On Leaving Aside Fr. Michel’s Prophecies

Some people are upset with me for my decision to leave aside Fr. Michel’s prophecies. I can’t respond to all the emails, so I respond to their points here:

“But the fruits say it all. Fr. Michel’s were clearly good; so what else is there?”

Indeed, “By their fruits you shall know them,” Our Lord teaches in the Gospel. But He does not say “only” by fruits can we discern such phenomena, and neither does the Church. The Magisterium (see the CDF’s Norms for discerning apparitions/revelations here) instructs us, in discerning private revelations, to give “special” regard to fruits, but not “sole” regard to them. Quite the contrary, it lists a number of other very important criteria for discernment. 

As I said in my original post; I thank God for the outpouring of good fruits from Fr. Michel’s preaching. These fruits are of enormous value–preserve them! Their value absolutely does not depend upon the accuracy of Fr. Michel’s prophecies! His spiritual exhortations – the real purpose of his messages – are and were rock solid. If you were touched by grace in hearing them, then this was doubtless from the Holy Spirit, and you should be zealous to hold on to those graces and spread them.

This is precisely why I do not for a moment regret sometimes “platforming” him. 

But his prophecies were not mere occasional remarks he sometimes made; they were, rather, regularly intertwined within his overall message. Now that we know at least one of his prophecies is demonstrably and objectively false, I currently see no way to salvage his messages. 

“But what if Benedict’s martyrdom was the original plan, and it was mitigated through prayer?”

It is certainly possible that this is the case. If so, I am sure Fr. Michel rejoices in this turn of events, even though it made his prophecy a ‘failure,” and compels us to now leave his prophecies aside. It is, of course, God’s sovereign right to modify the course of Chastisements in accordance with such things as the prayers and sacrifices of the Faithful. But when He does so in such a way as to nullify a prophecy, then even if that prophecy was, in some sense, conditionally valid in its time, we are still left with the inescapable “collateral damage” of needing to leave aside the prophecies of that alleged prophet whose own messages were contradicted by the actual course of events. 

Our knowledge of these matters is inherently imperfect and extremely partial; nevertheless, we have no other option but to use it to guide our decisions. We have no way of knowing if this was a “valid prophecy that was nevertheless mitigated through prayer.” The only thing we know–and which, therefore, ought to guide our discernment–is that what Fr. Michel prophesied would happen, in fact, did not happen. Therefore, we have insufficient cause for continuing to regard his prophecies as supernatural.

The example generally used in these contexts is Jonah, in Scripture, preaching imminent Chastisement to the city of Nineveh. But Nineveh prayed and fasted, and God relented and spared the city. Prophecies of Chastisements are indeed generally conditional. But take note of the fact that Jonah did not return to Nineveh after his apparent prophetic failure to continue prophesying. Rather, his task was completed; it was time for him to move on from prophesying to Nineveh.  Similarly — even if a change in events due to prayer is the correct explanation of the present situation, I think it is still time to move on Fr. Michel’s prophecies.

This, however, is yet another reason why it is extremely important that we do not condemn Fr. Michel as a “false prophet,” but merely acknowledge that he is – in this case, at least – a “failed prophet.” Just as Jonah’s exhortation to prayer should have been continued to be heeded by the Ninevites even after the city remained untouched, so too should we continue to heed those valuable spiritual admonishments Fr. Michel left us with.

“If you are going to leave aside seers if their prophecies fail, why do you still promote Fr. Gobbi?”

I do not believe Fr. Gobbi’s prophecies failed. I will explain why in a forthcoming post or video. Subscribe here and at Youtube.com/@DSDOConnor to be kept in the loop.

“But what if Benedict actually was martyred (e.g., poisoned) and Fr. Michel’s prophecy remains accurate?”

Benedict’s martyrdom was only part of Fr. Michel’s prophecy. The prophecy also stated that first, Francis would be martyred, and Benedict would seek to convene a conclave, only to himself then be martyred. As Benedict is now dead, none of these things will be happening. Even if he was secretly martyred, therefore, the prophecy remains a failure.

“But why leave aside a seer’s entire body of prophecy just because of one prophetic failure?”

Here as elsewhere, when a specific prophecy clearly and inescapably fails — without any reasonable interpretation of what was prophesied being subtly congruous with actual events, and without any apparent possibility of possible future events resolving the matter — I leave aside that seer’s prophecies. That doesn’t mean I’m claiming that seer never had any legitimate prophecies to offer; it does not mean that I am implying all his messages are non-supernatural in origin. ​I’m just saying that, when a prophecy fails, the most likely explanation is that the prophecy itself was not from Heaven; but from the seer’s own imagination. So, in Fr. Michel’s case, we now know that at least some of his other prophecies were likely from his imagination. And even if much of Fr. Michel’s prophecies are indeed supernatural (which I am not rejecting the possibility of!), I nevertheless currently have no way of sorting out which of his prophecies were from his own subjectivity and which were objectively supernatural. Therefore, the only sensible course of action is for me to simply leave aside his prophecies in general. 

Most importantly on this question, remember: I am absolutely NOT leaving aside those things Fr. Michel prophesied which are also propheside by other seers! (The Warning, the Chastisements, the Antichrist, the 3 Days of Darkness, the Era of Peace, etc. — and the great imminence of these events). We should all remain confident in all of this. (And we should remain certain of the Era of Peace).

But what if Benedict’s death was faked, what the news is showing is not actually his body, and the funeral planned for Thursday will be a sham?

Now we are entering a rather extraordinary realm. Then again, the arena of prophecy is not without extraordinary happenings. I am not about to propose things so bizarre as this scenario might have actually occurred merely to salvage Fr. Michel’s prophecies. Neither, however, will I deny their possibility. Therefore if, in the future, something like this proves true, then obviously I will re-visit Fr. Michel’s prophecies! I would, however, admonish everyone: whoever thinks that this, or something similar, is indeed the case should refrain from publicly saying so, in accordance with how very outlandish it appears. The proper approach for such people is simply to wait and see. And, more importantly, pray