17. Oktober 2005 in English
A letter from the Shrine of Fátima, Fr. Luciano Guerra
In the spirit of my letter of 2005.01.07, to which you had the courtesy ofreplying, and of my e-mail of 2005.02.17, and also following the events of2006.08.22, and still in case the Society of St. Pius X may have theintention of coming back to Fatima, I ask you again to grant me a little ofyour time.
In order to have a text that I may be able to send to those friends of yourswho have written to me following your pilgrimage, I am going to take thetime to write a letter a little more detailed, which I would ask you to readpatiently.
After receiving your letter and sending my e-mail, I had a meeting,brotherly and amicable, with your Fr. Daniel, of Lisbon, who came to talk tome on 2005.07.13.
I told him once again that I didn't object to having your pilgrims prayprivately, no matter what their intentions were, but that any collectivepublic act of pilgrimage would need the consent of the authorities of theplace where it takes place and this otherwise according to the rules of bothnatural and church laws. Knowing still your intention of making a processiontowards the Little Chapel right after the noon hour, I also informed himthat the Mass of 12h30 in that place ends around 13h30 and that every day at14h00 an Hour of Reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary takes placethere, led, for more than 25 years, by the Religious Congregations ofFatima. I was therefore letting him know that, in case you persisted incoming around the lunch hour, we wouldn't be able to grant you but a littlehalf hour and that, in order to schedule you for another hour, it would benecessary to speak to our Pilgrim Service Department.
On 2005.08.05 I found on my desk a short "reply" from Fr. Daniel, telling methat in the Prayer Area you would limit yourselves to the recitation of the"Rosary accompanied by the usual songs of Fatima and a reading of a text ofLucy". Given his omission regarding the procession and the scheduled time, Iinterpreted that letter as showing your decision to limit yourselves toprivate prayer. That's why I was surprised, when climbing the stairs towardsthe Reading Room of the Chaplains, on Monday the 22nd, to hear yourprocession which was walking down towards the Little Chapel, accompanied byloudspeakers. But I still wanted to believe that you were going to respectour Hour of Reparation.
However, noticing that you continued past 14h00, it was with great regret -for I don't like conflicts - that I nevertheless ordered the Sisters of theReparation (Hour) to start their prayers, even to the risk of interruptingyours.
A priest from your Society, I was told, dared then climb the wall of theLittle Chapel, since the gate was closed. Did he intend to grab themicrophone by force? In any case it was a serious incident and abuse. Youand I understand that our security guards, not at all used to suchbehaviour, had to react with force to maintain the established order andthought it necessary to call the Police.
Moreover, realizing that your obstinacy was creating a situation ofaffrontedness between the two groups(during prayer of reparation!), I had tomove rapidly to take the measure that looked to me to be the only onecapable of solving the problem, and the less aggressive both for you and forthe other pilgrims and the inhabitants of Fatima.
If you had turned quiet shortly before 14h00, nothing unpleasant would havehappened. And if you had contacted us at least on any of three previousdays, it is possible that we could have given you that day our Hour ofReparation, or instead, why not, have invited you to join us, for theintention was the same, although the occasion was different. I beg you tobelieve that there isn't in me any desire for vengeance, although it was Ithat was the object of lies, calumnies, misrepresentations and ill will, maywe say official, on the part of important members of your Brotherhood. Youwill find it legitimate that, without denying your sincerity, I interpretthat pilgrimage as an act of hostility against me and the Bishop ofLeiria-Fatima, with whom otherwise your bishops that were in Fatima didn'teven seek to dialogue. Knowing, however, that your position regarding thepastoral policies of this Shrine is rooted in a doctrinal system and aprogramme of action more profound and more extensive against the Church ofVatican II, I didn't have other recourse but to maintain the authority ofthis place.
Moreover, due to your canonical situation, I could have been able, withentire objectivity, to accuse you, in turn, of sacrilege and blasphemy.However I have never done it and I don't ever intend to do it in the future,because I want to believe that you act in good faith.
