NEW Website Coming:  Days |  Hours |  Minutes |  Seconds

  1. Happy Easter

  2. Dallas/Fort Worth, TX

  3. New Site Coming

  4. On Borrowed Time



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:

  • Sister Lucy’s September 1985 Interview in Sol de Fatima, the Blue Army’s Official Publication in Spain:

    Question: "John Paul II had invited all the bishops to join in the consecration of Russia, which he was going to make at Fatima on May 13, 1982, and which he was to renew at the end of the Holy Year in Rome on March 25, 1984, before the original statue of Our Lady of Fatima. Has he not therefore done what was requested at Tuy?"

    Sister Lucy: "There was no participation of all the bishops and there was no mention of Russia."

    Question: "So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?"

    Sister Lucy: "No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act."

  • Sister Lucy’s 1983 Statement to the Papal Nuncio:

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."

  • Sister Lucy’s Testimony to Father Umberto, Published in L’Osservatore Romano:

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:

    At a certain moment I said to her: "Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you ... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?" "No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)."18

  • Sister Lucy’s Handwritten Letter Confirming Her Testimony to Father Umberto:

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.

  • Sister Lucy’s 1982 Statement to the Papal Nuncio:

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:

    Sister Lucy explained that the Pope must choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and Consecration of Russia ...20

  • Sister Lucy’s 1957 Statement to Father Fuentes:

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

    Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. ... The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. ... Tell them, Father, that many times the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation."21

  • Sister Lucy’s 1946 Testimony to Historian William Thomas Walsh:

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:

    Finally we came to the important subject of the second July secret, of which so many different and conflicting versions have been published. Lucy made it plain that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart. What She demanded specifically was the consecration of Russia. She did not comment, of course, on the fact that Pope Pius XII had consecrated the world, not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart in 1942. But she said more than once, and with deliberate emphasis: "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. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the world."

    "Does this mean, in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by communism?"

Sister Lucy responded: "Yes."21a

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

    "Sister Lucia answered: ‘Yes.’ "21b

    Father Guerra, 
    one of Fr. Fox's Associates Attacking Fatima

    Pictured above on the left is Frère François, author of the scholarly work, Fatima: Intimate Joy World Event. On the right is the Rector of the Fatima Shrine, Father Luciano Guerra - the same one that ALLOWS worship services to pagan gods in the Fatima Sanctuary at the very spot Our Lady appeared. He even APPROVES of it publicly. It is this same Guerra that Fr. Fox defends.

    In this historical photo at the Paul VI Center in Fatima, at noon, October 12, 1992, at the end of the closing session of the first International Pastoral Conference in Fatima, Frère François confronts the Rector, Father Luciano Guerra. "Monsignor Rector, can you swear on the Gospel that you have not written the apocryphal letters of Sister Lucy?" Father Guerra: "No, I do not want to. I cannot do it now in these conditions ..." Frère François: "Internal criticism of these letters shows that they are fake." Father Guerra: "I will not discuss with you. You have no heart ... you have no heart."

    What Happened in 1989?

    Why would Fr. Fox suddenly declare in 1989 that the consecration of Russia did not need to mention Russia, when this change of position was contrary to Sister Lucy’s unvarying testimony, not to mention common sense itself? Why, in 1989, did we begin to see computer-generated letters suddenly reversing Sister Lucy’s previous testimony and purportedly signed by her, when Sister Lucy had written everything else in her life entirely by hand?

