There are many ways one can deal with the Catholic obsession with Russia. One can deplore her clearly unhealthy worry over private revelation and its implicit rejection of her previous tradition. One might also view this as a worry over Russia’s size and strength, despite her present and temporary weakness in foreign affairs.

Regardless, it is true that private visions have been at the center of dogmatic controversies in the past, such as with “The Vision of St. Adamnan” and those of St. Macarius of Egypt. Such private revelations have helped define certain notions of the Christian idea of life after death. And it might be worth noting that both of these visions, from saints of both Roman and Orthodox churches, contain no mention of the later doctrine of Purgatory, but this is another matter entirely.

But in the cases of the 20th century apparitions of “Mary” to various children throughout western Europe, there are detailed instructions, with much political and social content never found in previous private revelations, either east or west. Since Roman Catholics are abysmally ignorant of pre-Renaissance church history, they know little of prior revelations. Such earlier revelations are radially distinct from those of the 20th century, both in form and in content.

One might ask why there were no private revelations warning about the Arian crisis, or that of the Monophysites, or the east/west split, or King Henry VIII, or the destruction of Poland, or the French revolution, or the persecution of the Catholic church in Republican Spain, or hundreds of other bad times for the western church in past ages and centuries? Why only recent times?

The use of private revelations for Roman Catholics, especially since the radical changes to the Church of Rome after the Second Vatican Council, have offered many self-styled traditionalists a convenient battering ram against the modernist mentality dominating in Rome. It has provided self-styled “Mariologists” a platform to preach to the world, and being able to claim they are the recipients (at least indirectly) of special revelations that the pope, nor his bishops, have immediate access to. Fatima and Lourdes have provided a ready means for certain Catholics to challenge the modernist hierarchy in Rome and to provide an independent basis for operations against a hierarchy many self-styled traditionalists believe is long out of step with the traditions of the Council of Trent. Here again, do these private revelations of modern times differ radically from those of earlier ages.

Ity needs to be noted that the fathers of the ancient church warned tirelessly against visions and private revelations. With a few exceptions, such visions were considered delusions of the devil to trick even the elect. It might also be noted that the exceptions mentioned, those of St. Adamnan of ancient Ireland and Macarius of Egypt, there was never any “papal approval,” or “approval” from a bishop of any kind. They became part of the deposit of faith because many devout came to accept these visions as true over time. There was no formal “approval” of such things, another major difference between the ancients and modern Romanist practice. Such warnings have been heedlessly disregarded by modern, alienated Roman Catholics looking for external proofs for their faith. Here is a popular citation from the Life of St. Antony:

Some brothers came to find Abba Anthony to tell him about the visions they were having, and to find out from him if they were true or if they came from the demons. They had a donkey which died on the way. When they reached the place where the old man was, he said to them before they could ask him anything, "How was it that the little donkey died on the way here?" They said, "How do you know about that, Father?" And he told them, "the demons showed me what happened." So they said, "That was what we came to question you about, for fear we were being deceived, for we have visions which often turn out to be true." Thus the old man convinced them, by the example of the donkey, that their visions came from the demons.

In the normal course of things, the ancients were convinced that the Scriptures, tradition and the writings of the fathers were sufficient for all faithful, and therefore, due to the strong possibility that visions are from the evil one, that such things as private visions are to be a priori rejected and both dangerous and unnecessary. It might be noted in the famous passage quoted above, St. Antony makes mention of the fact that the mere notion of a vision being “true” in no manner excludes the question of demonic influence. The lives of the Desert Fathers are saturated with stories of visions brought to holy men from demons. In all cases there are a few similarities: first, it is the manifest ascetic life of the man in question that permits him to see the deceit of the evil one; second, demons always clothe themselves in the most pious manner possible, making it impossible to tell truth from falsehood. Only the holiness of the father in question makes this possible. Therefore, visions granted to children, who are inexperienced in the ascetic life, can never be trusted, if even the most pious visions given to holy men are to be rejected a priori.

The apparitions of Fatima just prior to the end of World War I have been at the center of controversy for a number of reasons, not the least of which concerns a curious demand that “Russia” be “consecrated” to the “Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Devotion to the “Immaculate Heart” in terms of doctrinal history, is also curious. It has been noted that this "heart" is really a devotion upon the virtues and love of Mary towards her Son, which, of course, is at the root of all devotions to the Mother of God, thus rendering this specific devotion oddly superfluous. This specific devotion, however, goes back to John Eudes, a saint in the Roman church, whose office for this devotion was rejected by Rome during his own lifetime, and again rejected in 1729 under different circumstances. It did not become an “official” devotional office until the desperate straits of pope Pius VI just after the French Revolution.

