Fatima-Pope Pius XI

[Des]

Also, wasn’t it some time after the events of Fatima in 1917 that Sister Lucia recorded what was said at the request of her bishop? When Pius XI took his name as Pope he probably was totally unaware of the events at Fatima.

I believe Sr. Lucia didn’t even pen the prophesies down till 1940 so it’s unlikely Pope Pius XI even knew of them.

That’s what skeptics use against Lucia though. That she could have easily made things up as she went along since she told these prophesies only after they had began.

The thing I say is people do not become Nuns of the Church under the veil of a lie unless they are loonies of course. Yet I bet anyone will say quite the opposite of Sister Lucia as a person.

People just don’t die for lies nor would they change their life for one either if it profits nothing. Sister Lucia had nothing to gain out of this yet she died a Nun at the age of 97 back in 2005.

 

[Kaninchen]

Sister Lucia had always designated this occurence as the God given sign to the start of the war as the German machine began rolling.

That would have been the Remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936 (when the German machine began rolling that is).

 

[antimon]

Another reason why is that the messages from Fatima are a private revelation and do not require the assent of any faithful Catholic.

We are free to believe that nothing happened there if we wish.

excuse me, but if the Church acknowledges that something certainly happened, it is quite stupid to believe the contrary.

You are free to ignore it, but you are not free to oppose the judgement of the Church.

 

[Jacafamala]

excuse me, but if the Church acknowledges that something certainly happened, it is quite stupid to believe the contrary.

You are free to ignore it, but you are not free to oppose the judgement of the Church.

Good point.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

excuse me, but if the Church acknowledges that something certainly happened, it is quite stupid to believe the contrary.

You are free to ignore it, but you are not free to oppose the judgement of the Church.

You have a clear misunderstanding of what the Church says when it “approves” a private revelation.

It in no way says that something “certainly happened”.

Private revelation is in no way a dogma of the Faith and no faithful Catholic is bound to believe in any private revelations.

Read the Catechism.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

It is quite stupid to believe that somehow a private revelation must be believed in as that is contrary to the Teachings of the Church but you are free to oppose the Church in its Teachings if you wish.

 

[antimon]

You have a clear misunderstanding of what the Church says when it “approves” a private revelation.

It in no way says that something “certainly happened”.

Private revelation is in no way a dogma of the Faith and no faithful Catholic is bound to believe in any private revelations.

Read the Catechism.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

It is quite stupid to believe that somehow a private revelation must be believed in as that is contrary to the Teachings of the Church but you are free to oppose the Church in its Teachings if you wish.

Please explain how does the catechism oppose what I wrote.

Can Church approve non-existent revelations? Because if the answer is ‘no’, then how can someone believe that certain revelation never happened?

Of course, you are free to ignore the messages and contents of private revelations (that’s what the catechism says), but I don’t see how you can say that some revelation had never happened if the Church approved it.

 

[LilyM]

Please explain how does the catechism oppose what I wrote.

Can Church approve non-existent revelations? Because if the answer is ‘no’, then how can someone believe that certain revelation never happened?

Of course, you are free to ignore the messages and contents of private revelations (that’s what the catechism says), but I don’t see how you can say that some revelation had never happened if the Church approved it.

Because even to say, as a matter of dogmatic belief, that an apparition happened (as in to say ‘Our Lady definitely appeared in Fatima in 1917 and all Catholics must believe this’) would be ITSELF to put the private revelations that occur with these apparitions on the same level as public revelation.

Put it this way. Our Lady’s approved appearance in Knock Ireland was completely silent. Neither Our Lady, nor St Joseph or St John who appeared with her said a single word. So the ‘message or content’ of the private revelation at Knock is indistinguishable from the bare fact of their appearance. The appearance was ITSELF the sum total of the ‘message or content’ of that particular private revelation.

And so it is with all Our Lady’s and Our Lord’s OTHER apparitions. The FACT of their appearing at a certain place, or to a certain person, is ITSELF part of the ‘message or content’ of each of these private revelations, and thus cannot be considered part of the deposit of faith.

 

[JPUSC]

Even though they are not part of the deposit of faith which ended with the public revelation of Christ, apparitions are significant as their feasts are commemorated in the Universal Roman Calendar.

Some of the feasts include: Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Guadalupe (Holy Day of Obligation in Mexico), Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Walsingham and Divine Mercy Sunday (Solemnity).

