Even Newer Mass(es) Coming Soon!

Text of the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio “Magnum Principium” Quibus nonnulla in can.
838 Codicis Iuris Canonici immutantur


APOSTOLIC LETTER
ISSUED MOTU PROPRIO
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
FRANCIS
MAGNUM PRINCIPIUM
BY WHICH CAN. 838 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW IS MODIFIED 

The great principle, established by the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, according to which liturgical prayer be accommodated to the comprehension of the people so that it might be understood, required the weighty task of introducing the vernacular language into the liturgy and of preparing and approving the versions of the liturgical books, a charge that was entrusted to the Bishops.

The Latin Church was aware of the attendant sacrifice involved in the partial loss of liturgical Latin, which had been in use throughout the world over the course of centuries. However it willingly opened the door so that these versions, as part of the rites themselves, might become the voice of the Church celebrating the divine mysteries along with the Latin language.

At the same time, especially given the various clearly expressed views of the Council Fathers with regard to the use of the vernacular language in the liturgy, the Church was aware of the difficulties that might present themselves in this regard. On the one hand it was necessary to unite the good of the faithful of a given time and culture and their right to a conscious and active participation in liturgical celebrations with the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. On the other hand the vernacular languages themselves, often only in a progressive manner, would be able to become liturgical languages, standing out in a not dissimilar way to liturgical Latin for their elegance of style and the profundity of their concepts with the aim of nourishing the faith.

This was the aim of various Liturgical Laws, Instructions, Circular Letters, indications and confirmations of liturgical books in the various vernacular languages issued by the Apostolic See from the time of the Council which was true both before as well as after the laws established by the Code of Canon Law.

The criteria indicated were and remain at the level of general guidelines and, as far as possible, must be followed by Liturgical Commissions as the most suitable instruments so that, across the great variety of languages, the liturgical community can arrive at an expressive style suitable and appropriate to the individual parts, maintaining integrity and accurate faithfulness especially in translating some texts of major importance in each liturgical book.

Because the liturgical text is a ritual sign it is a means of oral communication. However, for the believers who celebrate the sacred rites the word is also a mystery. Indeed when words are uttered, in particular when the Sacred Scriptures are read, God speaks to us. In the Gospel Christ himself speaks to his people who respond either themselves or through the celebrant by prayer to the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

The goal of the translation of liturgical texts and of biblical texts for the Liturgy of the Word is to announce the word of salvation to the faithful in obedience to the faith and to express the prayer of the Church to the Lord. For this purpose it is necessary to communicate to a given people using its own language all that the Church intended to communicate to other people through the Latin language. While fidelity cannot always be judged by individual words but must be sought in the context of the whole communicative act and according to its literary genre, nevertheless some particular terms must also be considered in the context of the entire Catholic faith because each translation of texts must be congruent with sound doctrine.

It is no surprise that difficulties have arisen between the Episcopal Conferences and the Apostolic See in the course of this long passage of work. In order that the decisions of the Council about the use of vernacular languages in the liturgy can also be of value in the future a vigilant and creative collaboration full of reciprocal trust between the Episcopal Conferences and the Dicastery of the Apostolic See that exercises the task of promoting the Sacred Liturgy, i.e. the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, is absolutely necessary. For this reason, in order that the renewal of the whole liturgical life might continue, it seemed opportune that some principles handed on since the time of the Council should be more clearly reaffirmed and put into practice.
Without doubt, attention must be paid to the benefit and good of the faithful, nor must the right and duty of Episcopal Conferences be forgotten who, together with Episcopal Conferences from regions sharing the same language and with the Apostolic See, must ensure and establish that, while the character of each language is safeguarded, the sense of the original text is fully and faithfully rendered and that even after adaptations the translated liturgical books always illuminate the unity of the Roman Rite.

To make collaboration in this service to the faithful between the Apostolic See and Episcopal Conferences easier and more fruitful, and having listened to the advice of the Commission of Bishops and Experts that I established, I order, with the authority entrusted to me, that the canonical discipline currently in force in can. 838 of the C.I.C. be made clearer so that, according to what is stated in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, in particular in articles 36 §§3.4, 40 and 63, and in the Apostolic Letter Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, n. IX, the competency of the Apostolic See surrounding the translation of liturgical books and the more radical adaptations established and approved by Episcopal Conferences be made clearer, among which can also be numbered eventual new texts to be inserted into these books.

Therefore, in the future can. 838 will read as follows:

Can. 838 – §1. The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely upon the authority of the Church, namely, that of the Apostolic See and, as provided by law, that of the diocesan Bishop.

§2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books, recognise adaptations approved by the Episcopal Conference according to the norm of law, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

§3. It pertains to the Episcopal Conferences to faithfully prepare versions of the liturgical books in vernacular languages, suitably accommodated within defined limits, and to approve and publish the liturgical books for the regions for which they are responsible after the confirmation of the Apostolic See.

§4. Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan Bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all. Consequently this is how art. 64 §3 of the Apostolic Constitution Pastor Bonus as well as other laws are to be interpreted, particularly those contained in the liturgical books concerning their revision. Likewise I order that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments modify its own “Regulations” on the basis of the new discipline and help the Episcopal Conferences to fulfil their task as well as working to promote ever more the liturgical life of the Latin Church.

Everything that I have decreed in this Apostolic Letter issued Motu Proprio must be observed in all its parts, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, even if it be worthy of particular mention, and I hereby set forth and I dispose that it be promulgated by publication in the daily newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, that it enter into force on 1 October 2017, and thereafter be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on 3 September of the year 2017, the fifth of my Pontificate
FRANCISCUS P.P.   

Note:  [at source, read also the Comment on the Motu Proprio by the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments]

Comment:

The Catholic Herald sees no problem with the above – indeed, some might argue that the Herald’s assessment is somewhat naïve since few informed Catholics today have any confidence in the bishops, not to mention Pope Francis, not to damage the Mass even more than has already been achieved by the Bugnini revolution.  

