Apologia is a word that many only understand as giving an apology for a wrong done. However, apologia also is “a form of practiced rhetoric that is used in self-defense or as a vindication of a person.” This is what is intended by apologia here!
A number of years ago, I came upon the website of Ronald L. Conte Jr. in which he seeks to dismantle Eileen and her ministry. After reading Mr. Conte’s statements, I wrote to him point by point, hoping to show his misrepresentation of Eileen and her teaching. Mr. Conte never responded or even acknowledged my eMail. In order to protect Eileen’s ministry from calumny, I make the following response. Before you jump to false conclusions, read Eileen’s books and do not take them out of context. Also, read the testimonials of the hundreds of Cardinals, Bishops and priests who support her ministry.
My emphases are in bold.
My comments are in red.
Claims of Private Revelation: True or False?
An Evaluation of the messages of Eileen George (Meet-the-Father Ministry)
In my humble and pious opinion as a faithful Roman Catholic theologian, [I do not doubt Mr. Conte’s sincerity; however, from his credentials, he is NOT a theologian by any means. I pulled the following from his website, and highlight it in blue to distinguish it from his evaluation of Eileen’s messages: “I have a bachelor’s degree in philosophy and theology from Boston College. … I never pursued a masters or doctoral degree in theology, because God did not lead me along that path. I understand — from my many years of faith, prayer, self-denial, works of mercy, and work with theology and Scripture — that God has given me the role of a theologian among His people, without the need for an additional degree in theology. … Over time, I realized that I have the gift from God to be able to understand theology, to make sound theological arguments, and to write formal theology on many topics. I came to realize that God had led me, gradually and subtly, along the path to become a lay theologian.”] the claim that the messages of Eileen George (Meet-the-Father Ministry) are private revelation is a false claim [Judgment of private revelation is left to the local bishop or the Holy See, but not a lay Catholic]. A list of reasons and examples follows.
One of the common characteristics of false private revelation is that the claimed revelation exalts the one receiving it. In the case of Eileen George, there are numerous examples of self-exaltation. Her book titles are self-exalting: “Eileen George’s Conversations in Heaven,” [It is interesting that St. Catherine of Siena’s revelations “Dialog of Catherine of Siena” were published in a similar manner. Catherine’s director dictated during her ecstasies; Eileen’s used a tape recorder.] “Eileen George, Beacon of God’s Love: Her Teaching,” etc. Calling herself a beacon of God’s live [sic] [“Beacon of God’s Love” are her director’s words] and calling the teachings of her book her teaching (rather than the teaching of the Church, which it is not) is self-exalting. Her books feature her picture on the cover. Her books are filled with pictures of her and various priests and Bishops. [All of Eileen’s books were published by her spiritual director. Although he did receive her permission, she “urged her director to give priority to his own publications.” Her director, a priest, monk, theologian, psychologist took complete liberty in what went into the books, their titles, and how they were published.]
The messages are all about her and they are exalting. [I wonder if he actually read them, or quoted from them.] For example, a message quoted in the forward of her book,
‘Beacon of God’s Love,” claims: “You will shine like a beacon before all men and you will bring the Father’s word to them…. A new light has been sent to God’s people and it will light up the whole world.” [“You shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life” (Phil 2:15); “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” (Mt 5:14)] Such words are true about Christ and the Virgin Mary, but they are not true even about any one Saint, nor can they be true about this woman. [Jesus said we are all to be light, if we respond to His grace.] When God did, at times, give private revelation to Saints, He did not do so to tell them how holy they were. True private revelation is humbling, not exalting.
Another message (Beacon, p. 29) claims: “You will rise gloriously as a messenger to My people…. And I have set her [Eileen] on a pedestal to shine before all men.… this messenger of God.” [“Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house” (Mt 5:15). This guy is a theologian and he doesn’t know Sacred Scripture?] Again, a claim is made that God the Father gave a supernatural revelation to this woman, only to tell her how great she is. Such is not the case with true private revelation, even to Saints. They are not given the revelation tell them how great they are.
