Sr. Lucia, Fatima, and Islam

You have your information a little off - those numbers claimed to have seen strange lights - not the vision of Virgin Mary - and of the three children who had visions - she was the only one to hear the Virgin's words - or to be more accurate she was the only one who understood the message. So I think using the term "alleged" is proper journalism.

I am not trying to undermine your faith - far from it - but the secular world has to use such neutral language. This is one of the rare times I have defended the press.

Very perceptive of you. Indifferentism was a menace that Pope Leo XIII condemned as a heresy over 100 years ago, but that has not stemmed the tide of its adherents, especially in America, but more and more all over the world. To speak out against it today invites the scorn of the general public, most of whom would think that indifferent attitude toward religious beliefs is some kind of virtue. I say "would" because they might not have any clue to what real virtue is.

I have no doubt that the 3rd Secret of Fatima mentions this cancerous malignancy of the Faith. The whole point of the Fatima message is one of conversion, and why would that be important if it didn't matter toward what religion one was converting? Oh, oh, I know: "change is good." So then, changing religions should be like changing socks, by that twisted logic.

As for the ignoring, I agree. You can hardly blame the media for not covering something that wouldn't draw viewers. But I think this would draw viewers, if it was given a chance. I happened to see MSN news interviewing Fr. Nicholas Gruner for about two minutes, and then cut him off in the middle of his response so they could jump to coverage of some lewd conduct of some over-rich entertainer. Yes, the media at large abhor virtue and traditional Catholicsm, as they do mention of Our Lady or the saints. Don't worry about being wrong about this. I know people from the Industry who unanimously adhere to the same proposition, nor are they even Catholics. It doesn't take belonging to the Church to notice the discrimination against it.

This is to inform you that your information is a "little off." The observers mentioned (Oct. 13th, 1917) did not merely "see strange lights." They experienced the instantaneous drying of their clothes and the muddy ground they walked on as the the sun scared them, appearing to careen toward the earth after casting off colorful lights. Any normal person there would have lost bladder and/or bowel control, but all such mess was equally obliterated in the public and prophetic miracle you pompously refer to merely as "strange lights."

Furthermore, you are not "more accurate" but LESS accurate stating that Jacinta Marto could not hear nor understand the Lady's words. She COULD hear them, but she could not reply. Only Lucia spoke to Our Lady in that apparition. But Jacinta had visions of her own later in which she held conversation without her cousin present.

Furthermore, it was Jacinta's clearer comprehension of the whole message of Our Lady to which Lucia had been known to, and continued to, rely upon for her own answers in regards to several topics then, and over the next few years. Lucia dos Santos suffered a tremendous loss upon the death of her cousins, for she was truly left alone with no one to help her in this natural world; although Our Lady had promised to always be there for her and to be her consolation. This poor girl lived some 80 years more, offering all these sacrifices for our relief.

When we hear of this dry martyrdom, the only decent response is abject gratitude, because we don't deserve it.

And now, we who do not deserve it are left without her in this grim moment before the tribulation.

Not to demean journalists, who sometimes get it more correct than people who should know better do. But remember that those who control what gets on the air are generally doing all they can to squelch this kind of thing. If not for their own adherence to such an agenda, then by their intimate understanding of the rules from their supervisors. Oh, and don't think that the top dogs of networks don't have supervisors. The ones who have the real power are the ones that can go to shopping malls and public events without being recognized.

How about the "skeptics" that were there at the time? Are their words of no present value? If so, then there is no use in reading the writings of any historians because what they experienced in their day, even if they had no prior intent to say those things, has no value for those today who would simply refuse to give them any credibility. In fact, there could never be any court trial with witnesses, because what they saw and heard, etc., at the time in question would have no value for the jury, whose desire to believe even what happens before their own eyes is non-existent by way of their "skepticism."

A journalist could say, allegedly, but if he uses other words based on the universal testimony of contemporary witnesses, should he be fired from his job? Does relating what the historical record presents amount to some kind of ethical violation or something? Or does the possibility that someone's sensibility or feelings might be offended by objective language demand words that even an ideological opponent would approve?

If you want to believe that "mass hysteria" can effect the drying of ankle-deep mud under the feet of 70,000 people and the cleaning of their clothes in a few brief moments, it's your decision. That's your privilege as a person with free will.

I would ask you, however, if you know of any similar events, even say, 10 people making their clothes clean and dry while standing in the mud that dries too, by engaging in "mass hysteria"? What exactly do you mean, by the way, by mass hysteria? Is it like a football game or the Rose Parade? What game or parade ever ended with the rained-on crowd all dry and clean?

I hope you're not overwhelmed with the volume of my words. You might not want to discuss this. I'm not trying to stir up anxiety or inflict gratuitous offense. It simply seems so clear to me that I would be ill at ease not to attempt to make some kind of explanation. It is most certainly not a personal issue with me, but I would warn you that it IS a personal issue between you and God. So beware. I would be remiss not to say this. I understand that you are not alone. Even priests, bishops and cardinals whom I know have sentiments akin to yours, and I fear for their eternal damnation. I am telling you this in hopes you may one day have a change of heart, but if you refuse to discuss this and seek the truth, all I can do is pray for you.

Sadly, eyewitness testimony is the worst kind of fact to prove your point.

Please understand I am defending the journalist's use of the term "allegedly" for the reasons outlined - I am in no way challenging your faith. I hope you can understand the distinction.

For example, many claim that the sighting did happen but it was a UFO event - the drying due to microwaves. So journalists need keep clear of speculations they can't prove.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.