Jimmy Akin has done a very good podcast on Fr. Michel Rodrigue. I would like to recommend people listen to it:
For the past several years, a rumor has circulated on the Internet about “false” versions of the Miraculous Medal going around. Supposedly, the Freemasons have struck their own version of the medal. This claim has upset a lot of people who are concerned about having authentic medals.
St. Paul Street Evangelization (SPSE) of Warren, Michigan has received numerous inquiries about the claim of “false” miraculous medals. As sellers of the Miraculous Medal, this matter was concerning to the organization. I was asked if I would perform an objective examination of the facts on behalf of the organization. I have done so and present my findings below. Click here for the document in PDF format.
-Kevin J. Symonds
September 14, 2020 A.D.
In Festo Exaltationis S. Crucis
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.
CTTK’s entire argument rests, as I have said previously, upon the two Bishops’ statements containing no formal condemnation in forma specifica. Then, they add to this the following statement:
Were a bishop to issue a formal condemnation of Fr. Michel Rodrigue’s messages, and were the prophecies of the Warning, the Chastisements, World War III, the Three Days of Darkness, and the Era of Peace to then occur, such a condemnation would reflect poorly on said bishop and on the Catholic Church as a whole. An erroneous condemnation would put into question the sanctity and surety of any bishop’s official statement, which is presumed utterly correct and to come from a thorough investigation.
CTTK would likely prefer to think of this statement as something along the lines of a “friendly warning,” but I beg to differ. It comes across more as a bully-tactic in that it serves the purpose of backing the two Bishops into a corner of continual doubt. Doing this provides a soft and cushy “grey area” in which CTTK can then operate.
I believe it is appropriate to draw attention at this time to the 1983 Codex Iuris Canonici:
Can. 386 §1. A diocesan bishop, frequently preaching in person, is bound to propose and explain to the faithful the truths of the faith which are to be believed and applied to morals. He is also to take care that the prescripts of the canons on the ministry of the word, especially those on the homily and catechetical instruction, are carefully observed so that the whole Christian doctrine is handed on to all.
§2. Through more suitable means, he is firmly to protect the integrity and unity of the faith to be believed, while nonetheless acknowledging a just freedom in further investigating its truths.
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
Based upon the above considerations:
- Bishops Bourgon and Lemay have made known their mind on the question of Fr. Rodrigue;
- They have declared their total disavowal of Rodrigue’s alleged messages;
- In doing so, they have exercised their office;
- The faithful are bound to obey what has been stated.
I would add to these considerations the observation that BOTH Bishops have indicated that Rodrigue was never an official exorcist. This can be interpreted as a tongue-in-cheek (indirect) statement that Rodrigue has misrepresented himself, if not actually lied.
Despite these facts, CTTK has decided to downplay the statements of the Bishops by dismissing them as being merely their “personal opinion.” In doing such, CTTK is dangerously running close to encouraging disunity within the Body of Christ. Moreover, if Fr. Rodrigue has misrepresented himself as an “exorcist,” CTTK is not wise in continuing to defend him.
They need to stop. Now.
If CTTK believes the Bishops’ statements are erroneous, unclear or rooted in improper methodology, the 1983 CIC has provisions relevant to these matters:
Can. 212 §2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.
§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
I strongly encourage CTTK to take advantage of the law and write to the two Bishops and seek clarification. I would add, however, that this should have been done before publishing the present statement.
Let me be clear: CTTK, knock it off.