asked this critical question by
Father Umberto, her confidant: "Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about
the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?" That's the
question that lies at the heart of this whole controversy about the
1984 consecration ceremony and the 1982 consecration ceremony.
And what was Sister Lucy's answer to this critical question?
Here it is: "No, Father
At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady promised, 'I shall come to ask
for the Consecration of Russia.' "And that was reported in L'Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1982-----that's
L'Osservatore Romano, the
Pope's own newspaper.
The thing that had to be clarified was something Sister Lucy had
written to the Holy Father, Pius XII. Sister Lucy advised Father
Umberto as follows: "In reply to your question, I will clarify. Our
Lady of Fatima, in Her request, only
referred to the Consecration of Russia." Let me emphasize, "only referred to the Consecration of Russia."
We Must Understand Sister Lucy's
Yet, in her letter to Pius XII, Sister Lucy had referred
a consecration of the world with explicit mention of Russia. Why did
she do that? In her handwritten note to Father Umberto, also published
in L'Osservatore Romano, she
gave this explanation: "In the letter I wrote to the Holy Father on the
instruction of my confessor, I asked for the consecration of the world
with explicit mention of Russia." But on the paragraph above she
states, "Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request referred only to the
Consecration of Russia."
Now, what does that tell us? It tells us, once again, that Our Lady of
Fatima referred only to the Consecration of Russia. But, it tells us
something else that is going to be very significant for understanding
what happened with Sister Lucy before her death: Sister Lucy is
obedient. She took a special vow of obedience. Her confessor suggested
that she add to what Our Lady requested,
and she obediently did so. But she stressed, nevertheless,
that Our Lady had not referred to that,
but only to the Consecration
The Alleged Consecrations of 1982,
Now, what does this mean for the consecration ceremonies
were conducted in 1982 and 1984? What does Sister Lucy have to say
about those ceremonies? Well, based on what we've seen so far, you able
to guess the answer to that question. What she said is that they did
not comply with Our Lady's requests.
First of all, the 1982 ceremony. On March 19, 1983, long after that
ceremony was done, Sister Lucy
spoke to the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Portalupi, a Dr. Lacerda and
Father Messias Coelho.
These are witnesses of unimpeachable integrity, first and foremost, the
Papal Nuncio. And here is what she said to this group of witnesses: "In
the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia
did not appear as being the object of the consecration." And so
she went on to say: "The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady had
demanded it. I was not able to say it because I did not have the permission of the Holy
That's significant for two reasons. It tells us once again that Our
Lady never said anything about a consecration of the world, but it also
tells us once again that Sister Lucy is obedient to her superiors. She
did not reveal what she knew to be true because she had not been given
permission to reveal it, But, once given that permission, she frankly
stated that the 1982 ceremony did not comply with Our Lady of Fatima's
What about the 1984 ceremony, in which once again, Russia was not
mentioned and very few of the bishops, if any, participated? Here is
what Sister said about the 1984 ceremony to her old friend, Eugenia
Pestana, two days before that ceremony took place: "That consecration
can not have a decisive character." It would not do the trick. It might
have some benefits, but it will not have a decisive
character. That is, it will not produce the benefits that Our Lady of
Fatima promised if the Consecration of Russia were done as She had
Let's go ahead with something else Sister Lucy said. In September 1985,
eighteen months after the 1984 consecration, Sister Lucy was asked this
question: "Has he, (meaning John Paul II) not, therefore, done what was
requested at Tuy?" Here is her answer: "There was no participation of
all the bishops and there was no mention of Russia."
The questioner was persistent, so he asked another question: "So, the
consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?" Consider what this
questioner is asking Sister Lucy to do. An obedient, cloistered nun is
being asked to say that the Pope had
not done what some very prestigious people were saying he had
done. And while Sister Lucy is obedient, she's also completely and
utterly honest. She is the messenger of Our Lady of Fatima. And so here
is her answer to the question: "No. Many bishops attached no importance
to this act."
But how could Sister Lucy have said otherwise? Let's apply our common
sense to this. In order to consecrate something you really do have to
mention it. And so what we are being asked to believe is that Russia
was mentioned in a ceremony that makes no mention of Russia. It's that
absurd-----and Sister Lucy was not going
to accept that absurdity.
