Home

5. THE COVER-UP: The Church, knowing the secret, has undertook numerous measures to cover-up the true Third Secret.

CLAIM #4 Sister Lucia insisted that the Third Secret be made public by 1960, because in that year it would be much clearer, yet the Vatican refused to reveal it.

Evidence 1: The book implies that the Vatican didnt release it because they were covering up the message of the apostasy which they were in.

my comments: As stated previously, there are a couple of other very valid reasons why the Vatican may have decided to not reveal the secret One was made clear from their comment regarding the veracity of the words. That is, within the Vatican had grown some doubt as to the authenticity of the words, which would of course include anything in the third message. This doubt had no doubt grown as the messages were analyzed in depth over the preceding two decades. Second, also as stated previously, the world was in a dangerous place at that time, and many people feared nuclear disaster, and many people thought the secret may have contained words about the end of time. As Ratzinger said, they wanted to avoid sensationalism. The vision was scary enough that it could have caused more fear.

A few things come to mind related to the 1960 date:

On pg 29, Canon Galamba wrote (source is Father Alonzo): "When the bishop refused to open the letter, Sister Lucia made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first." When Cardinal Ottaviani asked her in 1955 why 1960 Sister Lucia said "because then it will seem clearer." In 1952 Sister Lucia said "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so."

First, 1960 is a full 43 years after the apparitions. To my knowledge the first mention of not opening until 1960 didnt occur until she wrote it down in the early 1940s, some 25 years after the apparitions. It seems odd to me that such a vision/message would be given and then be kept a secret for so long. Why would Mary appear, produce a miracle, and then require Sister Lucia to not reveal the message for nearly a half century later? Why didnt Our Lady just appear with the message for the first time in 1960? Wouldnt such a serious message for the Church have been much more effective at getting the Church to make Penance if it werent made a secret at all? To my knowledge there is no evidence that Sister Lucia was going to ever reveal the Third Message until the Bishop insisted that she put it on paper. It appears that it was only after that time that the date of 1960 was chosen. If that is the case, this makes one question the authority for choosing this date. Did Mary appear to Sister Lucia another time to tell her to wait until 1960? If so, why dont we have a clear record of this from Sister Lucia? Second, in 1946 Sister Lucia is quoted as saying the letter should be opened at her death or in 1960, whichever came first. If the reason is that because then it will seem clearer, and because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so why would Sister Lucias death make it more clearer? Why should her death matter on when it is revealed? What if Sister Lucia died in 1947? Would that have made the secret more clear? Why would Sister Lucias death have been a factor at all in when the Church or the world would be ready to understand the message? It sounds strange to me. It sounds more like something Sister Lucia wanted than something Our Lady would have requested. It makes me wonder if Sister Lucia might have had some kind of a fascination with secrets.

What the book doesnt say is that according to official Vatican document Sister Lucia says Our Lady didnt fix the date, but that Sister Lucia fixed it out of intuition.:
"The meeting between Sister Lucia, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, sent by the Holy Father, and Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, took place on Thursday, 27 April 2000, in the Carmel of Saint Teresa in Coimbra. ....
Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the secret to the then Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date? Sister Lucia replied: "It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.""(47)

There were two witnesses. Anyone who doubts Bertone must also doubt the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima since he was present, and surely would have corrected this statement if it was a made up lie by Bertone. Believers in the conspiracy have to conclude that somehow Sister Lucia changed her story by the year 2000 or Bertone and the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima are both lying.

A few side-thoughts. If the choice of 1960 were Sister Lucias choice, does that make any sense? I think it might if one considers the idea that it appears that 1960 was chosen around the time she wrote the message down, in the mid 1940s. Why 1960? Well, maybe Sister Lucia didnt want the secret revealed as soon as 1950, and 1960 was the next round date. As to it being more clear, maybe Sister Lucias intuition led her to think that it would take a decade or so for the problems in the world that threatened the Church to be more clear to the average person in the church. This is all speculation on my part.

