The False Imprimatur
The following is an email exchange between a man named “Michael” and DFOF, the organizations that promotes the false seer, Anne, A Lay Apostle. The very title that she gives herself, as an Apostle, proves it false but the object of posting this dialogue is to show the lies of false apparitions and the great extent they go to fool the public.
I also want to post this to show people how to investigate apparitions, since this man, Michael, does a great job in digging for the truth. This dialogue is almost laughable but in truth, sad.
As promised, here's how the
investigation into "Anne-A
Lay Apostle" is shaping up
so far. I will copy my e-mails (in blue), and
their responses (in red). I am omitting the name
of my correspondent for the sake of privacy.
I first began by approaching the group, "Direction For Our Times" by inquiring about their claim to be a non-profit organization:
I read on your web site that you are a non-profit organization, governed by a board of directors. I would like to know if you can provide documentation of your 501(c)(3) exemption application (form 1023), as well as the exemption ruling from the IRS.
Dear Michael, we
are not a 501c3, we have prepared the application for this, but there is no
guarantee of the ruling and length of the time it will take with the IRS.
I will address that on our web site and I am sorry if that is misleading.
DFOT quickly changed the information on their website to reflect that they had only applied for non-profit status, and that they awaited final approval from the state. I was, quite frankly, surprised at this honest response, and at the speed with which they clarified their position on the website. At this point, I was hopeful that I would be able to get the information I wanted from them. My next e-mail was to inquire about the Volumes themselves, and whether the content had been approved by the local Ordinary:
Thank you for
answering my question about the status of your organization.
I am very interested in the messages of the Volumes, but I am concerned about their content. Have these messages been given to the local Ordinary for approval? If so, what is the name of the bishop presiding over the diocese in which these messages are being received? I cannot seem to find this information on your web site.
The reply I got was short, and surprising:
Dear Michael, His
name is Bishop Federico O. Escaler, SJ of Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines
He has given Imprimatur for all 8 volumes published and the youth booklet, all these books are being published and printed in for his people in the
It is with this surprising bit of information that these "Messages" becomes a little more questionable. Why are "Anne's" messages being printed and published in the
I do hope that my
questions are not tedious or bothersome--if they are, please let me know.
Thank you for providing the information on Bishop Escaler, and forgive me for my curiosity, but I'm a little confused. I was under the impression that you were located in
The reason for my questions is that I am very interested in the Volumes, but as a faithful Catholic, I want to avoid anything that is not officially sanctioned by the Church. If you feel that these questions are too intrusive, please disregard them.
It is at this point that the correspondence from DFOT begins to become colored with a tone that is quite familiar:
Dear Michael, Anne's Bishop
has given her permission and myself permission to
publish the material, he has also given Anne permission to speak about the work and that she is in total
obedience to him and the Church. The Imprimatur from the Bishop in the
Michael, I do not mind all the questions and I think I have presented a clear case for you to basically understand that none of this could have taken place without Anne's Bishops approval as well as the scrutiny of the Holy See.
My suggestion to you, since you are a good Catholic, would be to go to an Adoration chapel, sit in silence and now ask Our Lord all these question in silence, and if you are sincere, Our Lord will place in your heart what he now wants you to do with His works. His mercy is so abundant He will not let your request go unanswered.
It is becoming increasingly clear that DFOT does not wish to cooperate, so I press further:
Thank you very
much for your patience--I assure you that my goal is only to ensure that I do
not unduly expose myself to unapproved material.
I thank you for providing the information about Bishop Escaler, but one final question, if I may: who is Anne's bishop?
And so the secrecy--and the familiar belligerent tone--begin:
I am sorry Michael,
under obedience to Our Lady and for the protection of Anne and her family I am not able to divulge
that.* Her Bishop has been introduced to all the main participants involved in
the Imprimatur including the Holy See.
The only important issue now is the words of Our Lord.
