It Doesn't Add Up: The Latest Reported News of Sister Lucy

For over 70 years, Sister Lucy of Fatima has maintained constancy on the exact conditions Heaven demanded for the Conssecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary to bring about the conversion of "that poor nation".

But according to a communique issued on Dec.20,2001 by the Vatican Information Svc. (VIS), THAT'S ALL CHANGED. tHE vis reports of an alleged interview with Sr. Lucy by the Vatican's Archbishopp Bertone wherein, contrary to more than 7 decades of unchanging testimony, Lucy now allegedly declares 'the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted by Heaven".

Faced with this response, Archbishop Bertone did not ask the obvious questions that reason demands. For starters: if the 1984 Consecration of the world (with no mention of Russia) fulfilled the desire of Heaven, then where is the conversion of Russia that the Message of Fatima promised since 1917>

This question must be asked--and answered--before any resonable person can lay down his arms in the struggle for the proper Consecration of Russia, a anation that shows no signs of converting to the Catholic Faith.

In fact, 18 years after the Consecration, Russia is a decadent country raging with abortion, divorce, immorality and homosexuality, to the point where Moscow now broadcasts live x-rated programming oon Russian television--its' version of "Reality TV" of which Russian viewers cannot get enough. Even worse, Russia is now a leading world center for the distribution of child pornography--but more of these horrid details later

The interview between Sr. Lucy and Achbp. Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was held on Nov. 17, 2001, says VIS. Readers will recall that Achbp. Bertone co-authored with Cdnl. Ratzinger the June 27, 2000 Vatican document, "The Message of Fatima," that accompanied the release of the vision of the Third Secret.

The November interiew reportedly lasted over 2 hrs., and took place in the presence of Fr. Luis Kondor, vice-postulator of the causes of Blesseds Francisco and Jacinta, and the prioress of the Carmelite convent of St. Theresa in Coimbra, where Sr. Lucy lives.

In the report, Sr. Lucy denies rumors that she has received new revelations from Our Lady, esp. regarding the 9/11 tragedy. When asked about the Third Secret of Fatima and those who claim we've not received it all, she reportedly says "everything has been published, no secret remains".

The question of the Secret will be left aside for the moment. The "Fatima Crusader" has dealt with this amply in previous issues, esp. Issue 64. There is one point, however, that casts doubt on Sr. Lucy's purported words.

Before claiming the 3rd Secret has been revealed in its entirerty, Bertone's Lucy says that she "attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirmed everything that was written there". This is odd since even the Los Angeles Times recognized (and stated) that the Vatican's June 26 document on Fatima "gently debunks the Fatima cult". Further, the same June 26 Ratzinger/Bertone document flats the suggestion that Sister Lucy might have gotten the idea of the vision of the Ssecret from "images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books". This, in fact, is the thesis of Fr. Edouard Dhanis, the modernist Jesuit who contributed to the heretical Dutch Catechism, who made a career out of trying to debunk Fatima, and who suggested that Lucy might have inadvertently made up the entire matter of the "Third Secret".

If Bertone's Sr. Lucy "Converms everything written" in the June 26 document, it means that sr. Lucy now confesses, indeirectly, that the vision of the Secret may not have come initially from Heaven (as Catholics were led to believe since 1917), but might have been fabrications out of her own head, based on what she read in devotional books. Statements such as this seem a bit too self-serving for the Fatima revisionists in the Vatican. It also threatens to undermine the credibility of the seer herself. Rather than comment further on this point, we simply observe that it doesn't jibe with the stability of Lucy's lifelong testimony. As is typical of the post-conciliar period, we are faced with another Vatican "clarification" that raises more questions than it answers.

The Bis then refers to the question of Pope JPII's 1984 Consecration of the world. To quote the report:"Sister Lucy was asked: "Whhat do you say to the persistent affirmations of Fr. Gruner who is gathering signatures in order that the Pope may finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which has never been done?' She replied" "The Carmelite Community has rejected the forms for gathering the signatures. I have already said that the sonsecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted by Heaven."

Before discussing the questions this statment raises, it must be said that gathering signatures for the Collegial Consecration of Russia is not exactly a sinister act, not did it start with Fr. Gruner. Fatima Spostolates were doing it for decades.

Just one example... In l97l, five years before young Nicholas Gruner was ordained to the priesthood, Bishop Venancio of Fatima encouraged lay groups, esp. the Blue Army, to gather signatures requesting the proper Consecration. Within a few years, Cdl. Slipyi presented Pope Pul VI with mooooooooooooooore than 2 million petitions for the Collegial Consecration of Russia. Further, it is not clear that Sr. Lucy's Carmelite Convent ever took part in these signature-gathering initiatives.

But that is a minor point. Of graver concern is the sudden rupture in Sister Lucy's steady testimony of what Heaven required for the Collegial Consecration of Russia by the Pope in union with the world's bishops, to bring about the conversion of Russia and the triumph of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart.

Over 55 years ago, on 7/15/56 the eminent author and historian, Wm. Thomas Walsh interviewed Sr. Lucy, which is recounted in his magnificent work, "Our Lady of Fatima." At this interview, which appears at the book's end, Mr. Walsh asked her pointed questions about the correct prodedure for the Collegial consecration:

"Finally we came to the important subject of the second July secret, of which so many different and conflicting versions have been published. Lucia made it plain that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart. What dhe demanded specifically was the consecration of Russia. She did not comment, of course, on the fact that Pope Pius XII had consecrated the world, not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart in 1942. But she said more than once, and with deliberate emphasis:

"What Our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, she will convert Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, ther errors of Russia will spread through every country in the world.'"

Sister Lucy is clear and forthright. The collegial consecration requested by Heaven is the Consecration of Russia, not the world, which must be done by the Pope in union with the world's bishops on the same day.

Then there is the little-known revelation of Our Lady to Sr. Lucy in the early 1950s, which is recounted in "Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meraviglie," published under the auspices of the italian episcopate. The Virgin Mary appeared to Sr. Lucy in May 1952 and said "Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the Consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace. "

Thus, 10 years after Pope Pius XII's 1941 Consecration of the world, we have the report of Our Lady reminding Sr. Lucy that Russia will not be converted, nor will there be peace, unless Russia is consecrated by name.

Fast forward 30 yrs. to 1982, Sr. Lucy's testimony remains steadfast. On 5/12/82, the day before the attempted 1982 consecration, the Vatican's own "L'Osservatore Romano" published an interview of Sr. Lucy by Fr. Umberto Maria Pasquale, a Salesian priest, during which she told Fr. Umberto that Our Lady had never reauested the Consecration of the world, only the Consecration of Russia:

"At a certain moment I said to her: 'Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you...Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the Consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?"

