Really? Really? You don’t see how deceptive this (whole) article is? You found the quote yourself!
So the author, while talking about the growing “closeness” between Rome and Mecca, and as an example of this purports that “To quote a Catholic News organization.....” and then reports some rubbish about Fatima.
Yes, Zenit did have those words in it’s article. But only as explaining what IRANIAN tv was saying. Not as representative of what any Christian believes. And the author knew that. And the author choose to present the quote in such a way that people would think that this is what Catholics think. And that is a violation of the eigth commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.”
Think about it. We all worship Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We all desire to serve Him as best we know. We might disagree as to the best way to serve Him, but I believe that all the Christians who post on the religion forum do so out of a love for Our Savior.
Why isn’t at least half the energy that is spent tearing down those who worship Christ is a way that someone thinks is unfit, spent sharing the good news with those who do not know to call God,Father,and Jesus, Lord and Savior? No one comes to the Father except through Christ, how many people are out there who are so lost? Why attack those who do know their Lord and Savior, why not reach out to those children of God who are so lost?
It is a lot harder to lift up than it is to tear down. I can’t understand for the life of me the glee various Christians have at attacking other Christians. And think of the glee of Satan when Christians lie and misrepresent what other Christians believe.
Yes - I found the quote, and I didn't even have to look that hard. I even provided a direct link to it. At least three Catholics (you included) have accused the authors of fabricating the quote, and of outright lying. It was one such accusation that prompted me to locate the quote in the first place. But that didn't stop the accusations from continuing.
The overall thesis of the article is found in this paragraph:
It is clear from this official recognition that the Church of Rome’s estimation of Islam has experienced a fundamental change. The Biblical commandment not to venerate any strange god has been broken by Rome in order to credit Islam and its adherents with holding to the faith of Abraham. Patently, this novel re-assessment of the Muslim faith represents a major shift in the political policy of the Vatican. These official statements are carefully constructed religious discourse. They are aimed at engendering a new mood of respectful rapprochement and mutual understanding between the Papacy and Islam. As a device of diplomatic exchange, they show clearly that a new interfaith-ecumenicity is being propounded by Rome with the singular objective of embracing Islam and its peoples within a new international community of religious life and faith, a community incidentally, in which Rome enjoys priority as founder and senior partner.. That said, and within the more immediate context of an "ecumenism of the Papacy with Islam", the article introduces and expounds on the Zenit article in dispute. Here's the quote within the greater context:
On an highly emotional spiritual level there has been a great common-ground meeting place between Rome and Mecca in the town of Fatima in Portugal. To quote a Catholic news organization, "Our Lady of Fatima is really Fatima, daughter of the Prophet Mohammed." On October 23, 1995, Iranian television began running stories that the apparitions in Fatima, Portugal in 1917 were religious phenomena of Muslim origin.”17 Islam teaches that men can achieve favor with God by what a person does. On the Fatima site in Portugal May 13th 2000, the Pope proclaimed a message that could be readily accepted by both Muslims and Catholics. “‘Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them’....”18I don't read the Zenit mention as alleging that Zenit was making the disputed claim - indeed, the very next sentence expounds on it, acknowledging that the Zenit article was referring to Iranian TV coverage. The Berean Beacon's criticism wasn't lobbed against Zenit, but rather against JPII, for giving an ecumenically fuzzy message to the city of Fatima, presumably towards the goal of improving relations with Muslims, despite the earlier Zenit coverage.
I don't see any deception on the authors' part. Shoddy writing, maybe - allowing for hostile audiences to misread and misinterpret it's meaning - but not deception.