Because the Lord has granted me the grace of having an aversion almostvisceral against all kinds of controversy, I don't have any intention, anydesign, any project, any recourse to reply to the enormous amount ofliterature put out by the Brotherhood regarding me and Fatima. I'llcontinue, therefore, to consider you in the future as brothers, even asCatholics, although in state of declared schism (sorry if the formula is notexact). I keep, therefore, hoping that you will return to submission to thelegitimate authority of the Church, a hope though quite weak, if one looksat the facts and uncountable situations of the same kind which haven'tencountered a solution throughout the past twenty centuries. My convictionis that you, who make of the anti-ecumenism one of your banners, riskgreatly becoming one more group which the Church of Rome won't be able inthe near future to contact but in the realm of ecumenism. Positions such asyours are the ones that have created the need for ecumenical dialogue andtreatment.
I take this opportunity, given the subject of ecumenism here ventilated, toclarify certain details regarding the way we received the Hindu group.Firstly, their visit took place in April, on 2004.04.19, not on May 5th, asit has been largely reported. Secondly, the visit didn't have anything to dowith the October 2003 congress. The Hindu minister was able to walk up tothe presbytery only due to the benevolence resulting from a misunderstandingon the part of the guard on duty, accustomed, as he usually is, to let inmembers of the clergy, similarly attired. The Hindu person in charge laterconfided to me that their minister didn't intend to walk up to thepresbytery, and I believe him. I myself, knowing that it was a privatevisit, though of a group, wasn't interested in accompanying them, and, if Iat the last moment sent one of our chaplains, it was only because atelevision network had announced that it would be present. Regarding theband that was placed on our shoulders, on me and on the Bishop, in a room ofthe Rectory, away from the Little Chapel, I took that as a gesture offriendship, not planned as it happened with everything else, and withoutsecond intentions on their part. Was it necessary to make a sacrilegiousdrama out of it?
I recognize that the circumstances have changed; therefore it will benecessary, in the future, to pay more attention to things like these. Weknow moreover how difficult it is to combine prudence with simplicity, asthe Lord counsels us. But it is also necessary to note that, contrary towhat happened with your group, they had taken care of contacting usbeforehand, although in a very vague way. They behaved, therefore,courteously and came as friends, at least it appeared so, and I want tobelieve they were sincere. If that is the case, was their prayer a fruit ofhate against our God? Excuse me if I anger you with this question, to whichI don't demand that you reply.
In conclusion, I'm certain that we all could have been spared thisunpleasant experience on 2005.08.22, if you had the humility (allow me theuse of this word) of contacting us before taking the decision of schedulingyour activity for an hour that placed in question the legitimacy of ourauthority over this place.
I will not mention some of the excesses of zeal of some of your faithful,especially in what regards our posters; some of them, it seems, even triedto administer communion in the Basilica; as to yourself, I admit that youwould be ready to disavow such abuses.
I assure you that you will be welcome, in the future, to our Shrine for anyactivity that we can agree on beforehand.
Since you are convinced, although due to interpretations in my opinionhasty, superficial and fruit of ill-will, that the authorities of Fatima areready to divert this holy place towards pagan cults, you are bound to callyour faithful to do penance in atonement for our sins. I hope, in any case,that they will do it primarily in the silence of their hearts or of theirbedrooms (Mt.6).
However, if your intention is to accuse publicly of sacrilege and blasphemy- with an animosity worthy of the old inquisitors - those vested inauthority here, which they have the right, in all sincerity, to believelegitimate, you must understand that it would be more courteous or merciful(allow me this little bit of irony) to do it elsewhere rather than atFatima.
Thanking you again for your patience, I ask you to accept my bestsentiments, in Christ and His Holy Mother, to whom we all would like toconsecrate ourselves, with a pure and therefore brotherly heart.
Shrine of Fátima,
The Rector
Fr. Luciano Guerra
© 2005 www.kath.net