" No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia... In 1919, at Tuy, as she had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the Consecration of that country (Russia)."

Again, on 3/19/83, at the request of the Holy Father Sr. Lucy met with the Papal Nuncio, Archbp. Portalupi, Dr. Lacerda, and Fr. Messias Coelho. During this meeting, Sr. Lucy confirmed that Pope JPII's Consecration of 1982 did not fulfill the requests of Our Lady. Sr. Lucy said:

"In the act of offering of 5/13/82, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration. And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of repartaion and Consecration of Russia. Pope JPII simply renewed the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on 10/31/42. From this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of Russia. "

She concluded, " The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady had demanded it. I was not able to say it because I did not have the permission of the Holy See."

A year later, on 3/25/84, Pope JPII made an Act of Offering wherein he again consecrated "the world," not Russia. As with the 1981 Consecration, "each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of repartation and consecration of Russia."

Fatima author Frere Francois writes, "In the months which followed the Act of Offering of 3//25/84 which was only a renewal of the act of 1982, the principal scholars of Fatima agreed in saying that the consecration of Russia had not yet been done as Heaven wished it. "

(I am going to fast forward to the part of the article which talks about how Portugal, as a country, benefitted from the consecration her bishops did when they consecrated that nation by name ot the Immaculate Heart on 5/13/31.)

1) There was a magnificent Catholic Renaissance, a great rebirth of Catholic life, so striking that those who lived through it attributed it unquestionably as the work of God. During this period, Portugal enjoyed a drastic upsurge in priestly vocations. The number of religious almost quadrupled in 10 yrs. Religious communities rose likewise. There was a vast renewal of Christian life, which showed itself in many areas, including the development of a Catholic press,s Catholic radio, pilgimages, spiritual retreats, and a robust movement of Catholic Action that was integrated into the framework of diocesan and parish life.

This Catholic Renaissance was of such magnitude that in 1941 the bishops of Portugal declared in a Collective Pastoral Letter; "anybody who would have closed his eyes 25 yrs. ago and opened them now would no longer recognize Portugal, so vast is the transformation worked by the modest and invisible factor of the apparition of the BVM at Fatima. Really, Our Lady wishes to save Portugal.

2) There was a miracle of political and social reform, in accordance with Catholic social principles. shortly after the 1931 Consecration, a Catholic leader in Portugal ascended to power, Anonio Salazar, who inqugurated a Catholic, counter-revolutionary program. He strove to create, as much as possible, a Catholic social order wherein the laws of govt. and social institutions harmonize with the law of Christ, His Gospel and His Church. A fierce adversary of socialism and liberalism, he was opposed to "everything which diminishes or dissolves the family."

Pres. Salazar did not simply talk a good line; he enacted legislation to protect the family, including laws that frowned upon divorce. Article 24 read "In harmony with the essential properties of Catholic marriages: It is understood that by the very fact of the celebration of a canonical marriage, the spouses renounce the legal right to ask for a divorce." The effect of this law was that Catholic marriages did not diminish in number but increased. So that by 1960, nearly 91 percent of all marriages in the country were canonical marriages.

That is a civilation of love, and it's nowhere in sight as we step into the 3rd Millenniumm. It's certainly not found in post-1984 Russia. 3) There was the 2fold miracle of peace. Portugal was preserved from the Communist terror, esp. from the spanish Civil War which was raging next door. Portugal was also preserved from the devastations of WWII.

Regarding the spanish Civil War, the Portuguese bishops had vowed in 1926 that if Our Llady protected Portugal, they would express their gratitude by renewing the National Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. True to their word, on 5/13/38 they renewed the Consecration of Portugal in thanksgiving for Our Lady's protection. Cdnl. Cerejeira acknowledged publicly: "Since Our Lady of Fatima appeared in 1917...A special blessing of God has descended upon the land of Portugal... esp. if we review the 2 yrs. which have gone since our vow, one cannot fail to recognize that the invisible hand of God has protected Portugal, sparing it the scourge of war and the leprosy of atheistic communism."

Even Pope Pius XII expressed astonishment that Portugal was spared the horrors of the Spanish Civil War and the Communist menace. In an address to the Portuguese people, the Pope spoke of "the Red Peril, so menacing and so close to you, and yet avoided in such an unexpected manner."

The portuguese passed this first danger unscathed, but immediately there was a second staring them in the face. WWII was about to break out.

On 2/6/39, seven months before the declaration of war, Sr. Lucy wrote to her bishop, Msgr. da Silva. She told him that war was imminent, but then spoke of a miraculous promise. She said "in this horrible war, Portugal would be spared because of the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made by the bishops."

And Portugal was spared the horrors of war. Even more remarkable, Sr. Lucy wrote to Pope Pius XII on 12/22/40 to tell him that Portugal is receiving special protection duing the war that other nations would have received if the bishops would have consecrated their nations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

(Here I must quit because we are due to go out, but the article contrasts these wonderfull happenings with the sad state of affairs in Russia today.)

Patriarchal spokesman charges Vatican with breaking interchurch relations
ACTING IN AWARENESS OF RESPONSIBILITY BEFORE GOD, HISTORY, AND HUMANITY
by Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, vice chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate
(Full text of an article whose abbreviated version was published in Rossiiskaia gazeta, 5 July 2002)
Communications Service of OVTsSMP, 5 July 2002

The Vatican’s recent decision concerning the establishment of Catholic dioceses in Russia raised a whole series of very serious questions in relations between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches. Since February 2002, when this step was taken, both sides, the Orthodox and Catholic, have produced a substantial number of declarations and granted a multitude of interviews. Now the positions are clear and their differences in principle are evident. It has become evident to all that the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue has hit a dead end. Each of the sides has its own truth and is prepared to defend it to the end. Where are the real, deep causes of the new tragic confrontation between the two great Christian churches?

The first attempt to move the discussion from the polemical to a more serious level---philosophical and theological—was an article by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the chairman of the papal Council for Promotion of Christian Unity, that was published in March of this year in the Italian Jesuit magazine "La Civilta Cattolica." The article laid out in serious fashion the current theological conflict between East and West. It was without question a challenge because it had an aggressive character and contained harsh criticism of the position of the Russian Orthodox church.

We accept this challenge and I will try to explain why it is not only the Russian but practically all local Orthodox churches that consider the above-mentioned step by the Vatican as a blow to Orthodox-Catholic relations and as a serious strategic mistake by the Roman Catholic church, for which it bears responsibility before all of Christian civilization.