(47)http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

CONCLUSIONS:
The evidence seems clear that she did insist on the Secret being made public by 1960. However, the reasons for not revealing it could very well have been due to increasing doubts about the authenticity as well as concerns that the release of the vision would add to already escalating fear of nuclear disaster. It is not clear that there was a cover-up of a message of apostasy. The refusal to release the secret is not evidence at all for a cover-up of a message of apostasy. It is a possible reason among many possible reasons.

Related to the 1960 date are a couple of issues which I think further brings into question the authenticity of the secret. It seems odd for Our Lady would give Sister Lucia a 43 year secret to carry with her. I see no reason why Our Lady would include Sister Lucias death in the timing of when it should be revealed. That actually seems self-serving for Sister Lucia. Neither of these seem logical to me. The official Vatican account of Sister Lucias reason is not unreasonable to me. Overall, I find the idea of a vision-message being a secret possible but a bit suspicious, and the reasons Sister Lucia gave as inconsistent with including her death in the timing of its release. Sister Lucias explanation according to the Vatican in 2000 (which the book doesnt say anything about) is more reasonable to me. However, if that is a true account, then it appears that either Sister Lucia has been inconsistent with her comments, or has been misquoted by Father Alonzo.


FINALLY WE REACH A MAJOR THEME OF THE BOOK

CLAIM #13. Part of the Third Secret has been withheld from the faithful.

First, some comments: On the one hand, this claim doesnt change anything very much. It doesnt create a new conspiracy, since all of the basic elements are still the same: The apparitions, the sun miracle, masonic and communist infiltration, the requirement for consecration of Russia, the Third Secret unknown, and Apostasy in the Church are all integral parts of the theory. And, the book claims the last element--the refusal of the Church to reveal the Third Secret--has not changed. There was a Third Secret and the book says there still is a secret. However, THIS ADDS A NEW DEPTH TO THE CONSPIRACY THEORY because rather that the Vatican misleading the faithful by using vague language and putting a new spin on the old interpretations of the events at Fatima, as the book claims, THIS GOES TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL OF OUTRIGHT AND BLATANT LYING AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.

Also, it brings a new focus to all of the evidence pertaining to the Third Secret. The book says There is a MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE that there are indeed two parts of the Third Secret Lets take a look now at that mountain of evidence, primarily presented in Chapter 12.

It is presented as 11 Facts:


Fact #1: Text#1 Contains the Words of Our Lady
Evidence 1: The book says that it was reported at the Vatican press conference in 1960 that it is most likely that the letter would never be opened, in which Sister Lucia wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret to the three..

my comments: For some reason the book decided to quote the Portuguese news agency on pg 150 and the United Press agency release on pg 52, which said "...the words which the Virgin Mary addressed to the three...." This is example of how words get attributed to the Vatican that probably were never said. The book doesnt go on to quote the very next sentence in the Portuguese release which says: "As indicated by Sister Lucia, the letter can only be opened during the year 1960." Sister Lucia never said that! This is clearly a mis-representation by the news agency--the same one that says the words which Our Lady confided as a secret. So, the quote on pg 150 has little credibility.

As to the United Press quote, if you take the release literally you determine that the Third Secret contains words that the Virgin Mary addressed to them. I dont see this as strong evidence, however. First, like with the Portuguese agency, the United Press may have imposed their own assumptions about the secret onto the report. Second, we dont have a direct quote from the Vatican source, but it may have been relayed by someone who just assumed there were words. Also, this may be taking things too literally. After all, it was Mary who was speaking to them and did address them, and was right there when the children saw the vision during the July apparition. This is weak evidence.


Evidence 2: The book says that the fact that the second message has In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc., and that Sister Lucia said in 1943 that in a certain manner she had said it (the 3rd secret), that this is evidence that the 3rd message is a continuation of the Virgins words.

my comment: This was discussed in detail part number 2. I concluded that it is inconclusive--there is not enough evidence to say if the .... following the ;etc constitutes a continuation of the Portugal phrase. Now the book is saying that such a continuation would have to be in words since the phrase is spoken words. I think the book is just being too picky here. A continuation could be in the form of the vision.