Regardless of its specific doctrinal history, which has always been tolerated though only recently receiving public approbation, it has absolutely no history among the Orthodox people. All devotion to the Mother of God has revolved around her maternal care of Jesus, the fact that it was her flesh that clothed divinity, and that he lived under obedience to her for 30 out of his 33 earthly years. There is no specific devotion to hear “heart” however conceived. It is therefore a rather odd devotion to make as the center point of the Romanists dealings with Russia.

It might be worth while to examine a few of the words of Fatima’s most tireless crusader, Fr. Nicholas Gruner. I know little about him, except that he is either loathed or loved by Roman Catholics. Some view him as a crusader for the proper devotion of Mary, others view him as a monomaniac, and a priest without faculties to boot. Regardless of the opinions out there on him, he is at the center of this storm, and considered by nearly all Catholics as an authority on these apparitions and specifically, the “consecration of Russia.”

Here are a few words of Fr. Gruner (in italics), followed by come questions raised by the author:

At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church, and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Communions of reparation and for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart ... In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” Our Lady’s request is very simple: Russia—the fount of so much evil in the 20th Century—must be set apart and made sacred by its consecration to the Mother of God.

Several things should be mentioned here. Given the time period, Russia was bleeding white, as was Germany, France and Austria, during the first Great War. It may make some sense in that Russia will become the center of the world, with which this author agrees. Of course, there are many ways to interpret this. The USSR (not Russia) will become the center of global violence and unrest. This is true. Notice it says nothing about the destruction of the Austrian empire, the Catholic stronghold in central and eastern Europe; to say the least a curious omission. It might be noted that Austria had many times attempted to forcibly convert the Serbs who spent to much blood and treasure defending Austria’s borders against Turkey, only to fail each and every time. It might also be noted that the only reasons the Austrian empire even existed to fight in World War I was that Tsar Nicholas I intervened after the revolutions of 1848 to reinstall the Emperor back to his throne in Vienna.

The specifically stupid comment is that Russia is the fount [sic] of “so much evil in the 20th century.” I should take a few minutes here to remind Fr. Gruner that Marxism came from Germany, with plenty of revolutionary potential from France. It is the godson of the French revolutionaries and is the grandson of the western European enlightenment. Marxism and revolution was a western European import into Russia, while the Tsars did all in their power to stop the tide. In fact, all enlightenment materialism and liberalism was imported from the west into Russia. Fr Gruner continues:

At Fatima, Our Lady warned that if the consecration were not done as She requested, then “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.” By the same token, the miraculous conversion of Russia after its consecration by the Pope and the bishops, and the resulting peace in the world, will be a sign of the power of God’s grace acting through ministers of His Church and the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

One might assume that the “conversion” here is one to Roman Catholicism. Russia was still officially an Orthodox country in 1917, so there can be no doubt as to its intention. It might be asked here why the invasion of Russia by Poland during the Time of Troubles did not succeed in converting the country, with a Roman Catholic “Tsar” in Moscow, and why there was no private revelation at this very propitious time for Catholicism in Russia. Or Austria’s attempt at forced conversion of the Serbs. Or the Crusaders in 1204 and beyond, or the Teutonic and Livonian Knights, taking advantage of Russia’s weakness after the Tartar attacks, etc. etc. Every attempt to forcibly convert Orthodox people has failed.

Thus, without the act of consecration there will be no conversion of Russia, and without the conversion of Russia, Russia’s errors will continue to infest the world, producing the persecution of the Church, the martyrdom of the good, the suffering of the Holy Father and ultimately the annihilation of nations forewarned at Fatima.

The notion of Russia spreading her errors was spoken in 1929. This is eccentric, because Russia was then known as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Why did not these apparitions refer to the USSR? Why only Russia? Were her errors Marxism? Was it Orthodoxy? The USSR was officially atheist at the time, with the Orthodox Church in exile in Yugoslavia, with a substantial exile group in China. None of this is explained. Of course, nations were not “annihilated” in the normal sense of the term. Millions were murdered due to both Soviet and Chinese style Marxism, though the nations affected, such as Tibet and Ukraine, continue to survive. “Russia” as a cultural entity, was not involved in this. She was submerged into a prison camp called the USSR, with her best people either dead or in exile. Here again,

In 1929, at Tuy, Spain, as She had promised, Our Lady came to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country.