The Remnant is closer to the truth:  Paragraph §4 makes it clear that the pope has now given bishops the power to determine much of the Church’s liturgical direction. “Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down in the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all.”

This opens the door, not only to greater liberty in translating liturgical texts, but to creativity in drafting their own texts and rules. The bishops of an episcopal conference can now decide that if the faithful kneel to receive Communion, receive only on the tongue, or fail to participate in the hand shake of peace, this could be grounds to refuse them Communion.

The new motu proprio also supersedes Pope Benedict’s Summorum Pontificum, which dispensed priests from the need to obtain episcopal permission to say the Traditional Latin Mass. With the new ruling, an episcopal conference can now rule that the offering of the Latin Mass is forbidden in a given diocese, or in an entire country, so that traditional Catholics no longer have the option of appealing to Rome for help. The episcopal ruling is now Church law.” [emphasis added]

What we are seeing is a further attempt to pull the Catholic world away from the Church’s centralized authority and have a whimsical free-for-all. Francis himself, on October 17, 2015, called for a “healthy decentralization” of power in the Roman Catholic Church, including changes in the papacy and greater decision-making authority for local bishops, so this latest motu proprio is part of his plan to execute this decentralization.  END

Which commentator, in your opinion, has got it right – the English Catholic Herald or the American Remnant? (The Scottish Catholic Observer is too busy reporting on the Women’s Guild latest coffee morning to worry about incidentals like the liturgy.)   Comments invited…  

Bishop of Paisley aka Judas Iscariot in Praise of Protestant Reformation…

From Premier Christian Radio…

This month marks the 500th anniversary of the Reformation. And all through this month on Premier we are going to be hearing from theologians, church leaders, historians and many others about their own personal reflections on the Reformation. Ian Britton went to meet Bishop John, the Bishop of Paisley, to get a catholic [sic] perspective on the Reformation.

Click here to listen  to the bishop (pictured) admitting that Vatican II protestantised the laity in compliance with the Protestant Reformers’ demands in liturgy and language (out with that old Latin!) and of course we knew nothing of scripture before the Reformation;  according to “Bishop John”,  too, lay people were never actively engaged in spreading the Faith prior to Vatican II – that is, thanks to the Reformation we now know better.  Ignorance may be bliss for the ignorant, but it’s really annoying for the rest of us to have to listen to such falsehoods.  Never mind Martin Luther, Judas Iscariot is alive and well in the Catholic Church in Scotland today, aka Bishop John Keenan of Paisley.

Our Lady of Fatima, Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Comments invited… 

The Tablet & Other Far-From-Catholic Rags: Irresponsible Bishops Must Act

From Christian Today:

The Catholic Church in the UK is descending into civil war behind the scenes after a major row over abortion was sparked by a controversial editorial in the respected journal The Tablet.  

Bishop Mark Davies, Diocese of Shrewsbury is one of the Bishops who complained about the Tablet editorial 

A number of bishops were ‘scandalised’ by the article, Christian Today understands, and are urging Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster, to intervene. One figure accused the weekly magazine which is sold at the back of Westminster Cathedral – the home of Catholicism in the UK – of trying ‘to obscure the witness of Christian teaching’.
Click here to read the entire report Catholic Church at war? Bishops’ dismay at ‘tragic’ editorial in The Tablet criticising teaching on abortion

From Catholic Truth:

The fact that there are bishops expressing shock-horror at The Tablet’s latest (but far from unique) attack on the moral law and Catholic teaching, is unconscionable. The scandal of the loss of moral sense – and the particular responsibility of bishops – was addressed by Pope John Paul II in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor way back in 1993.  In any case, do these bishops seriously expect us to believe that they do not know that they are responsible for every soul led astray by the scandalous publications sold in their parishes, shops and cathedrals?  Yet there will be Catholics drooling with delight at the remarks of a handful of English Bishops criticising – on this one occasion – The Tablet, for it’s latest attack on the Church for its refusal to condone the evil of abortion.  See  some key extracts from Veritatis Splendor below…

Extracts from Encyclical Letter of Pope John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor: (The Splendor of Truth – Regarding Certain Fundamental Questions of the Church’s Moral Teaching) August 6, 1993

Our own responsibilities as Pastors

114. As the Second Vatican Council reminds us, responsibility for the faith and the life of faith of the People of God is particularly incumbent upon the Church’s Pastors: “Among the principal tasks of Bishops the preaching of the Gospel is pre-eminent. For the Bishops are the heralds of the faith who bring new disciples to Christ. They are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people entrusted to them the faith to be believed and put into practice; they illustrate this faith in the light of the Holy Spirit, drawing out of the treasury of Revelation things old and new (cf. Mt 13:52); they make it bear fruit and they vigilantly ward off errors that are threatening their flock (cf. 2 Tim 4:1-4)”.178

It is our common duty, and even before that our common grace, as Pastors and Bishops of the Church, to teach the faithful the things which lead them to God, just as the Lord Jesus did with the young man in the Gospel. Replying to the question: “What good must I do to have eternal life?”, Jesus referred the young man to God, the Lord of creation and of the Covenant. He reminded him of the moral commandments already revealed in the Old Testament and he indicated their spirit and deepest meaning by inviting the young man to follow him in poverty, humility and love: “Come, follow me! “. The truth of this teaching was sealed on the Cross in the Blood of Christ: in the Holy Spirit, it has become the new law of the Church and of every Christian.

This “answer” to the question about morality has been entrusted by Jesus Christ in a particular way to us, the Pastors of the Church; we have been called to make it the object of our preaching, in the fulfilment of our munus propheticum. At the same time, our responsibility as Pastors with regard to Christian moral teaching must also be exercised as part of the munus sacerdotale: this happens when we dispense to the faithful the gifts of grace and sanctification as an effective means for obeying God’s holy law, and when with our constant and confident prayers we support believers in their efforts to be faithful to the demands of the faith and to live in accordance with the Gospel (cf. Col 1:9-12). Especially today, Christian moral teaching must be one of the chief areas in which we exercise our pastoral vigilance, in carrying out our munus regale.

