"DO NOT PUBLISH THIS!"
Nothing I have ever written has caused me more problems than the following report, even my best friends have told me not to publish this; and yet, nothing is more important to understand the harm of false apparitions than this document. The one thing that apparition enthusiasts say over and over is that they have become holier (Even the Moonies became holier). They say that even if it turns out wrong, God will judge the intentions of their heart. God will judge their clear conscience rather than the facts that the apparitions were false or demonic. If I believed that, I would not only leave these people alone; I would be glad that there were frauds and demonic apparitions out there, because all the believers are sincere and all have clear consciences. I do not believe that, and so no matter how much abuse I am going to get from this newsletter, I believe it must be published. I expect more e-mail from this than anything I have ever published; and in fact, if someone can show me that this is wrong, I will publish their proof. Not even my spiritual director wants me to publish this, but he does not say that there is anything wrong with it. In fact, no one has said they agree with it. So on this, I am all alone, but willing to hear sound arguments against it. Anyway here goes.
Both Bishop Sheen and Pope John Paul II have said that the sin of the 20th Century is the denial of sin. Another way of putting this is the justification of sin. There is an epidemic in the world today of people who no longer believe sin is anymore than a social or ethnic infringement on their lives that changes with time, country, or ethnic and religious backgrounds.
These ideas (which have been called the social conflict between conscience and freedom) were started with the Reformation and Renaissance Reformers. It has now infiltrated the Catholic Church to the point that confessors, moral theologians, and bishops have come to believe that the conscience is that last arbitrator of morality, and the final judge as to what is sin and what is not sin. The repercussions of this thinking fall right into the sin against the Holy Spirit, which is a sin that cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world to come.
This will lead us into two seemingly irreconcilable statements in Scripture. All sin (no matter how great) God will forgive if asked, and yet there is a sin that will not be forgiven even in Purgatory.
FREEDOM VS. CONSCIENCE
There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Taken to its extreme consequences, this individualism leads to a denial of the very idea of human nature and the natural law. So-called behavioral sciences have so misused scientific research about customs, behavior patterns and institutions, that these theories end up in a relativistic conception of morality.
Some moral theologians in the Catholic Church allege a conflict between freedom and the natural law and grant to individuals or social groups the right to determine what is good or evil. Human freedom would thus be able to crate values and would enjoy primacy over truth, to the point that truth itself would be considered a creation of freedom. Freedom would thus lay claim to a moral autonomy which would actually amount to an absolute sovereignty.
Some people, however, disregarding the dependence of human reason on Divine Wisdom and the need, given the present state of fallen nature, for Divine Revelation as an effective means for knowing moral truths, even those of the natural order, have actually declared a complete sovereignty of reason in the domain of moral norms regarding the right ordering of life in this world.
These trends of thought have led to a denial, in opposition to Sacred Scripture (Mt. 15:3-6) and the Churchs constant teaching, of the fact that the natural moral law has God as its author (not man), and that man, by the use of reason, participates in the eternal law, which it is not for him to establish.
Some Catholic Theologians make a sharp distinction, contrary to Catholic doctrine, between an ethical order (human in origin and for social only) and salvation order (which is an interior attitude) which has no baring on actions.
The word of God would be limited to proposing an exhortation, a generic paralysis, which the autonomous reason alone would then have the task of completing with normative directives which are truly objective, this is, adapted to the concrete historical situation. Naturally, an autonomy conceived in this way also involves the denial of a specific doctrinal competence on the part of the Church and her Magisterium with regard to particular moral norms which deal with the so-called human good. Such norms would not be part of the proper content of Revelation, and would not in themselves be relevant for salvation. These theologians are famous in quoting (Sir. 15:14) God left man in the power of his own counsel.
THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE
God being the author of what is good and evil placed that knowledge in the heart of man at birth. It is called the natural law. Everyone knows good and evil without being taught. But this knowledge did not come from the man, it came from God. When Satan said to eve, You will be like God, knowing good and evil. He was telling her to be the author of what is good and what is evil.
The freedom God gave man to be in his own counsel (Sir. 15:14) must halt before the tree of knowledge, which belongs to God. The moral law has its origin in God and always finds its source in him: at the same time, by virtue of natural reason, which derives from divine wisdom, it is a properly human law. Indeed, as we have seen, the natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding infused in us by God, whereby we understand what must be done and what must be avoided. The autonomy of reason, however, cannot mean that reason itself creates values and moral norms.
