Will the real Fatima.please stand up?

It dawned on that, everywhere I look, I see people who need Fatima’s message, yet even most who “promote” it get it wrong.
For many, Fatima is “about Vatican II,” when, if anything, Vatican II was about Fatima.
For many, it was and is about a magical formula for the “consecration of Russia” that will lead to the magical “conversion of Russia,” and in turn to an “era of Peace.” Those prophecies are open to interpretation until they can be seen through the lens of history. Sr. Lucia said St. John Paul fulfilled it. If he didn’t, it’s too late, anyway.
Russia’s errors have spread through the world: not just the Communism that is encroaching on the US thanks to so many money-hungry “Catholics” voting for Obama, but also abortion (the USSR was the first country to legalize it).
The reason we have not seen mass conversions and world peace is not because the Pope failed to say the right words at the right place and time with the right bishops. It’s because laity, priests and religious fail to answer Our Lady’s call to conversion of heart:
sacrifices (in the manner of the Little Way);
true contrition and monthly (at least) Confession;
Frequent, sincere and meditative praying of the Rosary;
Devotion to and respect for the holy Eucharist
Wearing the Scapular or Miraculous Medal.
How many people do these practices at all, much less with the depth and sincerity Our Lady called for.
Francisco didn’t see her the first few times. He was below the age of reason and yet she still said he was guilty of too many sins and needed to say many Rosaries to see her and to avoid Purgatory. Yet we presume we’ll all be instant Saints.
She showed them souls falling into Hell like snowflakes, yet we hold to a watered-down universalism.
She said souls go to Hell mostly for sins of the flesh, which are as disgusting to the Devil as they are to God, and that, “Fashions will be introduced that will offend my Son greatly.” Yet we fall right into the filth with the rest of the Culture of Death.



8 responses to “Will the real Fatima.please stand up?

  1. Why would you call “Catholics” who vote for Obama money hungry (besides putting the word Catholics in scare quotes, implying they’re not real Catholics). While he has been a disappointing president, his promises were geared more towards the Catholic community than that of his opponents.

    Are we Catholics to vote for the Republicans, solely because they are against abortion. It is not as if making abortion illegal will make it go away, Have we learned nothing from Prohibition and the War on Drugs?
    What about Catholic social teaching? Pope Francis has talked so much about the need for compassion towards the poor and the need to lessen the ever widening gap between the rich and the poor, the Republicans are against any means of income redistribution and they are certaintly not compassionate towards the poor. They are for the death penalty, hardly a pro-life position and they kowtow to Evangelicules who ridicule our way of worship, such as our veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our belief in tradition and our fondness for statues and icons.

    It seems to me what you are saying is that abortion is the single most important political issue of our day when it comes to Catholic values.
    That’s just plain wrong!

    • I think a baby murdered legally every 25 seconds is pretty important, but, contraception is the single most important teaching. See _Evangelium Vitae_.
      Other forms of murder are illegal but still happen. Perhaps we should make them legal, too?
      You fail to understand Natural Law.
      As for CST, try actually reading the encyclicals. Socialism is the exact opposite of what the Church teaches. She tells us that workers have the right to own their labor (what public employee feels ownership over his or her labor?). She tells us that “charity”. by secular coercion is wrong. She tells us there should be a truly free market, free from government or corporate centralization. She tells us that economics should be kept as local as possible.

    • By the way, I hate the expression “scare” quotes; I have no intention of scaring anybody but stating the fact that those who support legalized abortion are Catholics neither in spirit nor in juridical fact.

  2. You didn’t answer any of my questions.
    You simply decided to brush aside all my questions and lecture me.
    I did not say abortion isn’t wrong or shouldn’t be outlawed, I said it is not the single most important issue for which we should exclude all others.
    I’m not a socialist, the need to lessen the gap between the rich and poor is something Pope Francis speaks of frequently.
    I never even mentioned socialism.
    A truly free market, one free of the negative influences of large corporations is not what the Republican party has in mind.
    And calling for a fairer tax code, which places less burden on poorer people is not socialism.
    The United states is hardly a country that can boast about it’s fair legal system, being the country that imprisons a larger percentage of its own people than any other modern country.
    Putting a word in scare quotes and having the words “so-called” precede it aim to accomplish the same thing.

    • I thought my “lecture” was an answer. 1) My point is that, while I know plenty of people, myself included, who believe the Republicans’ economic positions, though imperfect, are closer to CST than the Democrats’, but I know of no one who votes for the Republicans to get abortion outlawed who’d support a pro-abortion Republican over a pro-life contender based solely upon economics, but plenty who vote Democrat based solely on economics, and I call that putting greed above human life.
      2) You really don’t see how outlawing the fundamental evils ripping apart the fabric of society should be our priority, if forced to choose, nor understand why I question the Catholicism f anybody who thinks money is more important than lives?
      3) Did you even read my original post? You’re claiming I didn’t answer your questions, yet you’re not addressing my claims about how liberals can say their agenda of supporting material greed and moral laxity meshes with the message of Fatima.

  3. I personally believe in (the miracle/occurrences at) Fatima, but as you know though the church accepts it, it does not ask that all Catholics believe it, you can be a Catholic in good standing and not believe a word of it.
    Secondly, voting for someone for economic reasons alone is hardly greed, when the people you are aiming to help are the poor (unless you are doing it because you feel it would benefit you financially).
    I believe that fixing economic problems such as the growing gap between rich and poor will have positive ripple effects in society, one small example would be less abortions from poor people who are worried about how to feed another mouth.
    The bottom line for me is that under a two-party system, it’s often choosing the lesser of two evils, one party has more in common with CST the other with moral teaching.
    For me it’s not so easy as saying “abortion is the most important issue so I will base my vote solely on that” (I’m not quoting anyone in particular here).
    The system needs to be reformed so we can have many parties none of which need to win a majority in order to form a governing coalition.
    Otherwise I can see no way to stop “fundemental evils ripping apart the fabric of society” only slowing the ripping.

    • Then let’s get back to my original point, which was addressed at Fatima fanatics, as it were. 1) If an event witnesses by thousands of people and demonstrated by photographs is true, we may be free to not believe it in the sense that only public revelation is necessary for salvation, but the way I see it, not accepting Fatima, or Lourdes, Guadalupe, Zeitun, or the Shroud, considering the mountain of evidence for each, is like denying that Washington crossed the Delaware or that my body is made up of cells.
      2) if it happened, taken for granted by the intended audience of my post, then its message should be heeded.
      3). The point of the Consecration of Russia was to or event her “errors” from being spread–the time for such prevention has passed. What are those “errors” except socialism, abortion and eugenics?

    • BTW, in his 2004 letter to Cdl. mcCarrick about the USCZcB’s debated pastoral on voting, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said moral absolutes like abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage must take priority over areas the Church leaves to prudential judgement. Yes, that letter has been too often conflated with Catholic Answers’ voter guide of the same year, but it’s still an important guideline,
      We do not have a “two party system.” The Constitution says nothing about parties. They’re a practical reality but not a necessity. In a 2000 statement about the anniversary of Evangelium Vitae, St. JP2 called it a sin against hope to vote for the candidate who seems more popular or for a lawmaker to vote for a law based upon its perceived popularity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s