115. This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial…

116. We have the duty, as Bishops, to be vigilant that the word of God is faithfully taught. My Brothers in the Episcopate, it is part of our pastoral ministry to see to it that this moral teaching is faithfully handed down and to have recourse to appropriate measures to ensure that the faithful are guarded from every doctrine and theory contrary to it. In carrying out this task we are all assisted by theologians; even so, theological opinions constitute neither the rule nor the norm of our teaching. Its authority is derived, by the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in communion cum Petro et sub Petro, from our fidelity to the Catholic faith which comes from the Apostles. As Bishops, we have the grave obligation to be personally vigilant that the “sound doctrine” (1 Tim 1:10) of faith and morals is taught in our Dioceses.

A particular responsibility is incumbent upon Bishops with regard to Catholic institutions. Whether these are agencies for the pastoral care of the family or for social work, or institutions dedicated to teaching or health care, Bishops can canonically erect and recognize these structures and delegate certain responsibilities to them. Nevertheless, Bishops are never relieved of their own personal obligations. It falls to them, in communion with the Holy See, both to grant the title “Catholic” to Church-related schools, universities, health-care facilities and counselling services, and, in cases of a serious failure to live up to that title, to take it away.  [Emphasis added] –  Source Veritatis Splendor (Splendor of the Truth) Given in Rome, at Saint Peter’s, on 6 August, Feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord, in the year 1993, the fifteenth of my Pontificate.

Comment:

Clearly, publications using the name “Catholic”, which are plainly hostile to the Catholic Faith, should be included in the above list.

And why do those bishops expressing concern about this particular Tablet editorial not express concern about the many other editorials and articles routinely  featured in that deadly publication?  On page 11 of our current newsletter, we report outright falsehoods by Clifford Longley, who actually places words into the mouth of Pope John Paul II that flatly contradict the actual words of the pontiff on embryo experimentation. So what’s the problem now, all of a sudden?  Also, what about the other so-called Catholic publications which are all, to a greater or lesser extent, “liberal” – that is, essentially heretical in their ethos and content? Is it too late, or should the bishops act, as required by their office, to protect the faithful from these poisonous rags?  Is it pessimistic in the extreme to say that, frankly, these rags, The Tablet included, will continue to be sold in Catholic outlets, continue to poison what is left of Catholic faith and morality, despite the expressed concern of (a minority) of bishops in England? With, note, no expression of concern at all  from any bishops in Scotland. 

13 October: Centenary, Miracle of the Sun


The Editor of Christian Order writes…

Hierarchical disobedience/negligence/cowardice/lethargy/call-it-what-you-like, continues to amaze and appal. Even conservative prelates rarely promote the Five First Saturday Reparatory Devotions with any urgency. At best, all talk and no positive action sums up the hierarchical history. At worst — and overwhelmingly — it has been silence and negativity in the Modernistic process of marginalising, ecumenising and secularising Fatima by a thousand condescending cuts.

In effect, Our Lady’s personal instruction of Lucia, Francisco and Jacinta between May and October 1917 triggered 100 years of devotion and struggle — in roughly equal proportion: fifty years of signature Catholic devotion to Mary, followed by fifty post-conciliar years of ecumenical embarrassment apropos Marian devotion in general, and the Fatima message in particular.

Sister Lucia famously put this down to the “diabolic disorientation” that views doctrinal, moral and canonical chaos as a gift of the Holy Spirit, and the ensuing “mess” as a work of mercy.

This malign malaise appears to have reached its zenith in the person of the current pontiff. Yet we must pause to consider the plain truth of the matter: that Francis is just the latest link in the ever lengthening Modernist chain.   Click here to read entire editorial

The Editor of Catholic Truth writes…

No names, no pack drill, but in recent weeks I’ve been meeting diocesan Catholics in Novus Ordo Land on their home territory in various parishes in the central belt of Scotland, and believe me, there is just no easy or tactful way to say this: when Sister Lucia spoke of the forthcoming “diabolical disorientation” (presumably divulging something of what Our Lady had revealed, perhaps using her very words) she wasn’t kidding. Discussing Fatima, many, if not most, were shocked at the very idea that all is not as it should be – what they were hearing from us (the – literally – whole truth about Fatima) is just “not Catholic.” All incredible stuff. Talk about “upside down”; talk about “disorientation” – you got it.  Hostility on legs.  

As we approach the centenary of the Miracle of the Sun tomorrow, then, let us pray very hard for our fellow Catholics who have been given stones instead of bread these past fifty odd years and just cannot see it.  The old Faith has virtually disappeared from parish life, certainly here in Scotland.  the people don’t know the Faith; the clergy don’t know the Faith – and, from my recent experience, it seems clear that they don’t want to know it. 

Maybe, though, you have some tips to share to help restore the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Faith to our brothers and sisters in Christ. If so, let’s hear it… Because one of the sticking points in discussion has proven to be the very claim of the Church to be the one, true Church of Christ. Ecumenism has eaten deeply into the souls of the Catholic people. 

However, there is some good news:  the Fatima Scotland group,* formed to offer to distribute literature and give talks in parishes, has now offered to run Fatima Surgeries with a view to answering questions on Fatima, including the various controversies surrounding the Consecration of Russia and the Third Secret.  To sign up for one of these surgeries, please email editor@catholictruthscotland.com  in the first instance.  Your contact details will be passed to the Coordinator of the Fatima Scotland Group, who will be in touch with details of the next meeting.

Spread news of these surgeries far and wide, because there really is a serious lack of knowledge about the gravity of the Fatima apparitions at parish level. Our Lady said that the Consecration of Russia would be done “but it will be late” – and as we see the moral fibre of our societies disintegrating around us, with political leaders and terrorists threatening world peace, it is already very “late”.    It is crucial that we all do what we can to spread the Message of Fatima in what is left of this centenary year – and these surgeries offer a perfect talking point to do so. 