At the start, I would like to dispute the claim that the establishment of Catholic dioceses in Russia is an exclusively "internal affair" of Catholics and cannot be subject to any kind of criticism from outside. On one hand, this decision by the Vatican really is a question of the internal organization structure of the Roman Catholic church, which has complete civil and legal freedom in the ordering of its life. But this is only if one views things from a formal, juridical position. Because, on the other hand, this reorganization directly affects the interests of another Christian church, the Russian Orthodox. Besides, this is the church of the majority in Russia and, according to the official point of view of the Catholic side, it is also a partner and "sister."

When in its time the West accused the leadership of USSR of violating human rights, soviet government workers also responded that this was an "internal affair" of the country. That is the same way that contemporary dictators act. Perhaps they are right, too, if one is speaking juridically, but an "internal affair" which violates others’ interests or demeans others’ dignity ceases to be internal. After all, universal ethical norms exist, which cannot be written off.

This is even more so the case in relations between churches. We Christians cannot and must not be guided in these relations exclusively by juridical principles. Love and concern for one’s neighbor are the fundamental concepts of Christian teaching. If the Catholic church wants to operate within Russia as if it is in some vacuum, ignoring the opinion and interests of the Orthodox, then what kind of partnership and dialogue can we talk about at all? Nevertheless, as in the past, we would like to view our relations not as a competition but as a partnership, and to live in accordance, not with the dead letter of juridical propositions, but with the lofty moral principle that prescribe for Christians to work in common and to live in accordance with the law of brotherly love. Our churches should not be like two businesses that are fighting over the market but like two nations in alliance.

Partnership inevitably prescribes agreement in actions, mutual openness, and responsibility. Before February of this year we maintained faith in such an attitude on the part of the Catholic church, but the method of the adoption of the decision on the new dioceses proved to be for us a sad disillusionment. The Russian Orthodox church simply was faced with an accomplished event that it learned about only a few days before. It was like the declaration of war and not a request for brotherly advice. Literally on the eve of the action, at Catholic Christmas in December and Russian Orthodox Nativity in January, Metropolitan Kirill, chairman of the Department of External Church Relations of the Moscow patriarchate, twice had dinner with the head of Russian Catholics, Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, who did not whisper a word about the decision that was being prepared. On 25 January of this year the delegation of our church that participated in the interreligious meeting in Assisi was received by John Paul II; and again not a word about the imminent establishment of dioceses. The decision was made in secret. After this what was left to talk with Cardinal Kasper about, whose visit was scheduled for the end of February? Dialogue must be conducted before, not after, the adoption of specific decisions that affect the interests of one of the sides of the dialogue. Otherwise its whole purpose disappears.

I shall now explain why, properly speaking, our church opposes the idea that Russia, the largest Orthodox country in the world, should be divided into Catholic dioceses and made a "church province" of the Roman Catholic church. This signifies the creation within Russia of a full-fledged, centralized local Catholic church. Indeed, Christ ordered all churches to preach and teach. Insofar as a local church is a part of the Church Universal, then it should teach, as the Savior said, "all nations" (Mt 28.19) without distinction of nationality and language. In this Cardinal Kasper is unquestionably correct. The difficulty is just that in Russia for a thousand years there has existed its own local church, the Russian Orthodox. And the creation of centralized structures, paralleling it, actually means nonrecognition of it as a part of the Church Universal. Such an attitude violates the principles proclaimed by the second Vatican council. After this does it make any sense to talk about some kind of "sisterhood" between the churches?

In the dispute that has arisen, the Catholic side completely denies the concept of canonical territory, which is a clear sign of a return to the kind of thinking that dominated before the second Vatican council, when the Catholic church did not view Orthodoxy as a part of the Church Universal. However, if one thinks about it, the Orthodox who advance this principle demonstrate thereby that they consider the Catholic church a part of the single Christian "catholicity," to which the standards of the ancient church apply that do not permit the existence of parallel church structures.

The most amazing thing is that until quite recently we had complete unanimity with the Catholic side on this matter. Let me recall the story. When the Catholic administrative structures were created in the Russian federation in 1991, Rome explained to the Moscow patriarchate the meaning of the concept of "administrative structure" and the basis on which the Catholic church was not going to restore previous dioceses or create new ones in Russia, as had been done in many other post-totalitarian countries at the beginning of the 1990s. It was said that parallel structures would not be created so that the world community would understand that the Catholic church recognizes the Orthodox churches as "sister churches."

A year after these events one of the commissions of the Roman curia produced a document "General principles and practical norms for the coordination of evangelization and ecumenical work of the Catholic church in Russia and other countries of CIS." It drew clear boundaries of the pastoral activity of Catholics in Russia. In particular, it said, "Instead of taking those who are in need of nurture into the Catholic church, the Catholic clergy should energetically help the Orthodox church" (II, 2). Besides this, the document called Catholic bishops to see to it that no form of activity in the provinces that were under their jurisdiction could be interpreted as "parallel evangelistic structures."

What we observe now directly contradicts the good intentions of a decade ago. The Catholic church has created in Russia structures that are parallel to Orthodox structures in order to conduct parallel evangelism. Appealing to the Savior’s command to preach the gospel to all peoples, the Catholics have forgotten the apostle Paul’s words: "I strive to preach the gospel not where the name of Christ is already known, so as not to build on another’s foundation" (Rm 15.20). Catholics are trying to build in Russia just on that spiritual foundation which the Orthodox church has laid over the course of a thousand years.

Those who consider our people as totally atheistic and essentially godless make a great mistake. Just the opposite. Our fellow countrymen were wrenched from the faith over the course of the entire soviet period, but to a great extent they managed to preserve the spiritual values of Sacred Rus: good conscience, generosity, respect for the sacred, and awareness of sin and repentance. The fundamental characteristic of such a view of life is the concept of spirituality as the dominant issue in life. It was this native, genetic religiosity in the soul of our people that the persecutors of the church were unable to expunge even in the long years of the fiercest repressions. And it is strong to this day. It was this understanding and sensitivity to faith on the part of the Russians that has facilitated evangelism, even all sorts of evangelism, both by the church and the sectarians. The thousand-year-old spiritual work of the Orthodox church and the achievements of its enlighteners and martyrs and the Christian education and spiritual culture of the people have all created an extraordinarily receptive field for the Word of God.

It was this factor and not some "advanced" missionary techniques that explains the relative success of the Catholic missions in Russia about which Cardinal Kasper writes in his article. Moreover, he speaks of the "weakness" of the Russian Orthodox church that supposedly fears the "pastoral effectiveness" of the Catholic church. We do not have anything to fear in the "effectiveness" of the Catholics because we see that even with such a propitious field for evangelism, the success of the Catholic mission in Russia is not great. After ten years of keen work by all sorts of missionary orders Russia has not become Catholic. The quantity of Catholic believers in our country may have grown but not significantly. For anybody who knows only a little about Russian realities, the figure of 500-600 thousand believers that is regularly cited by Archbishop Kondrusiewicz seems more than exaggerated. At the same time he himself maintains that throughout the 1990s the size of his flock has been practically unchanged. So for this reason it is even more amazing that for such a "little flock" a "church province" was created, headed by a "metropolitan." One gets the impression that only two things have been growing among Russian Catholics: administrative structures and titles.