The same message claims that miracles will accompany her death: “And when she lies at rest I will flood the earth with graces, graces that have never before and never again will be seen by the eyes of men. A cloud will lower itself to the heads of men and though the sun will shine brightly over the earth the heavens will cry and in the warmest area of My land the snow will fall and in the coldest area of the earth roses will bloom, and the world will know that I have set My flower upon a pedestal and she is coming to me forever.” Again, this message has no purpose other than to exalt the person receiving the message. The claim that, in honor of her death, graces will flood the earth, more so that at any time in past or future, exalts this woman above Christ and Mary. In truth, it is the hour of Christ’s death that floods the world with more graces than at any other time. And, at the return of Christ, the world will also see a great flood of graces. The claim that her death is the time of the greatest graces exalts her above Christ and is clearly contrary to the example of the lives of the Saints, who lived and died in great humility.
Later in the same book, the text on page 35 (not a message) claims: “The Father has now no one else to send. [Doesn’t Our Lord say this throughout the Bible? Each one of us has our part to play and no one else can fulfill His plan for us.] So He is coming Himself through Eileen. This is mankind’s last chance.” This text is laughable. The claim is that Almighty God has no one else out of the more than 6 billion people on earth (including the clergy and religious) to send. Also, the claim that the Father Himself comes through her completely ignores Christ’s role as the one Mediator between God and men. [We are all mediators by the grace of our Baptism. Christ made us all collaborators in His work of salvation. Our Lord is the primary Mediator; the mediation of the Saints is secondary and subordinate to that of Christ.] Christ has been replaced by Eileen in the claims of these books and messages.
Her self-exaltation even extends to the way that she describes her treatment of God (Beacon, p. 95): “I feel the withdrawal of the Father and the Son…. Sometimes I get angry, and I say, ‘Wait until He comes back, then I’m going to take a “powder” on Him…. But He still doesn’t answer…. I say ‘then the Father’s ready to come back to me with the Son, then I’m not speaking.’ That’s my humanness. ‘I’ll fix You, Father.’ ” She admits to speaking with God in a threatening manner. The fear of God is not with her. [Our Lord has always tested those He is drawing to Himself by hiding. Eileen is a simple soul, who does not change. Eileen is Eileen. She did not lose her humanity.]
She also claims to see the Father in human form (Beacon, p. 170): “I see the Father in a human form.” [God manifests Himself in a way that the person can understand. Should He come as a pumpkin?]
I’ve often found self-exaltation associated with false claims of private revelation, but this particular case is an extreme example.
2. False claims about the future
One message (Beacon of God’s Love, p. 28) claims: “I am calling you to reveal the Father to all men. This is their last chance. [This is not the only time Our Lord said this. He spoke a similar message through St. Faustina: “I am giving them the last hope of salvation” (Diary 699)] They must listen closely to Your words…. You have a powerful mission….” Here again is a self-exalting message, claiming that Eileen has a role that is really only proper to Christ himself, to reveal the Father to all men. [Eileen’s mission is to make Him known. Most Catholics only know of Jesus, and that He came to reveal the Father; but do they feel that they have a real relationship with the Father? Do they relate to God the Father?]
Furthermore, the claim that this is their “last chance” implies that the end of the world is near, which is clearly false. Also, since Eileen is elderly and has been afflicted with cancer, she is most likely near the end of her life. For her to be the last chance, the end of the world would have to be very soon, which is contrary to Scripture (since so many things in the Book of Revelation have yet to be fulfilled).