Thats it. The book only presents two evidences that the Third Secret is text of words spoken by Mary. Neither evidence is very strong.


Fact #2: Different Dates of Transfer
Evidence:Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone says the sealed envelope was placed in the Secret Archives of the Holy Office on 4 April 1957. Frere Francois says it arrived at the Vatican on April 16, 1957 The book concludes one document containing the vision was transferred to the Secret Archives of the Holy Offices on April 4, 1957; the other document, containing the words of Our Lady of Fatima, was transferred to the Popes apartment, which can be considered a part of the Holy Office, on April 16, 1957

my comments: I have several points:
1. The book doesnt indicate where Frere Francois got that information. That is a glaring omission. As far as the reader knows Frere Francois is the only person to have ever said this, in his book that sold over 100,000 copies. However, in 1979 Father Alonso, says the same thing, and states that it is a fact that is now known. However, he also states that in the 1976 edition he did not have that information. Unfortunately he doesnt state how the information became known to him. (48) He does state on pg 48 that in response to questions surrounding its transfer to Rome many diverse and even erroneous answers have been given.

2. Maybe one of the dates was a simple mistake. It was over 40 years ago by the time the Vatican the April 16 or the April 4 date just made a mistake and got the date wrong. It is a difference of only 12 days.

3. Did Francois indicate that there is any documentation about a second envelope was sent on April 4th? Did he say anything at all about two envelopes arriving at two separate times? If not, why didnt he obtain that documentation and include it in his book?

4. Can the Popes apartment really be considered part of the Holy Office? Francois didnt say he had evidence that it was put there at that time. All he wrote was that it arrived at the Vatican. Inside the Vatican reported Bishop da Silvas sealed envelope reached Pius XII on April 16, 1957.(49) So maybe entire third part arrived at the Vatican in one sealed envelope on April 4, but didnt reach the Pope until April 16. This can easily be misreported as having arrived at the Vatican on April 16.

5. If Bertone wanted to keep it a secret, why didnt he just manufacture a story that didnt conflict? Why didnt he just say it arrived on April 16? After all, Father Alonso used the April 16 date in his book in 1979, and Francois wrote his book in 1994, so there was plenty of time to avoid a conflict. Was he sloppy?

6. What sense does it make to send the documents on two different dates when one is supposed to explain the other?

7. What sense does it make for the two to be kept in separate places when one is supposed to explain the other?

The book gives way too much weight to a 12 day conflict over a date of transfer that is now over 45 years ago, and when it was first reported (by Alonso) was over 20 years old. Overall, I think the evidence as presented in the book is lacking, and contradicts what one would expect if there were two letters and if Bertone wanted to keep that a secret. This is weak evidence..

(48) The Secret of Fatima, Fact and Legend, pg 50
(49) Inside the Vatican, June-July, 2000, pg XII


Fact #3: Text #1 is a Single Sheet of Paper, yet the Vatican says the entire secret is on 4 pages.

Evidence:
1 Cardinal Ottaviani said on 2/11/67 at a press conference he read the Third Secret, and he also said "And then, what did she (Sister Lucia) do to obey the Most Holy Virgin? She wrote on a sheet of paper, in Portuguese, what the Holy Virgin had asked her to tell" The book says therefore that the 3rd Secret was on a single sheet of paper, according to Ottaviani. It says if it were on multiple sheets Cardinal Ottaviani would have said so

2. Father Alonso says Sister Lucia tells us that she wrote it on a sheet of paper

3. Bishop Venancio, who transferred the envelop to Lisbon. In the bishops large envelope he discerned a smaller envelope, that of Sister Lucia, and inside this envelope an ordinary sheet of paper with margins on each side of three quarters of a centimeter. He took the trouble to note the size of everything. Thus the final Secret of Fatima was written on a small sheet of paper.


