Father Fox’s Modernist Assault on Fatima – Part III of III

The Scheme to Create an “Inter-religious” Fatima

The road Fr. Fox has chosen to follow does not end with the elimination of the consecration and conversion of Russia in their traditional Catholic sense. Having set off down the road toward a neo-modernist Fatima, Fr. Fox must now go the whole distance, or risk losing favor with the anti-Fatima ecclesial bureaucrats upon whom, ironically enough, his purported Fatima apostolate depends for its very existence. This means that Fr. Fox must be willing to defend the last stage in the neo-modernist transformation of Fatima: the creation of an “inter-religious” Fatima Shrine. In the second of his articles attacking Father Gruner, “Fatima Will Retain Its Catholic Identity,” Fr. Fox shows that he is willing and eager to do so.

Notice, first of all, the curious phraseology of the article’s title: Fatima will “retain” its “Catholic identity.” Since Fatima is a Catholic place by definition, this is akin to saying that “St. Peter’s Basilica will retain its Catholic identity.” Clearly, something is going on at Fatima that required Fr. Fox to make this strange, and less than reassuring, affirmation.

Fr. Fox knows very well what is going on. In connection with an unprecedented “inter-religious congress” of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox, Anglicans and Catholics held at the Fatima Shrine in October 2003, the Rector of the Shrine, Fr. Luciano Guerra, declared that:

The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and His Mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. The interreligious dialogue in Portugal, and in the Catholic Church, is still in an embryonic phase, but the Shrine of Fatima is not indifferent to this fact and is already open to being a universalistic place of vocation.

This banjo-like object is a model of the new “church” that Rector Guerra has already started to build at the Fatima Shrine at the cost of 50 million U.S. dollars.

This remark, widely reported in the Catholic press (including the Universe and Catholic Herald), as well as the secular press in Portugal (Notícias de Fátima and Portugal News), provoked a storm of international protest by concerned Catholics. In response, Rector Guerra issued a series of equivocal statements, none of which actually denied that he had made the remark. On the contrary, the “denials” only affirmed that Guerra intended to promote “inter-religious” activities at the Shrine. For example, Guerra’s “official” response on the Fatima Shrine’s website declared:

And, when it seems to us to be opportune, after what is already happening in many other sacred places, this new basilica would be able to receive brothers from other faiths, who may want, in a brotherly manner, to know how we pray.

Rector Guerra was referring to the hideous new “basilica” resembling a giant banjo that he intends to construct at Cova da Iria, near the original basilica of traditional Catholic design. As we can see, the “basilica” will be largely buried underground, thus serving as the perfect metaphor for what Guerra is trying to do with the Message of Fatima.

Guerra clearly has in mind for his new “basilica” something more than members of other religions observing how Catholics worship God at Fatima, for this they can do already in the existing basilica. Rather, Guerra expressly linked his plans to “what is already happening in many other sacred places,” which he will evidently allow to happen at Fatima when, as he put it, “it seems to us to be opportune.”

To show his inter-religious audience “what is already happening in many other sacred places,” Guerra invited to address the conference one Fr. Arul Irudayam, Rector of the Catholic Marian Shrine Basilica in Vailankanni, India. This Shrine receives millions of pilgrims a year, including many Hindus, and Fr. Irudayam rejoiced to inform the audience that, as a further development of “interreligious dialogue,” the Hindus now perform their religious rituals in the shrine at Vailankanni. The audience, including Rector Guerra, applauded this sacrilege.30 The commandment, “Thou shalt not have false gods before Me” was evidently lost on this crowd.

On January 9, 2004, nearly three months after his remark, Rector Guerra finally admitted to a reporter from the English journal Catholic Herald that he had indeed stated that “the new shrine at Fatima, Portugal would be a place ‘where different religions can mingle’,” but claimed that his statement had been “taken out of context.” The “context,” however, was a gathering of Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Orthodox and Anglicans, addressed by an Indian priest who permits Hindu worship in a Catholic Marian shrine in India — to the applause of Msgr. Guerra.