What John Paul II Actually Said
Now, we hear it said again and again that Pope John Paul II felt
he had done the consecration. He's alleged to have said this privately.
I don't know what he said privately. Frankly, I don't care what he said
privately. I do know what he said publicly.
Here's what John Paul II said concerning the 1982 ceremony, six days
afterward. And I'm quoting: "I tried to do everything possible in the
concrete circumstances to emphasize the collegial unity of the bishop
of Rome, with all his brothers in the episcopal ministry and service in
the world." That's the Pope's very diplomatic way of saying the bishops
really did not participate with him. He tried to do all that he could
in the concrete circumstances.
But what about the 1984 ceremony? Here we have a couple of very
interesting statements by the Pope. We have, first of all, the March
27, 1984 edition of L'Osservatore
. . . [there were] some key words that Pope John Paul II
spontaneously added to the consecration ceremony as he was conducting
it. After he had recited the consecration formula he added these words:
"Illumine (Enlighten) especially those peoples of which You await our
consecration and entrustment."
Now, why would the Pope say that Our Lady is awaiting the consecration of "those
peoples" when he had just pronounced the words that some claim are a
consecration of Russia-----that never mentions
But the Pope made his thinking perfectly clear several hours later, as
reported in Avvenire,
the bishops' newspaper for the Italian Bishops Conference in Italy. He
said before 10,000 witnesses inside St. Peter's: "We wish to choose
this Sunday, the third Sunday of Lent 1984, still within the Holy Year
of Redemption for the act of entrusting and consecration of the world
of the great human family, of all peoples, especially those who have a
very great need of this consecration and entrustment. Of those peoples
for whom You, Yourself, are awaiting
our act of consecration and entrusting."
Why would the Pope say several hours after he had consecrated the world
that Our Lady was awaiting
the act of the Consecration of Russia? Answer: He hadn't done it.
Russia? Why would he add these words spontaneously to the text? One
might quibble. One might say this is just a verbal artifact, that his
meaning is not clear, that the translation might not be faithful, and
Why Did Pope John Paul Not Do It?
The next question is: Why
would the Pope refrain from mentioning Russia in the consecration
ceremony that is supposed to have Russia as its object? We have the
answer to that question from a highly placed Vatican source: "Rome
fears that the Russian Orthodox might regard it as an offense if Rome
were to make specific mention of Russia in such a prayer, as if Russia
especially is in need of help when the whole world, including the
post-Christian West faces profound problems."
This was reported in Inside the
November 2000 as the statement of one of "the Pope's closest advisors."
It was, in fact Cardinal Tomko. This, then, is the advice the Pope was
given. But Our Lady did not come to tell us that Russia is not especially in need of help. She
came to tell us that Russia is
And so Our Lady of Fatima was overruled by the demands of Vatican
diplomacy and ecumenism. That may sound harsh, but that in fact is what
Cardinal Tomko was saying here. And that is why the Pope was referring-----in
the previous statements I've mentioned especially in need of
human weakness, human possibilities, he did what he could in the
concrete circumstances, and so forth. And what are the concrete
circumstances? Diplomacy, ecumenism, and the advice of his advisors.
What are the Consequences?
What are the consequences of a failure to do as Heaven
through the Virgin Mother of God? Obviously, one consequence has been
that Russia has not converted. We have heard varying explanations from
the apologists for the 1984 and the 1982 ceremonies. They want to talk
about all kinds of conversions in Russia, except the one that Our Lady
had in view, which was the conversion of Russia to the Holy Catholic
religion. There has been no religious conversion in Russia. But neither
has there been a moral conversion. Nor a political conversion, nor a
"conversion to peace." Let's look at these "alternate" conversions of
Russia proposed by the apologists for the consecration of Russia
without mention of Russia.