3. Improper role given to a woman and lay person over ordained deacons, priests, and Bishops.
[Mr. Conte is a sexist! He quotes St. Paul, yet, he doesn’t look at the role the Church has given to women today. Eileen often tells the priests, “If you priests were doing your job, I could be at home in my kitchen.” The reason God raised up a simple housewife is that we have failed to preach the Sacraments and teachings of the Church as we should.] This woman violates the teachings of Scripture concerning proper roles for men and women. “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” (1 Tim 2:11ff). Eileen George claims that the role given to her by God is to bring the Father to all men. And frequently, she even speaks and teaches to groups of priests. One message (Beacon of God’s Love, p. 28) claims: “The priests must be touched, Eileen…. Be strong with them, but firm. They must be brought back to the dignity of the royal priesthood.” [Priests do need to be touched by God’s grace. Many never go to confession, pray their Office or say their daily Mass when they don’t celebrate in the parish. Mr. Conte should have learned from the scandal. Priests need to be challenged and taught. Don’t forget, Eileen was sent by her bishop; she didn’t choose this ministry. The bishop sent her and her husband gave his blessing. Eileen only functions in complete obedience to the Church.] Even the Virgin Mary was not given a role of teaching and preaching to the ordained. Again, this role supposedly given to her exalts her, even above ordained persons in the Church.
4. Her refusal to study the Bible and the teaching of the Church
The text of Beacon….p. 40, describes Eileen: “It is evident that Eileen does not get her teaching from books or study…. She often says, ‘No brains, no blockages!’ ” Later on page 42, the text says: “She has not theological training, no degree in theology.” Anyone who presumes to teach priests should have theological training, or should at least read some books about the faith.
A web page about her (http://www.medugorje.com/EileenGeorge/) [This is the same website; I only purchased the domain names later.] says that she does not read books, [By order of her spiritual director to keep her teaching from outside influence and test its veracity.] and that her only books are the tabernacle and the crucifix. [If he has a problem with this, he has a serious problem! Many of the saints used the same “books”!] On the contrary, the Church recommends the Bible to all the faithful. And those who presume to teach the faith should study the writings of Popes and Ecumenical Councils, as well as of Saints. It is a clear indication of her lack of fitness to teach anyone that she does not even claim to read the Bible or any holy books. Also, she refers to the tabernacle, rather than to the Eucharist, showing that her understanding of the faith is limited.
She claims that St. Thomas Aquinas also speaks to her in private revelation, teaching her, but she clearly does not read his writings (Conversations 2, p. 41). She calls him ‘Thomasino’ (little Thomas). [The saints have often spoken to the saints. Thomasino is an affectionate term. We all have affectionate ways of speaking with friends and loved ones.]
5. Lack of spiritual insight
Contrasting with her exorbitant claim to be the one person though whom the whole world would know the Father, [This is exaggeration] is her lack of spiritual and theological insight into the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The claim is repeated again and again, but it is not accompanied by anything but the most basic (and in many cases distorted) teaching about the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Numerous messages make exaggerated claims about how effective she will be at teaching the world, yet she does not read theology, [Mr. Conte in justifying his own authority to teach theology attacks some theologians for their “heresy” and claims he doesn’t need more degrees to write and teach about theology. Eileen is a unique soul, like others in the history of the Church that God leads and speaks to in a unique way. All of her talks are monitored by REAL theologians!] nor the writings of the Saints, nor the documents of the Magisterium. Her messages and writings present no theological or spiritual insights, [Is this a personal attack? Even a bad theologian has something good to say, some insight into God. To say that Eileen has “no … insight” sounds like he has an issue with Eileen.] but are many accounts about how great she supposedly is, how she has held many retreats and traveled to many places. Her claimed private revelations are not very revealing at all about God or the Church or the future. [Eileen will not enter or speak in a church or at a conference without permission of the local Ordinary. There is obviously something about Eileen and her ministry that is bearing fruit. Everywhere she speaks, the whole church goes to confession. I have never been able to do that and I have never witnessed another priest achieve that.]
