The Facts Prove:
Russia Has NOT
by Christopher A. Ferrara
As I come before you today, I 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 to 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 episcopacy a 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 lie.
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 source.
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, 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 Umberto, never. 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 Obedience
Yet, in her letter to Pius XII, Sister Lucy had referred also to 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 of Russia.
March 19, 1983
Sister Lucy to the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Portalupi, Dr. Lacerda, and Father Messias Coelho:
“In the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration ...
“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 See."
The Alleged Consecrations of 1982, 1984
Now, what does this mean for the consecration ceremonies that 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 should be 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 See.”
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 request.
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 cannot 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 specified.
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 that 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 Romano.
You see the arrow pointing to an English translation of 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 Russia? Why would he add these words spontaneously to the text? One might quibble. One might say this is just a verbal artefact, that his meaning is not clear, that the translation might not be faithful, and so forth.
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.
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 Vatican, 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 especially in need of help!
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 — to 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 requested 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 religious 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 Putin.
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 'traditional' religions — primarily 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 Catholic Church.”
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, 2002.)
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 Opielawas 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? I 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, 2002)
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 Orthodox country.
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 Russia 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, “the 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 the century. 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 pro-Fatima, I 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 headline — confirm that.
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 opposition in 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 House 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 blackmail.”
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 political conversion.
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 Public Radio 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 Press: “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 flight plans.”
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 heeded.
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, the 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 dead.”
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 mentioning Russia.
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.