    The answer appears to lie in a dictate emanating from the anti-Fatima elements of the Vatican bureaucracy, most probably the Secretary of State, some time during the period 1988-89. As the renowned Fatima scholar Frère François recounts: "[A]n order came from the Vatican addressed to the authorities of Fatima, to Sister Lucy, to diverse ecclesiastics, including Father Messias Coelho, and a French priest [evidently Fr. Pierre Caillon] very much devoted to Our Lady, ordering everyone to cease pestering the Holy Father with the Consecration of Russia." Fatima devotee Father Caillon confirmed that "An order came from Rome, obliging everyone to say and think: ‘The Consecration is done. The Pope having done all that he can, Heaven has deigned to agree to this gesture.’"22

    Coincidentally enough, it was not until the time of the Vatican’s order that Fr. Fox abruptly began vigorously promoting the line that Russia had been consecrated without even being mentioned, and that Russia was "converting." As he claimed in the October- November 1989 issue of his magazine, the consecration of the world had been "accepted" by God in place of the consecration of Russia, and "We see signs of a beginning of God’s keeping His word." Fifteen years later, Fr. Fox is still proclaiming the "beginning" of Russia’s conversion, even as the condition of Russian society and the Catholic Church in Russia continues to decline.

    Given that the consecration of the world took place in early 1984, why did Fr. Fox wait until late 1989 — more than five years — to begin a campaign to persuade us that this consecration was "accepted" by Heaven? The conclusion is inescapable: the Vatican Secretary of State had just dictated the new party line on Fatima — i.e., Russia is consecrated; Fatima is finished. In fact, it was in 1989 that Father Gruner’s bishop at the time (the Bishop of Avellino) first notified him of "worried signals" from the Vatican Secretary of State concerning Father Gruner’s Fatima apostolate, which was not following the party line but rather was continuing to maintain (as it has to this day) that Russia was not consecrated in 1984.

    Still No Answer from Fr. Fox

    To this day, Fr. Fox has failed to address the challenge issued to him by Father Kramer and The Fatima Crusader — in 1990 and 1992 — to explain the purported sudden reversal in Sister Lucy’s unvarying prior testimony on what the Consecration of Russia requires.22a Fr. Fox has not answered the challenge because he has no answer.

    Instead, Fr. Fox has signed on to the neo-modernist, "ecumenical" version of the Consecration: a ceremony in which everything but Russia is mentioned. Hence, since 1984 we have seen not only a consecration of the world, but (on October 8, 2000) a consecration to Mary, called an "act of entrustment," of a whole list of beneficiaries but excluding any specific mention of Russia: "all people," "the babies yet unborn," "those born into poverty and suffering," "the young in search of meaning," "the unemployed," "those suffering hunger and disease," "all troubled families," "the elderly with no one to help them," and "all who are alone and without hope."

    No one could argue that consecrating (or "entrusting") all these different groups to Mary is a bad thing. On the contrary, it is a good thing. But here we see another neo-modernist technique at work: emphasizing one good in order to obscure another they wish to hide — as, for example, when the neo-modernist speaks incessantly of God’s mercy in order to obscure His justice, or the humanity of Christ in order to obscure His divinity. By consecrating everything and anything on the face of the earth but the one thing Our Lady asked to be consecrated, the purveyors of the neo-modernist version of Fatima endeavor to make us forget the reason Our Lady came to earth in the first place: to call for Russia’s conversion as the harbinger of the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart and peace in the world. And now Fr. Fox joins in this neo-modernist obfuscation of the simple truth of Fatima.

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

    By signing on to the neo-modernist "consecration of Russia," Fr. Fox commits himself to defending the neo-modernist version of Russia’s supposed "conversion" since 1984.

    In his article irrelevantly headlined "Father Gruner — a suspended Catholic priest," Fr. Fox himself concedes that "there are still wars, violence in the world and Russia is far from converted." Fr. Fox then notes the objection no doubt posed to him by many of his own supporters: "If the Consecration is Accomplished, Why is Russia Not Converted?" Rather than answering the objection, Fr. Fox rhetorically sneers at those "who hold to a position that a paradise on earth, a Russia suddenly turning itself into a people of converted holiness and even as Roman Catholics must immediately follow a Collegial Consecration."

    Fr. Fox has signed on to the neo-modernist, "ecumenical" version of the Consecration: a ceremony in which everything but Russia is mentioned.