6. Theological errors
Her teaching about the Trinity is contrary to Tradition and Scripture: “You cannot get the fullness of the Holy Spirit unless you’re led to the Spirit by the Father. You must go through the mystical cycle. The Son to the Father, from the Father to the divine Holy Spirit….” This description of the Trinity contradicts Church teaching that the Spirit gives us grace to belief in Christ and to worship the Father. Placing the Spirit last (Son to Father to Spirit) exalts the Spirit above the Father. In truth, the Father is First, the Son is Second, and the Spirit is Third. The Son sent the Spirit to inspire us to faith and love for God the Father through Jesus Christ. But her teaching puts the Spirit in the role of Father and First Person. [Mr. Conte is correct in explaining the economy of salvation as a movement to/from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. To know the Father correctly, we must know the Son, and to know the Son we must have the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source of Trinitarian life and is terminal in man’s relationship to God. Yet he misinterprets Eileen. Eileen is not rearranging the economy of salvation; she is saying that the Spirit is the Father’s Gift. Jesus made it very clear that one has to go through Him to get to the Father. “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me” (Jn 14:6). And in turn, the Father sends the Holy Spirit: “The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name” (Jn 14:26). “I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor” (Jn 14:15).]
She claims (Beacon, p. 56, in a section titled ‘The Marshmallow’) that the Father said: “As Frankie [Eileen’s brother] became a marshmallow, when I looked down at my Son, I became a marshmallow.” This message is presented by her as her explanation as to why the Father in the Old Testament acts with harshness, but not so now. On the contrary, the Christ’s eschatological discourse (Mt. 24) and the Book of Revelation clearly describe sufferings and afflictions for New Testament times that are as harsh as Old Testament times. Furthermore, God does not change. And in true private revelation, God does not speak in such a worldly manner.
Her description of the fall from grace of Adam and Eve is contrary to Scripture (Beacon, p. 62). I will spare you the details, [If someone is going to make an accusation, they need to back it up and not say they will spare the details.] but here are some excerpts: “When Adam was tempted, he said, ‘But the trees are identical!…. The Father appeared to them in human form to the waist….The Father said referring to the leaves, ‘What took you so long….” This description of the Fall is not only in contradiction to Scripture, but it is absurd. [What’s the point? I don’t get what he is saying here.]
She teaches theological errors about the consecration of the Eucharist and angels. She claims that the Archangel Michael is present at every consecration to protect the Eucharist (Beacon, p. 67). This teaching cannot be true because there are so many consecrations throughout the world that the only one who can be present in so many places and times is God Himself (and of course Christ present in the Eucharist). [Wrong again! Many of the saints bilocated. They were in more than one place at a time. In the Summa Theologica, St. Thomas considers the objection that “an angel can be in several places at once. For an angel is not less endowed with power than the soul. But the soul is in several places at once, for it is entirely in every part of the body, as Augustine says (De Trin. vi.). Therefore an angel can be in several places at once.” (ST I, q. 52 a. 2 obj. 1) To which he replies: “For some who were unable to go beyond the reach of their imaginations supposed the indivisibility of the angel to be like that of a point; consequently they thought that an angel could be only in a place which is a point. But they were manifestly deceived, because a point is something indivisible, yet having its situation; whereas the angel is indivisible, and beyond the genus of quantity and situation. Consequently there is no occasion for determining in his regard one indivisible place as to situation: any place which is either divisible or indivisible, great or small suffices, according as to his own free-will he applies his power to a great or to a small body. So the entire body to which he is applied by his power, corresponds as one place to him.”]
On another occasion, she berated the Archangel Michael for allowing a tabernacle to be desecrated and robbed (p. 71). [St. Pio punished his guardian angel by refusing to look at him.] But the Church does not teach that one particular angel only is responsible for guarding all the tabernacles and Eucharists of the world.
