A friend was kind to send to me a recent post entitled “The Greatest Sign of the Times” from Mark Mallett’s personal web site. In this response, Mallett makes a tongue-in-cheek remark about the recent criticism of Fr. Michel Rodrigue:
When I returned to my desk this week, I was faced with numerous controversies and attacks on this ministry and Countdown to the Kingdom and the seers there. It seems, in part, that some bishops and laity feel that any prophecies that speak of purification, chastisement or divine correction are false, simply because they are fearful. If so, then we ought to disavow Jesus Christ for the “doom and gloom” of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, the Book of Revelation, and so on.
He then goes on to lament a lack of catechesis about prophecy.
While I agree with some of Mallett’s observations about the nature of prophecy (I wrote Refractions of Light for similar reasons), Mallett’s above remark (and indeed his entire post) has a notable omission.
Mallett’s post focuses upon the “prophetic” aspect of Rodrigue’s (et al.) claims. He chalks up all the problems to how such things “frighten the hierarchy.”
The problem, though, is that Bishops Lemay and Bourgon’s respective letters specified as problematic more than just the “prophetic” element in Rodrigue’s alleged messages.
Bishops Lemay and Bourgon have directly stated that Rodrigue has never enjoyed the faculty of exorcist in their territories. The Bishops did not flatly state that Rodrigue has lied or misrepresented himself. Their statements, however, raise red flags in this regard.
Mallett omits this fact.
Let me ask the million-dollar question:
If someone claims to have mystical experiences as Rodrigue claims for himself and yet has publicly lied or misrepresented himself, then why should anyone take seriously his alleged prophecies?
The character of an alleged visionary or mystic precedes any discussion of the content of his or her alleged revelations. Two Bishops have indirectly challenged Rodrigue’s (and his promoters’) assertion to be/have been an exorcist. The burden of proof is now upon Rodrigue to defend his claim. If he does not defend it with irrefutable evidence, then his character is in serious question AND casts a notable shadow upon his alleged prophecies.
All of the above lends itself to another and very much related question:
What examination into Fr. Rodrigue’s background did Christine Watkins do before publishing her book that promoted Fr. Rodrigue in the first place?
Mallett’s omission leads one to the conclusion that his post is a bit myopic, to say nothing of being unfair to Bishops Lemay and Bourgon.