By forbidding man to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, God makes it clear that man does not originally posses such knowledge as something properly his own.
Human dignity requires man to act through conscious and free choice, as motivated and prompted personally from within, and not through blind internal impulse or merely external pressure. Man achieves such dignity when he frees himself from all subservience to his feeling. He rises above his feelings to his super-natural dignity. God commands us to respect the natural order and forbids us to disturb it. He cares for man not from without through the laws of physical nature, but from within through reason, which, by its natural knowledge of Gods eternal law, rises above the animals feelings.
It is wisdom to subordinate our reason to the Wisdom of God, even though that wisdom is the natural law written on our hearts when created. Nonetheless, we cannot trust that since we can so weaken our natural reason through social pressures and habitual sin, as to no longer have reason.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
This interior law written not with ink but with the Spirit of God was so weakened by sin, God was forced to write it on tablets of stone. In Matthew 19:16 the rich man asked Christ, what he must do to enter Heaven. Christ answered, Keep the Commandments.
You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
How are we to understand these commandments? Why did Christ only mention five of the ten, adding love of neighbor, but not God ? In 1 John 4:20 we read, If anyone says, I love God. and hates his brother, he is a liar. Again Christ explains the Commandments, You have heard that it was said to the men of old, You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matthew 5) Then in Chapter 19 of Matthew, Christ teaches another lesson on the Commandments when he rejects the right to divorce, appealing to a beginning more fundamental and more authoritative than the Law of Moses, the universal law. This universal law binds everyone. When they disregard the law, or even are merely ignorant of it, whether culpably or not, our acts damage the communion of persons, to the detriment of each.
Now getting back to the five Commandments Christ told to the man and added love. These five are the negative precepts of the law. The negative precepts of the law are universally valid. They oblige each and every individual, always and in every circumstance. It is a matter of prohibitions which forbids a given action Semper et pro semper, without exception. It is prohibited to everyone and in every case to violate these precepts. They oblige everyone, regardless of the cost, never to offend in anyone, beginning with oneself, the personal dignity common to all.
Semper et pro semper means that to lie (bare false witness) is always and always a sin. [See note - last page] To steal is always and every time a sin, even if you know you are going to pay it back.
THE NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE COMMANDMENTS
On the other hand, the fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbor does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done [as compared to what cannot be done] in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen; on the other hand there are kinds of behavior which can never, in any situation, be a proper response which is in conformity with the dignity of the person. Finally, it is always possible that man, as the result of coercion or other circumstances, can be hindered from doing certain good actions; but he can never be hindered from not doing certain actions, especially if he is prepared to die rather than to do evil. The examples of the thousands of martyrs proves that no one can be forced to do evil, however, one can be restricted from doing good. Breaking a negative law is always sin, but the positive laws can have conditions.
Even in the positive laws one must have reservations about what is and is not a sin. For instance, it is a positive law (love), to reprimand the sinner, but some say we can do this by our example. Some say that they do not want to hurt peoples feelings or loose their love or friendship. (This is especially true with children.) Some say its none of their business what others do (This is often true of brothers and sisters and even ones parents.). These are sins against love because of convenience, cowardice, social status or mental sloth. St. John, the Baptist did not have to tell Herod that he was sinning in his marriage. For doing so, he lost his head. St. Thomas More did not have to publicly state that King Henry the XIII was sinning in his marriage, since he had already told him privately. He lost his head also, saying that silence is affirmation. Regarding St. Thomas More, would he have been justified in compliance with the law of love for his friend, by just telling him privately. Was the positive law of love achieved by simply telling the King, or was St. Thomas obliged by the law of love to go farther to convince his friend that he was sinning, even to the loss of his friend, even to the loss of his job, even to the loss of his family, even to the loss of his head?