My comment. Regarding Ottaviani: First, the book doesnt give the whole context of the press conference. Is Ottaviani Portuguese? Can he read Portuguese? It is very doubtful. Therefore he had no need to see the original secret at all! The part the book does quote does not say that he read the sheet in question, or that he even saw the sheet in question. He may have simply been quoting Father Alonso with regard to the sheet written in Portuguese. He very likely read the Italian translation (Ottaviani sounds pretty Italian to me!). Without knowing what Ottaviani actually saw, his testimony cannot be considered strong evidence.

Regarding Father Alonsos statement: Clearly, he understood Sister Lucia to say that the Third Secret is on a sheet of paper. This is the strongest evidence presented for an unrevealed portion, in my opinion. However, one would need to read the entire letter from which this quote is obtained to know for sure. Father Alonso may have misunderstood, or it was miscommunicated to him. Or, Sister Lucia herself may have miscommunicated exactly what she did--she may have considered the number of sheets to be irrelevant. Without any more information, this is noteworthy evidence.

Michael Hessemen, in his book the Third Secret, claims to have gone to the Vatican a week after the revelation in the year 2000, and he asked this question. This is what he says: "But under examination it turned out to be a double page of copy-book paper, 16,7 x 12,6 cm in size, with 16 lines on each of its four pages.. Since this double page is indeed one sheet, folded in the middle, all statements that Sister Lucia wrote the Third Secret on "one sheet of paper" (folha in Portuguese), to quote Cardinal Ottaviani, are absolutely true. This double-paged sheet, already folded in the middle like a greeting card, was folded another time by Sister Lucia before she placed it in its envelope. Of course there was no way for Bishop Venancio to see any details on this double-folded sheet besides recognizing lines and drawing his conclusion. To add just one more detail for the curious, the Third Secret was written with blue ink, as my source within the Holy Office told me."(50) I dont know what to make of this. This is a possible explanation but such paper is certainly not common these days, so I am skeptical of this report until more information is known.
(50)http://www.michaelhesemann.com/

Regarding Bishop Venancio, it isnt clear, but it sounds as though he held the large envelope up to the light, and saw a smaller envelope and a sheet inside that. Thats a lot of stuff to look through. If there were folded sheets it may have been hard to tell that they were folded, especially if the sheets were small. He described the sheet as an ordinary sheet of paper, which because of the ambiguity of that phrase, leaves the interpretation open for it to be regular size or small.. He doesnt say whether it was folded or not. If it was folded, which is likely, it would be very difficult to tell whether it was one sheet or not. He had described the envelope inside as being a smaller envelope. He obviously was unable to read it, so it is likely that he was also unable to see if there were multiple pages or not. The book quotes Frere Michel on pg 153 as saying that Venancio took the trouble to note the size of everything, yet curiously the only sizes recorded are the size of the margins, and the approx number of lines per page! In conclusion, the lack of good visibility and the lack of detail makes the Bishops testimony regarding how many sheets and exactly how big the sheet(s) were in the envelope is questionable.

In conclusion, the only evidence strong enough to consider here is that of Father Alonsos recording of what Sister Lucia said.


Fact #4. Text #1 is 25 lines of Handwritten Text.
Evidence: The only evidence given is the conclusion of two authors based on the passage about Bishop Venancio, above.

my comments: The passage about Bishop Venancio is very inconclusive, as I indicated. If it were written on one side and was 20-25 lines, that would almost for certain require folding the page, because 25 lines notebook page usually is 7 inches long, which would not fit into the avg envelope. Again, if the page is folded it is hard to tell just what is there and how many lines there are. Also, 20-25 lines is not much commentary for 62 lines of the vision, given how mysterious it is, and the fact that the vision of hell had more lines of commentary than the actual vision. In any case, since the evidence from Bishop Venancio is weak, I see no reason to conclude that it is only 25 lines.