Our Lady of Fatima, Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

*  This group is separate from the diocesan-approved Fatima Scotland group.  The group referred to above officially represents the Fatima Center, Canada (Fr Gruner RIP) apostolate, appointed to distribute literature etc in Scotland during this centenary year. 

Corrupting the Christian Culture of the West – Cultural Marxism Exposed…

Fr. Stephen DeLallo, Chaplain, delivered the following very informative address to the Third Order Conference, Society of St. Pius X, Post Falls, Idaho, U.S.A., on Oct. 5, 2017. By kind permission, we publish the text of his excellent talk here.  It is lengthy, but well worth reading…

THEME: WHAT IS CULTURAL MARXISM?   

When we think of Communism, we normally think of the Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (1848), and the Communist Regime of Lenin and Stalin established in Russia with the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution—which resorts to the most violent methods to obtain its goal, i.e., terror, torture, and merciless murder.

However, the “Communism” operating in the Western World today is not the militant Marxism of Lenin and Stalin, but rather the “Cultural Marxism” of the Frankfurt School.  
1.Cultural Marxism is the Communist method of subversion promoted (independently) by Antonio Gramsci of Italy (1891-1937) and Georg Lukacs of Hungary (1885-1971), who taught that the main obstacle to worldwide Communist victory is the Christian culture of the Western World.

Consequently, they taught that, rather than trying to use military and violent means to conquer nations, Marxists must work to corrupt and de-Christianize western culture, beginning with the Christian family, and then progressing through churches and schools by means of the education system, i.e., literature, science, art, music and movies, the Internet, civic organizations and, of course, by propaganda and disinformation through the public media (e.g., ‘fake news’).

While in prison (1926-35) under Mussolini’s reign, Gramsci wrote nine volumes of his “prison notebooks,” i.e., his observations about history, sociology, Marxist theory, and, most importantly, Marxist strategy.

In these writings, he claimed that Christianity had corrupted the working class and the West would have to be de-Christianised by a “long march through the culture,” starting with the traditional family and completely engulfing churches, schools, media, entertainment, civic organizations, literature, science, and the presentation—and revision—of history.

Critical Theory / Political Correctness:

2. The Frankfurt School promoted Critical Theory and Political Correctness. Critical Theory is the frequent negative criticism of all Western culture, including Christianity, Capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, morality, tradition, loyalty, patriotism, nationalism and conservatism. Proponents of Critical Theory say that those raised in the traditions of God, family, patriotism or free markets are more disposed to authoritarianism and racism, and thus need psychological help.

By continual negative criticism, and the frequent broadcasting of the moral and political corruption in the West, especially in America, Marxists hope to reach their ultimate goal of convincing the world that Christian culture (Catholicism) is the cause of the corruption of the Western World. Then, by manipulating social disorder and unrest, they hope to replace Christian Society with their New World Order of atheistic Communism / Socialism.

Political Correctness is the policy of avoiding any language or actions that appear to exclude, marginalize or insult groups of people who are seen as disadvantaged or discriminated against.

In practice, Political Correctness refers to the civic duty to respect and be sensitive to the moral beliefs of all fellow citizens, Christian or non-Christian, including their right to choose alternative lifestyles (e.g., gay, lesbian, transgender, etc.). Thus, everyone must accept the policy of ‘diversity’ in the workplace, in the military, in public institutions, etc.

3. The problem with Marx’s theory of Class Struggle: Marx’s theory of ‘class struggle’ between the working class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie) is founded on the inherent conflict between the owners of capitalist businesses and their employees. Marx and Engels taught that capitalists must work to increase their profits to avoid being put out of business by their competitors; and the way to do this is by lowering the wages and health benefits of the workers. As a consequence, the workers are obliged to fight for just wages and benefits so that they and their families can survive.

According to Marx’s plan of ‘class struggle’ (or ‘class war’), the workers (working class) were supposed to unite and revolt against the capitalists (ruling class) in opposition to the grave injustices and miserable working conditions caused by the capitalist system. After their victory, they would be given a prominent place in the governing body, where they would find material prosperity and happiness.

However, in the Western World, the working class could not be incited to revolt, mainly because the ruling class, e.g., business owners of the capitalist system, compensated workers by giving them the right to make money, own property and find happiness in a free country. Consequently, workers were generally inclined to love their country and to respect and obey their government / rulers.

The Frankfurt School was frustrated with the working class’s refusal to engage in revolt, so they found other subversive agents to create a spirit of political unrest and revolt: ‘gay rights’ groups, anti-capitalists, anti-globalists, anti-war ‘peace’ activists, black extremists (e.g., ‘Black Lives Matter’), white supremacists, neo-Nazis, neo-Fascists, radical feminists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, etc.

4. Marxist Sensitivity Training: One of the main goals of Cultural Marxism is to re-place Christian principles with socialist and humanist ideas. Sensitivity Training is a communist technique designed to convince people, especially the youth, that they are the main authority in their own lives, and that they should use their own conscience to decide what is right and wrong in any given situation (situation ethics). Thus: “I have my morals, you have yours, and one is as valid as the other. So, who am I to judge your morals. And you cannot judge mine.”

Through Sensitivity Training, Christian moral values are undermined and replaced with subjective, humanist values (values clarification), which in turn leads to changes in a person’s behavior (behavior modification).

a. Subjective Morality: True moral values are based on objective morality, i.e., the teaching of the Catholic Church and Divine Revelation. Sensitivity Training, however, is based on subjective morality, i.e., the liberal error of freedom of conscience, which bases moral judgment on one’s personal ideas or feelings about right and wrong, e.g., “How do ‘you’ feel about this?” or “What do ‘you’ think about this?”

Subjective morality is based on humanist psychology, which teaches that the most important source of authority is within oneself and one’s own conscience, and that a person should appeal solely to his conscience in deciding what is good or evil.