For reasons that are not adequately explained, DFOT refuses to give the name of the bishop who's diocese "Anne" is receiving these messages in. They go so far as to ludicrously claim that God requests that the bishop's identity be kept secret! At this point I attempt to politely clarify my request:
Thank you again
I understand the need to keep Anne and her family's identity private, and I am not asking you to reveal that information.
What I'm asking for is the name of the bishop over the diocese in which Anne lives, and with all due respect, I don't believe that the protection of Anne and her family requested by Our Lady extends to protecting the identity of a bishop, a servant of the Church, required by Church law to be a publicly visible example of Christian faith.
Quite frankly, I'm a little confused as to why you would wish to hide the identity of this bishop. To do so is not only contrary to canon law, but also violates my right according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to make my opinion known to the sacred pastors "on matters which pertain to the good of the Church" (CCC 907).
Is there some reason why you do not wish me to contact the bishop? I assure you I have no intention of inquiring about Anne's identity, and I should hope that the bishop would honor the privacy of this individual, regardless of any divine request from Our Lady. My interest is in finding out the bishop's position on these Messages, as well as their status with the Office of the Congregation of Faith.
I find this level of secrecy distressing and suspicious--if the bishop has indeed approved of these Messages, I can see no legitimate reason to hide his identity. However, I hold out hope that your motives are honorable, and that you will in Christian charity share with me the name of the bishop who presides over the diocese in which Anne receives her messages.
Now the obfuscation, and quite familiar hostile attitude begins:
Dear Michael, it’s
a shame you base all your distrust and fears on one name, if the Imprimatur
from the Bishop does not appease you then nothing will. I have presented
everything to you with courtesy and the love of what Our Lord has given to me,
but it seems your agenda is to discredit and create something that does not
exist. If you do not want to read and understand what Our Lord is saying, that
of course is your decision, but please don't attempt to spread scandal because
of lack of faith and being afraid to sit in adoration and ask for Our Lord's
You will be in my prayers despite your anger.
It has now become clear that DFOT has something to hide, else they would not have a problem with divulging the name of "Anne's" bishop. At this point I have made it clear that I do not seek "Anne's" identity, but only the name of her bishop:
Thank you for your
I understand your concerns, but I assure you, I am not angry, nor am I seeking to create scandal. However I am concerned. Concerned that you seem unwilling to allow a faithful Catholic to verify the approved status of Anne's Messages through the competent authority of the local Ordinary--even to the point of contradicting canon law, and violating my right to petition the local Ordinary as prescribed in Church doctrine.
Given your unwillingness to tell me the name of Anne's bishop, I can only conclude that it is because you do not wish for me to inquire about the status of these Messages, leading me to wonder just what it is that you don't want me to know.
A person who speaks the truth has nothing to fear from the truth.
Any hope that the accusation of having something to hide might spur them to divulge the secret name of "Anne's" bishop was quickly dashed by their next e-mail:
If you truly seek
the truth go to Bishop Escaler and find out why he
gave the Imprimatur to this work and ask him his opinion as to if they read in
truth or not. You skirt the issue of truth. Would you be satisfied if Cardinal
George gave the imprimatur? Would you be
satisfied if the Holy See has given its permission to continue publishing while
it investigates the fruits? Or are you
only trying to find out who and where Anne lives? Why such a concern for her Bishop? Should we give out all
that information so that 100,000 readers can call her Bishop with questions
like yours, I think he is a little to busy for such burdens.
I will continue to pray for you young man, please be a peace.
Ironic that they accuse me of "skirting the issue of truth" when the truth is all I seek. However, whether intentional or accidental, they did divulge a name which, at the very least, betrays their location: Cardinal George. Now, why they felt comfortable giving the name of bishop Escaler and Cardinal George, but not "Anne's" bishop, I have no earthly idea. Their reasoning hiding it certainly suggests that they've got something to hide, but then why divulge the name of the Archbishop? Curious!