    In other words, Fr. Fox, driving a dagger through the heart of the Fatima Message, maintains that Our Lady of Fatima did not promise the twin miracle of a period of world peace and the conversion of Russia to the Catholic religion. According to Fr. Fox, Our Lady promised nothing more than what we see today: no world peace, and no conversion of the Russian people. But if that were so, what was the point of the Fatima apparitions? Did the Mother of God come to earth and call down the Miracle of the Sun only to announce that miracles would not happen immediately upon the fulfillment of Her requests? What sort of nonsense is this? It is neo-modernist nonsense, which affirms and denies Fatima at one and the same time.

    As Fr. Fox knows very well, however, Our Lady’s intervention on earth did in fact produce the miraculous conversion of the entire nation of Mexico. Some nine million souls lost in the darkness of paganism were baptized and received into the Catholic Church over the short span of only nine years following the apparitions of Our Lady of Guadalupe in 1531. Yet twenty years after a "consecration of Russia" in which Russia was never mentioned, Fr. Fox informs us that we cannot expect Our Lady to produce a similar miracle in Russia — or indeed, to convert any considerable number of Russians to the Catholic Faith! And this, mind you, is the man who portrays himself as the great champion of Our Lady of Fatima and the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart.

    When one thinks about it for a moment, one realizes that what Fr. Fox is really arguing is that God is unable to bring about the miraculous conversion of Russia. His vision clouded by the ecumenical fog that has bedeviled the Church for the past forty years, Fr. Fox implicitly denies the power of God Himself.

    Compare Fr. Fox with the shining example of Fr. Leonid Feodorov (1879-1935), who journeyed to Rome when he was still a Russian Orthodox theology student and was united to the Catholic Church at the Gesu on July 31, 1902 — fifteen years before Our Lady of Fatima came to ask all the Russian Orthodox to follow Feodorov’s example. Feodorov was ordained a Catholic priest and elevated to head the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church in Russia as its Exarch, only to be sentenced to ten years in prison by the Bolsheviks in 1923 for the "crime" of promoting the reunion of the Orthodox with Rome. Concerning his sentence Fr. Feodorov declared: "It is all one to me whether I am shot or I am sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment; yet I am no fanatic. Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

    Could there be a more courageous soldier in the service of Our Lady of Fatima? As for Fr. Fox, he should be ashamed to call himself a Marian apostle. For, as we shall see, he uses his comfortable position in the Church to work against the return of Russia to "the only true Church," for which cause Fr. Feodorov was willing to lay down his life.

    Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, made Cardinal by Pope Paul VI, was chosen to be Pope John Paul II's personal theologian. Thus, he had access to the real Third Secret. On that subject, he wrote: "In the Third Secret (of Fatima) it is foretold, among other things, that the great Apostasy in the Church will begin at the top." For more information about this, read The Devil's Final Battle.

    Our Lady of the Russian Orthodox?

    Fr. Fox makes light of "horror stories about Russia as evidence that no Consecration was accepted by God." Glossing over the "horror stories" (which he cannot explain away) Fr. Fox cites, apparently in all seriousness, the view of Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II — a former KGB agent! — that he (Alexy) "believes" that the Russian Orthodox Church is undergoing a "rebirth." This is the same Alexy II who not long ago screamed that the Pope was "invading Russian territory" when His Holiness conducted a closed-circuit TV broadcast to a small group of Catholics in Moscow — closed-circuit because the TV stations controlled by Mr. Putin refused to broadcast images of the Pope to the Russian people at large.

    So Fr. Fox, a self-styled apostle of Fatima who loudly proclaims his loyalty to the Pope, is now suggesting that the Mother of God came to earth to bring about a "rebirth" of the Russian Orthodox Church — the same schismatic church that utterly rejects communion with the Pope and will not even allow him to visit Moscow unless the Catholic Church renounces any effort to make converts in Russia! Please, Fr. Fox! Our Lady did not come to Fatima to give aid to schismatic Russian Orthodoxy, but rather to reconcile the Russian people with the Catholic Church, as Soloviev envisioned and as we see in the historic conversion of Fr. Feodorov.