She also claims (Beacon, p. 68): “I have sent my angel on many errands…. This angel bilocates, trilocates, and multiplies this as many time as our heavenly Father wants, for your use.” [See the explanation of St. Thomas above] She also claims (p. 69) that her guardian angel, whom she calls ‘she’ and ‘Hosches’ bows before priests (even though angels have no bodies) and that she (the angel) tells Eileen if a priest is not validly ordained. [Angels have appeared to saints throughout history in the human form] She even claims (p. 70) that her angel warned her about a woman: “A bad spirit was in her…The priest was trying to hold her legs down, and she was kicking my shins, giving me uppercuts and spitting in my face. You see how important it is that I can communicate with my angel.” [St. Pio communicated with his and other people’s guardian angels. There are stories of angels driving peoples cars to visit the saint after they fell asleep at the wheel, and a number of other extraordinary stories of the angels.]
She also claims that on a day when she could not get to Mass, the Archangel Michael came to her door in human form with a consecrated host (without a pix) to give her communion (Beacon, p. 72-73). She further claims that, during a Mass when she came in late, after communion had been distributed, the Archangel Michael again gave her communion (p. 73). [The angel of Portugal gave the children of Fatima Holy Communion on at least one occasion. Eileen made it clear that the angels cannot consecrate, but they can take a Host from the tabernacle. This is what the angel of Portugal did.]
She claims that there are seven levels to Heaven, [St. John also talks of the different levels of heaven in the Book of Revelation] and how well you lead your life determines which level you will go to. [We are not all worthy of the same reward. Jesus said to the Apostles: “But to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared” (Mk 10:40). We will all be at the level we have earned through our obedience and fidelity.] She also claims that the Father, Jesus, and the angels are above the seventh level (Beacon, p. 169-170). This teaching of hers is contrary to the teaching of the Church that all are one in Christ. [“I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done” (Rev 22:12).]
She claims (Conversations 2, p. 43-51, 63) that Jesus never descended to Hell: “You never went to Hell…. Your spirit went into the Father’s hands, and there was a reunion and a love time…. (p. 63).” She writes: “Did You go to Hell?….The Father said You didn’t….Your soul went to the Father from the cross. That’s what the Father said.”
On the contrary, the Creed states: ‘He descended into Hell.’ See also the Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 631-637. Also, the writings of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (she was recently beatified by Pope John Paul II) describe Christ’s descent into Hell (The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ). [“Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 633) If Jesus descended into the hell of the damned, it would no longer be hell.]
7. More worldly language
She claims (Beacon, p. 65) that the Father talked about T.V. and cartoons: “Everything I give that is good, like T.V., the bad spirit comes in and invades it. I gave T.V. to help make My people holy but also so that they could enjoy it, like the cartoons for the children.”
In true private revelation, God does not speak in such a worldly manner. [I do not understand what is so worldly about God creating saying that He created everything good and for the edification of His people.]
On the same page, she also claims that the Father said: “People who go to Medjugorje come back with a spirit that that’s all they talk about.” Again, this manner of speaking is worldly, not heavenly.
In another message (Conversations 2, p. 137), she claims that the Father said: “If they’re liberal they are lukewarm and I will vomit them from my mouth.” Again, this type of worldly language is not the way that God talks. [Our Lord says the very same thing in the Book of Revelation. “Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth” (Rev. 3:16).]
8. The exaltation of women over men
A web site (http://www.medugorje.com/EileenGeorge/books.html) promoting her writings quotes her messages as saying: “Eileen never have I revealed Myself to any man [This is the term which relates to both men and women] the way [God reveals Himself to each person in a unique way.] I have revealed Myself to you. This is the hour the Father will be made known to His people. You will be like a boat sailing through life. The world will be the sea….”
This message exalts Eileen above every male Saint, Blessed, and Pope. Other messages make it clear that she sees herself, or the messages present her, as being above other women as well. As one might expect, her messages do not talk much about the Virgin Mary; she complains about the reaction of pilgrims who visit Medjugorje. [Not at all! Eileen’s messages exalt the three Persons of the Trinity and point people back to the Sacraments, the Church and a spiritual life.]