As Archbishop Lefebvre explains in his book, They Have Uncrowned Him, p.15: “In subjectivism, it is the reason that constructs the truth: we have the submission of the object to the subject. The subject becomes the center of all things. Things are no longer what they are, but what I think. In such a case, man disposes of truth according to his own taste. This error will be called Idealism in its philosophical aspect, and Liberalism in its moral, social, political and religious aspect.”

b. Sensitivity Training Targets the Christian family: Sensitivity Training in education is an effective technique used by Marxists (and Modernists) to attack the Christian family. For example, in classes of literature and poetry, Marxists (and Modernists) can introduce literature that portrays indecency, impurity and other moral depravity. In this way, they can undermine and corrupt the Christian moral values students learned from their parents and church in their youth.

By means of Sensitivity Training, young people are conditioned: (1) to distrust and re-ject the traditional (Catholic) moral values they learned from their parents in the home; (2) to place trust in their teachers rather than in their parents; and (3) to seek freedom and independence from their parents’ authority and counsel.

* Note: Sensitivity Training also exists in Freemasonry, which seeks “to systematically develop freedom of thought and conscience in school children, and protect them, so far is possible, against all disturbing influences of the Church, and even their own parents, by compulsion if necessary.” (See the Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. 1913, pp. 782-83).

c. Three Steps in Sensitivity Training: In practice, we can see three main steps [of] Sensitivity Training in schools:

(1) direct students to get in touch with their own feelings about moral or doctrinal questions, e.g., “How do ‘you’ feel about this?” or “What do ‘you’ think about this?” This will condition students to use their own feelings and ideas, rather than the traditional teaching of their parents—and Church teaching—to determine what is morally right or wrong.

(2) desensitize students to indecency and impurity: (a) by slowly familiarizing them with literature, books and movies that contain indecency, obscenity and vulgarity, and (b) by the occasional use of off-color or impure jokes in the classroom. As a result, indecency and impurity won’t seem so bad—or perhaps not sinful at all.

(3) direct teachers to establish a friendly rapport with the students so that they will develop a strong sense of loyalty and trust towards their teacher, thus defending his personal character and teaching methods—even to the point of opposing their parents.

d. Sensitivity Training in Church and School: At the time of Vatican II, two renowned psychologists, Dr. William Coulson and Dr. Carl Rogers, introduced humanist psychology and sensitivity into many Catholic schools and Religious Communities in America. In a 1993 Interview, Coulson said: “We corrupted a whole raft of Religious Orders on the west coast in the ‘60s by getting the nuns and priests to talk about their distress… We did similar programs for the Jesuits, for the Franciscans, for the Sisters of Providence of Charity, and for the Mercy Sisters. We did dozens of Catholic religious organizations.” (This Interview is found on the EWTN Website).

e. Russian Marxists: Sex Education and Literature: Marxists in Russia advocate ‘sex education’ through literature. The Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights, Pavel Astakhov, who reports directly to President Vladimir Putin, stated in his Sept. 2013 interview with Rossiya 24 TV News: “The best sex education there is, in fact, is Russian literature and literature in general. Children should read more. Everything is there, all about love and about relationships between sexes.” Some recommended titles are: Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, 1877; The Abyss by Leonid Andreyev, 1901; and Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, 1955.

f. Sensitivity Training in the Military: In his article, Leadership and Ethics Training at the U.S. Naval Academy, June 20, 1999, retired Naval Commander, Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) says:

“While conducting research into the history, personalities, and techniques of ‘Sensitivity Training,’ I have found convincing evidence that the U.S. Naval Academy has been indoctrinating a future generation of naval officers in a ‘political correctness’—actually a ‘cultural Marxism.’ And all of this is being conducted under the ‘cover’ of a ‘leadership and ethics’ program that has the blessing of high-ranking Navy Flag officers and other honorable and well-intentioned naval officers, active duty and retired…

“If you don’t go along with this training, peer pressure will be brought to bear to embarrass you, intimidate you, frighten you, and if still unrepentant, you will be expelled for ‘unclean thoughts.’ Indeed, the whole process is a method of purging the Officer Corps of the U.S. Navy of any who would oppose the inculcation of ‘cultural Marxism’ into their psyche.”

5. Marxist Deception and Disinformation:

a. Marxists use various ‘Fronts’: It is a well-known tactic of Marxists to use other people or organizations as a front for their communist agenda. They especially try to use Catholics, since they are able to introduce Marxist ideas into Catholic circles. Perhaps those who are being used by communists don’t realize they are participating in a Marxist agenda. Communists, however, refer to their unwitting instruments as useful idiots. But, Communists should also realize that they themselves are being used, i.e., as foolish instruments in the hands of the devil.

Pope Pius XI says: “Under various names which do not suggest Communism, they establish organizations and periodicals with the sole purpose of carrying their ideas into quarters otherwise inaccessible. They try perfidiously to worm their way even into professedly Catholic and religious organizations. Again, without receding an inch from their subversive principles, they invite Catholics to collaborate with them in the realm of so-called humanitarianism and charity; and at times even make proposals that are in perfect harmony with the Christian spirit and the doctrine of the Church.” (See Divini Redemptoris, Mar. 19, 1937).

b. Gorbachev’s Glasnost and Perestroika Deception: We should also call to mind the programs of Perestroika and Glasnost instituted in Russia by Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s. Perestroika, i.e., “restructuring,” refers to communist Russia’s long-range plan to lead the West into a false security, by pretending to transform the Soviet economy into a decentralized, capitalist-style economy, and to democratize the communist party organization, thus enabling future communist aggression against unsuspecting nations. This tactic is known as the perestroika deception.

Glasnost, i.e., “openness,” refers to the new policy of openness and freedom in public discussions about socio-political problems within the Soviet Union. Thus, it is permitted to speak about the brutality of the Stalin era and the corruption of the Brezhnev era. Soviet leaders show more friendliness both to the media and to foreign leaders in order to ease political tensions between East and West. However, this “glasnost policy” is simply a deceptive ploy on Moscow’s part to implement the ongoing perestroika deception.