    Perhaps recognizing the absurdity of his own position, Fr. Fox attempts to claim papal authority for his neo-modernist "conversion of Russia" by claiming that John Paul II "speaks of the Orthodox as our sister Church." Wrong again, Fr. Fox. On June 9, 2000 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a doctrinal note, specifically approved by the Pope, which warns that:

    "one cannot properly say that the Catholic Church is the sister of a particular church or group of churches... Consequently, one should avoid, as a source of misunderstanding and theological confusion, the use of formulations such as our two churches which, if applied to the Catholic Church and the totality of Orthodox churches (or a single Orthodox church), imply a plurality not merely on the level of particular churches, but also on the level of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church confessed in the creed, whose real existence is thus obscured."

    So, in defending his neo-modernist rendering of the "conversion of Russia," Fr. Fox indulges in a bit of neo-modernist ecclesiology which even the relentlessly "ecumenical" Vatican apparatus was forced to condemn to avoid theological confusion — the same confusion caused by the ecumenical initiatives of certain Vatican bureaucrats, including Cardinal Kasper! (Such is the "diabolical disorientation of the Church" remarked by Sister Lucy.)

    No, Fr. Fox, the Orthodox are not the "sister Church" of the Catholic Church, since Christ founded only one Church that has no "sister". The Russian Orthodox, Fr. Fox, are schismatics, whom Our Lady of Fatima came to reconcile with the One True Church — the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church — the Church of which She is the Mother. That is what the example of Fr. Feodorov and other such brave converts teaches us. How badly you have corrupted the Message of Fatima, Fr. Fox, in your zeal to defend the Sodano party line and curry favor with the "ecumenical" Vatican bureaucrats who give you the praise of men — the respectability conferred on you by the likes of Cardinal Sodano and Cardinal Kasper. Father Gruner does not have such "respectability" — indeed, he neither wants it nor seeks it — because he, unlike you, dares to speak the truth about Fatima and its relation to the crisis in the Church and the world, a crisis you resolutely pretend does not exist while it explodes all around you.

    In any case, what you, Fr. Fox present as the "rebirth" of Russian Orthodoxy is a myth. It is well known that nearly all of those who designate themselves Russian Orthodox do not practice their religion. As The Economist noted: "Russia is suffering a crisis of faith... 94% of Russians aged 18-29 do not go to church."23 Thus it is hardly surprising that the moral degeneration of Russian society continues to accelerate: two abortions for every live birth (an average of five to six abortions for each Russian woman), rampant alcoholism and violent crime which has lowered between 1991 and 2002 the life expectancy of the average Russian male from 68 years down to 60, a burgeoning AIDS epidemic following the legalization of homosexuality by Boris Yeltsin, a flourishing child pornography industry thanks to Russia’s porn-friendly legal system (another way that Russia spreads its errors throughout the world), and so forth.24

    Even as he fails to produce any evidence of Russia’s religious conversion besides the mythical "rebirth" of schismatic, anti-Roman Russian Orthodoxy, Fr. Fox is forced to admit that "Unfortunately, the Orthodox Church in Russia still has a mentality of confidence in the state for the furtherance of religious purposes." Confidence in the regime of Vladimir Putin, the pro- abortion former head of the KGB! What more needs to be said?

    Just as Soloviev pointed out more than a hundred years ago, the Russian Orthodox Church, cut off from Rome and the universal Church, is little more than a creature of the state. Yet the non-existent "rebirth" of this state-controlled puppet Church, whose ex-KGB "patriarch" works hand-in-glove with Mr. Putin to persecute the Catholic Church, is what Fr. Fox tries to palm off on his readers as the "conversion of Russia."

