In the preface to Saint Faustina’s diary, Archbishop Andrew Deskur wrote of asking a well-known contemporary mystic, Sister Speranza what she thought of Sister Faustina’s writings. Sister Speranza said, “The writings contain a wonderful teaching, but reading them one must remember that God speaks to philosophers in the language of philosophers and to simple souls in the language of simple ones, and only to these last does He reveal truths hidden from the wise and prudent of this world.” What is Creator’s perspective?

There is more than a grain of truth in these words. This was essentially a vote of confidence, that while not all of her writings were lofty in tone and flowery in delivery, as one might have a bias to expect for statements and quotes coming directly from the Almighty, you can see, through your channel here, that we speak in a way that is truly down to earth when communicating with earthly beings. That is only common sense. You have only to look at some of the historical writings addressing spiritual matters and matters of philosophy to see how intricate, convoluted, and demanding some of them are in order to gain a simple understanding, and even discern what is being addressed and the precise meaning of things. Communication is an art and language is a mundane and rather mediocre means of conveying knowledge compared to nonlocal consciousness of the intuitive reach that can grasp the most complicated set of variables, and discern a true meaning that will simply be apparent, and not requiring a lengthy verbal explanation. So this commentary about her writing is a defense of simplicity and use of the common tongue, so to speak, as having a divine purpose behind it, one of avoiding obfuscation, being so erudite it would not even be understood by many who are less well-tutored, let alone the educated general populace. The important truth here is not the mechanics of crafting a message most appropriate for the intended audience, but the defense of divine prophets. The information may well be simple and utilitarian and not at all deeply profound and lofty in tone. This is in keeping with the rules of engagement, that we cannot prove our existence through such means. We will not go out of our way to dazzle and astound people with our messages for the same reason—the skeptics must be allowed their free will to doubt—so that is a second imperative always in any divine communication. It will be on the human level and appropriate to the one hearing the message, so it is in their vocabulary, at their level of awareness and discernment, so the communication is an effective one. That is what you will see from her writings, that they are meant for a broad audience and not a scholarly expert in theology, or philosophy for that matter. It is the same with the many communications we have had with your channel speaking our words, they sound much like him because he is the spokesperson and we are using his mind, his vocabulary, his language, and his constraints so it could be, conceivably, to a skeptic, have been written by him in advance even though it is completely spontaneous and an impromptu discussion with no advanced planning or expectations. So it is important to understand that even a child can lead you and, if the divine is behind them, their message will indeed be childlike if, in part, somehow beyond their years. This is the essence of a divine-human partnership in action.