The question we must ask is Can we say we love someone, and let them go to Hell. Does it become our sin, if we directly or indirectly contribute to sin. Suppose our children live with us, although they are past 21 years of age. Suppose they use their own money to do evil, and in fact, do some evils in our own home. The fact that they live with us makes it our sin of cooperation. The fact that we contribute to their having money left over to sin, by giving them free room and board, makes it our sin against love. Its a sin against love to not correct the sinner if our reasons are selfish: --- convenience - do not want the hassle - cant handle the pressure - dont want to see them mad or sad - etc. A good example is the woman who was found guilty of neglect of her daughter and given three years in jail. Her daughter had an eating disorder. The mother did not want to say no to her daughter for anything. The daughter died at over 300 pounds as a teenager.
It is a positive law to honor your father and mother, which means their can be exceptions. You do not obey them in sin. But this positive law also is defined by the Church as giving due honor and obedience to all authority. Therefore, if we violate a state or federal or Church law, knowingly, we have sinning against the Fourth Commandment. (The exception being sin - like abortion.)
We can give cases that we think most people would justify, and lets repeat what Pope John Paul II and Bishop Sheen have said, The denial of sin is the sin of the 20th Century. This is justifying sin.
Let us suppose (This is a true case.) that a man received a traffic ticket in another state other than his own. Then through no fault of his own he forgot to pay it. Then, through no fault of his own, he gets in a financial situation that forces him to work many hours six days a week. One Friday he receives a notice in the mail that his drivers license has been revoked because of the ticket he forgot to pay. The logistics of getting his license back would take two weeks. This same man had almost a perfect driving record. He made the choice to drive back and forth to work. Was this justified? No!
A young woman becomes disabled because of mental imbalances that prevent her from holding thoughts long. She has good insurance. She receives a substantial disability along with medical treatment. Competent doctors find no cure. In time, however, as is typical with insurance companies, they cut off the insurance. They then find their own doctors to say that she is no longer sick. She has to take them to court. She is right and they are wrong. However, in order to beat them in court, she must exaggerate her inability to work. In other words, to lie. Is this justified? No!
A young woman finds that she has cancer. Doctors want to give her chemotherapy. She knows that the best treatment is mega-doses of vitamins and health foods that can only be gotten out of the country. Its very expensive. She is almost certain that within a year she will receive a large settlement from a insurance company. But by then the cancer could spread too far to stop. Her father could borrow enough money but always puts up such a fuss about how poor he is, that she decides to forge his signature on credit cards. The treatments work. She pays off the credit cards. He never knows that she did it. It probably saved her life. Is this justified? No!
A man visits his father after being away for many years. His father is active in the Church. He goes to church every Sunday and prays three rosaries every morning. However, he also goes to the race track every day of the year. This mans father does not over bet the horses, but is addicted to the gamble. One Sunday, the son notices that his father misses Sunday Mass in order to go to the track. He says nothing. The next Saturday, the son sits in Church for over two hours to see if his father goes to Confession. He doesnt, but on Sunday next he goes to communion. The son says nothing. Is the son sinning by not saying anything to the father? Yes! These cases are extreme for a reason. Many in our culture justify much more serious sin with a clear conscience. Why? Everyone is doing it. It is common in our culture.
CULTURE OR PEER PRESSURE
Man always exists in some culture, but it must be admitted that man is not exhaustively defined by that same culture. Moreover, the very progress of cultures demonstrates that there is something in man which transcends those cultures. This something is precisely human nature: This [human] nature is itself the measure of culture and the condition insuring that man does not become the prisoner of any of his cultures, but asserts his personal dignity by living in accordance with the profound truth of his being. [NO ONE IS IGNORANT OF THE TRUTH WITHOUT WANTING TO BE IGNORANT OF THE TRUTH.]
In the depths of his conscience man detects a law which he does not impose on himself, but which holds him to obedience. (VII) [By constant sin, drugs, drink, loud music, television, etc., man can kill the small voice of his conscience, but it never goes away completely. Even if it could be killed completely, the very act of killing something of God - Wisdom overlays every other sin that can be committed with a clear conscience. Now here is the key.]
Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin. (Vatican II)
Even in the case of invincible ignorance the sin does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind form being accustomed to sin. (Vatican II)
Freedom of conscience is never freedom from the truth but always and only freedom in the truth. You cannot blame your society, your father and mother, your friends, no one except yourself for sin, because no one is ignorant of the truth without wanting to be ignorant of the truth. Why? Family, tradition, way of life, nationalism, laziness, lust, and many other reasons. These are not justifiable in the eyes of God. A good example is the man who has come to know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but he says that he cannot leave his religion without loosing his mother and father and family. This is why Christ said, Unless I come before your mother, father, sister, brother, and even your life, I will not have any part of you. And again, If you are ashamed of me before man, I will be ashamed of you before My Father. Truth must be the first love, because truth is the way to God and to human dignity.