    In short, the "rebirth" of Russian Orthodoxy, like Fr. Fox’s entire attempt to revise the Message of Fatima along "ecumenical" lines, is a fraud.

    And What of the Catholic 
    Church in Russia?

    Tellingly, Fr. Fox’s attack on Father Gruner avoids discussing the undeniable truth that there is no sign whatever of the conversion Our Lady actually prophesied: the conversion of the Russian people to the Catholic religion and their return to Rome. On the contrary, while Fr. Fox promotes his neo-modernist substitute for the conversion of Russia, the persecution of the Catholic Church under the Putin regime worsens with each passing day.

    Thanks to Russia’s 1997 law on "freedom of conscience," the Church’s very existence in Russia is at the sufferance of "ex-communist" Russian bureaucrats who issue the annual permits for operation of Catholic parishes, while Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism are granted legal status without need of permits. Treated as foreign missionaries, Catholic clergy are required to renew their visitor’s visas every three months in order to remain in the country. Key Catholic clerics have since been expelled following visa denials, including the very secretary of the Russian Catholic Bishops’ Conference, Father Stanislaw Opiela, who was denied an entry visa three times without explanation: "I don’t think I’ll try again. It’s just not worth it," he said. "Maybe there will be some kind of protest."25 In April of 2002, Bishop Jerzy Masur, assigned by the Vatican to administer to the vast (but sparsely populated) region of Siberia was also expelled from Russia, his entry visa confiscated without explanation. Bishop Masur learned that he had been added to a secret "list" of Catholic clergy who are considered "undesirables" and will no longer be allowed to enter Russian territory.

    Fr. Fox, driving a dagger through the heart of the Fatima Message, maintains that Our Lady of Fatima did not promise the twin miracle of a period of world peace and the conversion of Russia to the Catholic religion.

    Twenty years after the "consecration" of 1984, the Catholic Church keeps such a low profile in Russia that the Moscow office from which Archbishop Kondrusiewicz conducts Church affairs is "tucked behind a military commandant’s office and bears no signs saying it houses the Catholic Church’s Russian leadership."25a Catholics remain a tiny, benighted minority in the country; there are perhaps 500,000 nominal Catholics in a nation of 144 million people. The small percentage of Catholics who even go to Mass on Sunday (most of them in Siberia) is dependent almost entirely on non-Russian priests, whose visas can be revoked at will. In all of Russia, there are today only 200 Catholic priests of which only ten are Russian-born — vastly fewer than there were before the Bolshevik Revolution in October 1917.

    All of these developments have prompted Archbishop Kondrusiewicz to issue a formal protest on behalf of the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Russia, entitled "Religious Liberty in Russia Is in Serious Danger." The protest declares:

    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? Perhaps the State really considers Catholics second-class citizens? Are they (the State) returning to the times of persecution of the faith? ... The expulsion of a Catholic bishop who has not violated any law, surpasses all imaginable limits of civilized relations between the State and the Church. ... With grave worry, we express our decisive protest in respect to violation of the constitutional rights of Catholics.26

    Ignoring the persecution of the Catholic Church in Russia, Fr. Fox dutifully promotes the neo-modernist party line of Cardinal Sodano, according to which "conversion" as used in the Message of Fatima has been redefined to exclude any embrace of the Catholic religion. Parroting the same party line, no less than the Secretary General of the Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops of Russia, Igor Kovalesky, declared on May 6, 2004 that "There is no proselytism as a directive on the part of the Holy See, nor is there any intention to convert Russia to Roman Catholicism."27

    There we have it: the anti-Fatima elements of the Vatican bureaucracy, aided and abetted by Fr. Fox, are now diametrically opposed to God’s own design for the conversion of Russia to the Catholic faith. They openly declare that Russia shall not be Catholic. And yet these same characters, Fr. Fox included, present themselves as devotees and reliable interpreters of the Fatima Message. Cardinal Sodano’s own "interpretation" of the Third Secret, which pretends that the vision of the Pope being executed by a band of soldiers signifies John Paul II not being killed by a lone assassin in 1981, was cited no fewer than four times in Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on the Secret. Sodano’s "interpretation," like the rest of the neo-modernist revision of Fatima, has one purpose only: to relegate Fatima to the past, and to oblivion.