No Religious Conversion
First of all, we have, seen no signs of any kind of
conversion in Russia. In fact, if you look at the headlines in secular
news sources, you see, not a conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism,
but a persecution of the Catholic Church under the regime of Vladimir
These, I repeat, are secular news headlines. The first of these is: "In
Russia: 'Liquidating' Churches." The secular news is talking about the
liquidation of churches in Russia. And this was in the Washington Post, November 14, 2000.
The article discusses the 1997 law "on freedom of conscience"-----the
Stalinist notion of freedom of conscience. This law, and I'm quoting
from the article, "restricts the rights, powers and privileges of
smaller or newer, or foreign religious communities"
-----and one of those is the Roman Catholic
Church-----"while giving special status to Russia's
Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. It also creates an
onerous and intrusive registration process." Hardly the conversion of
Russia to Roman Catholicism.
Let's look at the next headline: "Russian Bishop Expelled".
The article states: "A Catholic bishop has been expelled from Russia.
The action, coming soon after the refusal to review/renew the visa of a
Catholic priest serving near Moscow, seems to signal a Russian government crackdown on the
The expelled bishop was Jerzy Mazur, the Bishop of Siberia, where the
majority of Russian Catholics still reside. He was expelled because as
he himself put it, he was considered a "danger to the Russian
Federation." Why? He was never told why. (FIDES/ CWNews.com April 20,
Here is our next headline: "Russia: Previously Unpublished Case Brings
Number of Expelled Catholics to Seven". This is an article in the
Keston news service, (September 17, 2002) talking about the expulsion
of seven non-Russian Catholic clerics. Seven doesn't seem like a large
number until you consider the fact that the Catholic apparatus in
Russia is minuscule. These seven expulsions basically gutted the
Catholic apparatus in Russia in terms of the non-Russian born priests.
In addition to the Bishop of Siberia, Bishop Mazur, there were also
expelled: Father Stefano Caprio, Father Jaroslaw Wisniewski, Father
Stanislav Krajnak, and Father Eduard Mackiewicz. The article states:
"In February of last year, another foreign Catholic priest, who had
been working in Russia, Polish citizen Father Stanislaw Opiela was
similarly refused an entry visa." Fr. Opiela was the secretary of the
Russian bishops' conference. Keston news service goes on to say that a
Catholic monk, Brother Bruno, was also expelled, although he had been
working in Russia from 1992 to 2002. That brings the total to seven.
Keston notes that "Bruno had been informed by the Russian security
services in March that he had not been granted an entry visa because he
was deemed a danger to the Russian Federation." Remember the Russian
security services? They're still at work. They simply have a different
name. They used to be the KGB, now they're the FSB.
Does anyone see a conversion of Russia in this development?
Here is our next headline: "Religious Liberty in Russia Is in Serious
Danger." That's the so-called "mainstream" National Catholic Register (April
28 -----May 5, 2002) reporting this-----a
newspaper that might be inclined to say "Why worry about this
Consecration of Russia business?" In this article Archbishop
Kondrusiewicz, who is the Apostolic Administrator of the Catholic
Church in Russia states: "Catholics in Russia ask themselves: What will
happen next? Are the constitutional guarantees valid also for them,
including liberty of conscience and of the right to have their own
pastors, which comprises inviting them from abroad, not forgetting that
for 81 years the Catholic Church was deprived of the right of forming
and ordaining its own priests?"
And the Archbishop goes on to say: "The expulsion of a Catholic bishop"-----meaning Bishop Masur -----"who has not violated any law,
surpasses all imaginable limits of
civilized relations between the State and the Church."
This is the conversion of Russia? A government that has surpassed all
imaginable limits of civilized relations between the State and the
Church? don't think so. So much for the conversion of Russia to Roman
Catholicism, which is what Our Lady called for. But some say, in their
desperation: "At least there's been a conversion back to Russian
Orthodoxy in Russia!" It isn't so. Let's look at the next headline,
"Russian Orthodox Church Failing to Reach Youth".