Those who have seen visions of Jesus and Mary have also become canonized saints as St. Catherine Laboure, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Faustina Kowalska, St. Bernadette Soubirous and Blesseds Jacinta and Francisco Marto.

While one isn’t obligated to believe these apparitions as a Catholic, it seems like the Church does more than acknowledge the validity of these apparitions and the fact that something truly happened. Some of the persons mentioned above became saints because of the fact that they had apparitions (as well as living holy lives). If the Church is in no way saying that something “certainly happened,” I don’t know why these people would be canonized.

As most of feasts mentioned above are optional memorials - although the Church believes the apparitions did occur and encourages devotion, people are free to believe otherwise and that any information from private revelations is not equal to the public revelation that ended with the death of the last apostle. Of course, in all cases, the information from approved private revelations supplement public revelation and adds nothing new at all.

 

[LilyM]

Even though they are not part of the deposit of faith which ended with the public revelation of Christ, apparitions are significant as their feasts are commemorated in the Universal Roman Calendar.

Some of the feasts include: Our Lady of Lourdes, Our Lady of Mount Carmel, Our Lady of Guadalupe (Holy Day of Obligation in Mexico), Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Walsingham and Divine Mercy Sunday (Solemnity).

Those who have seen visions of Jesus and Mary have also become canonized saints as St. Catherine Laboure, St. Margaret Mary Alacoque, St. Faustina Kowalska, St. Bernadette Soubirous and Blesseds Jacinta and Francisco Marto.

While one isn’t obligated to believe these apparitions as a Catholic, it seems like the Church does more than acknowledge the validity of these apparitions and the fact that something truly happened. Some of the persons mentioned above became saints because of the fact that they had apparitions (as well as living holy lives). If the Church is in no way saying that something “certainly happened,” I don’t know why these people would be canonized.

As most of feasts mentioned above are optional memorials - although the Church believes the apparitions did occur and encourages devotion, people are free to believe otherwise and that any information from private revelations is not equal to the public revelation that ended with the death of the last apostle. Of course, in all cases, the information from approved private revelations supplement public revelation and adds nothing new at all.

No - none of these people were canonised because of their apparitions. They were canonised because they led lives of heroic sanctity before, after and/or outside of the apparitions.

Read up, for example, on St Bernadette’s later life as a nun. She was treated shabbily - often by those who were jealous of her being well-known - and bore it with saintly patience and humility. Read up on Blessed Jacinta and Francisco - they undertook heroic penances for the sake of the souls in purgatory.

These things in and of themselves are admirable, and especially in children so young as Jacinta and Francisco indicate a high level of sanctity.

These people were, would have been and should have been beatified or canonised for their saintliness in everyday life absent their apparitions.

Compare their lives to those of the many saints to whom Our Lord and Our Lady never appeared, and you would see the pattern of conformity to Christ in every aspect of life that indicates the soul worthy of beatification or canonisation. And you would see how little the apparitions had to do with anything. Not to mention seers such as Sr Agnes of Our Lady of Akita fame who have not been beatified or canonised.

 

[JPUSC]

No - none of these people were canonised because of their apparitions. They were canonised because they led lives of heroic sanctity before, after and/or outside of the apparitions.

Read up, for example, on St Bernadette’s life as a nun after the apparitions. She was treated shabbily - perhaps by those who were jealous of her being well-known, and bore it with saintly patience and humility. Read up on Blessed Jacinta and Francisco - they undertook heroic penances for the sake of the souls in purgatory.

These things in and of themselves are admirable, and especially in children so young as Jacinta and Francisco indicates a high level of sanctity. These people were, would have been and should have been beatified or canonised for their saintliness in everyday life absent Our Lady’s apparitions.

Without the apparitions, I don’t think they would have been formally canonized. They would have remained unknown. Sure, they most likely would’ve become saints without the apparitions as we are all called to become saints, but they were formally recognized by the Church as saints in part because of the Church’s approval of the apparitions and because God willed that they become recognized as saints (through the miracles attributed to them).

The apparitions are the main reason they made an impact on the Church and the world as they were used as instruments by God to bring forth a message. Moses became a saint/prophet because God spoke to him and told him to lead His people.