Here it must be noted that Guerra’s conference was also addressed by neo-modernist “theologian,” Fr. Jacques Dupuis. As eyewitness John Vennari has reported, Dupuis’s address contended that God has positively willed the existence of other religions as part of His plan for salvation, and that one should not even refer to other religions as non-Christian. Notícias de Fátima quotes Dupuis as follows: “The religion of the future will be a general convergence of all religions into one universal Christ which will satisfy everyone.”

Dupuis descended into outright heresy when he pronounced as a “horrible text” the infallible dogmatic definition of the Council of Florence (1442), already mentioned, concerning no salvation outside the Church. To recall what the Council of Florence declared:

The Holy Roman Church … believes firmly, professes and declares that none of those who are outside the Church, not only pagans, but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, can reach eternal life, but will go into the eternal fire ‘prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt. 25:41] unless before death they are united to it… No one, no matter how many alms he has given, even if he pours out his blood in the name of Christ, can be saved, if he does not remain in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

As Vennari personally observed, Dupuis’s address, including his dissent from this infallibly defined dogma, was applauded not only by Guerra, but also the Bishop of Leiria- Fatima, D. Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, and even the papal nuncio. Indeed, the next day, as Vennari reports, Fitzgerald stated to the conference: “Father Dupuis yesterday explained the theological basis of the establishment of relations with people of other religions.”

To date, Guerra has not explicitly denied his apparent intention to allow inter-religious activities, including non-Catholic rituals, on the grounds of the Fatima Shrine. When asked to issue such denials in an email and fax sent by this writer, Guerra waited two months to issue a “reply” that completely avoids the issue.31

Since the date Fr. Fox’s shrine was dedicated, the persecution of Russian Catholics has only worsened, as demonstrated by the developments described above.

Confronted with an international wave of outrage over Guerra’s antics, the anti-Fatima elements of the Vatican bureaucracy, speaking through Archbishop Fitzgerald, later issued one of those “denials” so typical of the post-conciliar revolution: calculated to mollify the overly credulous, while providing cover for the launching of the revolution’s latest trial balloon. According to the English Catholic journal Universe, Fitzgerald said that Guerra’s motley inter-religious gathering “was merely ‘part of an ongoing reflection’ on the sanctuary’s ‘inter-religious dimension’ in the Church and the modern world,” but “‘there were no practical conclusions.”32 This is rather like a married man who protests that in flirting with other women he is merely engaging in an “ongoing reflection” on adultery but hasn’t yet decided how to commit it. But Fitzgerald conspicuously failed to deny that Msgr. Guerra had said, as the Universe reported: “The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and His Mother at this Holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle.”

A Scheme Long in the Making

Guerra’s pan-religious gathering in Fatima is but the latest point reached in a trajectory toward an “inter-religious Fatima” that he established as early as twelve years ago. Back in 1992 The Fatima Crusader reported the story that Guerra had invited to speak at a conference in Fatima Professor Robert Muller, Chancellor of the United Nations University for Peace. Muller dared to enlist the Pope himself in the cause of creating a one-world religion under the aegis of a one-world government: “Ecumenism is outmoded now,” he declared to Guerra’s congress. “We must now move to universal religiosity and spirituality under the aegis of one-world government, which will soon see the light of day, and under the impetus of John Paul II, who would be honored if he gave the Church this programme.” Note the symmetry of remarks between Guerra’s guest in 1992 and his guest in 2003, Fr. Dupuis, who said, as noted earlier: “The religion of the future will be a general convergence of all religions into one universal Christ which will satisfy everyone.”