This headline tells us that the Russian Orthodox Church is failing to
reach the youth of that country. The article states that 94 percent of Russians aged 18 to 29 do
not go to church. There is no conversion to Russian Orthodoxy in
Russia. (Zenit, December 22,
But let's examine this claim that Our Lady came to convert Russia to
Russian Orthodoxy. It's utterly preposterous. The Message of Fatima is
all about the Immaculate Heart of Mary, about the worldwide
confirmation and affirmation
of probably the most specifically Catholic dogma of all: the Immaculate
Conception. The Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart was to
be seen by the world, when Russia has converted, as a sign of the
triumph of the Immaculate Heart, a dogma that the Orthodox Church
does not recognize. And besides, in 1917, when the Fatima apparitions
occurred, Russia was already an
The notion that Our Lady of Fatima is Our Lady of the Orthodox is
offensive to the Catholic religion and an insult to the Mother of God
and Her Divine Son. Our Lady did not come to Fatima to offend the
Catholic religion, but to confirm it gloriously with the triumph of
Her Immaculate Heart.
No Moral Conversion
Now some say that at least we have seen a moral conversion in
since the 1984 ceremony, and that this is the sign that the 1984
ceremony corresponds to Our Lady's request. We are told there has been
a moral revolution in Russia. Communism has fallen. Just look at the
transformation of that country, they tell us.
What about this claim? Well, the basic sign of a moral people is that
they are fruitful and multiply in keeping with God's commandment to
Adam and Eve. The people are not fruitful and they are not multiplying
in Russia. And once again, the secular news sources tell us that.
Headline: "Russia's population is set to decline from 143,000,000 today
to 111,000,000 in 2050."
Why? Ask Matt Rosenberg, not a Catholic
journalist, reporting at "about. com" May 31, 2006: "The primary causes
of Russia's population decrease in loss of about 700,000 to 800,000
citizens each year are: a high death rate, low birth rate, high rate of
abortions and a low level of immigration." He goes on to say,
primary causes of Russia's population decrease are alcohol-related
deaths, which are very high in Russia. Russian life expectancy is low.
The life of Russian men: 59 years, the average life expectancy.
Russia's total fertility rate is low, at about 1.3 births per woman. "
In Russia, says Mr. Rosenberg, there are 13 abortions for every 10 live
births. That's a holocaust, going on right now in Russia.
So, as a result, Russia's population will be cut in half by the end of
Who said that? President Putin
said that, as reported in
Moscow News June 20, 2006.
There's the graph.
By 2100, the Russian population of 143,000,000 will
be down to 71,500,000-----if the world
has not been destroyed by then.
No Political Conversion
What about a political conversion in Russia? At least we're told
there's been a political conversion. There's been a transformation.
Communism has fallen. Now we have democracy
in Russia. No, we don't. And, once again, the secular news sources give
us the facts-----and they have no agenda that's
can assure you. Let's look at the headlines once again: "Russian
Parliament Gives Final Approval to Putin's Bill on Governors".
This was reported in Moscow News
March 12, 2004. This is an interesting
little scheme that Vladimir Putin has devised. The Russian Parliament
passed the bill that gives him the power to appoint governors instead
of popular elections of governors. He nominates the governors and
then the local legislators approve them. And what happens if the
local legislators don't approve the governors that Mr. Putin chooses?
He gives them another chance. If they don't approve of the governor
he has chosen, he can simply dissolve the legislature in that locality
and replace it with a new legislature that will give him the governor
that he wants. Or he can take a shortcut and simply appoint the
governor against the wishes of the local legislature.
Quite simply, Vladimir Putin is the dictator of Russia today. And
secular news outlets-----on and on, in headline after
To take another example, Putin is now using legislation enacted by the
Duma, which essentially is his puppet, that allows the central
government to scrutinize the activity of all foreign and domestic
charities. The central government has the authority, basically, to
abolish any charity that Mr. Putin doesn't like. Who told us this? The New York Times, November 25,
2005. Even the secular news can see that Putin is no democrat.
Russian authorities, just like the old days, have halted the broadcasts
of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Bye-bye. "After Putin
became president," Moscow News
tells us, "on July 17,2006, the country's major TV channels, the most
important media because of their
audience reach, were brought under State control or shut down."