Continuing the subject of the "pastoral effectiveness" of the Catholics church, let’s turn our gaze to the West, where it has always been traditionally strong. In practically every European capital they will show you a former Catholic church and a former Catholic seminary. People have quit them. We do not gloat over this because we know the causes that have evoked such trends—the spirit of materialism, consumption, hedonism, and pseudoliberty that now encompass people. The two great Christian churches, the Catholic and Orthodox, should jointly resist this spirit "of this world," and not test their forces in "missionary effectiveness."

Instead of this, preachers of the "strong" Catholic church continue to travel to Russia, hoping to fill their ranks easily with people who have been spiritually nurtured and formed by the Orthodox tradition and the "weak" "sister church." It is because of this spiritual parasitism on the Orthodox heritage that we have insisted on characterizing the Catholic mission in Russian as proselytism, that is, as conversion from one church and one tradition into another.

The vigorous missionary activity of the Catholic church in our country has nothing in common with pastoral nurture of an already existing flock. Good sense prescribes that for this there should exist a certain quantity of Catholic parishes. But how can one explain the presence in Russia of missionary orders if not by their proselytizing purposes? For many of them the indication of the mission exists even in their title: "Missionary Sons of the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary," (Claretines) "Missionary Sisters of Divine Love," "Missionaries of the Holy Family," and the like. Other orders, like the Verbiests, were intentionally created as missionary organizations.

In response to our complaints Russian Catholics love to appeal to freedom of conscience that we supposedly are trying to restrict. They claim that Russians come to them solely of their own free choice. Without denying the existence of such cases, we still point out that, as a rule, such "free choice" is well prepared and facilitated by preparatory missionary work; it is one thing when a person by himself comes to a Catholic church; it is another when a missionary entices him there. And there are many instances of the latter type.

We also do not agree with Catholics who think our fellow countrymen are "unbelievers," who have been baptized in the Orthodox church or identify themselves with Orthodox culture, which is the case of practically all the ethnically Russian population of the Russian federation as well as many traditionally Orthodox peoples of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Perhaps not all of them actively participate in church life, but if one considers them unbelievers then the same would apply to the overwhelming unbelieving majority of Catholics of western Europe and both Americas.

We completely reject the Catholic mission among Russian children, especially orphans and those who have been raised in destitute families, children who in the majority have been baptized in the Orthodox church, which means they are full-fledged members. Catholic missionaries, mostly nuns of various orders, go into schools and children’s homes and there in the guise of charity carry out the proclamation of their confession. They create shelters for homeless and abandoned children, of which there now are so many on the streets of Russian cities. The little Russians in these institutions who in their majority are from destitute Russian families have almost entirely been converted to Catholicism. This is the way the basis for a new "church province" of the Vatican has been created, but against a backdrop of the personnel change of the clergy and monks for the countries of western Europe, where the youth are not going to seminary and church schools and as a result the parishes are being served by pastors from the "third world." Naturally, nobody is asking the Russian children whether they want to be Catholics. This is a blatant violation of freedom of conscience, about which our opponents so love to discuss.

In any case, we do not propose leaving abandoned children on the streets. Our church devotes enormous efforts to creating its own social and charitable activity, which was forbidden under the totalitarian regime. And this is where cooperation with the Catholic church would be very much to the point. Joint charitable activity would become a splendid practical form of our mutual endeavors. For the sake of justice, it should be noted that this has often taken place, but just not with the Catholic orders that are active in Russia. In one or another Russian region there may already exist an Orthodox orphanage, but Catholic nuns, performing a disappearing trick, build their own for the training of little Catholics. If they really were concerned about the children and not about mission, why don’t they bring them to the Orthodox? Why don’t they share their experience? Why don’t they let children who have been baptized in Orthodoxy receive spiritual direction from an Orthodox priest?

Alas, with most rare exceptions, this practically never happens. Catholics who are concerned for Russian children, as a rule, do not want to work together with their Orthodox colleagues, who clearly have other tasks. For example, we are in possession of reliable information that in one of the Catholic orphanages of Novosibirsk three underage orphan brothers, who were baptized and trained in Orthodoxy, were forbidden to have contact with their godparents, were deprived of Orthodox books, and by all means were prevented from receiving nurture from the Orthodox church. This is a genuine and not an imagined example of the violation of freedom, and it is the Catholic side, as we have seen, that has violated it. And there is a multitude of such examples throughout Russia. One other one: the activity of the Sisters of Mother Teresa of Calcutta in Moscow, where they also have a shelter for homeless children which, judging by everything, serves for conversion to Catholicism. In the Russian capital there is a sufficient quantity of Orthodox charitable institutions which are prepared for cooperating and exchanging experience with the Sisters of Mother Teresa in the area of charity and aid to the needy. However, as we have seen, the Catholic nuns do not want this and they are operating without establishing contact with the Orthodox church.

Summing up all the foregoing I find it necessary to state that in Russia we have a case of intentional missionary work by the Roman Catholic church for expanding its presence. The Russian Orthodox church thinks that it is for these purposes, and not at all for "normal" nurturing of its flock, that the Vatican established four Catholic dioceses in our country and also one new exarchate and two new dioceses in Ukraine, in regions where Catholics constitute a tiny minority.

In response the Catholic side always puts forth the same counterargument. It points to the foreign dioceses of the Russian Orthodox church, the Berlin, Brussels, and Korsun dioceses, and the like. Our opponents seem not to wish to notice that Russian Orthodox dioceses abroad have an ethnic and not a geographical character. They minister primarily to the Russian-speaking Orthodox diaspora and they do not conduct mission among the local population. Within the jurisdiction of a single diocese of the Russian Orthodox church there may be parishes that are dispersed in several countries, as in the case of the Korsun diocese which includes our parishes in France, Italy, Spain, and Switzerland. The archbishop of Argentina and South America located in Buenos Aires ministers to believers on the territory of the whole of South America. Thus, there is not a single foreign country that our church has divided into dioceses as the Catholics have done with Russia. We have not begun creating, for example, a local Orthodox church of Italy or France, although there have been many opportunities for this. It is sufficient to note the efforts of the Russian emigrant in France, Evgraf Kovalevsky, who at the beginning and middle of the twentieth century tried to create an "Orthodox Latin rite." His initiative had some success, and a similar movement exists to the present. But we conscientiously do not support this and many other such projects, because we consider the West as the territory of the pastoral responsibility of the Catholic church, primarily.