This message denigrates men below women (or below this one woman), as if the Father could not reveal himself through a man. [This is an exaggeration. There is nothing in Eileen’s messages that excludes others from an intimate relationship with God. She continually stresses to her bishops and priests that they are called to a mystical union with the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. This relationship is not reserved for Eileen or any other person.] And no mention is made in this particular message of Jesus Christ, or how the Father could have revealed Himself more to Eileen than to any man, despite the fact that Christ became man. The exaltation of the person receiving the claimed private revelation is a common characteristic of false claims. However, this example takes the art of self-exaltation to new heights, exalting this woman above all other men and women, as if the whole world would and could know the Father only through Eileen.
Anther message (Conversations in Heaven 2, p. 39-40) also denigrates men below women. In explaining the story of Adam and Eve, Eileen claims to be explaining the Father’s understanding of Adam and Eve: “He said He made Adam out of the slime of the earth, but he said that when it came to make a woman, He made her out of Adam’s rib. He said He already began the dignity of woman.” She also asserts that the Father literally make Eve out of Adam’s rib, that the story is not a figurative truth, but a literal one. And that therefore women were made from something greater than men. The person interviewing her says: “That she wasn’t made out of the slime of the earth, but out of something greater.” And she replies: “Right” [Mr. Conte again takes Eileen out of context. She clearly teaches what we read in the Book of Genesis. “The Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). “The rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Gen. 2:22).]
This type of rhetoric exalting women over men is becoming common in secular society, but it is not in keeping with the teachings of Tradition, Scripture, and Magisterium.
9. An attack against the Church
In Conversations in Heaven II, p. 22-23, a conversation, supposedly between Eileen and the Father, is claimed:
“You know, Eileen, this year will be declared a Holy Year . There is a reason for this.”
“Is the reason because the Vatican is in financial trouble?”
“Yes, Eileen, this brought it about. But I have a reason for the declaration of this Holy Year, because this is the year the devil is out to devour my people.”
The message goes on to speak about the devil using the bizarre nickname ‘Capi.’
10. Bizarre nicknames given to Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
[See explanation in section 5 above.]
Throughout the book ‘Conversations in Heaven II,’ Eileen George refers to Jesus with the nickname ‘Butchie.’ The Foreword of the book claims that, before the age of three, Eileen was given a supernatural playmate who appeared to be a few years older, who was actually Jesus appearing as a child, and that He asked her to call him ‘Butchie,’ and He would call her ‘Slug.’ Thus, she continues throughout the book referring to Jesus as Butchie.
She calls the Holy Spirit by the nickname ‘Carsha.’ She give a bizarre description (during an interview printed in Conversations 2, p. 143) of the interactions between the Father, Son, and Spirit, as if they were badly behaved children:
He said, “Why don’t you stay here with Me.” I told my Father and I said, “Father give Him the eye.” The Father and I stared at Butchie and He made believe that He couldn’t stand it. (laughs)
What about Carsha, you told Carsha to give Him the eye?
He knocked Him on His rump. (laughs) A ray came Zoomm. (laughs) Butchie laughed His head off. He’s so nutty. So nutty, Butchie.
That was a powerful ray?
(laughs) He really knocked Him down. Zoomm. That was His eye. (laughs) Right on His back. (laughs) Butchie just laughed His head off. It didn’t bother Him.
This kind of bizarre description of the Three Holy Persons of the Trinity, as if they each had human bodies and would behave like mischievous children, is not in keeping with Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, the writings and private revelations of the Saints, and the true private revelations approved by the Church.
What kind of complete idiot would believe that this bizarre material comes from God?
11. False Predictions of Future Events
From her book, Eileen George’s Conversations in Heaven:
First, she talks about the anti-Christ in confusing and contradictory ways (p. 43): “The Father said the anti-Christ would rise in Syria, Jesus. You are contradicting the Father.” The reply allegedly from Jesus is: “That one will be Lucifer.” So she notes that a previous message contradicted a later one. But the explanation claims ‘that one’ (the previous mention of anti-Christ) would be Lucifer.