St. Bernadette endured suffering because of the apparitions; Jacinta and Francisco undertook penances for the souls in purgatory because of the apparitions. How would they know that they needed to make reparations for the lost souls if Our Lady had not told them? As for Francisco, he became holier because of the apparitions. Remember, when asked if he was going to heaven, Our Lady replied, “Yes, but he will have to say many rosaries”.

Yes, the apparitions weren’t the sole reason they were canonized as seeing a vision of Our Lady doesn’t necessarily make one holy and saintly, but they each had a mission, which came about because of the apparitions. Their missions and the holiness which came about from them led them to sainthood.

The Church formally canonizes individuals so that the faithful could benefit from their example. Formal canonization, in effect, can be a statement by the Church as there are countless saints in Heaven not canonized. If the Church didn’t believe in the visions experienced by these individuals, it would be foolish to canonize a liar or a delusional person.

By the way, Sr. Agnes of Akita can’t be canonized. She’s still alive.

 

[sonofourlady]

I’m a little confused with some of these posts. JPUSC and Antimon have said that no one can deny that Church approved apparitions happened BECAUSE the Church can’t approve of error. The Church is capable of determining if Heaven has appeared to people here on earth.

No one is saying that what the private revelations contain belong to the deposit of faith, are dogma or must be believed. All we are saying is that you can’t deny that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. Whether you want to accept that is your decision.

 

[LilyM]

Without the apparitions, I don’t think they would have been formally canonized. They would have remained unknown. Sure, they most likely would’ve become saints without the apparitions as we are all called to become saints, but they were formally recognized by the Church as saints in part because of the Church’s approval of the apparitions and because God willed that they become recognized as saints (through the miracles attributed to them).

The apparitions are the main reason they made an impact on the Church and the world as they were used as instruments by God to bring forth a message. Moses became a saint/prophet because God spoke to him and told him to deliver a message to His people.

St. Bernadette endured suffering because of the apparitions; Jacinta and Francisco undertook penances for the souls in purgatory because of the apparitions. How would they know that they needed to make reparations for the lost souls if Our Lady had not told them? As for Francisco, he became holier because of the apparitions. Remember, when asked if he was going to heaven, Our Lady replied, “Yes, but he will have to say many rosaries”.

Yes, the apparitions weren’t the sole reason they were canonized as seeing a vision of Our Lady doesn’t necessarily make one holy and saintly, but they each had a mission, which came about because of the apparitions.

The Church formally canonizes individuals so that the faithful could benefit from their example. Formal canonization, in effect, can be a statement by the Church as they are countless saints in Heaven not canonized. If the Church didn’t believe in the visions experienced by these individuals, it would be foolish to canonize a liar or a delusional person.

By the way, Sr. Agnes of Akita can’t be canonized. She’s still alive.

my bad. The point stands - I don’t remember hearing of the seers of La Salette, Knock, Beauraing being canonised or beatified.

I think that Our Lady appeared to those who did become well known, as well as those who remained obscure, BECAUSE they had the seeds of sanctity already in them, rather as she herself was specially prepared from conception for a high level of holiness, to fit her for the task of being Mother of God, and not the other way around.

By the way, St Therese of Lisieux certainly didn’t need to see apparitions for her sanctity to become known and to be canonised, in fact she didn’t even leave her enclosed convent! And SHE certainly knew how to make penances and reparations (albeit in a manner more appropriate to her ‘Little Way’) from a very young age, without Our Lady having to appear to her to teach her. although her older sister taught her, as doubtless did the example of her parents, both now Blesseds.

Neither did Mother Teresa or thousands of the blesseds and canonised saints, who became known purely for their good works and holiness which they somehow achieved without benefit of apparitions.

 

[JPUSC]

my bad. The point stands - I don’t remember hearing of the seers of La Salette, Knock, Beauraing being canonised or beatified.

I think that Our Lady appeared to those who did become well known, as well as those who remained obscure, BECAUSE they had the seeds of sanctity already in them, rather as she herself was specially prepared from conception for a high level of holiness, to fit her for the task of being Mother of God, and not the other way around.

By the way, St Therese of Lisieux certainly didn’t need to see apparitions for her sanctity to become known and to be canonised, in fact she didn’t even leave her enclosed convent! And SHE certainly knew how to make penances and reparations (albeit in a manner more appropriate to her ‘Little Way’) from a very young age, without Our Lady having to appear to her to teach her. although her older sister taught her, as doubtless did the example of her parents, both now Blesseds.