Putin Muzzles All Opposition
Hello, Catholic world. Putin is muzzling any voice of
so-called democratic Russia. The same article goes on to say that
"State-controlled or friendly businesses have been buying up newspapers
and radio stations." They're all owned by Vladimir Putin's
state-controlled or state-friendly businesses. "And outside of Moscow
and St. Petersburg," the article goes on to say, "media outlets
routinely come under the sway of local governors who"-----wouldn't you
know it-----"are appointed by Mr. Putin. Most
of them are loyal to the
Kremlin." I would say that all of them are.
As a result of all this "democracy" in Russia, there has been a ratings
change on the state of liberty in Russia from an outfit called Freedom House. Reporting in 2005, Freedom House stated
that Russia's political rights rating had declined from 5 to 6, and its
status from "partly free" to "not free" due to-----and I emphasize this-----"the virtual elimination of
influential political opposition parties
within the country and the further concentration of executive power."
There's no longer any political opposition to Mr. Putin in Russia. And
as Freedom House
goes on to say: "During 2004, President Vladimir Putin took further
steps toward the consolidation of executive authority by increasing
pressure on opposing political parties and civil society, strengthening
State control over national broadcast media, pursuing politically
driven prosecutions of independent business leaders and academics."
Freedom House further notes that "the government also announced
constitutional changes"-----which I've just mentioned-----"that will make
governors appointed rather than elected officials". And there's
something else he has in the works. He plans to take over, as the
article says, "direct control of the hiring and dismissal of judges."
And furthermore, Russians, Freedom
concludes, "cannot change their government democratically, particularly
in light of the State's far-reaching control of broadcast media and the
growing harassment of opposition parties and their financial backers."
Finally we find this article in the The
New York Times (May 9, 2006)
talking about Dick Cheney as the pot and Putin as the kettle, saying in
its text: "Vladimir Putin has indeed reversed the democratizing courses
that were set clumsily and incompletely by Boris Yeltsin"-----who, of
course, wasn't going to democratize Russia either-----"and he is using
Russia's vast reservoirs of oil and gas as tools of intimidation and
Now, let me stop right here. I am no fan of "democracy." If Vladimir
Putin wanted to anoint himself the Catholic king of Russia tomorrow and
would recognize, as King St. Louis did, the principle of subsidiarity,
and if the Russian people embraced their new Catholic king in a state
of conversion to the Faith, I'd be overjoyed.
I am not suggesting that
Russia has not converted if it does not become a democracy. What I am saying is that even by the
world's standards, Russia has not converted because Russia has not
become even a democracy.
So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with no conversion of any
kind in Russia. No religious conversion, no moral conversion, no
Russia Prepares For War
But what about the last desperate argument of the defenders of the 1982
and 1984 consecration ceremonies? They tell us that Russia has
"converted to peace." Why, her weapons of war have been beaten into
plowshares and a new era of peace is upon us. So say Father Fox and a
few others who are willfully blind to reality.
Yet again, the secular news sources tell us that it simply isn't so.
There has been no conversion to peace in Russia. We have, instead, a
conversion to more efficient warfare. And that begins with the
Sino-Russian Alliance that has arisen since "the fall of Communism."
News Max Sunday, January 13,
2002, tells us that Mr. Putin approved a ground-breaking treaty with
China. Under this treaty, we have the practical formalization of the
military alliance between Moscow and Beijing. The article notes that
the Chinese strategic ballistic missile forces "over the next 15 years
will range from 75 to 100 warheads deployed
primarily against the United States."
And Russia is providing military assistance to Red China at this very
moment. In fact, the two powers held a massive joint drill to display
their alliance to the world. The headline: "China, Russia Hold Joint
Military Exercises." National Public
Radio, morning edition August 18,
2005. And this is what National
has to say: "Russian and Chinese forces began 8 days of joint military
exercises, including 10,000 troops. Moscow and Beijing say they are
training to counter terrorism, extremism and separatism." The only
problem was, they were deploying, in mock fashion, long-range ballistic
weapons. They're going to launch ICBM's against domestic terrorists,
we're asked to believe. "But, the long-range weaponry involved," says
NPR, "suggests a broader agenda."
Indeed it does.