My final message to DFOT:
I honestly don't
understand this hostility coming from you--are these the "fruits" you
speak of? If so, I will end my interest in Anne's messages right now, for if they call for hiding the truth, and foster this
kind of belligerent attitude towards those who seek it, they can only be from
I believe that you have given me enough information to make an educated guess about where to send my inquiries about these so-called "messages".
Thank you for your time.
Questions! ... So many questions! If "Anne" has permission from her local bishop to print and publish these so-called "Messages", why have them printed and published in the
If the messages of "Anne" have the approval of her local bishop, then why the hostile refusal to divulge his name? Clearly they don't have a problem with identifying bishop Escaler (who supposedly granted the Imprimatur), or even Cardinal George, so why refuse to tell me who "Anne's" bishop is? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that DFOT has something to hide in this regard.
I have written a letter to Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago, inquiring about the status of these so-called "message" from "Anne--A Lay Apostle". I will follow up when I hear something more.
Other Email Exchange on Anne, A Lay Apostle
I read somewhere on the labyrithine websites that come up with the name Anne, Lay Apostle that Anne is from
I do not have time to inquire further, but thought this might vaguely help your research.
If your attacks on MDS do not cease, I will have to consult the other moderators about a suspension. This is your second warning about this matter.
Apropos of your warning to MDS:
Michael specifically notes in
his post that he is NOT naming any individual. An email to a public website
inquiring into something over which they are openly doing public business
and making public claims of being backed by the Catholic Church in their
promotion of a given supernatural phenomena is not only a legitimate email,
but sharing the response to the same in a public matter is a wholly
legitimate sharing of information.
Michael is ABSOLUTELY right. Deliberate obfuscation and secrecy in any matter is quite often the handiwork of the father of lies.
Complain away Micaela,
I so happen to say it is you and Mds that are in the wrong, you seem to be picking on an individual in a un Christian manor and I wish CCF Staff to look at both Anne threads from beginning to end. Your behaviour is diabolical for a Moderator.
You have smeared the peace in my heart with your bitter typing.
One quick question - is the name of her bishop the one and only fact withheld, and the one and only complaint you have about this? You wrote many words, and so I may have missed something.........
Where do you find in canon law that they must divulge the name of her bishop to you?
An Imprimateur is appropriate from the bishop of the diocese of the authors/publishers - if this is the
I did a "Google" search for this Bishop Escaler and it seems that he retired in 1997. He is referred to as Bishop "Emeritus".
I wonder how long ago the "imprimatur" was granted or if it is licit or legal coming from a retired bishop. Anyone know the canon law regarding something like that?
There just seems to be something very "fishy" about this whole thing.
It shouldn't be this difficult to get information.
Okay, here's what new information I have at this moment. DFOT claims that the Imprimatur was granted by a bishop Escaler, of the
However--all this appears to be a moot issue--in doing a search of these "Volumes" at various online bookstores, a curious fact arises--none of them are listed as published in the
It's also an interesting development that contact e-mail address for Marian Publishers in
It's also interesting to note that the Marian Publishing website says that they're waiting from the Imprimatur from
So here's how things shape up:
I contact DFOT about the imprimatur for "Anne's" Volumes. I am told that they have the imprimatur from a bishop Escaler from the
However, bishop Escaler retired in 1997, but it appears that the "Volumes" were first published in 2003, calling into question the validity of the Imprimatur.
Doing an online search, the "Volumes" appear to have either been published through Veritas Warehouse in
The contact e-mail for Marian Publishing is the very same reply e-mail from the contact at DFOT--conclusion: the DFOT contact is the former president of Marian Publishing.
It is clear that my contact at DFOT is being less than honest by asserting that "Anne's" Volumes are published in the
All in all, I have to say that my suspicion grows ever stronger the deeper I look into this; given the level of dishonesty displayed, I can only imagine why DFOT does not want to disclose the name of "Anne's" bishop.
I have mailed off my inquiry to Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and hope to have a reply in the near future.
Thank you, Michael,
I wish that all Catholics would do their own investigations before so easily falling into such deception.