Who do Msgr. Guerra and Archbishop Fitzgerald think they are fooling? The Fatima revisionists floated a trial balloon; the trial balloon was shot down by outraged Catholics; and now, at least for the moment, they are trying to backpedal, but without actually shelving the plan to open the Fatima shrine to “inter-religious” activity when “it seems to us to be opportune.” Two steps forward, one step back. Fatima may not be an inter-religious Mecca today, but Fitzgerald has now implanted the suggestion that the shrine has “an inter-religious dimension” on which the unprecedented conference was part of “an ongoing reflection.” Stay tuned for the “practical conclusions.”

Hindus in the Capelinha

And the “practical conclusions” are already being revealed. Even as Fr. Guerra and Archbishop Fitzgerald hide behind equivocal “denials” that deny nothing, Guerra continues to move ahead with his scheme for an interreligious Fatima Shrine.

In a stunning development that received no advance publicity, on May 5, 2004 Guerra allowed a busload of Hindus to conduct a pagan ritual in the Capelinha, or Little Chapel of the Apparitions, which stands on the very spot where Our Lady appeared in the Cova. A Hindu “priest,” wearing Hindu robes and the mark of Shiva (a dot) on his forehead, took to the altar in the outdoor portion of the Capelinha and made an offering of food and flowers. One of the Hindu worshipers told the TV viewers that Hindus go to Fatima because they believe in many gods, and it is always better to approach the wife of a god (meaning Mary) than the god himself.33

No one is permitted to use the Capelinha without Guerra’s permission. It is no coincidence that Guerra has just allowed the same thing that his guest speaker, Fr. Arul Irudayam, allows at Our Lady’s shrine in Vailankanni, India: Hindu worship. (“The Scheme to Create an ‘Interreligious’ Fatima”, above.) Moreover, during television coverage of the event by Portugal’s SIC channel, Guerra provided approving comments on the Hindus’ use of the Capelinha for their pagan idolatry.

So, in the very midst of the explosive controversy his own remarks had caused, Guerra brazenly proceeds to do that which he “denied” having any intention to do. This is a man who clearly believes he has the full support of the Vatican apparatus and will be protected against any adverse consequences for allowing this sacrilege. And it is this man who is now in charge of the holy ground of Fatima.

Fr. Fox Covers Up the Scheme

What does Fr. Fox have to say about Guerra’s outrageous antics? As he does with the consecration and conversion of Russia, he engages in a cover-up. Fr. Fox dismisses Father Gruner’s public protest against Guerra’s statements and actions as “slanted and sensational reporting,” but never really disputes that Guerra said what he said and did what he did. While conceding that Guerra “was quoted as saying ‘The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and His Mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle’”, Fr. Fox observed merely that “Msgr. Guerra, who is personally known to me, would never speak of ‘adoration’ with regard to Mary.”

This is very curious. If Fr. Fox knows Msgr. Guerra personally, why did he not simply ask Guerra if he had made the statement attributed to him? The answer seems clear enough: Fr. Fox knows that Msgr. Guerra did indeed make the statement, for, as noted above, Guerra admitted that he made it, claiming only that it had been taken “out of context” — which is what every politician says when his own words come back to haunt him.

Fr. Fox only digs himself a deeper hole when, in keeping with his usual approach, he cloaks his position with the apparent authority of a Vatican bureaucrat who really has no authority at all. Fr. Fox quotes Archbishop Fitzgerald, who told Zenit news agency that “As far as I know, there are no plans that the building is designed specifically for inter-faith purposes. We recognize that Fatima is a place of pilgrimage for many religions [since when?]… [T]he shrine nonetheless retains its Catholic identity.” Hence the title of Fr. Fox’s article.

A Wall Street litigator could not have crafted a more lawyerly statement than Fitzgerald’s loophole- riddled “denial”: as far as he knows the new “basilica” is not designed specifically for inter-faith purposes, and the new structure will “retain” its “Catholic identity.” That is hardly a denial of what Guerra actually said: that the new structure would be a place where the different religions can “mingle,” even if it “retains” a “Catholic identity.”