Reconciliatio et Paentientia reaffirms the importance and permanent validity of the distinction between mortal and venial sins. Mortal sin is sin whose object (not consequences) is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.
Even so, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of fundamental option --- as is commonly said today - against God. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of Gods love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. The very clear and free choice to not know the law of God, can in itself be mortal to the soul, since it is a free choice to avoid God. The very clear and free choice to become ones own Christ, is a very clear sin. To become ones own Christ is to become ones own law. I do what is right. I never hurt anyone. I help people. I see no reason to be in an organized religion. I can pray at home. There is no reason for me to go to a church. This is a person who has decided to be his own law, his own Christ. This is a fundamental orientation away from Christ and his laws. This is saying, Not Gods way, my way.
GOOD FROM EVIL?
The weighing of the goods and evils foreseeable as the consequence of an action is not an adequate method for determining whether the choice of that concrete kind of behavior is according to its species, or in itself, morally good or bad, licit or illicit. The foreseeable consequences are part of those circumstances of the act, which, while capable of lessening the gravity of an evil act, nonetheless cannot alter its moral species.
Everyone recognizes the difficulty, or rather the impossibility, of evaluating all the good and evil consequences and effects defined as pre-moral --- of ones own acts: an exhaustive rational calculation is not possible. How then can one go about establishing proportions which depend on a measuring, the criteria of which remain obscure? How could an absolute obligation be justified on the basis of such debatable calculations?
There are certain specific kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. It often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. (Rom 3:8) There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just.
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature incapable of being ordered to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. Intrinsically evil, intrinsece malum: they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence of morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that there exist acts with per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.
These are: What is hostile to life itself, - homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, suicide: whatever violated the integrity of the human person - mutilation, physical and mental torture, coercing the spirit. Whatever is offensive to dignity - subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, trafficking in women and children, degrading conditions of work. Contraceptive practices which always pretend to be for a greater good.
Intrinsically evil acts, the Sacred Scriptures list in 1 Cor 6:9-10
do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revelers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God.
Acts which of themselves are sins (cum iam opera ipsa peccata sunt), Augustine says: theft, fornication, blasphemy, who would dare affirm that, by doing them for good motives (causis bonis), they would no longer be sins, or, what is even more absurd, that they would be sins that are justified?
It is never lawful, even for a gravest reason, to do evil that good may come of it. The greatest example of this is to lie.
SINS AGAINST HOLY SPIRIT - GRACE
How then can anyone keep the commandments? This the Apostles asked also. However, the New Law is the grace of the Holy Spirit given through faith in Christ. The New Law not only says what must be done, it also gives the power to do it. As Augustine taught, The law was given that grace might be sought, and grace was given, that the law might be fulfilled. --- grant what you command and command what you will. --- Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love? And he answers, But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments.
Now if keeping the commandments completely is possible because of grace, and grace is poured out abundantly on those who love, and since Christ said that any sin can be forgiven if asked, how is it that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven? Can God contradict Himself? Can His Scripture contradict itself? No! Well, then, we must reconcile the apparent contradiction. If all sins can be forgiven if asked, then the sin against the Holy Spirit is the sin that is not asked. Thats simple, but that is not what you were taught. You were taught that blaspheme was the sin against the Holy Spirit. To blaspheme, most people think, is to say something, to use the name in a bad way. But, since we never hear anyone say, Holy Spirit, in a bad way, do we assume that no one sins against the Holy Spirit? To understand this we must understand what is meant by Do not take the name of the Lord, thy God in vain. At the time the bible was written, especially at the time of Moses, a mans name was his honor. To dishonor a person was to dishonor his name. The word vain is a bad translation from the Hebrew, it should be translated commonly. Now, to understand this commandment properly, it should be written for Americans as You shall not treat God commonly. How is that related to a sin against the Holy Spirit and sins in which we do not ask forgiveness?