The messages then continue (p. 44) with a claim that World War 3 will be started by an anti-Christ, who will then be replaced by another more powerful one, who will be a “great ruler of Satan.” The messages claim that World War 3 will last 15 years and then there will be a “long, long peace” (p. 44). [This is once again taken out of context. Eileen is in a dialogue with the Father, we often miss what is being stated, or Eileen doesn’t state the whole of what she hears as she seeks clarification from the Father. Further along she states: “I will repeat my Father. … ‘There will be a World War III … He will be an anti-Christ put upon earth by Lucifer. Yet there is a more powerful one to rise in Syria, when this one has accomplished his work. … He will be a great ruler of Satan.’ ” (Conversations 1, P. 44)]
These messages confuse Satan with the Antichrist. [This ruler of Satan is the Antichrist.] These false messages also refer to more than one Antichrist: the one arising in Syria, the one who starts World War 3, the more powerful one who replaces him. To the contrary, the book of Revelation clearly distinguishes between the Antichrist and Satan (e.g. Rev 20:9-10). And Scripture says that the lawless one (the Antichrist) will be destroyed by the return of Christ (2 Thess 2:8). Therefore, there can be only one Antichrist, for after him Christ returns, and so no other Antichrist could arise. These messages repeatedly mention the Antichrist, but they do not say that he will be destroyed by Christ’s return. In fact, it is clear from reading these messages that they do not associate the return of Christ with the end of the Antichrist’s reign, in contradiction of Sacred Scripture. [Read the rest of the book. She talks about the time of peace like no other time. That is a victory of Christ. Eileen DOES NOT talk about the end of the world.]
Furthermore, her claim that World War 3 will last 15 years is false. The truth is that World War 3 will last about 10 years (2010 to 2018/2019). [Mr. Conte’s true issue comes out here. He has his own writings on the Book of Revelation and ties it all in with the end of the world. If he is such a good theologian, he would know that Jesus said, “Only the Father knows the hour.” Eileen never claims to know the hour and never reveals specific times. She did not want her spiritual director to reveal these things, but he choose to. There is a note in her book, one that she often says, PRAYER CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING. This is one reason she does not want to be quoted out of context. The focus is not on chastisements or dangers, but on the power of our prayers to change it all.] Also, her claim that after World War 3 there will be a long, long peace is also false. The truth is that after World War 3, which the Arab forces win, there will be an occupation and persecution, then World War 4, then a series of severe sufferings from God, then a relatively short time of peace. In the Book of Revelation, the First Seal is World War 3, the Sixth Seal is World War 4, and the Antichrist does not arrive until near the start of the Seventh Trumpet of the Seventh Seal. Yet she places the Antichrist during World War 3. The Antichrist is not in the world today. However, it is one of the most common characteristics of false private revelation to claim that the Antichrist is in the world now. She also has many other events out of order, badly distorted in their description, and outright falsehoods. [What is Mr. Conte’s source for saying there will be a World War IV and the timing of his predictions? Have his predictions been submitted to a priest-theologian and his bishop for evaluation? Everything Eileen does is submitted to be discerned by priest-theologians and bishops.]
Then she goes on to claim that there will be a great famine, prior to World War 3. A message allegedly from the Father says: “There will be a great famine all over the world. Nothing will grow. The whole world will be hungry. All will be lacking in food. The atmosphere will be changing and cause great disaster upon the earth” (p. 49). [Let’s wait and see when these things are fulfilled. Maybe our prayers and response to living the Sacraments will change the events. Already some of the prophecies have been fulfilled.]
It is well known that one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse is generally understood to represent a great famine. However, the famine is much less severe in some areas of the world, as indicated by the figure used of one measure of wheat for a denarius (a day’s pay), but three measures of barley for a denarius (Rev 6:5-6). The same Scripture also says “do no harm to oil and wine.” Clearly the famine as described by Scripture is not the same over the whole world, nor is it one in which nothing will grow (there is wheat and barley), nor will all be lacking in food. These messages’ description of the famine contradicts Scripture.