Even worse, as Fr. Fox himself notes with evident approval, Fitzgerald endorses Guerra’s view, posted on the Fatima Shrine’s website in defense of Guerra’s “interreligious congress,” that “the Fatima apparitions were exhortations to ecumenical dialogue. Mary knew that her choice of the site in Portugal would one day be associated with the Islamic prophet Mohammed, whose daughter’s name was Fatima.”

Insanity! This is yet another neo-modernist subversion of the truth, and Fr. Fox swallows it whole. In truth, the village of Fatima was named after a Muslim princess who, following her capture by Christian forces during the Moorish occupation of Portugal, was betrothed to the Count of Ourem, converted to Catholicism, and was baptized before marrying the Count in 1158. Her baptismal name was Oureana, but her birth name had been Fatima, after Mohammed’s daughter.34 Thus, the naming of the village of Fatima is a testament, not to “ecumenism” or to the false prophet Mohammed, but to the triumph of Christendom over the Muslim occupiers of Portugal; it is a testament to precisely what Our Lady of Fatima came to proclaim: the conversion of non-Catholics to the one true religion, beginning with the Russian people.

No, Fr. Fox, Our Lady did not come to Fatima to exhort us to engage in “ecumenical dialogue” or to give honor to the daughter of “the prophet” Mohammed. Mohammed was no “prophet” but an agent of the devil, whose false religion plagues the world to this day.

Wandering farther and farther down the neo- modernist road, Fr. Fox quotes with approval Msgr. Guerra’s bizarre interpretation of the apparitions of the Angel of Peace at Fatima: “Communion under the species of bread is given to the oldest seer, while the two younger, Francisco and Jacinta, receive Holy Communion for the first time under the species of wine. Since the practice of receiving Holy Communion under both species has fallen out of wide use in the Latin-rite Catholic Church, but not in the Orthodox churches, the Message of the Angel of Peace is an exhortation to ecumenical dialogue with those Churches separated from Rome for a thousand years.”

Nonsense. First of all, Our Lady of Fatima did not ask for “ecumenical dialogue” with the Orthodox, but rather sought their outright, miraculous conversion through the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart — just as She miraculously converted the entire nation of Mexico. “Dialogue,” ecumenical or otherwise, would not be necessary.

Furthermore, communion under both kinds has always been administered in Eastern-rite Catholic Churches, so what the Angel of Peace did can hardly be viewed as a favorable reference to the schismatic Orthodox. Also, neither Eastern-rite Catholics nor the Orthodox receive the species separately, but rather by intinction, with the species of bread being dipped into the species of wine and placed directly on the tongue. If anything, the Angel’s actions affirm the teaching of the Council of Trent, against the Protestants, that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ are received fully in the consecrated bread as well as the consecrated wine, and that there is no need to receive both species in order to receive the full grace of the Sacrament. The Angel also demonstrated that Heaven wishes us to receive communion on the tongue, not in the hand, although Fr. Fox today voices no objection to the latter.

Based on Msgr. Guerra’s own words and deeds, it is plain that he does not have good intentions concerning the “Catholic identity” of Fatima. As he told Notícias de Fátima, his inter-religious congress was only “a first step. We are like the engineers in Portugal who begin by examining the structures of the bridges to see if we can trust them in the future.” The Fatima Shrine’s own December 28 Communiqué confirms that Guerra told the inter-religious gathering arrayed before him: “[W]e rejoice in the brotherly presence of the representatives of the various spiritual schools and we are sure that their presence here opened the way for a greater future openness of this Shrine; a Shrine that seems already vocationed, thanks to divine providence, for contacts and for dialogue (…).”

No, Fr. Fox, Our Lady did not come to Fatima to exhort us to engage in “ecumenical dialogue” or to give honor to the daughter of “the prophet” Mohammed. Mohammed was no “prophet” but an agent of the devil, whose false religion plagues the world to this day.

Only a willing dupe would try to depict remarks such as these as anything but a direct threat to compromise the exclusively Catholic character of the Fatima Shrine. Fr. Fox, it seems, is willing to play the dupe for Msgr. Guerra and his neo-modernist friends, both high and low.