The Gifts of the Spirit --- wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, godliness, fear of the Lord. (Is. 11:2-3) The Fruits of the Spirit --- charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, perseverance, mildness, faith, modesty, continency, chastity. (Gal. 5:22-23)
Now regarding the man and his wife that pretended to be good Christians before men, Peter said, You have lied to the Holy Spirit. ---You have not lied to men but to God. (Acts 5:3-4) Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.
Christ said to the High Priests, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. (Matthew 12:31-32)
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth (John 14:16-17) who will teach us all things (John 14:26) who is sent to teach us the truth (John 16:13) and will give us the power to act on that truth (Acts 1-4-8), and no man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor. 13:3)
Another word for blasphemy is sacrilege, and to despise truth is to despise the Holy Spirit. A second definition of blasphemy is irreverence and to treat the Holy Spirit commonly is blasphemy. A third word for blasphemy is impiety and to be impious towards the grace of God is blasphemy. A fourth word for blasphemy is profanity and to use the grace of God for our own gain is blasphemy.
But the two most important aspects of blasphemy are to attribute to the demons what belongs to the Holy Spirit or to attribute to the Holy Spirit what belongs to demons. This is what prompted Christ to speak to the High Priests about the unforgivable sin. The second most important aspect is the denial of sin. But these two are related. Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom of Heaven, (Matthew 7:21), but he that does the will of my Father.
Many will come to me in that day and say to me, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your have, and cast out devils in your name, and done many miracles in your name. And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me you that work iniquity. Everyone therefore that hears these my words, and does them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock. (Matthew &:23-24)
What is of interest in this passage is that the man thought he was doing Gods will and he thought he was going to get into Heaven. He is surprised. How then was his clear conscience distorted in such a way that he thought he was doing right? He was doing it his way and not Gods way. He continued to do it his way so long that he convinced himself that his way was Gods way. He had become his own way, but wanted to convince God that it was the right way. There is only one Way, and its in our heart at birth if we do not kill it. Yes, a mortal sin has to have knowledge of it being against Gods natural and formal law, but the habitual state of sin becomes the sin that has killed the Holy Spirit in the man, and when the Spirit of Truth no longer can be found inside, the man is already living the mortal sin.
Now, when a man thinks he is doing the right thing, because he has killed the conscience, he will not ask forgiveness of sins that he does not consider sins. If he does not ask forgiveness, God cannot forgive him. By denying that sin is sin, he denies the need for forgiveness, and God cannot forgive him because he does not ask for forgiveness. If the Holy Spirit came to convince us of sin (John 13:8), and we do not believe Him that we have sinned, how can he forgive us?
Likewise if we attribute the works of the Holy Spirit to demons or the works of demons to the Holy Spirit, will God forgive us? Can a devil open the eyes of the blind? (John 10:21) No, but he can fake many pseudo- miracles, through mass-hypnotism, hysteria, visions, and the like. He cannot create something out of nothing which it would require to make a truly blind person see, or a person with cancer be well. These things would require the creation of new tissue instantaneously. But knowing the true from the pseudo is our wisdom to know. If we do not know, leave it to the Church as the Lord has commanded. (Matthew 18:17)
The two most prevalent sins against the Holy Spirit of our day: the denial of sin (self justification), and attributing to the Holy Spirit what belongs to the demonic are tied together as Case Five will show. This also is a true case.
Some young teenage hippies go to a field to smoke some cigarettes where their parents cannot see them. There they see a vision (or faked a vision - it doesnt matter), and ran back to tell their families. In time the entire town comes to believe them, and then the world. A very wealthy man saw in this an opportunity to create an independent country out of this if only he could get world wide support, financially and politically. He owned a winery in that country and a chain of Pizza Parlors in Canada. Through world wide lies, faked miracles, mind control, and manipulation of the masses, he created a world wide organization that poured over a trillion dollars into this small area that became the independent country that he wanted. How did he do it? He got millions of good Catholics to donate millions of dollars to what they thought was a religious cause. He used this money to buy guns. He used the guns to kill thousands of innocent people and to drive them out of his (new) country. These so-called good Catholics were donating money that was being used to blow arms off five and six year old children. It was used for ethnic cleansing. It was mass murder against people who had no arms or defense.