Furthermore, her messages claim that the famine is due to environmental changes in the atmosphere. But Scripture places the famine (the third Seal) after the First and Second Seal, which are war and civil disorder. The famine result from these previous two events, not from environmental problems. Also, her messages place World War 3 after the famine. But Scripture places World War 3 (the First Seal) before the famine (the Third Seal).
These false messages place the great famine “Between 1990 and 1999” (p. 49). Later this is described again: “The Father said it would begin between 1990 and 1999. We wouldn’t be prepared for the famine, a great famine, here and all over the world. We have no idea this will happen. It has something to do with the planets changing the seasons, a perpetual season of frost and of cold. There will be nothing to eat. A great shortage of oil. No heat.” (p. 50-51). [The Father did not say it would all happen “Between 1990 and 1999,” but that answer came to Eileen’s question: “When will it all start?” Many things have begun. The seasons have changed. All of nature seems to be out of balance. A few years ago, it was reported in the news that the world is off it’s access.]
This famine did not occur. She claimed that the Father told her the planets changing the seasons would be detected by scientists, astronomers, who would warn us. This predicted event did not happen either. She then goes on to claim that the anti-Christ starts the war after the famine. But if the latest that the famine could occur would be 1999, then this prediction has also failed. It is now, as I write this, December of 2005. Her messages also repeatedly claimed that, about the time of the famine, San Francisco would be swallowed up and completely destroyed by earthquakes. That prediction did not happen either. [The message about San Francisco said it would happen during the war (WW III). Again, all is dependent on prayer. God can change it if we respond.]
The excuse used in this book for the failed predictions is the same as used in numerous other false private revelations: that predictions are conditional. To the contrary, God knows the whole future with absolute certainty, for he knows every prayer that we will ever say, and every word we will ever say, and every deed that we will ever choose. True private revelations reveal future events with certainty, just as the Book of Revelation is certain in its predicted events. [Not so. Our Lady has always spoken on the condition that we can change events if we pray and repent. In Akita, Our Lady said: “If men do not repent and better themselves…” And again: “Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able still to save you from…”]
The errors and claims of private revelation to Eileen George are among the most dangerous and harmful to the Church because they directly target deacons, priests, and Bishops. Those Bishops and priests who support this woman and her false teachings and her false claim to private revelation are harming the Church grievously. [This is blatantly wrong. Eileen’s main ministry is to priests. Her ministry is under total submission to her bishop and board of directors which includes an archbishop and two priests. Her spiritual director who is now deceased was a theologian, psychiatrist, and medical doctor. He submitted Eileen to a rigid battery of tests that would have weeded out a charlatan. Since the beginning of her ministry, Eileen seeks permission to enter a diocese from the local Ordinary. I have a stack of hundreds of letters from Bishops and Cardinals warmly welcoming (or inviting) and encouraging Eileen in her ministry. For over 40 years, Eileen has counseled Cardinals, Bishops and Priests about the most sensitive issues and she has given them advice which could only come from heaven.]
There are many more absurd, false, self-exalting things that could be demonstrated about her writings. But this should be sufficient to show that the messages of Eileen George (Meet-the-Father Ministry) are not true private revelation from Heaven.
by Ronald L. Conte Jr.
October 13, 2005
n. 11 added on December 4, 2005
To conclude, I would emphasize that although Mr. Conte appears to be a sincere soul, he is not a reputable theologian trained in doctrine and the spiritual life. Eileen’s ministry began reluctantly, in obedience to her local Ordinary and spiritual director and has continued that way for all these years. To get a clear picture of Eileen George, read her books, published by the authority of her Bishop and spiritual director, and with Eileen’s reluctance. Eileen would prefer to spend her time caring for her family and in solitude with her God.