For this same reason our bishops and priests do not go to evangelize in Italian, French, and Belgian schools and universities, as Catholics do in Russia. We think that their own clergy should preach to the western youth. Incidentally, in western Europe our church also could make use of the "weakness" of the Catholic church, which is emptying, closing, and selling church buildings in order to develop their "alternative" mission. But we will never do this. And that’s not because of our "pastoral weakness." We simply do not have and should not have a missionary strategy with respect to the West. Our presence in western countries arose in connection with the emigration that was caused by the many tragic events in our fatherland: revolution, wars, and economic dislocation. Russian Orthodox people went to the West in search of refuge, for some, and a more stable, secure life, for others. That was their right. And it also is their right to have their own churches, priests, and bishops. The Russian church in the West is not a conqueror or spiritual conquistador. We do not intend to compete in "pastoral effectiveness" with the Catholic church. Let each one labor on its own spiritual field.

We would very much wish to meet a similar understanding and attitude on the part of the official Vatican in its policies in Russia. But, alas, recent experiences only confirm the alarming and dangerous trend that has been manifested through the whole course of Russian history. When things were bad for Russia and the Russian church, the Vatican has tried to obtain maximum advantage out of them. We recall the so-called Time of Troubles at the beginning of the seventeenth century, when the main goal of the Polish and Lithuanian interventionists was to make Russia Catholic, We recall the terrible time of the revolution of 1917 and the persecution of the church that it started. We recall Catholic martyrs for the faith, but it is impossible to forget also the "eastern politics" of the Vatican, that tried to make agreements with the bolsheviks while they were persecuting the "schismatics." It was this business that the "Pro Russia" commission of the Congregation of Eastern Churches, created in Rome in 1925, was engaged in under the leadership of the Jesuit Michel d’Herbigny. It was also at this same time that the Catholic diocese in the Russian Far East was created.

We had hoped that the end of such a policy with regard to Russia and Russian Orthodox had been produced by the second Vatican council, which called the Orthodox church a "sister church." Such a change in attitude towards us was confirmed by the subsequent twenty-five years after the council, when an active theological dialogue was conducted between the two churches and when we were united in the face of the challenges of the secularizing world.

Events of the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s were disappointing signs. In western Ukraine, the Greek Catholics coming out of the underground began throwing Orthodox out of churches that once belonged to them, by force. The Russian Orthodox church proposed to the Catholic side a path of dialogue, and soon a four-party commission was created that included representatives of the Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox churches, the Greek Catholic church, and the Vatican. However, the Greek Catholics unilaterally withdrew from the commission and continued their barbarian campaign of brutal persecution of Orthodox. And the Vatican did not put a halt to the irrational zeal of the Greek Catholics, although the subject of this conflict became one of the two that began to be discussed exclusively in all official negotiations with the Moscow patriarchate.

The second topic was Catholic proselytism that has been mentioned above. At the time, at the beginning of the 1990s, a flood of Catholic missionaries inundated the religious space of the former Soviet Union that was opening up, destroying the illusion of "sister churches." But even then the Orthodox side did not abandon its intention to resolve existing problems in the spirit of peace. Official meetings between delegations of the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches were conducted rather frequently, almost annually. The last two of them took place in November 1999 and June 2000, and the next was scheduled for February of this year. Thus it is not quite correct, to put it mildly, to accuse our church of insufficient desire for dialogue, as Cardinal Kasper does in his article. The problem is that these meetings were practically fruitless. The same themes, conflict in western Ukraine and proselytism, were discussed at them and the Catholic side did not fulfill a single one of the obligations it had assumed. Nevertheless, before the Vatican’s February decision about dioceses we maintained our readiness for negotiations.

Our church conducted a dialogue with Russian Catholics. Until quite recently, the Christian Interconfessional Consultative Committee has been functioning in our country; one of its cochairmen, along with Metropolitan Kirill, was Archbishop T. Kondrusiewicz. We placed great hopes in the work of this organization, but now, after all that has happened, its future is in doubt.

One has the full right to say that the Vatican’s adoption of the decision about Catholic dioceses in Russia signified a genuine interconfessional catastrophe. This is a conflict not only between the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, but between world Orthodoxy and Catholicism. At the same time, the attempt to represent the case as a conflict engendered by the "obstinacy" of the Russian church is doomed just as the attempt to divide Orthodox churches into "bad" and "good" on the basis of their openness to dialogue with Catholics and tendency toward isolation is doomed. Cardinal Kasper presents the Antioch Orthodox church as a positive example. But the Antioch patriarchate was the first to condemn the Vatican’s action in Russia. And the patriarch of Alexandria even sent a letter to the pope in which he completely supported the position of the Russian Orthodox church with regard to the establishment of Catholic dioceses in our country. Support for our church also was expressed by the Serbian, Bulgarian, and Romanian patriarchates and by the head of the Polish Orthodox church.

So it is not the "bad" Russian church that has disrupted its dialogue with the Catholics, as Cardinal Kasper writes, but the Vatican began the conflict of the two great Christian traditions. The situation with the establishment of new Catholic structures in Russia very much recalls the beginning of the thirteenth century, when at the time of the Crusades parallel Latin patriarchates were created in the Orthodox East. Where is the consistency? On one hand, there is repentance for the Crusades of that time; on the other, the approaches and methods of a long gone era are reanimated, which sets back our relations many centuries? Naturally, not a single local Orthodox church will be able to view this calmly.

The problem, however, did not arise just now. The general development of relations between the Vatican and the Orthodox churches has not been developing smoothly of late. It is sufficient to recall the collapse of the plenary session of the Joint International Commission on Theological Dialogue between Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches which happened in July 2000 in Baltimore. The topic of that session was the status of the Uniate churches. Disagreement between the sides, Orthodox and Catholic, was so strong that they did not reach a mutually acceptable decision. It was already obvious then that there was a serious crisis in relations between the churches.

It is even more obvious how disastrous this crisis is now, when Christians of the East and West should stand shoulder to shoulder in the face of the dangerous processes taking place in the world: the intensification of the spirit of materialism and consumerism, humanity’s loss of moral orientation, the growth of the danger of extremism and terrorism, and other manifestations of interpersonal hostility, unspeakable brutality, and hate. We should give a united Christian response to the new political realities, globalization of the world economy, internationalization of law and mechanisms of decision making, and the unification of Europe. We must consider it our common loss that the recently adopted Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union contains no mention whatsoever of religious values.