Fact #5: Text #1 Was Not Ready by January 3
Evidence: The book claims that there is circumstantial evidence Sister Lucia didnt finish writing the text of Our Ladys words until Jan 9 because she waited until then to inform Bishop de Silva.

my comment: To me this is weak evidence. First of all, it took only one day after the Jan 2 apparition for her to write the vision, which was 62 lines. Why would it take her a full 6 days to write a text of 25 lines? Maybe she really was finished everything on the 3rd, but she didnt write to the Bishop until the 9th because the Bishop was out of town until the 9th. Or, possibly she wanted to think it over some more, since it obviously distressed her a great deal. Another thing to consider is that there is no record of the apparition on Jan 2 telling her to turn it in immediately after it was written down; only to write it down so that there would be a record of it for others. Also, what is the hurry since it was not to be revealed until 1960! While the extra 6 days does allow time to write down another 25 lines, the evidence is not strong for saying that is why it took another 6 days. All things considered, this is a weak argument for saying there is a second text.


Fact #6, Different dates for when Pope John Paul II First Read Secret

Evidence 1: The Washington Post reported that a Vatican spokesperson said that the Pope first read the secret within days of assuming the papacy in 1978, but an aide to Ratzinger said that the pope first saw it in the hospital after his attack.

Evidence 2: The Vatican commentary by Bertone said that John Paul II, for his part, asked for the envelope containing the third part of the secret following the assassination attempt on 13 May 1981 This last quote doesnt say it was his FIRST time reading it, but it is implied given the context. The book explains this by saying that in 1978 the Pope read the one-page document originally sealed in the envelope..then on July 18, 1981 His Holiness read the 4-page document describing the vision of the Bishop dressed in White.

my comment: There are several things to consider: One, the Washington Post may have picked up some false information. This happens all the time. However, since the information is specific and was reported on May 13, it seems reasonable that the Wash Post heard it right. Second, the aid to Ratzinger may have just screwed up. Maybe he knew the Pope got it in the hospital, and assumed or misunderstood it to have been the first time. Third, the Vatican commentary was trying to put the interpretation in light of the assassination. It didnt say the Pope got it for the first time. It just said he got it in the hospital. It seems to me most likely that the Pope read it soon after going into office, because he was curious. Wouldnt you be? This was an issue Catholics had discussed for years. If that is the case, why in the world would he have read the text, but not the vision? Wouldnt you want to read it all? That seems highly unlikely. The books explanation is possible, but not very reasonable. I think he read everything early on, and then, remembering the words of the vision about the Pope being killed, wanted to read it carefully again when in the hospital. The inconsistencies in reporting the dates are most likely due to miscommunication. This is worth thinking about, but isnt a strong argument.


Fact #7 Inspired the Pope to Consecrate the World
Evidence: On June 7 1981 (3-4 weeks after being shot), the Pope composed a prayer to consecrate the world, and this was before he read the 3rd secret, six weeks later. This implies that he had read the text prior because the vision wouldnt inspire such a consecration.

my comment: I disagree. The vision is all about persecution of the church. Martyrs, ruined cities, a pope being shot. It ties in to the spread of Russias errors in message #2. Being shot is more closely related to persecution, than a change in dogma. It makes perfect sense that the vision in secret #3 would have inspired him to consecrate the world, IF he had already read the vision, which I think he did soon after taking office (who wouldnt?) (see my reply to Fact #6) Also, he would have been well aware of the folks that said Russia wasnt consecrated. Consecration was nothing new to him.


Fact #8, Text #1 is a letter, (but what the Vatican revealed isnt)

Evidence:
1. In response to Father Jongen in 1946 Sister Lucia said "I communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria."

my comment: We know she wrote a letter about it and very shortly sent the message in an envelope. Father Alonso plainly states the following: "At the time the Bishop of Leiria received the sealed document, he was also given a letter from Lucia in which she made a few suggestions." (51) Sister Lucias words to Father Jongen most reasonably should be interpreted as referring to this letter of suggestions, and not about the secret being in the form of a letter.