Try as he might, however, Fr. Fox cannot conceal what Msgr. Guerra is saying and doing at Fatima. He cannot explain away the mountain of evidence Father Gruner has presented concerning Guerra’s heterodox agenda — including the public denial of defined dogma by a speaker he applauded. Knowing this, Fr. Fox descends once again to an underhanded argumentum ad hominem: “Father Gruner … has serious limitations as for years he has not been able to offer Mass at any of the official altars of the Fatima Sanctuary in Portugal … ” Indeed it is true that Msgr. Guerra, whose henchmen physically assaulted Father Gruner in the Fatima Sanctuary in 1992,35will not allow him to celebrate Mass there. Such is the penalty for a faithful priest who stands up to the neo- modernist, anti-Fatima establishment that has, incredibly enough, been placed in charge of Fatima. But what bearing does Father Gruner’s lack of access to the altars of the Fatima Sanctuary have on Guerra’s public statements and actions evidencing his designs for an “inter-religious dimension” at the Shrine? None whatsoever. Fr. Fox, finding himself without rational arguments, takes another cheap shot and runs away.

Fr. Fox Lends Support to An Attack on Dogma Itself

Fatima scholars have been unanimous in their conclusion that the Third Secret of Fatima begins with the telltale phrase: “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.” From the context it is clear that the “etc.” added by Sister Lucy to the words of the Virgin is a place-holder for what She said immediately thereafter about the fate of dogma in other parts of the Church.

Indeed, Fr. Joseph Schweigl, who in 1952 was entrusted by Pope Pius XII with the secret mission of interrogating Sister Lucy about the Third Secret, said this to a colleague upon his return to Rome the very next day:

I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.36

The only reasonable deduction — for otherwise the reference to dogma in Portugal would make no sense — is that the Third Secret foretells a catastrophic loss of faith and discipline elsewhere in the Church through an attack on dogma. In other words, the Third Secret predicts widespread apostasy in the Church. Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, who was nothing less than Pope John Paul II’s own personal papal theologian, and who had read the Third Secret, confirmed this unanimous view of Fatima scholars in a personal communication to a Professor Baumgartner in Salzburg: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”37 (This no doubt explains why, in his commentary on the Message of Fatima, Cardinal Ratzinger removed this key phrase from the Message, placed it in a footnote and declined to discuss it.)

By aligning himself with highly placed proponents of a neo-modernist revision of the Message of Fatima — men such as Fr. Guerra, Archbishop Fitzgerald, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Sodano and, yes, Cardinal Ratzinger — Fr. Fox has aided and abetted the very attack on dogma foretold by Our Lady of Fatima. As we can see, Guerra’s pan-religious conference at Fatima was a direct attack on the dogma that is central to the Fatima Message: that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church — a dogma whose infallible definition by the Council of Florence Fr. Dupuis pronounced “horrible” during Guerra’s congress.

But the neo-modernist attack on dogma is not confined to particular dogmas as such; the modernist seeks to destroy the very notion of dogma as an unchanging, infallible definition of objective truth revealed by God to man through Christ and His Church. As St. Pius X warned the Church in Pascendi, the modernist maintains that believers “may pass through different phases” in their belief as the welling up of a vague “religious sentiment” from within, rather than from hearing the Gospel as divinely revealed truth. “Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas … are (according to the modernists), therefore, liable to change. Thus the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion.”

An “evolution” of dogma that ends up destroying dogma is precisely what today’s neo-modernist termites are promoting, even at the highest levels of the Church. For example, in his recent address to a group of Anglicans, Cardinal Kasper dared to call for “a re-evaluation of Apostolicae curae (1896) of Pope Leo XIII, who declared Anglican orders null and void, a decision which still stands between our Churches. Without doubt this decision, as Cardinal Willebrands had already affirmed, must be understood in our new ecumenical context in which our communion in faith and mission has considerably grown.”38

In the same address Kasper also attacked the infallible definition of the First Vatican Council on papal infallibility: “As well, the historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869-70), which must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content, has become clear. This historical development did not come to an end with the two Vatican Councils, but goes on, and so also in the future the Petrine ministry has to be exercised in line with the changing needs of the Church.”