And what is that broader agenda? What about these weapons? Here is
another headline. This one from Associated
"Putin Touts Russia's Missile Capabilities." The article, dated
January 31, 2006, reports that "President Putin boasted Tuesday that
Russia has missiles capable of penetrating any missile defense
system. They have tested missile systems that no one in the world has."
Quoting Mr. Putin at a press conference, the article goes on to state:
"These missile systems are hypersonic and capable of changing their
Under the Fatima Curse
A conversion to peace in Russia? Utter nonsense. And I'm told, by the
way, that North Korea tested a nuclear device this morning (October 9,
2006). There hasn't been a conversion of any kind in Russia since 1984.
None whatsoever. And I ask you: "Is this the triumph of the Immaculate
Heart of Mary?" Or is it rather something that you could call the
Fatima curse, the scourge of Fatima's Message unheeded?
What does God do when He sends a prophet to ask a certain thing of His
subjects and they fail to obey the prophet of God? He chastises them
for their disobedience to the prophet. We see this throughout salvation
history. What does that mean for us today?
Well, let me pick up on a theme that Edwin Faust was exploring. This is
suggested to me by his remarks. We in the West especially have an
illusion of continuity about our way of life. We like our gadgets,
our amusements, our whole way of life, and we think that it will go on
forever. We are like the Romans of decadent Rome, of whom St. Paul
said: "They sat down to eat and rose up to play." We take it for
granted that the sun will rise, that the planets will stay in their
orbits, that civilization will not be destroyed by some calamity. But
the truth of it is, everything around us is maintained in existence as
part of a continuing Divine miracle, and the wrath of God will upset
that divinely appointed order of things, from time to time as it did
during the Flood. And as it will again, if the Message of Fatima is not
Let us consider the message of Our Lady of Akita, given
in Japan in
1973. Cardinal Ratzinger has personally affirmed to the Ambassador of
the Philippines, Howard Dee, that the Message of Fatima and the Message
of Akita are "essentially the same."
What did Our Lady of Akita say?
On October 13, 1973, the very anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at
Fatima, She said: ". . . if men do not repent and better themselves,
Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be
a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one
will never have seen before. Fire
will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity,
the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The
survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the
Our Lady said this in Japan, which has had the experience of fire
raining down from the heavens-----a most appropriate
place for Our Lady to
warn of that calamity. And what does the published portion of the Third
Secret show us? It shows us destroying flames issuing forth from the
hands of an avenging Angel. We don't have the text of what Our Lady
said about that vision, but the vision itself clearly suggests what our
fate will be.
The Facts, The Choice, The Consequences
So, I came here today to give you some of the facts. And the facts are
overwhelmingly in favor of the proposition that Our Lady asked for the
Consecration of Russia, not the world, and that Russia has simply not
been consecrated. And now we are facing what Our Lady of Fatima warned
us would be the consequences for failing to do as She requested, the
suffering of the Church and the annihilation of various nations.
The opponents of the case I have made today don't have any facts. They
don't have a case at all. What they have is a mindless appeal to
authority. "The Pope has said that Russia was consecrated, and that's
the end of the matter" they assure us. But the Pope never said that, as
I have shown you. "A consecration of the world is just as good as a
Consecration of Russia", they insist, without any evidence to support
that ridiculous contention. You can't consecrate Russia without
Those who say the Consecration of Russia was done in 1982 and 1984
haven't a leg to stand on. And if they came before you today they could
not defend their position against the facts as I have presented them
to you. And as I stand here today, time is running out for the doing
of what must be done.
Only the Bishops Can Stop the Chastisement
To you among this audience who are descendants of the Apostles
themselves-----of St. James, whose sacred remains you
saw at Santiago-----I
can only say that you have it within your power-----and only you, in union
with the Pope-----to avert the catastrophe that Our
Lady warned would be
the consequence of failing to heed Her requests. That is why we held
this Conference. I am hoping, I am praying, I am begging each of you to
go back to your diocese and light a fire that will spread throughout
the Catholic world for the Consecration of Russia in the manner that
the Mother of God requested. Thank you.
[The 2006 World Bishops Conference
in Tuy, Spain, October 6, 2006]