    No Conversion of Any Kind in Russia

    Indeed, Fr. Fox cannot show us how Russia has converted in any sense, besides a certain liberalization of the consumer economy, which is hardly what Our Lady came to announce. Despite the "fall of communism" in 1991, Russia today is an authoritarian state whose virtual dictator, Valdimir Putin, has seized control of the mass media, jailed or exiled all of his chief political opponents, banned the formation of grass roots opposition parties and prevented the emergence of an independent judiciary. As The Washington Post observed in late 2003: "We must now recognize that there has been a massive suppression of human rights and the imposition of a de facto Cold War-type administration in Moscow."28

    In a recent statement to Congress, Republican congressman Christopher Cox told the truth that Fr. Fox never reports in his "don’t worry, be happy" magazine: "Russia does not enjoy an open, competitive political system that protects freedom of expression and association," said Cox, "and its government does not uphold universal standards of human rights." Russian analyst Nikolai Zlobin of the Center for Defense Information put it most simply: "We’re fighting a kind of new Cold War."29

    Fr. Fox cannot show us how Russia has converted in any sense, besides a certain liberalization of the consumer economy, which is hardly what Our Lady came to announce.

    Yet Fr. Fox belittles these developments as "horror stories," thus covering up the crimes of the Putin regime, much as leftist reporters in the West covered up the crimes of Lenin and Stalin, thus earning Lenin’s appellation "useful idiots." Today, some useful idiots in the Catholic Church cover up the true state of affairs in Russia in order to foist their "ecumenical" version of Fatima upon the faithful. To Fr. Fox, one must say in all candor: You are complicit in the persecution of the Church in Russia, because you have abandoned the cause of Russia’s conversion for the sake of a failed human program of "ecumenical dialogue." In fact, you use your "respectable" apostolate to oppose the consecration of Russia, as you dare to collect money from the faithful in the name of Our Lady of Fatima.

    Russia Suffers, as Fr. Fox Boasts of 
    His Fatima Shrine

    While the Russian people, Catholics especially, continue to suffer, Fr. Fox pats himself on the back for raising money to build a small Fatima shrine in St. Petersburg, Russia: "It was constructed with funds my apostolate gathered," he boasts. Fr. Fox says the shrine was dedicated by Archbishop Kondrusiewicz back in 1998 — the same Archbishop Kondrusiewicz who now decries the persecution of the Church in Russia, which Fr. Fox pretends is not happening.

    Having congratulated himself for collecting money to build the shrine, Fr. Fox sniffs that "Father Gruner continued his negative approaches." As we can see, by "negative approaches" Fr. Fox means remarking the obvious about the consequences of failing to honor Our Lady’s request: that Russia will not convert, that Russia will suffer, that the Church will suffer, that the world will suffer.

    Fr. Fox apparently thinks the Putin regime’s toleration of his little shrine represents some sort of triumph for the Church in Russia. A triumph it is not. Since the date Fr. Fox’s shrine was dedicated, the persecution of Russian Catholics has only worsened, as demonstrated by the developments described above. Putin today, like Lenin and Stalin before him, makes a great show of allowing a few Catholic parishes to operate while persecution of the Church continues unabated. As Fr. Fox applauds himself, the tiny group of Catholic clergy in Russia is enduring systematic state persecution and — irony of ironies — there are far fewer practicing Catholics in Russia today than there were in the time of Lenin and Stalin.

