Who is Behind the
Fatima "Multi-faith" Plan?

by Iain Colquhoun

       The proposal to turn Fatima into a multi-faith shrine may have been inspired by ‘Catholics’ communicating with other ‘Catholics’ who ultimately took their cue from the organization known as "World Conference on Religion and Peace" (WCRP). This organization is controlled by Russia and is linked with two others promoting ‘unity between the world’s religions’, namely the United Religions Initiative (URI) and the Gorbachev Foundation (GF).

       The origins of the WCRP go back to 1961 when four Americans — Dr. Dana McLean Greeley (Unitarian) along with a leading Rabbi, a Methodist minister, and a Catholic Bishop — set up an organization called ‘Religions for Peace’. This became WCRP in 1970.

       The origins of the WCRP in 1961 coincided with when the Russian Orthodox Church took part in the World Council of Churches (WCC) and used ‘ecumenism’ to promote Soviet policies.

       In many ways the WCRP now fulfils the WCC’s objectives, in that it promotes a ‘one world religion’ as a means towards a ‘one world state’. Significantly in recent years the WCC also promoted syncretism (a kind of blending of all religions). Thus at its 1983 Assembly it gave voting rights to pagan religions, equating them with Christianity, and it employed pagan ceremonies at its gatherings. Thus in this respect the two bodies are similar.

       What other salient facts can one adduce? Firstly, we now know that the WCC operated as a Soviet ‘front’. The Kremlin took control of it from 1961, through the introduction of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Eastern bloc churches. First the Soviets set up a ‘church front’ called ‘Christian Peace Conference’ (CPC), which comprised Eastern bloc churchmen along with Protestant ministers in the West who supported Soviet aims. It was controlled by the KGB agent Alexei S. Bujevsky, who was also on the WCC Executive Committee.¹

       It is clear that when the ROC et al entered the WCC at its 1961 Assembly, they formed a working majority with Third World churches, enabling Russia to control the WCC: hence, its support for Soviet foreign policy and its refusal to condemn Russia for its persecution of Christians.

       Bujevsky sat on the Executives of both CPC and WCC ², and was evidently the KGB controller both of CPC and the WCC. He was still in this role in the 1980’s when the WCC changed from promoting merely ‘Christian unity’ to promoting syncretism. But Bujevsky could not have originated that strategy, but would have been merely following orders that ultimately derived from the head of State, who at that time was President Gorbachev.

       Should we not, therefore, be concerned that the same Gorbachev is now running a ‘Foundation’ that also promotes syncretism? And that it is closely linked to the WCRP? And that Alexei S. Bujevsky features in the correspondence of the man who launched WCRP, Dr. Dana McLean Greeley.³ In other words, in those early years Greeley was in contact with the very man that Gorbachev used to turn the WCC into a vehicle for syncretism.

       There are several pointers as to whether the WCRP is a ‘front’. Firstly, it has objectives that are compatible with a ‘Russian-led organization’ — namely, the Gorbachev Foundation. Both seek to ‘unite all religions’ in the cause of ‘world peace’. In the 80’s the Russians exploited the idea of ‘peace’ when what it signified was — Western nuclear disarmament. Significantly, at that time the WCRP was actively involved in pursuing the cause of disarmament through its links with the United Nations.⁴

       (It is relevant to point out that the WCRP and the URI are supported by the United Nations and both have representatives within its headquarters.)

       There are many similarities in the way WCC and the WCRP operate. Both are supposedly ‘worldwide’ organizations, when in fact they owe their existence to the activities of a few people. As I reveal on my website www.solvesecret.com (item 2), the ‘World’ Council of Churches was launched by a mere 35 people, while, as stated, the WCRP was set up by four! This suggests the existence of an ‘ancillary force’, which takes up the new body and provides it with a membership. One clue we have is in the aims and practices of the two bodies.

       When we look at the WCC and WCRP, we can see that they promote syncretism in pursuit of a ‘one world state’, reject the Gospel, and lend themselves to the socialist revolution. In this they correlate with the aims of Masonry, so it is logical to postulate that the WCC and WCRP are inspired by Freemasonry. So the Masonic links are another common factor.

       The above suggest that the WCRP is a ‘front’ for Russia. But the most decisive point is surely that a multi-faith facility at the Fatima shrine will effectively undermine the Message of Fatima. Who else but the Russians have a vested interest and thus a motive?

       Finally — as to the Gorbachev Foundation. What is its profile? Is it a ‘hard-line organization’? In its ‘State of the World Forum’ in 1995 it accused ‘religious institutions’ (implying the Roman Catholic Church) of ‘responsibility for the population explosion’. At its 1996 Forum, Hans Küng proposed a ‘new humanist global ethic’. Both these ‘calls’ effectively attack and undermine the Roman Catholic Church. Clearly it is indeed a ‘hard-line organization’ — the significance being that that very aggression towards the Roman Catholic Church makes it the most likely origin of the current multi-faith plans at Fatima.

References:

1. Bujevsky’s role in directing the propaganda activities of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Christian Peace Conference (CPC) is established through (a) The Russian Orthodox Church by Jane Ellis, published by Croom Helm, London 1986, page 266, which names A.S. Bujevsky as ‘lay secretary’, i.e. Kremlin appointee, to the ROC’s Department of External Church Relations — the bureau which ran its propaganda activities, and (b) The ‘CPC Information Bulletin’ of May 1968, Praha 1, Jungmannova 9, Czechoslovakia — which lists Bujevsky on its ‘International Secretariat’.

2. ‘The Gospel According to Marx’ by Joseph Harriss in the Feb ‘93 Reader’s Digest reveals from Soviet sources that Bujevsky sat on the WCC Executive and in that position controlled many of its policies in line with those of the Soviet Union.

3. ‘The Dana McLean Greeley Papers, World Conference on Religion and Peace’ (see catalogue on the Internet) — lists correspondence from Bujevsky.

4. ‘WCRP RECORDS’ 1967-84 (also on the net) which state ‘Since the establishment of its headquarters near the United Nations in New York, WCRP has been a close observer of U.N. discussion and activity, particularly in the areas of disarmament (etc.) … after being granted Consultative Status (Category II) with ECOSOC (the UN Economic and Social Council) in 1973, WCRP and its representatives were given certain privileges to … attempt to influence the policies of the UN’.

Return to
Table of Contents