(51) The Secret of Fatima, Fact and Legend, Joaquin Maria Alonso, p 44, 1976

2. Canon Galamas testified "When the bishop refused to open the letter, Sister Lucia made him promise that it would definitely be opened..."

my comment: It calls this decisive words. This, to me isnt decisive at all. People use letter and envelope interchangeably all the time. It could have been a note inside of an envelope.

3. In Feb, 1960, the Patriarch of Lisbon declared: "Bishop da Silva enclosed ... in another envelope on which he indicated that the letter had to be opened in 1960"

my comment: How do you open a letter? Unfold it? No, that usually means open the envelope. The two are used interchangeably. Perhaps the Patriarch just thought it was a letter, or Bishop da Silva thought it was a letter. Thinking it doesnt make it so.

4. The Vatican announcement of February 8,1960 refers to it as a letter also: it is most likely that the letter will never be opened

my comment: It HAD been opened by then. It just hadnt been revealed. This is a clear example of mistakes people make when communicating. Again, letter could mean envelope.

5. The revealed secret isnt addressed to anyone

6. The revealed secret is dated at the end, even though, according to custom in Portugal since the 18th Century, no letter is dated at the end but only at the beginning

my comment: This seems very picky. Sister Lucia was illiterate until the 1920s. I personally put the date all over the place on my handwritten letters. Its not automatically not a letter because the date is at the end. Anyway, the vision is not a exactly a letter anyway, so there is no need to follow according to custom since that applies to letters. A letter from her in 1935 can be found on this site and there is no sign of the date at the beginning: http://www.michaelhesemann.com/

7. is not signed by Sister Lucia or anyone else

my comment: All of the references by others to a letter, mean little unless those people actually saw the secret and read it. What is significant is Sister Lucias own testimony and those who have read the message. Since she is the only one to have referred to it as a letter, lets look at that evidence.

Heres how the revealed secret begins:

" J.M.J
The third part of the secret revealed at the Cova da Irai-Fatima, on 13 July 1917.
I write in obedience to you, my God, who command me to do so through his Excellency the Bishop of Leiria and through your Most Holy Mother and mine."

And, it is dated at the end. This seems very much like a letter, so what is the big deal here? I think this argument has little value.


Fact #9: Text #1 Stored in Papal Apartment

Evidence:
1. On May 14, 1957 (pg 159) a photojournalist who went to the Popes apartment claims he saw a safe bearing an inscription Secret of the holy Office and that Mother Pasqualian - in charge of a handful of sister housekeepers of the Pope, saw it and said that the Third Secret is kept in there.

my comment: The book doesnt provide much support for this. We cant read the sign on the photo on pg 160, so it is of little value. Would have to research. Anyone can say such things. Also, it seems unlikely that a secret would be kept in a place labeled Secret. That doesnt sound like much of a secret to me! Its such a secret that Mother Paqualian and others know about it? Why dont we have any quote from Mother Pasqualian or the handful of sister housekeepers? Why didnt the journalist try to look at it? Better yet, why didnt he write about it in his Paris-Match story in 1958? The secret no doubt was a hot subject. If there was a conversation about that, why isnt it recorded in the book? This is worth further research. The journalist was Robert Serrou. Does he have a history of questionable reporting? There are a lot of unanswered questions here.

2. The book says there is no record in the Holy office of the Pope asking for the secret in 1978 because he didnt need to --it was in the papal apartments.

my comment: If that is true, it must have been in the apt from May 57 through at least 1978. I dont know enough about their procedures to know if 1. there was a record or not and 2. whether a such a record would have been necessarily kept for such a request


Fact #10 Text #1 has margins of 3/4 centimeter on both sides.