    Perhaps Heaven expects a bit more from the Catholic hierarchy than Fr. Fox’s Marian shrine in St. Petersburg. Perhaps Heaven expects what Our Lady of Fatima requested: the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. But Fr. Fox would have us believe that Our Lady of Fatima came to prophesy a consecration that is not a consecration, and a conversion that is not a conversion. In true neo-modernist fashion, Fr. Fox (along with the anti-Fatima elements of the Vatican bureaucracy) "interprets" the Message of Fatima into extinction.

    Facts Father Fox
    Continues to Ignore for 20 Years!

    A photographic reproduction of the March 26, 1984 L'Osservatore Romano report is shown above. Highlighted in the insert above, is the Pope's very important ad lib. The translation and the significance of this ad lib is explained below.

    On December 8th, 1983, Pope John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world inviting them, but not commanding them, to join him on March 25, 1984 in consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He enclosed in the letter his perpared text for consecration of the world. He also published in L'Osservatore Romano this same text in mid-February 1984.

    However, on March 25, 1984, the Pope, after pronouncing the consecration of the world before the statue of Our Lady of Fatima, departed from his prepared text to add the words (highlighted above): "Enlighten especially the peoples of which You are awaiting our consecration and our confiding."

    Sister Lucy, herself, has many times said: "Our Lady of Fatima only asked for the consecration of Russia."

    The words the Pope added indicate clearly that he knew then that the consecration of the worlddid not fulfill the requests of Our Lady of Fatima.

    As can be seen above, this departure from his prepared speech was printed in the Pope's own newspaper the following day on March 26, 1984.

    Obviously the Pope knows Our Lady is still waiting for the Pope together with the Catholic bishops to consecrate certain peoples to Her, that is, the peoples of Russia.

    Although Fr. Fox claims to be a loyalist to the Pope and Our Lady, he continuously fails to report these very words that Pope John Paul II pronounced so publicly on this solemn occasion!

    Related Articles:


    14. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, "Theological Commentary," The Message of Fatima, p. 43.

    15. "Catholic Church Unveils Third Secret of Fatima", Los Angeles Times, June 27, 2000.

    16. See Glaring Omission #6 of Archbishop Bertone, in Father Paul Kramer, ed., The Devil’s Final Battle, pp. 205-206.

    17. The Devil’s Final Battle, pp. 270-271.

    18. Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, (Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, New York, 1994) p. 218.

    19. The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. II, pp. 730-742.

    20. "Sister Lucy’s Recent Authorized Statements," The Fatima Crusader, Issue 13-14, Oct.-Dec. 1983, p. 3.

    21. Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, The Third Secret, (Immaculate Heart Publications, Buffalo, New York, 1989) pp. 504-505.

    21a. William Thomas Walsh, Our Lady of Fatima, 4th printing, (1947) p. 226.

    21b. Professor William Thomas Walsh’s translator of the July 15th meeting, Father Manuel Rocha, describing the follow-up question and answer, in the book The Wonders She Performs by Louis Kaczmarek, pp. 159-160.

    22. Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, p. 190.

    22a. See The Fatima Crusader, Issue 35, issued December 1990, Fr. Paul Kramer, "The Consecration Hoax," pp. 6-9; Issue 41, issued June 1992, "The Consecration Hoax Continues," pp. 18-20.

    23Zenit news report, December 22, 2002.

    24. For example, see "Russia Legalizes Homosexuality," United Press International, May 28, 1993. See also "Activist says Child Porn Prosecutions Will be Difficult in Indonesia, Russia," Christine Brummitt, Associated Press (AP), August 9, 2001.

    25. Catholic News Service Report, May 8, 2001.

    25a. AP report and photograph, February 28, 2002.

    26. National Catholic Register Online Web Edition, April 28- May 5, 2002.

    27. Itar-Tass news report, May 7, 2004.

    28. "The Failure of Putin’s Russia," Bruce P. Jackson, Washington Post, October 28, 2003, p. A23.

    29. Fox News, May 6, 2004.