In the Fatima Crusader Magazine, Winter 1995, Issue 48, we read: “The Perestroika and Glasnost initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev is not the conversion of the Soviet Union as is naively proclaimed by many Churchmen in high places, and even by the majority of Fatima Apostolates. The so-called “conversion” of Russia is nothing more than the implementation of a kinder and gentler Marxism/Leninism, one more acceptable to the West, according to the strategy of the Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, who died just before World War II.”

Lastly, let’s recall the chilling words of the Marxist Dimitri Manuilski of the Lenin School of Political Warfare in 1933: “War to the hilt between Communism and Capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in thirty to forty years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So, we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.”

c. In the 45 Communist Goals for America (in the 1963 U.S. Congressional Record), we can see some examples of Cultural Marxism:

Goal #23: “Control art critics and directors of art museums: ‘Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art’.”

Goal #25: “Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.”

Goal #26: “Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as normal, natural, healthy.”

Goal #41: “Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.”

6. Marxist – Christian dialogue:

Cultural Marxism seeks a dialogue between Marxists and Christians, especially with Catholic intellectuals, in order to insert Marxist philosophy into the Christian religion. Once Marxist thinking replaces clear Christian thinking, cultural Marxism can succeed in changing the Church’s supernatural ministry into natural works of social justice and charity. As Marxists say: “Once religion is deprived of its supernatural content, it will be replaced by political consciousness.”

This is why a great number of clergy in the Catholic Church today seem to be more concerned with civil rights and ‘social justice’ than about instructing the faithful about sin, death, heaven and hell, and saving their soul.

This also explains why most works of Catholic Action we see today are confined to the socio-political domain, e.g., civic duties and natural humanitarian aid, thereby neglecting the supernatural needs of the soul.

Communism—like Freemasonry—teaches that members of all religions, including Catholics, should set aside their differences and work together in providing humanitarian aid for the poor, needy and homeless, but they must not talk about faith, religion, prayer, etc., because of separation of Church and State. Thus, everyone works on behalf of humanity, and for the universal brotherhood of man, rather than for Christ and the Catholic Church.

Concerning this error, Archbishop Lefebvre says in his book, They Have Uncrowned Him, pp. 112-113: “It is this false reasoning that has been given to the missionaries: ‘But no, do not preach Jesus Christ right away to these poor natives who, above all, are dying of hunger! First, give them something to eat, then tools; next, teach them to work, instruct them in the alphabet, in hygiene…and contraception, why not? But do not speak to them of God: their stomachs are empty!’…

“But I will say this: it is precisely because they are poor and deprived of the goods of the earth that they are extraordinarily open to the Kingdom of Heaven, to ‘Seek first the kingdom of heaven;’ [open] to the good Lord who loves them and has suffered for them, so that they can take part, by their miseries, in His redeeming sufferings. If, on the contrary, you pretend to place yourself onto their level, you will only wind up making them cry out about injustice and inflaming hatred in them. But if you bring God to them, you lift them up, you raise them, you genuinely enrich them.”

7. Notable persons / movements that promoted Marxist ideology:

a. Bella Dodd (1904-1969) was a member of the Communist Party of America in the 1930s and 1940s who later became a vocal anti-communist. After her defection from the Communist Party in 1949, and conversion to the Catholic Church, she testified that one of her jobs, as a Communist agent, was to encourage young radicals to enter Catholic Seminaries.

In Fatima Perspective 235, Christopher Ferrara relates Dodd’s testimony: “‘In the 1930s, we put 1,100 men into the priesthood in order to destroy the Church from within… Right now, they are in the highest places in the Church, where they were working to bring about change in order to weaken the Church’s effectiveness against Communism.’ She also said that these changes would be so drastic that ‘you will not recognize the Catholic Church’.”

b. Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was born in Chicago of Russian Jewish immigrants. He worked closely with communists and admired their platform, although he himself was never a member of the Communist party. His involvement with communists was so close that he said that the Communist platform “stood for all the right things.” (See the Lepanto Institute website).

Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, which espouses Marxist class warfare and revolution, was dedicated to Lucifer. In his dedication, he says: “Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement of the very first radical who rebelled against the establishment, and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom: Lucifer.” [Emphasis added].

Alinsky teaches: “The end justifies almost any means. Moral rationalization is indispensable at times of action, whether to justify the selection or the use of ends and means.”

Alinsky’s community organizers use Marxist techniques that call for someone or some group to be cast as an “enemy” who must be isolated and demonized. They are taught to treat people not as individuals but as symbols. The Catholic faith, in contrast, teaches the importance of “solidarity” and respect for the individual.

Alinsky wrote: “The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new.” Thus, instead of reforming an organization, “organizers” should disrupt existing order and practice, then reorganize things according to their own goals: a Marxist tactic to create problems then provide their solutions: ‘two steps forward, one step backwards’.

* Note: President Obama was a trained organizer in the Alinsky method, and Hillary Clinton is also a disciple who wrote her Wellesley College thesis on him. She corresponded with him and met him on several occasions before his death in 1972. She also claimed that Alinsky didn’t go far enough.

c. Dorothy Day (1897-1980) was born in Brooklyn, NY. She was an anarchist, social activist and agitator who openly professed Communism from 1917 until 1927. After her “conversion” to the Catholic Church in 1927, she remained a radical activist and agitator, and still used communist tactics. She promoted social activism through her paper The Catholic Worker which she began publishing in 1933 to support her Catholic Worker Movement. Patriotic Americans referred to her as Moscow Mary.

Dorothy Day’s Marxist spirit of subversion showed itself in many ways: she was anti-capitalist and promoted the socialist “Third way” economic theory of Distributism. She was arrested for civil disobedience several times, e.g., in 1955, 1957, and in 1973 – at 75 years old. She opposed the US involvement in WW2, telling Americans to tear down patriotic posters and put away their flags. She refused to support Franco in Spain’s war against Communism. She praised Fidel Castro’s “promise of social justice,” saying: “Far better to revolt violently than to do nothing about the poor destitute.” She said that Marx, Lenin, and Mao Tse-Tung “were animated by the love of brother, and this we must believe, even though their ends meant the seizure of power, and the building of mighty armies, the compulsion of concentration camps, the forced labor and torture and killing of tens of thousands, even millions.”

d. ‘Third Way’ movements: These economic movements claim that it is possible to take a middle position, i.e., “Third Way,” between the evils of Communism and Capitalism, called Distributism. The International Third Position (ITP) in England in the 1990s is one example of these movements.