Evidence: Bishop Venancio is quoted as saying that from holding it up to the light, he discerned the paper had margins on each side of three quarters of a centimeter. The book says that the four pages containing the Third Secret vision display no margins whatsoever.

my comments: The book is wrong when it says there are no margins. I dont know where the book is getting this information. One can easily see the margins by going to the Vatican commentary at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html The average margin is perhaps 1/2 inch, but those have been blown up by perhaps 50-75%. 3/4 centimeter actually sounds about right, since that is equal to about 1/4 inch. It looks like the book made a mistake here.


Fact #11 Text 1 explains the vision

Evidence: The pattern in the 1st 2 messages was a vision and then the explanation of the vision. Why would the 3rd have no explanation--especially given that it was more obscure?

My comment: I agree that it would have made sense to have had some explanation, as was the case before. However, the vision may be seen as already explained to a great extent in message #2 which says in part: if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph This seems to explain much of the revealed Third Secret quite well. So, maybe it really didnt need much more explanation. Maybe it was actually in response to the second message, which had set the stage for it by way of explanation.


I would like to address some ADDITIONAL RELATED POINTS:

1. The book appears to give credit to the current Pope, as a believer in Fatima. According to the book the Pope would certainly be aware of an unrevealed secret. Yet, the Pope has not said anything to contradict the Party Line. The book tries to explain this by saying he may feel uncertain of who he can trust, etc.. It seems to me that the most straightforward explanation is that he knows there is no unrevealed secret left.

2. If there is apostasy in the church and that is what the secret is about, why doesnt Sister Lucia just tell everyone now? She isnt a prisoner really. Surely she has visitors and surely they ask the question. Yet we have not heard any quotes for years that might support the books position.

3. One question would be, why would there only be one sealed envelope? If there were two documents you would either expect them to have been put together in the same envelope after 13 years or at least transported together. Yet there is no mention in 1957 of transporting 2 documents at that time. Maybe thats simply because there really only was one document. There would have been no reason to keep the existence of two documents a secret. The two, had they existed, would have clearly belonged together, and have been transported together.

4. The Vatican commentary includes a letter on 1982 in which Sister Lucia is alleged to have written The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation, referring to this part of the Message (in message 2) If this is authentic, this clearly should silence the critics. I reviewed this in detail under part 2, CLAIM #14.

5. If there was two parts, why didnt Sister Lucia EVER refer to that?

6. Regarding Ottaviani, it seems reasonable to expect that if he read the unrevealed part, it clearly would have made reference to the vision which it was explaining, as was the case with the words pertaining to the vision of hell in message number 2. Yet, Ottaviani, in his 1967 press conference where he made a long declaration on the subject of the Third Secret of Fatima, he makes no reference to the existence of second part of the message, or having read it. Such a reference would have been expected had he read it or known of it to exist.

7. Regarding Father Alonsos comment, I have the same response but even more so. One would think that after all of the enormous research he did and the many conversations he had with Sister Lucia that there would have been reference to two parts of the Third Secret, to words and a vision. But, there has been no such reference. If there was, it would have been cited long ago

8. Sister Lucia wrote down the third message in Jan, 1944. She wrote to Bishop da Silva "....(the text) is sealed in an envelope and it is in the notebooks." It says It was thus immediately apparent that the Secret involved two documents: one sealed in the envelope, and the other contained in Sister Lucias notebook. (Why else would she have turned over the notebook as well as the sealed envelope?)

My comment: This conclusion is not at all immediately apparent. Maybe the notebook had other notes that she wanted to share with the Bishop. Or, since she wasnt delivering the envelope directly to da Silva she wanted to hide the envelope in the notebook. The word it in the above reference refers to the envelope, if normal grammar was being used.. If that vision WERE part of the secret, dont you think she would have included it in the envelope? The sealed envelope? It doesnt make any sense to have NOT included it there. That vision was scary! The book believes there are unrevealed words that are even scarier. As such, and as being at least part of the 3rd secret, it only makes sense to have put it in the envelope. It is more reasonable to believe that the entire message was in the envelope than some in the envelope and some in the notebook.