That is, Kasper openly declares that Leo XIII’s infallible papal declaration on the nullity of Anglican orders (and thus the lack of any true Anglican priesthood), and Vatican I’s dogmatic definition of papal infallibility, are historically conditioned and can change in the “new ecumenical context.” But if these infallible teachings can change, so can all the others. All dogma are thereby destroyed, and the Faith itself is destroyed. This is the very essence of modernism.

Fr. Fox’s Fatima is not the Fatima of the Catholic religion, but a new Fatima for the new Pharisees of the post-conciliar epoch …

As this article has shown, Msgr. Guerra and his collaborators have brought the attack on dogma to the sacred ground of Fatima itself, as if to challenge the very prophecy of Our Lady that the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved in Portugal. Yet instead of opposing the assault on the Faith by these proponents of the “new” Fatima, Fr. Fox joins them and defends their heterodox words and deeds.

In Pascendi, St. Pius X spoke of the modernist under various titles: the modernist as believer, the modernist as historian, the modernist as theologian, the modernist as reformer, and so forth, showing how the modernist undermines belief, theology, history, and everything else his way of thinking corrupts. Now we must add a new title to the many guises of the modernist: the modernist as devotee of Fatima. And Fr. Robert J. Fox is one of them. Like the modernists described in Pascendi, Fr. Fox would no doubt express “astonishment” at being declared an enemy of Catholic truth. But given the twisted version of Fatima Fr. Fox is prepared to defend to the hilt, no other conclusion is possible: he has become one of them.

If Fr. Fox will not oppose what is going on at Fatima; if he will not condemn the heresies preached by Fr. Dupuis and applauded by the other guests at Fr. Guerra’s interreligious congress; if he will not denounce the sacrilege Guerra has just allowed at the Capelinha, along with Guerra’s whole scheme to open Fatima to pagan idolatry; if he will not call for the true conversion of Russia to the Catholic faith — if he will not, in short, defend without ambiguity the authentic Fatima Message in its traditional Catholic sense and the truths of the Faith which the Message embodies, then only one conclusion is possible: Fr. Fox must be seen as an enemy of the Faith, and the faithful must have nothing to do with him or his apostolate. Instead, the faithful must pray for this priest, that he might turn his gifts once again to the cause of Our Lady of Fatima, instead of the cause of human innovators who abuse their authority in the Church and work for the destruction of all that is truly Catholic.

The burden is now on Fr. Fox to state where he stands on these issues, without evasion or equivocation, and without resorting to the tactic of ad hominem attacks on those who rightly put him to the test. His continued failure to address these matters squarely will only confirm what is already apparent: that this man no longer has any right to hold himself out as an apostle of Fatima.

A New Fatima for the New Pharisees

This, then, is the counterfeit Message of Fatima Fr. Fox is trying to pass off in place of the genuine article: a “consecration” of Russia with no mention of Russia; a “conversion” of Russia with no embrace of the Catholic Faith; “ecumenical dialogue” with no return of the dissidents to Rome. And on the very ground of Cova da Iria, where 70,000 souls gathered to witness an unprecedented public miracle invoked by the Mother of God to authenticate Her call for Russia’s conversion, Fr. Fox would give us motley assemblies of unconverted pagans, schismatics, and pro-abortion Protestant ministers who have no intention of submitting to the authority of the One True Church.

Fr. Fox’s Fatima is not the Fatima of the Catholic religion, but a new Fatima for the new Pharisees of the post-conciliar epoch — men who think themselves far too subtle to accept the notion that a simple public ceremony could convert a nation and bring peace to the world. As we have seen, Fr. Fox himself contemptuously dismisses the whole idea as “paradise on earth.”

