Michael Horton's attempt to parallel Fatima with the pentecostal movement is a good example of how Horton, one of those who would like to restore pristine 16th-century Protestantism, doesn't fully understand the Catholicism he pointificates upon. I would read any analysis he makes of Catholicism with a healthy skepticism. He's undoubtedly more trustworthy in his assessments of Protestants.
There are three basic positions on the charismata. (1) Some strict Calvinists deny that any special gifts continued after the Apostolic period (B. B. Warfield, based on certain passages in Calvin). They have no truck with pentecostals and charismatics. (2) Most pentecostals and some charismatics have an uncritical lionization of special gifts which can lead to serious error. (3) Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants begin with a profound skepticism about any claims to "private revelation" as its called in Catholic terms while at the same time gladly affirming that God always has communicated prophetically and granted other special gifts to some members of Christ's body, for the purpose of edifying the rest of Christ's body, the Church, for confirming the power of the Gospel, and sometimes for indicating or vindicating his servants whose ministries are under attack.
But the first step in dealing with any claim of prophecy, healing, or any other miracle is profound, rigorous skepticism. Analysis of such claims includes rigorous empirical evaluation as well as rigorous spiritual evalution. The latter evaluation asks, "does the supposed seer or visionary live a life of heroic virtue that befits reception of an edifying charism?"
Catholic leaders are as much concerned about undiscerning, naive acceptance of miracle-claims and claims of private supernatural revelation among Catholics as they are concerned with the sheep-stealing of pentecostals and other sects. Cult-like movements surrounding Catholic visionaries are a real problem and have been repeatedly disciplined by bishops. For Horton to simply parallel Fatima with the Pentecostal movement, while it might on the surface seem to be an "obvious" move, does not bear up under close scrutiny. Fatima did stand the test of rigorous scrutiny and has ecclesiastical approval but even so, Catholics are not bound to agree that something supernatural happened at Fatima in 1917. This is very different from the pentecostals whose very raison-d'etre rests on claims that their visionaries and healers are authentic tools of God for the evangelization of the world. They do not have adequate methods for testing the authenticity of their own charismatic claims and they do not leave their members free to accept or reject such claims once approved by the groups' leaders. This is very different from the Catholic and Orthodox approach.
Benedict XVI is concerned about cultic sheepstealers, whether Pentecostal "protestants" or Catholic visionary-groupies. But the antidote in his eyes is not to try to turn Fatima into a hammer with which to beat down Pentecostals, rather, his antidote is to proclaim ever more forcefully, the Gospel of Christ as found in the Scriptures as authentically taught through the centuries by the bishops in apostolic succession. The same is true for Orthodox.
Horton talks a good game but he needs to spend some time truly living among Catholics and learning just what makes them tick. He might find a number of his prejudices challenged in the process.
True. Two thousand years has seen a lot of kooks and wild imaginations making various claims of divine revelation. I am satisfied with the Church's stance in this area - that private revelations are to be believed (if found worthy) only be those personally revealed. Interpretation of divine revelations will always be filtered through one's own human experiences and paradigms. Only the Apostolic Faith is public revelation.
Regards