(The ITP changed its name to England First in 2001, and has since become a part of the European National Front with the Spanish Falange, Italian Forza Nuova, Romanian Noua Dreaptă, Polish National Revival of Poland, and others).

The ITP’s program was to establish a “third way” or “third position,” “opposed to both Capitalism and Communism,” and to overthrow the current system through a violent “National Revolution” by the “Political Soldier,” in coordination with other nationalists throughout the world (see 10th point in the ITP Handbook). These nationalists included Colonel Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein.

A senior member of the ITP visited Libya in 1988 and Iraq in 1990, at the request of the respective governments on both occasions. On his return from Libya, he and another confrere—who was the head of the British National Party (BNP), stocked large quantities of Gaddafi’s manifesto, called The Green Book, since it also promoted a “Third Position” theory.

The Green Book was first published in 1975. It was intended to be read by all people. It is also said to have been inspired in part by The Little Red Book—the quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung (see Political Philosophy from Plato to Mao, by Martin Cohen, page 206).

In this book, Gaddafi says: “The Third Theory offers an alternative to capitalist materialism and communist atheism and calls for the return of mankind to the Kingdom of God… Society must be reorganized in every country of the world in accordance with the will of God and the precepts of His Prophets,” i.e., the propagation of Islam.

Bill Clinton was an early adherent of the “Third Way.” In a September 21, 1998 speech at New York University, Clinton said: “I’m grateful that the Third Way seems to be taking hold around the world.” Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder promoted Clinton’s crusade for “a new economic order that is neither Capitalist nor Communist, but something in between.”

* Some Catholics also actively promoted the “Third Way” movement of Distributism, such as Dorothy Day (mentioned above) and Eric Gill—who also produced very impure, erotic and blasphemous art concerning Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary and various saints.

Unfortunately, distributists don’t understand that an anti-capitalist economic movement is not the basis of social reform, and that such movements will only be manipulated by the anti-capitalist forces of Marxism to foment socio-political unrest and agitation.

According to Church teaching, the basis of all social reform is the moral law, and the restoration of religious principles to their place of honor in society: The Reign of Christ the King.

Besides, Capitalism is not condemned by the Catholic Church. In his encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno , May 15, 1931, Pius XI says: “Free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life…” It must be “subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle…social justice and social charity.”

Also, Archbishop Lefebvre in his Pastoral Letter, The Condemnation of Communism, Jan. 25, 1951, p. 26, says: “The role of civil power is, therefore, to assist and to encourage free enterprise, to promote its creation and development.”

8. Marxism and the Promise of Utopia / Paradise of Man

a. Atheistic Communism claims that its goal is to relieve the suffering of the poor and needy, and to establish a kind of paradise on earth where all men can find material prosperity and happiness. By implementing their principles, communists claim to be inaugurating a new era and a new civilization, e.g., New World Order.

Communists declare that “God” is man’s enemy, because He has forbidden man to indulge in the many pleasures he wants. These “prohibitions,” or “laws of God,” are contained in the Ten Commandments and in the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is God, therefore, and Jesus Christ Who have destroyed man’s happiness. Atheistic Communism, therefore, strives to throw off the authority of God, of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, and make man a god unto himself.

b. The desire for an earthly paradise is not new, and it did not begin with Communism. This desire has existed throughout human history, and has been exploited by the Devil to lead souls into hell by worldliness and materialism. Thus, in the third Temptation of Christ, when showing Our Lord all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, Satan said to him: “All these will I give thee, if falling down, thou wilt adore me.”

* Other examples of man’s quest for an Earthly Paradise:

(1) the Tower of Babel: In Gen. 11:4: “And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.”

(2) the Scientific Revolution of the 16th – 17th centuries: Francis Bacon (1561–1626), the so-called father of the philosophy of Empiricism, said that by collecting all the observable facts of nature, philosophers and scientists could discover the hidden laws of the universe and make huge advancements in science, leading to a new world of culture and leisure for mankind.

(3) the Royal Society of London, which was established in London in 1660 for the promotion of natural knowledge, discovery and invention, continued the naturalist program of Francis Bacon to harness the powers of nature to construct an earthly paradise for man.

(4) the secret society of Freemasonry, with its battle cry of “Liberty, Fraternity and Equality,” was established in 1717 with the Grand Lodge of London, and was inspired by the Age of Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution. Like the Royal Society, its goal is the establishment of a Universal Social Republic of material prosperity for the Brotherhood of Man.

9. Ultimate cause of Communism:

a. Marx’s class struggle: As we saw above, Marx’s theory of “class struggle” (or “class war”) between the working class (proletariat) and ruling class (bourgeoisie) is founded on the inherent conflict between the owners of capitalist businesses and their employees.

b. Calvinist work ethic: The foundations of unrestricted capitalism and economic globalism were actually laid by the materialism of the Calvinist work ethic, especially since the Industrial Revolution.

In Calvinism, riches and material prosperity are a sign of divine election, and predestination to heaven. Calvinists, therefore, would welcome the advent of the unlimited competition, unscrupulous underselling and feverish advertising that we see in the world today.

As a result of this Calvinist spirit, work has become rational and systematic. The motive of moderation and enjoyment in work has been broken down, and now there is a certain tyranny of work over men. It was this economic error that has led to so much injustice and suffering for the working class for more than 300 years, and the Marxist Revolution was a response to the unrestricted capitalism of the Calvinist work ethic.

However, Marxist Communism is not only a revolutionary movement against the injustices and abuses of unrestricted capitalism. It is also, and more importantly, a worldwide revolution against God, Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and all Christian Social Order.

c. Abandonment of the Catholic Faith: Our Lady told the children at Fatima in 1917 that Russia would be the instrument of God’s punishment if people do not amend their ways (and if the Pope does not consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary). Thus, the scourge of Communism will continue until the people of the world turn back to God, and work to re-establish Christian Social Order based on the Reign of Christ the King.