Like the Pharisees of old, the purveyors of the neo-modernist Message of Fatima exploit their prestige and positions of authority to promote falsehood and cow others into accepting it: “How dare you question our judgment, when we are the experts! By what right do you challenge our authority?” This is what Fr. Fox does when he boasts of his Vatican connections and his good standing with the powers that be, while belittling Father Gruner as an outcast. But who speaks the truth, and who is promoting a lie?

As Our Lord admonished His disciples: “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Mt. 16:6) While at first they did not understand, soon our Lord’s meaning dawned on them: “Then they understood that He had not said that they should beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and Sadducees.” (Mt. 16:12).

In The Devil’s Final Battle, the definitive work on the relation between the Message of Fatima and the crisis in the Church, there is a discussion of a classic commentary on this passage in Scripture by Archbishop Alban Goodier, S.J. As Archbishop Goodier explained, Our Lord was warning His disciples to be on their guard against the subtleties of the Pharisees and their professed obedience to authority, which only masked their insidious opposition to the truth:

It was not so much their opposition that He feared for His own, it was their [the Pharisees’] subtlety. Before the Pharisees had blamed Him for His miracles and other good deeds; He knew that this would not take His friends away from Him. Now this morning they [the Pharisees] had come, with an affected simplicity, a show of desire to know the truth, an appeal to the prophets, a zeal for tradition, a respect for law and order and obedience to the powers that be; and all this, He knew, would be likely to affect His own more than any open enmity. Like leaven, unless they were careful, it would spread unconsciously among them.39

The Virgin of Fatima, like Our Lord Himself, spoke with utmost simplicity and directness. But the new Pharisees of the post-conciliar period, just like the Pharisees of old, seek to obscure the simple truth with subtle interpretations and demagogic appeals to authority and obedience. While professing devotion to the Message of the Fatima, they are actually its most dangerous opponents, precisely because they enjoy positions of respect. They spread the corrupting leaven of their neo-modernist views throughout the Church, while posing as defenders of orthodoxy.

Like the Pharisees who willfully blinded themselves to the truth of the Gospel, Fr. Fox has willfully blinded himself to the truth about Fatima. Whether or not he recognizes it explicitly, Fr. Fox has ceased to serve Our Lady of Fatima and has become, instead, one of Her most prominent opponents, striving mightily to see to it that the Consecration of Russia is never accomplished in the manner She requested. And he does this under the guise of a Fatima apostolate, just as the Pharisees who connived against Our Lord acted under the guise of keepers of the Law.

For all their seeming prestige and authority, Fr. Fox and those who join him in the campaign against the consecration and conversion of Russia — for that it iis what it is — are blind guides who would lead us into a ditch if we were to follow them. But we must not follow them. We must follow Our Lady of Fatima to the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart. And woe to those, including Fr. Fox, who mock Heaven Itself when they look upon the present state of Russia, the Church and the world and try to tell us that what we see is the fulfillment of Her most glorious promises.

Father Fox’s Fabrications

      Following is an extract of the article written by Frère François which was originally published in the Catholic Counter Reformation No. 228, April 1990 and subsequently in The Fatima Crusader Issue 33, Summer 1990, p. 37.

      Why would Sister Lucy have waited for over five years1 before declaring that Pope John Paul II had satisfied Our Lady of Fatima’s requests with his act of offering of the world on March 25, 1984?