Under these circumstances traditional Christians, and Orthodox and Catholics first of all, must firmly call humanity to return to true spiritual and moral values and to speak of Christ and the gospel as the most promising basis for a just and harmonious social structure. We also need to oppose decisively attempts to restrict religion to the margins of international and social life and to confine it within the boundaries of the parish society and private home or ethnic "ghetto." The church always must have the resolve to change the world, not hiding behind the fence of secular slogans and ideas that are alien to it such as "pluralism," "accommodation to the times," or "end of the Constantinian era," of which Cardinal Kasper writes. The terminology of sacred scripture and the holy fathers is extremely precise and when it is replaced with fashionable and popular concepts of "this age," it will lead the church to loss of clarity of vision, to paralysis and apathy, and, in the final analysis, to defeat of its mission. It is a pity that instructional notes occasionally resound from Rome, especially when they teach us freedom of conscience and religious pluralism while completely forgetting that these phenomena always are destructive for the individual and society if they do not contain human choice for the true and the good, a choice that is not by chance but formed by spiritual tradition.

Do they recognize in the Vatican that in using arguments in interchurch discussion that are adopted from teachings that arose outside of church tradition and are the result of philosophical development and largely inspired by the idea of liberation from religious influence they, willingly or not, weaken their own personal position? Do they understand in Rome that the disruption of interchurch dialogue and anti-Orthodox actions are beneficial only to forces that are trying to weaken, repress, and marginalize Christianity? The evidence of this is found in the reporting of the activity of the Catholic church by western mass media. We have paid close attention to this and so far have not noted particular sympathy with regard to the Vatican except in one, only one, case: the topic of confrontation with the Russian Orthodox church. Here the reporters’ support is completely on the Vatican’s side. The rest of the time the Catholic church is more often than not being subjected to criticism and accusations of sins.

Unfortunately, Rome has surrendered to the temptation of easy expansion with regard to the temporarily weakened Russian Orthodox church. As a result our relations have been broken off. This is the Vatican’s greatest mistake that already belongs to history. The beginning of the twenty-first century will forever be remembered as the time of tragedy in relations between the two churches. This historical blunder is hard to amend with the help of diplomatic steps, political activity, or propagandistic rhetoric. The wound that has developed is great and the question arises: are the people who delivered this wound capable of participating in its healing? But we believe that the Lord will heal it, when he selects people for this who are able to comprehend all the harm that has happened for both churches.

Addressing his disciples, Christ asked them whether they were ready to drink of that cup which he himself would drink. These words of the Savior are addressed to all Orthodox and Catholics. If in obedience to the Lord we were able today to take this cup together, then I believe that the world would become different. I know that very many Catholics share this faith and are ready to act along with their Orthodox brothers and sisters in awareness of their responsibility before God, history, and humanity. It is in such actions that there is the guarantee not only of reconciliation but also of the restoration of the unity of the church for which the Savior prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane

Here is an interview with Malachi Martin regarding Fatima - it's pretty long, but very interesting, and a little bit scary, I think.

April 18, 1996 Interview
Part II of II

Malachi Martin:

There is a place in Portugal called Fatima, after the eldest daughter of Mohammed, who converted, at least the person who carried her name was a Moorish princess who converted, and she was called Fatima, and the town is called Fatima. There in 1917 three children claimed that the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to them and gave them special messages for Catholics and for the Pope and the messages were very, very dire and were very chastising. They threatened the world with great punishment if the world didn't stop committing sin. There were three secrets mainly, and there was a third secret which hasn't been revealed yet, and the Pope in Rome has the third secret written down on a sheet of paper in a box on a mantelpiece in his private apartments and it has not been revealed.

Fatima has become very important because the Virgin apparently made promises that affect the well-being of the Papacy and of the Catholic Church. John Paul II used to be very devoted to Fatima and he had a great devotion to Our Lady of Fatima as they speak about the Virgin who appeared there. He started off very devoted to Our Lady, very devoted to Fatima and to propagating the message of Fatima which was repent from sin and convert to God. Of late he has swung away from Fatima. He is not very much in favor of Fatima. He still believes it happened but he believes that it is not of great importance, and he has given permission for Vatican officials to more or less limit Fatima and limit devotions at Fatima to the Virgin, which has displeased a lot of people.

So John Paul II has changed in this regard, because Fatima is a very apocalyptic message. It says that no matter what happens there are going to be terrible wars, there are going to be diseases, whole nations are going to be wiped out, there are going to be 3 days darkness, there are going to be epidemics that will wipe out whole nations overnight, parts of the earth will be washed away at sea and violent tornadoes and storms. It's not a nice message at all, and John Paul II is not inclined to think like that, so he has dropped emphasis on Fatima's message, and that fits in with his Globalist outlook, because his outlook is that man has been blessed and man is going to succeed and man must be helped to build his human habitat. It's an entirely different philosophy and outlook from what Catholicism used to be.

Interviewer:

What's Russia's role in the Vision of Fatima?

Malachi Martin:

Russia's role in the Vision of Fatima is very important because if we're to believe the Vision of Fatima, salvation for the world, the cure for the world ills, will start in the Ukraine and in Russia, and that was why the Virgin in the Fatima vision of 1917 was supposed to have spoken actively about Russia and that Russia first of all has to be cured of her errors and then she will help the entire world to get better and to cure itself of its sins. It's a very bizarre message in that sense because one would have said that salvation was going to come from the West as we always think because we are Westerners, but no, according to the message of Fatima, salvation will come from the East, and particularly, from Ukraine and from the State of Russia itself, which is extraordinary.

Interviewer:

What state is Russian in today?

Malachi Martin:

Russia at the present moment is in the most extraordinary position that any nation has ever been put in. Remember there are approximately 240 million, I'm subject to correction. It is totally disorganized, there is no banking system, there is no trading system, there is no social system any longer, it is run by tribal families of Mafia kings and it is wholly dependent on the money that is supplied by mainly the United States. Remember every morning a Delta airline takes off from JFK carrying exactly $1 million in hundred dollar bills for Russia, it goes to Moscow, and in Russia you can't get anywhere without $100 bills. Everything is done with it. The dollarization of Russia is complete. There is no national feeling in Russia any longer. People live in communal groups.

The idea of Russia has been bastardized by the Stalinists for 75 years; there's no morality, really; no ethical sense whatever. The orthodox church, which terribly weak. They've opened about 6,000 churches since Gorbachev left, but there's no practice of religion really extensively. Religion is very, very weak, and we know that Russia is being kept alive by artificial means and we're going to have the elections with Yeltsin in June and either Yeltsin or Zyuganov will become the boss of Russia, but it doesn't make any difference. Russia is now a vassal state to the New World Order and Russia's not the question any longer. The one question torturing everybody is China. What to do about China. Over one billion of population, catching up on all of us electronically; we invent something over here and they perfect it, and they work like dogs, if dogs work.