Were the good Catholics innocent of these sins? No, because the Church had told them over and over that this was not from God. They decided to trust their own discernment (It feels so good.) instead of the Church, who God gave the gift of the Holy Spirit to in these matters. They became a church into themselves. They are not innocent. In this newly established country, they are even creating their own Church that they will make independent of the Catholic Church and they will have their own pope.
SINS AGAINST THE BRIDE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
Have you made the Five First Saturdays?"
"What was the purpose for which you offered them?"
Almost every time these questions are asked , people answer with a blank stare. This is amazing; but even more astonishing than that is the vast amount of Catholics who have never even heard of Fatima. A woman who attended Catholic Schools for thirteen years, she has two sisters and two cousins who are nuns, said that she had never heard of Fatima. A Catholic News Editor said he did not know about the Five First Saturdays. These are not unique or isolated instances. Moreover, those of us who know about Fatima and think we have made the Five First Saturdays, may be shocked to learn that we have not really kept them after all. If you do not know the story of Fatima, or if you have forgotten it, read it again. There is no excuse for American Catholics not to know of the miraculous events which transpired at Fatima. Priests who say that Fatima is a private devotion, and not part of the deposit of faith, are correct. However, the example of every Pope since Pius XI, all of whom have talked about, written about or visited Fatima, should be enough for any priest to realize its importance. Paul VI used Fatima as his reason for the Encyclical "Signuma Maguma," (THE GREAT SIGN) of May 13, 1967 by stating that ". . .the religious ceremonies which are taking place at this time, are in honor of the Virgin Mother of God in Fatima, Portugal. "
Briefly, the story of Fatima tells us that the Virgin Mary miraculously appeared to three children in 1917 at Fatima, Portugal. She told the children of the future rise and fall of Communism, the rise and fall of Russia, the end of the Masonic government in Portugal, the early death of the two youngest children, the long life of the oldest of the children, Lucia, and of a secret which could take place before the end of the 20th century.
One of the many stories of Fatima took place on December 10, 1925. Lucia, the eldest of the three children and now Sister Lucia of St. Dorothy, was kneeling in prayer in the convent chapel when the Virgin Mary and Christ Child appeared to her. The Christ Child said to Lucia:
"Have pity on the heart of your Most Holy Mother, which is covered with thorns that ungrateful men drive into it every instant, while there is no one who does an act of reparation to withdraw them from Her."
Lucia saw the crown of thorns around the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Then Our Lady spoke to her, saying:
"Look, my daughter, at my Heart encircled with thorns, with which ungrateful men wound it every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. Give me consolation, you, at least; and announce for me that I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all who on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING REPARATION TO ME."
Now to ask these questions again. What is the reason for which you offered up the Five First Saturdays? How have we blasphemed against the Mother of God? How have we shown Her our gratitude, or have we been ungrateful toward Her? St. Maximillian Kolbe was haunted all his life by the words of Our Lady to Bernadette of Lourdes, "I am the Immaculate Conception".
We should ask, "How might I have sinned against my Mother by putting thorns into Her Immaculate Heart?"
At first thought, any sin is a sin against Her Son and, therefore, very painful to Her. However, this does not hold true against the two words, "Blaspheme and Ingratitude". With some pride we Catholics say we are not like Protestants who totally disregard the Mother of God and thus assume we are not guilty of sins against Her. But She cannot be speaking to or about Protestants. Her words would be useless to their deaf ears. She is speaking to Catholics, who think by honoring Her they are incapable of sinning against Her.
Our thinking today, after painful reflection, is that there are many ways in which we have sinned against Mary. Therefore , are we the ungrateful Catholics who placed thorns into Her Immaculate Heart? We placed these thorns by our failure to defend Her against the attacks of those who don't understand Her place in the master plan of God. We placed thorns into the Immaculate Heart of Mary by our failure to learn all that can be learned about Her. We placed thorns into Her Heart by our failure to understand the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Mary as is revealed in Holy Scripture and logic.