      Fr. Fox has tried to forestall and avoid this formidable objection by claiming that when the Papal Nuncio (Archbishop Portalupi) went to see Sister Lucy after the 1984 consecration and asked if it was the consecration requested by Our Lord, Sister Lucy answered: “Yes.” In brackets, Fr. Fox added, “The Papal Nuncio of Portugal died shortly after the 1984 consecration.”2

      The Abbé de Nantes has proved that this testimony is false and non-existent. Archbishop Portalupi could not have visited Sister Lucy after the 1984 act of offering since he took to his bed after celebrating his last Mass that day at Fatima and died six days later, on March 31.3

      Fr. Fox now attempts to mask this enormous lie by coming out with further lies. “Sister Lucy said, he writes, she had told the Papal Nuncio of Lisbon shortly after the March 25, 1984 consecration that it fulfilled the conditions required by Our Lord.”4

      Fr. Fox truly wants to get things right: “To which Papal Nuncio did Sister Lucia confide in 1984 telling him that the collegial consecration was now completed?” he asks Maria do Fetal. And she specified: “As regards the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Sante Portalupi died in Portugal on March 31 … Archbishop Salvatore Asta was appointed next … Archbishop Salvatore Asta asked Sister if the consecration of Russia was made on March 25, 1984. She answered, ‘Yes.’”5

      Fr. Fox dares to conclude: “Sister Lucy felt she had done her duty in 1984 by telling the Papal Nuncio.”6

      That is a new untruth. We know, in fact, that at the end of the year 1985, Archbishop Salvatore Asta — appointed Apostolic Nuncio to Portugal on October 17, 1984, still had not met Sister Lucy.7

      Nor had he any wish to meet her. He did not want to follow in the footsteps of Archbishop Portalupi, who had gone to the Coimbra Carmel after the act of offering of May 13, 1982, at Dr. Lacerda’s instigation, to hear Sister Lucy state that John Paul II had not satisfied Our Lady’s request.

      Archbishop Salvatore Asta did not want Sister Lucy to be able to tell him in front of witnesses that the consecration of Russia was not done as Our Lady wishes.

      To lend some credit to Maria do Fetal’s pronouncements, Father Fox is obliged to appeal to an alleged testimony of the Nuncio to Portugal: a non-existent testimony!

      For up to the month of June, 1989, all the existing and irrefutable witnesses prove8 that after March 25, 1984, Sister Lucy certified that the consecration of Russia had still not been accomplished.


      (1) From 1984-1989.

      (2) Fatima Family Messenger, October 1989, p. 9.

      (3) CRC 225, Eng. ed., January 1990.

      (4) The Wanderer, February 22, 1990, p. 10.

      (5) Fatima Family Messenger, Jan.-Mar. 1990, p. 11.

      (6) The Wanderer, February 22, 1990.

      (7) March 12, 1986, personal communication to Frère Michel.

      (8) Cf. CRC 226, Eng. ed.; The Fatima Crusader, Issue 31-32.

Why Our Lady of Fatima is Crying

Father Robert J. Fox
The Modernist enemy of Our Lady
Father 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.


“The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. … 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.”

… Sister Lucy

Related Articles:

“The Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. …


30. John Vennari was an eyewitness to this session at the Congress. See “Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine? An Account From One Who was There,” The Fatima Crusader, Issue 75, p. 16.

31. See The Fatima Crusader, Issue 76, pp. 59-60.

32. Catholic Times online, November 18, 2003.

33. TV broadcast on Portuguese Channel, SIC, May 5, 2004.

34. There are many historical accounts of this event. See, for example, “Our Lady and Islam: Heaven’s Peace Plan,” by Fr. Ladis J. Cizik.

35. See the article by J. Kaess, reprinted as an appendix in Fatima Priest, First Edition, (Good Counsel Publications, Pound Ridge, New York, 1997) pp. 360-364. See also Fourth Edition, pp. 154-155.

36. The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, p. 710.

37. Father Paul Kramer, ed., The Devil’s Final Battle, p. 33.

38. “A Vision of Christian Unity for the Next Generation,” The Tablet, May 24, 2003.

39. Father Paul Kramer, ed., The Devil’s Final Battle, pp. 141-143. See also Archbishop Goodier, S.J., The Public Life of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Vol. I, (Burns, Oates & Washbourne Ltd., London, England, 1932) p. 462.