They are utterly ruthless; they have no religion, there are convinced Marxists in charge and the mass of the population is materialistic, and they're increasing every day, and they work and the perfect everything we have and they have no morality that we can recognize as morality, and they have thermonuclear bombs and they have the means of delivering it. We gave them the means, we build their planes for them and what they didn't have, they stole, and what they didn't steal they were given by the Soviets in their day, so we have a very big problem with China. Russia has no problem with China. Russia is helpless in the face of China, but remember, the Russia of today has still got its nuclear force with the missiles still pointing at the United States; it's still got its navy. Its army is something else, its army is in disarray; it has got its special forces, and remember that it still has ten secret cities never appearing on any map where they continue to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Russia itself militarily is in a very prime condition. It still has its nuclear force, it still has its special forces, the Speznats(?), it still has its navy, it's submarine force; it still has its missiles aimed at the United States and aimed at the West if we can call the West the West any longer. It still has the ten secret cities never appearing on any map. We now know of one or two or three of them where they do nothing but nuclear weapons, and they're beautiful cities, by the way, but you can't get in or out without special government permission. The KGB has changed its name, but it is still operating, spying abroad and at home; the Gulag is still there, there are still death camps in Russia, but we don't speak about that any longer because now we are in partnership with the Russians, so the condition of the former Soviet Union, that is, Russia and the C.I.S., the Confederation of Independent States, and they're not independent at all, but it's a nice name anyway, is a very peculiar one in history. It never existed before where a huge nation is being kept alive artificially to serve a Globalist purpose.

Interviewer:

Who is in control of the Russian military?

Malachi Martin:

The people who decided that the Soviet Union should be liquidated. The Globalists, because the Soviet had one purpose and one purpose only, and that was to de-Christianize and de-Westernize a whole people. The population of the Soviet Union now distributed in the various states has been mongrelized and bastardized and demoralized in a way that will take a minimum of three generations to repair, if ever it's repaired, because they were made to live the big lie, and they were made to believe falsehood as truth, and they were made to live on horrible rations of food and have no ambitions and accept `big brother' as the boss of everything, including their life and their death and their marriage and their work, and everything about their families. They've been thoroughly bastardized and there is no way outside of 2 or 3 generations of freedom which they yet haven't got, that they can restore themselves to what they were originally before the plague of Stalinism and Leninism hit them in 1917.

Interviewer:

Could you briefly describe the lot of the average Russian?

Malachi Martin:

Today the lot of the average Russian is to survive by some means or other, generally illegal as far as the government goes. Everything is a question of who you know and who are your friends. People live in small groups, one on one; there's no community feeling, there's no national feeling of Russians for Russia any longer except poetically or abstractly, but in the concrete, no, and they are totally dependent on the government and the government is unsatisfactory because it is not moving forward. There's no improvement in social conditions, there's no improvement in health conditions. Don't get ill in Russia, don't get a sudden appendicitis in Kiev or in Leningrad because you're in danger of dying, and the average woman in Russia has 9 abortions in her life, however she can't function.

An abortion is very easy to get, in fact there is a special culture or trade in Russia now for hard dollars. Several American companies have set up baby producing companies that produce babies and then kill them, abort them, and then pack them up, their various parts, for medical uses in Europe and in America. The difficulty is that the Russian Orthodox Church, stationed in Moscow with the Patriarch, has been officially an assistant, an aide, to the KGB and to the Government. The present Patriarch we know even his code name and of the 15,000 priests in the Russian Church at the time of Gorbachev's departure, certainly 10,000 were KGB active members; they had to be, otherwise they would be sent to a Gulag. So the condition over there of religion is pretty bad.

Interviewer:

How does China fit in with the global agenda?

Malachi Martin:

The connection between China and the Leninists in the Soviet Union has never been broken. We in the West were duped into thinking that there was a huge rift between China and the Soviet Union. There was never a rift. There was a separation for strategic purposes, but the same people that decide on where China is going to go next are the people that decide where Russia is going to go next and where the Soviet Union states are going to go next, because they have the money and eventually everybody depends on the flow of capital and the flow of capital goods. You can't survive today as a country unless you belong. They will choke you.

Interviewer:

It seems to always come back to money.

Malachi Martin:

Yes, always money.

Interviewer:

Who is in control of this money?

Malachi Martin:

No, no, no, it is the very rich. Those who have the huge wealth. There are very few people who have that wealth, but there are a few, and they're looking after their own interests, and they have huge interests. It's not a plot or a conspiracy. They've got to make sure that proper governments are in and the proper men get into government and they contribute at their election or they contribute to install them. What is very hard for you and me and the normal John Citizen to realize is that there are men who are so detached from any nationality, any form of religion, any language in particular, like English or French or Japanese or Chinese, they are Universalists, they're Globalists.

They are so independent of that that they march on a plane which is global and they do believe in one thing and one thing only. They believe in the presence of an intelligence in this universe, because there's an intelligence arranging everything. It's not God. The preferred name they have for it is Lucifer, but Lucifer for them is not a devil with large ears, cloven feet, yellow eyes and dirty books under his arm tempting you to commit adultery or fornication or steal. He is the intelligence behind everything, and it's not a personal intelligence, although it's not impersonal either, but it's certainly anti-God, and the sky above is made of bronze and the earth beneath is made of earth and there's nothing above or below but us and our power with money.

Interviewer:

What is Russia's connection with the Middle East peace process?

Malachi Martin:

They have a token interest. They can't really influence the Middle East any longer, except insofar as we allow them, `we' being the United States. We are at the present moment the brokers, and if we decide, we have decided, President Clinton and his advisors did decide, to let the Russians interfere in Bosnia and to let the Russians interfere in the Middle East, but only at our sufferance, we can close that faucet off when we want to, but it does help us because some of the Arabs prefer the Russians to the Americans because some of the Arabs are very anti-Israel and America is pro- Israel, so they balance the act very nicely.

Interviewer:

How does the New World Order look upon the Middle East peace process?

Malachi Martin:

The Middle East is for one thing, and one thing only - oil. Remember, the United States has built a new empire in the Middle East. We have invested more military equipment in the Middle East than we ever did in any part of the world. We now hold the Middle East. Nobody can take it from us, except China, and we need oil, until we discover a new form of energy which we will discover, which we are on the way to discovering, due to space flight, but we haven't got that commercialized yet, so we can't bring it into our cities; we can't drive our automobiles with it, we can't drive our engines with it, we can't go to the moon with it or to Mars, but we will. When we no longer need the Middle East oil we'll drop it like a hotcake or like an old cake. All our military logistics are geared to the Middle East at the present moment. We're going to hold it, despite anybody. We are going to hold it.

Interviewer:

Some have argued that some of Russia's greatest minds, who happen to be Jewish, have left, or are currently leaving and returning to Israel...