We had failed to learn that it is Our Lady that the Holy Spirit is speaking about in Chapter 12 of Apocalypse. We had failed to understand how to read Holy Scriptures and therefore did not know the extent of the relationship of the Holy Spirit to Mary; and how that relationship mirrors the perfection of the relationship of Christ to his Church. From the saints we learn that Chapter 21 of Apocalypse "the Heavenly Jerusalem coming down out of heaven is the bride of the Holy Spirit, Mary; and it is also the bride of Christ, the Church. It is the Holy Spirit speaking of Mary and it is Christ speaking of His Church. From the saints we learn that Psalm 44 is the Holy Spirit speaking of his spouse, Mary; and it is Christ speaking of his spouse, the Church. We learn that the Song of Song (Canticle of Canticles) is the Holy Spirit singing of His Bride, Mary; and it is Christ singing of his bride, the Church. We learn that it would be Mary who would crush the head of Satan from Genesis 3:15 and that we are Her children if we keep the commandments of Her Son from Apocalypse 12:17. It was Mary and the Christ child seen in a vision by the angles as a test before the world was created in Apocalypse 12 and that Satan and his followers were cast out of heaven for not accepting Her in Apocalypse 12:9 and that there has been a battle between Satan and Mary every since in Apocalypse 12:17. We learn from St. Maximillian Kolbe that,
"What God has put together let no man put asunder",
and God has put together the Holy Spirit and Mary so completely as to become one body. God has put together Christ and the Church so completely as to become one body. The Holy Spirit dwells in Mary so fully that you cannot find Him without Her help. From Kolbe and Catherine Laboure (the Miraculous Medal) we see how all grace, all the gifts of the Holy Spirit come through Mary and in no other way. Maybe you knew everything about the Bible and could quote from every chapter; and yet knew nothing. God first thought of a perfect creation, Mary; and all other creations put together would not equal Her perfection because She would become the first Child of the Father, the bride of the Holy Spirit and the Mother from whom God would enter the world.
Defend your Mother against the attacks from liberal Catholics, Protestants, Moslems, and atheists. To not do so is to sin against your Mother. Even to not know how to is to sin against the Spirit of Truth, Her Spouse. How many times have we sinned against Mary by our ingratitude? Every grace that ever came to us came from Her Hands, and we failed to thank Her. Every time Satan attacked, She defended us, and we failed to thank Her. How many times throughout history has She appeased the wrath of God and saved mankind from chastisement and we failed to thank her? Even now, She converted Russia and overthrew communism in more than forty countries, 97 dictators fell, and how many of us have thanked Her? How many of us have written to Lucia of Fatima and said, "Thank our Lady of Fatima for me, for the conversion of Russia."
Sister Lucia De Jesus
Convento De Santa Terresa
3000 Coimbra, Portugal
In 1943 Christ appeared to Lucia and said,
"I want all my children to recognize that the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is the reason for the conversion of Russia."
Have we recognized this? Or are we guilty of ingratitude? When Mary offered the Five First Saturdays, it was a promise and a prophesy. A promise to assist us at the hour of our death, and a prophesy that millions of Catholics would blaspheme the Holy Mother of God. What greater blaspheme can there be than to pray to and honor a false Mary? What greater blaspheme can there be than to pray rosaries to Satan disguised as Mary. Someday there will be an anti-Christ pretending to be Christ. Good Catholics will pray to him.
These prayers will be from the heart and from a clear conscience, but they will receive no grace from them and their conscience will not save them from the wrath of God (Veritatis Splendor). In the same way these rosaries to false Mary's will not produce grace and will not save them from the wrath of God, who sees the blaspheme against His Mother by people attributing to Mary the words of demons , psychotics, and frauds. To believe that the loving sweet Mother of God could say of us, "my cohort" (which means evil spirits of darkness or a Roman division of warriors) is blaspheme. To believe that Our Sweet Mother could say that Pope Paul VI, who wrote Humani Vita , Marialis Cultus, and Signum Magnum, was a false Pope is to blaspheme Our Mother. To believe that Our Sweet Mother could say that all religions are equal in the eyes of God or even that all religions are God's religions is to blaspheme Our Lady. To believe that the most obedient human in history would advocate disobedience to a bishop is the greatest of all blasphemies against our Sweet Mother.
Christ said to Lucia in 1925, " Have compassion on the heart of your Most Holy Mother, which is covered with thorns that ungrateful men drive into it every instant, ----" Make absolutely sure it is not you who are driving thorns into the Immaculate Heart of Mary, For God cannot forgive an unrepentant sin against the bride of Truth. If you have made the Five First Saturdays and have offered them up for sins against Mary, do them again and again and again, for eight out of ten Catholics in the world today are blaspheming against Mary by following false Mary's.