In A Bishop Speaks, pp. 70-71, by Archbishop Lefebvre, we read: “St. Pius X says: A Christian civilization has existed; we no longer have to invent one. It has existed: we have only to bring it back to life. We must not hesitate to rebuild society on Our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no other foundation for our morals, our personal life, our family life, our public life…

“However, we must build in a spirit of faith upheld by prayer. We must not be content with half-measures and ourselves take refuge in compromise. If we do not build on the rock of Catholicity, with our Lord Jesus Christ as the cornerstone, we shall begin to shuffle and find ourselves, with Liberalism and Neo-Modernism, at the gates of Communism.”   

10. Conclusion: Our Lady of Fatima said: “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!” These words give us great confidence to persevere in our prayers and remain faithful to our duties in our state of life according to God’s will. However, if we desire to help in establishing the social reign of Christ the King, we must be sure that Christ is King in our own lives and families first. Then, with Christ the King and Mary our Queen, the Angels and Saints in Heaven will be with us in our battle against the Powers of Darkness.

Comments invited… 

Cardinal Burke Feet of Clay…

In the clip below, Cardinal Burke pronounces the Society of Saint Pius X in schism.  Listening to it, I recall the reason several Catholic friends gave for refusing to attend his Pontifical High Mass in a Glasgow parish church recently, summed up by one insightful soul: “…he’s not the real deal.”   

Blogger Gabriel Syme, who did attend the Pontifical High Mass in Glasgow recently, writes: 

I read that earlier and was much dismayed by the reported comments from Cardinal Burke.

it is unbecoming for a prelate to tell fibs (that the SSPX is in schism) which contradict his brother Bishops.

Ironically, he would never say such a thing about genuinely schismatic groups, such as the Eastern Orthodox churches.

How disappointing that he is so feeble in the face of Francis, yet so bold with unprovoked attacks on faithful Catholic groups, attacks based on deceit.

I am very disappointed in him and have diminished respect for him now. As if attacking the SSPX should be on his agenda, while everyone is waiting (and waiting and waiting) for him to act on the dubia.

Comment:

His “damp squib” dubia and meek acceptance of the Pope’s refusal to grant him an audience to discuss the four cardinals’ concerns about Amoris Laetitia, are now placed firmly in context.  He hasn’t a clue.  He’s apparently no clearer in his grasp of the limits as well as the extent of papal authority than most of the confused Catholics, ordained and lay, suffering in the Church-anything-but Militant today.  He has shown himself to have feet of clay. Or maybe you’re a Cardinal Burke fan, just because, at least, he values the traditional Mass?  Let’s hear it… 

Fatima: Our Lady Got It SO Wrong…

The following extract is taken from a website providing links to the much publicised  Filial Correction

A 25-page letter signed by 40 Catholic clergy and lay scholars was delivered to Pope Francis on August 11th. Since no answer was received from the Holy Father, it is being made public today, 24th September, Feast of Our Lady of Ransom and of Our Lady of Walsingham. The letter, which is open to new signatories, now has the names of 62 clergy and lay scholars from 20 countries, who also represent others lacking the necessary freedom of speech. It has a Latin title: ‘Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis’ (literally, ‘A filial correction concerning the propagation of heresies’). It states that the pope has, by his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, and by other, related, words, deeds and omissions, effectively upheld 7 heretical positions about marriage, the moral life, and the reception of the sacraments, and has caused these heretical opinions to spread in the Catholic Church. These 7 heresies are expressed by the signatories in Latin, the official language of the Church.

We’ve discussed this ‘Correction’ on our blog elsewhere; I went on record as being in opposition to the idea of restricting the signatories to “lay scholars” and resolved not to sign it, despite being in possession of academic qualifications – two Degrees (Education and Theology) to be precise. Another blogger argued that I should sign for a number of reasons, so I allowed myself to be persuaded and submitted my signature, academic qualifications and humble status as Editor of Catholic Truth (Scotland).  I thought, heck if nothing else, they’ll want at least ONE signature from Bonnie Scotland.  I was wrong.  My signature did not make it and neither, interestingly, did the signature of the academic who coaxed me to sign in the first place.*   We’re regarded as being too outspoken, short on the diplomatic front, because we tend to call out those responsible for the dire state of the Church where we live and move and suffer the consequences of the modernist mayhem around us.  The general opinion of our friends seems to be that it is this outspokenness that has caused our signatures to fail the censorship process.  There are, you see, traditionalists and there are “traditionalists” –  the Pontius Pilate  School of Silent Complicity tends not to approve of the outspoken among us. Remember, some of those behind this Filial Correction kept mighty quiet during the reigns of both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when the rest of us were raising grave concerns about the errors and scandals which abounded during those pontificates.  In fact, at least one of the signatories on the ‘Correction’ waited for an entire year into the pontificate of Papa Francis before raising a voice of mild concern.
* [Ed: quite some time later, our signatures were, in fact, added to the Filial Correction. So, I’m not sure if this is a case of I owe the organiser(s) an apology or “wonders will never cease”…]

Anyway, today, in discussion, one humble gentleman without a single Degree to his name, pointed out that when God sent His mother to earth with messages for mankind of one sort or another, including the Fatima prophecies which are coming true before our very eyes, He chose unlettered children, not “scholars”.   Indeed, Our Lady told Lucy of Fatima to learn to read… she didn’t wait until Lucy was able to read before appearing to her.  The same is true of other important revelations when Our Lady appeared to children. Bernadette of Lourdes is another very good example of how God seems to by-pass the clever-clogs among us, to communicate with the humble, simple and unlettered.  There has to be a reason.  OR…

Comment:

Did Our Lady get it so wrong?  SHOULD she have appeared to some highly qualified scholars at Fatima, rather than 3 un-schooled, shepherd children who were never going to get anywhere in life, who wouldn’t make it to university?