Our Lady told us in the Third Secret of Fatima that errors against the faith would be spread within the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger who has read the Third Secret has stated publicly the Third Secret refers to "the dangers threatening the faith" (interview with Vittorio Messori in "Jesus" magazine November 1984).

The faithful need to be warned that in a number of parishes, even in a number of dioceses, there are wolves in sheep's clothing (some nuns, priests and bishops) who will lead them to hell.

This article of Father Rueda first published in the Wanderer on March 23, 1989, illustrates the fact that indeed the faithful must be allowed to know the Third Secret so that they can protect their souls in these days of apostasy.

We urge you to prayerfully read this article and then join in our campaign to allow Sister Lucy to speak before she dies and to have the Third Secret officially revealed. This campaign is necessary especially for those youth who never were properly taught the Catholic faith (because their school text books, their teachers and their parish priests and bishops) were all modernist corrupters of morality. Join us so that they will finally and authoritatively be allowed to hear the truth from the Mother of God Herself, through the Third Secret of Fatima.

       The symptoms of the ideological decomposition of our Church are plain for all to see. The real problem, it should be said, is not that Roman Catholic theology is in a state of crisis. Roman Catholics know where they need to look for the saving truth of the Gospel. Theological corruption is found in the minds of the trendy theologians who constitute the intellectual backbone of Modernism.

       Recent statements by Fathers Bernard Haering, Charles Curran, and Richard McBrien illustrate the nature of the problems. The first statement is the call of Father Bernard Haering for a rethinking of the birth control controversy.

       A retired Redemptorist professor at the Alphonsianum, Fr. Haering is known for his inability to support the teachings of the Church on contraception. Well, Father Haering is upset because the Holy Father is uncompromising in his giving witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this matter. He is also very upset because Msgr. Carlo Caffarra, the head of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family Studies at the Lateran University and a defender of Catholic orthodoxy, wields considerable influence at the Vatican.

       An analysis of Father Haering's recent proposal helps uncover the root of our problems:

       Father Haering proposes the naming of a commission "beyond any suspicion" to conduct a wide consultation with theologians, bishops, and laypeople within and outside the Church. We have to ask ourselves: What does he mean by "beyond any suspicion"? Suspicion of what, of being loyal to the Holy Father, of accepting the Tradition of the Church? Are we talking about people who have no opinion? In this matter you are either orthodox, heterodox, or ignorant. Moreover, is this a way of discovering truth? Are we going to decide who is right by consensus? Pope Paul VI already had a commission "beyond any suspicion" and we know what happened. We sowed winds and are now reaping storms.

       Father Haering also complains about the Holy See keeping lists of people who are not orthodox in this matter, presumably to deny them important or influential appointments. The only thing that is wrong with those lists is that they are not public. Why should the Church place people who are bent on promoting sexual corruption and the destruction of the family in positions of responsibility?

       We already have tried Father Haering's version of "openness." For many years the Holy See tolerated the teaching of immorality at Catholic University by Father Charles Curran. An entire generation of some of our most brilliant seminarians were sent to Catholic University where they were corrupted by Curran. In many other seminaries the same ideas were promoted by so-called moral theologians, if they were not formal followers of Curranism, at least agreed with the ideas of this high priest of free-for-all sexuality. Meanwhile, the Bishops of the American Catholic Church looked the other way and kept sending their seminarians to Catholic University. And for years, even the Holy See remained silent. The cries for help by laypeople who instinctively knew that something was very wrong were ignored. What are the results? People now cannot take for granted that they will get sound moral advice from their priest. If you are not careful, you might even get soundly immoral advice from the confessional.

       Father Haering compares the arguments between opponents and supporters of contraception to the conflict between Saints Peter and Paul in Antioch. The comparison is patently offensive to the dignity of the Holy See. You might recall that the incident in Antioch took place when St. Paul realized that St. Peter was in error by refusing to fraternize with fellow Christians who had converted from paganism. With rightful indignation, St. Paul confronted St. Peter and forced him to act righteously. The problem today more closely resembles the conflict between Arius and Athanasius; Arius was a heretic and Athanasius was defending the Catholic Tradition. As we all know, Athanasius won, not because he was a better debater, but because Jesus is God. Today we know that, although the theologians and experts in the commission named by Pope Paul VI were better at organizing a theological argument, they were dead wrong, and their ideas did not prevail simply because to use contraception is against the very nature of things.

       Worse still, Father Haering gives the following as his central argument: "The crucial point is not whether artificial or natural methods are used to space births, but how a couple comes to a decision to responsibly transmit life." Do you get the point? The morality of the behavior is not based on the objective nature of the action, but on the subjective process used by the individual to arrive at his decision.*

       Many years ago I was forced to deny absolution to a penitent who insisted in continuing an illicit sexual relationship on the basis that she loved this other person and "the nuns at College XXX taught us that loving with your boyfriend is OK so long as you did it for a loving reason." Do you see the same faulty reasoning? I tried and tried to persuade the lady that she was wrong and that, although intention does also determine the subjective responsibility, the foundation of morality is whether the intended action is in itself right or wrong. I came out of the confessional with a heavy heart, in the knowledge that perhaps this lady was not so much at fault as the so-called nun who had taught her how to behave immorally in the name of love.

       For the life of me, I see no difference between Father Haering's reasoning and that of the nun who corrupted my young penitent. What irks me most is that they do their evil work in the name of morality and the love of people. As they pluck the last vestiges of rational ethics from the hearts of their victims, they continue to insist that it is all done for their own good, and for yours and mine, too.

       As I began this article, I wasn't sure whether to start with Father Haering or to feature first the examples of Fathers McBrien and Curran, whose errors in this case are more theoretical in nature. I decided that, although in an intellectual sense, theories and ideas precede practical matters, in truth the corruption of behavior comes prior to any error in the understanding. Another time, however, I will try to show how Father Curran's idea of academic freedom and Father McBrien's notion of theological methodology also illustrate the nature of our crisis.

       * Editor's Note: By making the subjective process the basis of morality, anyone could justify anything as long as it agreed with Haering's (or anyone else's) method for coming to a decision. By this so-called morality, murder, pre-marital impurity, infidelity, rape, stealing, etc. could be justified. Thus, Modernist corrupters of morality are telling our people things like the following: "you can use contraceptives as long as you do it with kindness, 'unselfishly', etc. You can kill babies by abortions as long as you need to, to save your reputation, your family's reputation, or economic position, etc." This is evil. It is the doctrine of the devil. This corrupt thinking destroys all morality.

Return to
Table of Contents