Russia was not a “country” in 1929. She was an administrative unit of the USSR. As a cultural entity, she was under attack and the victim of Soviet genocide (though there is a curious lack of interest in this fact from the apparitions). As a province of the USSR, she was a defined territory. As a people, she was spread throughout the world, in suffering exile.

In consecrating the world in general on that date without mentioning Russia, the Holy Father himself acknowledged in the presence of tens of thousands of witnesses, both during and after the ceremony, that the people of Russia were still “awaiting our consecration and confiding.”

I’m not sure what to make of this. Was there a public rally that I missed?

In 1997 Russia enacted legislation which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Catholic parishes are required to apply for an annual “registration” which can be revoked at will by any local bureaucrat, while priests and nuns are given only three-month visas which cannot be renewed. The Vatican has condemned the new law as a great setback for the Church in Russia.

And what, exactly, does Russia owe the Church of Rome? The religion law in Russia concerns religions that have a traditional presence in Russia. The Church of Rome does not have such a presence. When she did reside in Russia, it was as an agent of the Polish or Austrian crown, and with a clearly hostile intent. Orthodoxy was publically persecuted in Catholic Poland and Austria, as well as Lithuania. Public proselytization is still forbidden by non-Catholics in Spain.

Even the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Alexi II, publicly admitted on December 24, 1998, that since the supposed “fall of communism” in Russia, Christian culture “is not only being pushed into the background and oblivion, but is also being mocked and ridiculed ... as something extinct and unnecessary.” Alexi also decried the “rise of neo-paganism ... totalitarian sects, black magic practitioners, astrologers, and occultists” in “post-communist” Russia.

And this is also the case in New York and Paris. Although New Yorkers or Parisians have not lived under 70 years of totalitarianism and enforced atheism. Russians have an excuse. Westerners do not. If this is a criterion for consecration, then I call on the patriarch of Moscow to consecrate Hollywood to the Kazan Icon of the Theotokos.

Most telling of all: Since the “consecration” of 1984, more than 600 million children have been slaughtered in the womb around the world—including Russia, where legalized abortion began. The war on the unborn is the greatest war in the history of the world. Thus, it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that the period of peace promised by Our Lady if Russia were properly consecrated has yet to occur.

Abortion began in Russia? Abortion was practiced in ancient Greece and Rome, and raised to a level of a sacrament in the west. The Roman Empire made infanticide obligatory for deformed children, as did many pagan civilizations in antiquity. If this is a reference to Stalin, he was not Russian, and Russia did not exist as a country. Stalin, as a good friend of mine recently pointed out, banned abortion in Russia, after it had been legalized by Lenin, and then reistated by Khruschev. Specifically, Stalin, in a law dated June 27, 1936, provided for a 2 year prison term for procuring or performing an abortion. You might also notice that the consecration of Russia is linked to world peace. This is a bit of a new twist. It is not merely that Russia should convert to a religion that has been manifestly hostile to her for over 700 years, but that this conversion will being world peace. According to the Fatima Network, an earthly utopia will result from the consecration of Russia:

When the Consecration of Russia is done, this proper relationship between the ecclesiastical and civil authorities will be realized. There will be no clash between the Church’s teachings and the laws or governance of a country. For example, when we have the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, no government will have "legalized" abortion, divorce, contraception, etc.; the laws of God will guide the laws of the state.

The peace of Our Lady, as indicated by Isaias above, also includes the conversion of the world to Catholicism. This is the clear meaning of the first part of the passage, which states that nations will flock to the house of the Lord. It has been infallibly defined three times that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, it follows that God wants all men to be Catholic.

In sofar as the “annihilation of nations” is concerned, the Fatima Network mentions the following:

We do not know which nations will be annihilated from the face of the earth if the Consecration of Russia continues to be delayed. Our own nation could be one of them. Thousands of nuclear warheads exist throughout the world. Russia and Communist China, which are allies, both regard the United States as their enemy. While the nuclear warheads in Russia and China – or those possessed by other countries – may not be currently aimed at the United States, they could be aimed there within two minutes.