Neither did Mother Teresa or thousands of the blesseds and canonised saints, who became known purely for their good works and holiness which they somehow achieved without benefit of apparitions.

Actually, the Vatican biography of Mother Teresa of Calcutta refers to her interior locutions which she kept private. St. Therese had her share of miraculous phenomena. She had visions of demons trying to attack her and had a terrible fever which was healed by Our Lady at the age of 11 (she saw a vision of Our Lady of the Smile).

On May 13, 1883, Therese recovered. She ascribed her healing to the presence of the statue:

“Suddenly, I have never seen anything so attractive. Her face was alive with great kindness and tenderness and she smiled a most ravishing smile. At once all my pain left me and I cried two large tears which slid down silently down my cheeks. Yes! I thought, the virgin has smiled on me. How Blessed I am!”

Jacinta and Francisco made reparations specifically because Our Lady had a message for the world that people must repent and return to God. It was through the Fatima children that we added a prayer to the Rosary - “lead all souls into Heaven, especially those in most need of your mercy”. Their mission was specific. They were shown the fires of hell and purgatory and were asked to make reparations for them. If Our Lady had not appeared to them, they and us would not have known of God’s displeasure with the affairs of the world.

Yes, many saints have not received earthly visions or messages from Jesus or Mary, but many have had apparitions which helped them to live holier lives.

The seers of LaSalette were beatified: Blessed Mélanie Calvat and Blessed Maximin Giraud.

The apparitions of Knock had no verbal message/messenger and was a vision experienced by groups of people, just like the apparitions in Zeitoun, Egypt.

As for Beauraing, I am not familiar enough with it to know if any of the seers are candidates for sainthood. Maybe it is not God’s will that the seers be canonized at this time. It could also be possible that they didn’t lead holy lives, which comes to my next point - I don’t think Our Lady appears to those who already have the seeds of sanctity.

Our Lady appeared to Alphonse Ratisbonne, an agnostic Jew and a powerful anti-Catholic. As a result of the vision, he converted to Catholicism and became a Jesuit priest. This apparition is also approved by the Church.

She appears to different people for different reasons. Though, it is a true observation that she has often chosen peasant children as her messengers for their humility and priests and nuns for their holiness.

Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception is different. She was holy and sinless from the beginning. Regular humans need God to become holy. Visions of Our Lord and Our Lady play a great role in the sanctity of certain people.

 

[LilyM]

Yes, many saints have not received earthly visions or messages from Jesus or Mary, but many have had apparitions which helped them to live holier lives.

Saints are saints because they conform to Christ - in a way that makes them practical rolemodels and examples for Catholics. They are put forward so that we can not just admire them passively, but actively emulate them. And apparitions are impossible to emulate, I think you’d agree.

And I said seeds of sanctity - doesn’t mean they proceeded to full fruition, just as the seeds of goodness within Judas that caused Jesus to choose him as an apostle didn’t come to full fruition either.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Jesus chose a wretch with no redeeming qualities to be an apostle, when He had the whole world to choose from. Equally ridiculous to believe Our Lady chooses undifferentiated nobodies to appear to when SHE has the whole world to choose from - both she and He KNOW what they’re on about better than that.

We’re way off track with this part of the discussion anywho.

Back to the apparitions themselves. It beggars logic to seriously think that the Church has said 'Yes, you must absolutely believe as a matter of faith that Our Lady really and truly appeared in Fatima in 1917 …

Mind you, we can’t tell you definitively what she said or did while there, you’re free to believe that those kids completely made up every word of what they later reported her as saying, or that she said or did nothing at all … but we CAN tell you definitively that she DID appear and you must believe that fact!’

What purpose does such a declaration serve?

Either the Church would insist that we MUST believe ALL, including the content and message of the apparition, which it cannot do. Or would say that we are free to believe none of it, including the fact of the appearance itself. There’s really no room for half-and-half pronouncements in such cases.

 

[JPUSC]

Saints are saints because they conform to Christ - in a way that makes them practical rolemodels and examples for Catholics. They are put forward so that we can not just admire them passively, but actively emulate them. And apparitions are impossible to emulate, I think you’d agree.