THE MOMENT OF DEATH
Christ said to the high priests, Prostitutes and publicans will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before you. Why is this? The same reason that he said the Publican was justified in his prayers and the Pharisee was not. The Pharisee justified his sins, and was not asking forgiveness. The Publican knew from grace that he was a sinning and said over and over, Lord, forgive me - a sinner. At the moment of death we can all be saved by a perfect act of contrition as the good thief on the cross. The Pharisee will not ask forgiveness because he has justified sin. God cannot forgive someone who is not repentant.
For this reason Satan would prefer a saintly Bishop who justified sin, to a prostitute who knows that she is sinning. At the moment of death the prostitute can still make it to Heaven. The Bishop, who is very very holy and everyone knows it, will not make it to Heaven if he has major sin that he has justified. Suppose he allows his priests to violate one or more of the laws of the Vatican regarding the Mass, however, in his heart he firmly believes that this is for the best interest of his people. In other words, he allows sin, that a good can come from it. The prostitute will have a better chance.
Scripture and the prophets tell us that there will be a chastisement in which 75% of the world will die someday. This will occur many years before the Anti-Christ. We know this and Satan knows this. Satan cant stop it because it is coming from God. But he can prepare people for the moment of death so that they will choose Hell. His best bet is a Sin Against the Holy Spirit, justifying sin or false Marys or Christs, because the mere sinners will have an opportunity at the moment of death to repent.
For Protestants he mixes up to periods of time: the chastisement and the Anti-Christ into one time and then invents "Rapture". The most important time in our life is "the moment of death". Satan wants us to think we have no reason to fear this moment; therefore, he invents things like RAPTURE. The Holy Scripture tells us that death or chastisements will come like a thief in the night when we least expect them. Facing sure death the Protestant will stand without fear thinking he will be raptured away at the last moment.
What then has Satan planed for the Catholic? A warning. Facing sure death, the Catholic will say, This cannot be the real chastisement, because there has not been a warning first.
The road to Hell is wide and many are they who take it. And yet, all it takes to go to heaven is to say, Lord, I am sorry. If you sin not, you are not sorry, and this is the greatest of all sins. This is why Satan would rather have someone in his pocket that prays 10 rosaries a day, goes to Mass everyday, and preaches a false Mary. That person will not confess as the prostitute will.
TBe careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism. One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4:3)
And for them do I sanctify myself that they also may be sanctified in truth. And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me; that they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that you have sent me. (John 17:19-21)
He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God. --- who presumes to do anything without the bishop, is both destroying the Churchs unity, and throwing its order into confusion. (St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans in 107 AD)
These may seem like strange passages for a Chapter on Judgment, but the word demonic means to divide. No matter how holy someone is, if they are guilty of disobedience to a bishop, a father, a mother, or any rightful authority in order to follow their private beliefs, this is not from God, unless of course, that bishop is violating the higher authorities of the Church: the Dogma, the Canons or the Pope. Unfortunately they (who disobey the bishop or the Church because some seer told them to) will not believe they are sinning until Christ says to them, I never knew you, depart from me you workers of iniquity into the pits of Hell forever.
NOTE: There may be one time when what appears to be a lie, is justified. In the life of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, 1st Century, the Christians hid him and did not tell where he was. One boy, however, was tortured and told the Romans. How these Christians kept this secret is not known. They could have told the Romans, I do not know., which would be lying, but would be considered as I do not know to you. by some moral theologians. This is a point to be left to the Church, but for now it would be safer to say, I cant say. as the only safe way to answer that question and know that you are not sinning. Its a fine point that maybe only God can answer. The problem we have with this is that Satan is described as the Father of lies.
So you think this is wrong, wrong, wrong? God cannot be that mean? He would not judge us for what we thought to be right? Well!
Almost all this document was plagiarized from Pope John Paul IIs Encyclical Letter VERITATIS SPLENDOR The Splendor of Truth. Take it up with the spokesman of Christ on earth.
Defending the Honor and reputation of the Mother of God
Rick Salbato "The Publican"
Managing Editor & Director
Back To Newsletter
For additional information in defense of the Truth,
the Holy Roman Catholic Church and the Mother of GOD,
please visit Unity Publishing's Libray of Catholic Articles.