These are curious notions. The first is that Russia, whether Marxist or no, is the primary threat to world peace, and this peace is defined as the global dominion, both in the civil and religious spheres, of the Church of Rome (and I assume only after it restores the liturgy of Trent). Second, the annihilation of nations, since it was not realized under the domain of Marxism, now might be realized between an exchange of nuclear weapons between Russia and the U.S. Russia’s hostility to the U.S. is based upon its interference in its internal affairs, as well as funding anti-Russian movements in the Baltics, Ukraine and Georgia. Therefore, it is the U.S. that is provoking Russia’s hostility, making a consecration of Russia even stranger. It is the U.S. that needs consecration.

Russia is not a Marxist country any longer. Her foreign and domestic policy is firmly nationalist, at least under the reign of Putin, with a current popularity rating at roughly 80%. Private property is permitted, though with legitimate reservations. The church is currently free, and is spending a fortune in rebuilding its infrastructure. Russia is gaining in wealth under Putin, and is developing an ethnic basis for protecting the Orthodox church. The exiles, under the Synod Abroad, have officially unified with the patriarchate, making the church even stronger, and giving it a truly global reach, and thousands of Catholics, fleeing the novus ordo, have converted to Orthodoxy. With the Protestants, entire jurisdictions of evangelicals have recently converted. In other words, the worst fears of the Vatican are being realized–a strong unified Russia with a strong and unified Orthodox church. This is at the root of this “consecration.” Russia remains the gravest threat to the Vatican, and well as the U.S.

Most of the material found under the “Russia” section of the Fatima network is woefully dated, largely from the Cold War era. Outdated charts of nuclear parity between “Russia” and the U.S. are found. They must maintain the “Ruskies-are-still-communist” myth because the revelations of Fatima make no sense in the post-Cold War era, so Putin has been transformed into a Marxist, and the fall of Marxism in “Russia” and Eastern Europe made into a conspiracy to get western aid. The fact that there has been no aid to Russia since Putin came to power is lost on them, and the question of why Russians would deliberately dismantle 7/8ths of their economy from 1989 to 2000 is also not answered.

To conclude this brief discussion, it is necessary to refute the self-styled “Russia experts” such as Chris Ferrara, staff writer for Fr. Gruner’s periodical. Mr. Ferrara shows a striking ignorance of Russian politics and Russian history, and an obsessive drive to neatly fit all post-Cold War events into the Fatima structure, regardless of what facts have to be mutilated in the process.

Let me connect the dots for our Fatima revisionist friends: Putin was “elected” after he was handed the Kremlin and its vast political apparatus in a backroom Communist Party deal with Yeltsin. Putin then set about reestablishing centralized control over the various regions of Russia, re-nationalizing major industries, shutting down independent television stations on grounds of “tax evasion” and “debt collection,” putting journalists under FSG (formerly KGB) [ed note–I think Mr. Ferrara means the FSB here] surveillance, entering into a trade and military alliance with Red China, and overseeing the quite successful efforts of the Moscow patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church to suppress any expansion by the Catholic Church, which is forbidden even to have permanent resident priests and bishops in the country. In the midst of all this, crowds of young people “spontaneously” gather to sing the praises of the great Vladimir and read poems of tribute to his greatness.

Every word of this might have been taken from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal. First, Yeltsin resigned the presidency due to a popularity rating of about 8%. Second, Russia has entered into an alliance with the China to fight U.S., expansionism and its attendant social liberalism. Third, Putin’s Russia has more independent and foreign-owned newspapers than the U.S., many of which are quite anti-Putin. Fourth, Mr. Ferrara apparently missed the memo that the former KGB was purged of its old membership twice under Yeltsin, when the old guard attempted to overthrow him. And, last but far from least, Russia owes nothing to the Catholic Church, a long time enemy of all things Russian. Mr. Ferrara knows nothing of Russian politics he has not read in the Washington Post.

Allow me to enlighten Mr. Ferrara: Mr Putin has a popularity rating hovering around 80%. The economy in Russia has been growing at a substantial pace, roughly 10% yearly. Russian incomes have been growing. Inflation is under control, as is unemployment. Russia is being ringed with hostile states, loyal to the U.S., through rigged elections and foreign money. Russia has paid off all its debts and her military finally won the war in Chechnya. Mr. Ferrara, I wonder if Putin’s popularity and his party’s electoral victories have something to do that this?

Either way, the mentality of the Fatima Crusader is based upon outdated assumptions of Russia, which, curiously, is never referred to as the USSR. Given the current state of the west, it might be more useful for the Patriarch of Moscow to consecrate the Vatican, rather than the other way around.