And I said seeds of sanctity - doesn’t mean they proceeded to full fruition, just as the seeds of goodness within Judas that caused Jesus to choose him as an apostle didn’t come to full fruition either.

It’s ridiculous to suggest that Jesus chose a wretch with no redeeming qualities to be an apostle, when He had the whole world to choose from. Equally ridiculous to believe Our Lady chooses undifferentiated nobodies to appear to - both she and He KNOW what they’re on about better than that.

It is not correct to use the term “undifferentiated nobodies” as each person created is unique and special to God. Moses thought he was a nobody, but God still used him as his instrument. God can choose a “wretch” and that “wretch” could accept or refuse the call. People can change. The conversion of St. Augustine was miraculous.

Everyone has seeds of sanctity and everyone has original sin. A person’s sanctity does not have any impact on whether or not God will use them as His instrument.

Judas is a bad example as his role was part of God’s salvation plan even before he was born. St. Peter can be called a “wretch” as he denied Jesus three times and was a coward.

As for saints being saints because they conformed to the will of Christ - certain saints who have experienced apparitions were canonized because of the example they led - to fulfill requests made by Our Lord and Our Lady and to make God known. Some people do need visions and miracles to guide and help them live holy lives. Others do not.

I also didn’t say that the Church said, “you must absolutely believe as a matter of faith that Our Lady really and truly appeared in Fatima in 1917”. I said that through the recognition of feasts and saints affiliated with apparitions, the Church does believe these apparitions to be true and strongly encourages devotion. To say that the Church says that the approved apparitions “probably occured” is incorrect as the feasts having evolved from apparitions are recognized in the Universal Church. Messages contained in private revelations are supplemental and one only has to believe in public revelation to be a faithful Catholic.

 

[IrnBru]

Little tidbit of info about Jacinta and Francisco i found out while visiting Fatima.

an earlier poster said that Francisco had to say a lot of Rosaries before getting to heaven - while Jacinta would not.

While there bodies where being moved to the basillica where they now rest, Francisco’s body had decomposed - Jacinta’s hadn’t.

I believe this is called Incorruptis?

May saints/Beautifies (sp) have this amazing process happen to them after death - it truely is amazing.

As a catcumate to be confirmed at easter vigil - and having been to Fatima and actually burst out crying while at there home village - i believe something truely spiritual and holy happened there.

Probably a little off topic there but just my 2 pence in!

 

[JPUSC]

Little tidbit of info about Jacinta and Francisco i found out while visiting Fatima.

an earlier poster said that Francisco had to say a lot of Rosaries before getting to heaven - while Jacinta would not.

While there bodies where being moved to the basillica where they now rest, Francisco’s body had decomposed - Jacinta’s hadn’t.

I believe this is called Incorruptis?

May saints/Beautifies (sp) have this amazing process happen to them after death - it truely is amazing.

As a catcumate to be confirmed at easter vigil - and having been to Fatima and actually burst out crying while at there home village - i believe something truely spiritual and holy happened there.

Probably a little off topic there but just my 2 pence in!

I had heard about that too. I hope Francisco made it to Heaven. I’m sure he did though, since he was beatified. It is truly amazing that Jacinta’s body remained incorrupt.

 

[LilyM]

It is not correct to use the term “undifferentiated nobodies” as each person created is unique and special to God. Moses thought he was a nobody, but God still used him as his instrument. God can choose a “wretch” and that “wretch” could accept or refuse the call. People can change. The conversion of St. Augustine was miraculous.

Everyone has seeds of sanctity and everyone has original sin. A person’s sanctity does not have any impact on whether or not God will use them as His instrument.

Judas is a bad example as his role was part of God’s salvation plan even before he was born. St. Peter can be called a “wretch” as he denied Jesus three times and was a coward.

As for saints being saints because they conformed to the will of Christ - certain saints who have experienced apparitions were canonized because of the example they led - to fulfill requests made by Our Lord and Our Lady and to make God known. Some people do need visions and miracles to guide and help them live holy lives. Others do not.

I also didn’t say that the Church said, “you must absolutely believe as a matter of faith that Our Lady really and truly appeared in Fatima in 1917”. I said that through the recognition of feasts and saints affiliated with apparitions, the Church does believe these apparitions to be true and strongly encourages devotion. Messages contained in private revelations are supplemental and one only has to believe in public revelation to be a faithful Catholic.