Malachi Martin:

Yes, a lot of them have. There was a big brain drain and I have friends who worked in Kiev in Ukraine and they could employ brilliant Russia/Ukrainian scientists for nothing; computer experts, electronics experts, technocratic experts; fantastic inventors with fantastic knowledge, for nothing because the country is so poor and the dollarization makes it necessary to earn dollars, and they will do anything for dollars, because that's the only mode of buying any food, buying clothes, buying your way out of the place. There still is, of course, the Russian state police; the military espionage and KGB which is now another name, which is still the other form of espionage, they're still working and still spying, but there's greater co-operation now between us and them because we have a common enemy - China.

We don't know what to do about China. Nobody does. And the present administration in America is trying the carrot. Some people say we should use a stick. We don't know yet. It's just a hot potato for us because what can you do against, as Mao Tse-Tung told Nixon when he went to see him, 'we lose 300 million people in a bomb blast, we still have 600 million left; you lose 300 million, how many have you got left'. It's a terrible message.

Interviewer:

How does Turkey, if at all, fit in?

Malachi Martin:

Turkey is an ally of the United States, and will remain an ally of the United States for one reason, and one reason only. There's a thing called Masonry, the Freemasons, the Lodge, and the Turkish Lodge is bound with American and British Lodges, that is a firm, firm, cemented friendship which, until they all perish, if they do perish, will always support each other. Masonry is the bond there. Note: Edit sound. Turkey is very important because it is a key state in the Middle East. It's a linchpin.

Interviewer:

What is Russia's relationship with Turkey?

Malachi Martin:

They are not significant. Turkey has lined its borders with listening posts. I lived in Turkey with the U.S. Air Force for a period of my life and simply the only purpose in our being in Turkey was to monitor everything in Russia around the Turkish side of the Black Sea we had all these young men trained in Russian and trained in all the languages just lying on couches all day listening and monitoring their broadcasts, so Turkey is firmly on the Western side. It will never go to anybody else's side, and the Turks are marvelous fighters, as you know. Never go up against a Turkish regiment. They are terrible; great fighters, and they're firmly in the Western camp and they're pro-Israel. They're Islam, Muslim, there's a fundamentalist Muslim movement there but they won't let it get out of hand. Turkish authorities are terribly strict. They don't stand any nonsense. They hang you by the neck in public on a tripod on a public bridge. They have rough methods.

Interviewer:

Reports continually surface about smuggling of nuclear weapons from the Russian military because it is in such disarray. Can you comment on this?

Malachi Martin:

Yes, there's the constant danger - the security forces in America and in all European countries, especially Germany and France, and the Nordic countries, are studying this and the FBI has offices in Moscow. They have to, because there's no doubt about it that you can now have a nuclear bomb in a very small package.

There are nuclear materials, fissionable materials being sold and transported. The difficulty is that the surveillance is very tight. People don't know it, but the surveillance is very tight, and no Western government would hesitate to liquidate, silently, they would disappear into the city incinerators, they wouldn't give you a trial, they're not going to risk that. There is a danger, though, that if the clash between Arabs and Israel grew very acute and if the Israelis and their allies, namely the United States and France, cannot deal with it, that terrorists would succeed in detonating a nuclear device in the United States. There's no doubt about that. We expect that. We think it can happen, and there's no guarantee it can't happen. We're doing our best, but the security forces are alive to that, and as I say, they have no mercy, they have to act very fast, but it is a possibility which we all envisage as one day taking place.

Interviewer:

A number of times it seems that Russia is just being used by other countries and other forces for other purposes, that it's basically dead. Are there any powerful forces in Russia?

Malachi Martin:

No. They've been bypassed by events. They are now a pawn in the hands of the Globalists, but that's been decided on. It didn't happen by accident. (Edit) "They" are those that have the money to run this world. Remember that nothing can happen unless somebody finances it.

Russia is a pawn because, in fact we're all pawns to a certain degree, except the United States being the superpower, the current superpower, because we're not going to be a superpower for ever here because China's going to replace us, or we do away with China, but it will replace us, but at the present moment the United States is the superpower and therefore we are not the pawn of anybody really, although we are used because we are run not by the American people and the legislators, but by the Globalists who decide our fate in everything. Finally the decision filters down to our Congress and the White House and to the local legislators. Russia itself is a pawn though in a sense that they can't climb up. They've got their main services intact, their military services and their security services, but those are now at the back and call of those who have the money. Money is the key. There's no doubt about that.

Interviewer:

How do Russians feel about Perestroika?

Malachi Martin:

Gorbachev never really sold Perestroika to the normal Russian. I know Russians, I know Romanians, I know Czechs, I know Slovians, who yearn for the time that they had the Soviet Union because life was sure, education was free, hospitalization, as such, it was primitive, but it was free, housing was cheap, there was always a job, you had to have a job.

He never succeeded in selling Perestroika to the Russian people. He didn't intend to. Here's the thing that will make your mind boggle. Perestroika was not destined for the Russians, it was destined for us, because what Gorbachev set out to do in 1988-89, was to tell us `any concept you have of danger from us is over, we're no longer a threat, we're friends, actually, and we're going to open everything up - Perestroika, so don't be afraid'. It was us he was selling it to. He never meant to sell it to the Russians. The Russian's fate is no better than it ever was, and many of them say it's worse because they haven't got `Papa Stalin' and they haven't got the Red Army, they think, and they haven't got assured jobs and assured education, and there's now thuggery and crime in the streets there wasn't before, so they feel insecure. Perestroika wasn't meant for the Russians at all, it was meant for the West, and it succeeded admirably. We suddenly swooned and said, 'Ahhh, the Cold War is over. We're now friends forever'.

Interviewer:

One of the examples of this has been religious doors opening, but I have talked to missionaries recently who say now it seems to be closing again.

Malachi Martin:

Nothing has changed. It's a terribly cruel thing to say, but there's no church more corrupt than the Russian Orthodox Church, the 'roc' as they call it. Since 1928 they have been the handmaiden of the Soviet government. They consented to kill off the Ukrainians, 17 million of them, Catholics, and they consented to kill off all the Bishops in the Ukraine and all the Priests, and likewise throughout Russia. Anybody who didn't subscribe to the Communist manifesto and to Communism was killed, and they went along with that. They spied on the Church. They handed the Church over. They were apostles. It's a law in human development that if you do that to two whole generations you can't recover overnight by simply `okay, everybody is free'.

The soul has been corrupted. They have lived a lie. They have accepted a falsehood. They have fought for the worst Dictator the world has ever known, somebody who modestly can claim to have killed by executive order 66 million of his own compatriots. They calculate Stalin did in 66 million, one way or the other, by direct order. How many people can claim to have killed 66 million, and get away with it, and be adored as 'Papa Stalin'.

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.