Again, we’re really derailing the thread here in regard to canonisation. I’ll just leave you with a couple of thoughts and then have done.

The first is the parable of the talents - the Master gave the one talent from the lazy servant to the servant who had been MOST diligent with what they ALREADY had. ‘To him who has, more will be given’. I think God DOES give greater graces, including the graces that may result from apparitions, to those who are most apt to put them to good use.

The second is that canonisation of a saint is no more an endorsement of the visions they allege they had than it is an endorsement of the writings they produce.

We know that St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine both had views, which they wrote of, that are inconsistent with the public revelation of the Immaculate Conception.

AND we know that St Catherine of Siena - a great one for visions - claimed to have been told by Our Lady in a vision that she was NOT immaculately conceived! By your logic her canonisation means that we must believe that Our Lady appeared to her on that occasion, when clearly, judging by the content of the vision, it was NOT a genuine apparition?

The third, and final one, is that by claiming as you do that some people NEED apparitions in order to spur them on to holiness, then you are denying the efficacy of the ordinary means for our sanctification which Our Lord has given us - prayer, fasting, alms, the sacraments and so on.

You are in fact saying that some people can utilise all of these to their uttermost and STILL some of them would not become holy. Which is interesting - where is there scripture or Church teaching to back up such a view? Everything I’ve read suggests the opposite - that the ordinary means are enough and more than enough.

 

[IrnBru]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacinta_Marto

I was reading up quite a lot on Fatima since it had such an impact on me while i was there and am looking for a patron saint of Fatima or Fatima related for confirmation.

Inspirational - just beautiful.

Oh - here is a link to the other holy dead who are Incorrupt.

members.chello.nl/~l.de.bondt/IncorruptBodies.htm

Just a little warning as i was getting goosbumps -

 

[JPUSC]

Again, we’re really derailing the thread here in regard to canonisation. I’ll just leave you with two thoughts and then have done.

The first is the parable of the talents - the Master gave the one talent from the lazy servant to the servant who had been MOST diligent with what they ALREADY had. ‘To him who has, more will be given’. I think God DOES give greater graces, including the graces that may result from apparitions, to those who are most apt to put them to good use.

The second is that canonisation of a saint is no more an endorsement of the visions they allege they had than it is an endorsement of the writings they produce.

We know that St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine both had views, which they wrote of, that are inconsistent with the public revelation of the Immaculate Conception.

AND we know that St Catherine of Siena - a great one for visions - claimed to have been told by Our Lady in a vision that she was NOT immaculately conceived! By your logic her canonisation means that we must believe that Our Lady appeared to her on that occasion, when clearly, judging by the content of the vision, it was NOT a genuine apparition?

That is not my logic at all. Saints, such as Blessed Jacinta and Francisco, were canonized in a great part because of their involvement in the Fatima apparitions, the holiness they exhibited and their submission to the will of God. Their reparations and prayers for lost souls were instructed by Our Lady herself.

Without Jacinta and Francisco, the world would not have known about the Fatima apparitions. The Holy Father would not have consecrated Russia and the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Millions of rosaries would not have been said for the reparation of sinners. Why can’t the fact that God used them as messengers be enough for them to become saints? Why couldn’t the apparitions have led them to become holier people?

If you take a look at the prayer for the Beatification of Jacinta and Francisco Marto and the homily given during their beatification, the apparitions are clearly mentioned. Jactina is known to faithful because of the mission assigned to her by God which was revealed through the apparitions. The apparitions were a major part of their lives - that is a fact. Yes, I do think that the canonization is an endorsement - in a way - of the fact that Our Lady did appear to them. Without the apparitions, the Church at large would not have known the lives they led.

The Church is mystical and it is easy to overlook that. Even canonizations take place because of mystical events - miracles that occur. Who’s to say that a miracle didn’t actually occur? That’s for the Church to judge, who also judges the worthiness of an apparition.

St. Catherine of Siena was canonized because of the significant good work she did in addition to her visions. She worked to bring the Papacy back to Rome from Avignon. Just because she is a saint doesn’t mean that her all her visions or writings are accurate. They could have been misinterpreted or deceptions of the devil who has tried to deceive and attack many other saints, Padre Pio being one example. The Church formally recognizes St. Catherine as a mystic, acknowledging her private revelations.