9. According to the website http://hesemann.watchers.ca/fatimaconspiracy.html Sister Lucia gave no sign of displeasure when the Third Secret was first summarized:

"And Sister Lucia? She was present when Cardinal Sodano summarized the content of the Third Secret. Not a glimpse of protest was in her face, not a grief when she was interviewed later by Portuguese Television. She was just happy, released that the burden of responsibility was taken from her shoulders. By her presence, by her nodding and her obvious consent with the announced publication, she verified the authenticity of the Third Secret."

The book doesnt say anything about this event, which should be easily verifiable.


SUMMARY

CLAIM #13. Part of the Third Secret has been withheld from the faithful.


CONCLUSIONS: The book claims there is a mountain over evidence for an unrevealed text for the Third Secret. It produces 11 Facts, and the evidence supporting those facts as proof. Out of the 11 facts the only ones that I think have any merit worth considering are Father Alonsos quote of Sister Lucia saying the secret is on a sheet of paper, the journalist report of the secret being kept in the Popes apartment, and the idea that one might expect words of explanation by Mary. However, those arguments have reasonable alternative explanations. The book doesnt talk about the strongest argument against their still being a secret: that is the total absence of anyone ever referring to their being two parts prior to the revealing in 2000. The one reference early on to it being in the notebooks can be seen as referring to two parts only by abusing the normal use of grammar. And, common sense doesnt support the existence of two. It makes sense that both would always be together and that if one were read the other would be known immediately to exist, and would then also be read. Yet, of all those that have read the secret or are very familiar to it, none have referred to their being two parts. Prior to the revealing in 2000, there was no reason to pretend that only the vision existed since nothing had been revealed and there was no sign that anything would be revealed. It just doesnt make sense, and the Facts in Chapter 12 fall very short. THE TRUTH IS that the books mountain of evidence is little more than a mole hill. I conclude that the known evidence is greatly in favor of their only being one part of the secret, and that it was revealed by the Vatican in 2000.



CLAIM #15 The Vaticans interview in 2001 highlights the unusual control the Vatican takes over Sister Lucia in order to see that she doesnt contradict the Party Line.
First, Ill address the 2001 interview, and then Ill address the general issue of Sister Lucias silence.

Evidence 1. Requiring Cardinal Ratzingers approval, another secret interview Nov. 17,2001 was conducted, by Bertone. There was no witness and so far there has been no tape recording or transcript produced.

my comment: This is misleading. From the article on Jan 9, 2002 :"It was therefore considered necessary , with the agreement of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and the Bishops of both Leiria-Fatima and Coimbra, that I meet Sr Lucia in the presence of Rev. Luis Kondor, SVD, Vice-Postulator of the cause of BL. Francisco and Bl. Jacinta, and of the Prioress of the Carmelite Convent of St. Teresa, to obtain explanations and information directly from the only surviving visionary." This clearly states another witness, yet the book made no mention of him at all. I agree that a tape recording or transcript would have been further proof, and it unfortunately hurts the Vaticans cause to not do such things.

Evidence 2. The English translation in LOsservatore Romanos Jan 9, 2002 quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the 1984 consecration sufficed--seems to contradict her past many statements.

my comment: Here is the question and answer: "What have you to say about the stubborn assertions of Fr Gruner, who has been collecting signatures, asking the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at last, as if this has never been done?" Sr Lucia replies: "The Carmelite community has rejected the forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984, and has been accepted in Heaven." I addressed the contradiction in point #9. It is interesting the book fails to mention that the interview singles out Father Gruner..

Evidence 3. The book says that it is odd that the question wasnt published which resulted in her response that there are no more secrets.

my comments: The book goes on about how the exact question wasnt published. I think what was published is clear: She answers those who have voiced a doubt that some part of the third secret might not have been revealed: Everything has been published; there are no more secrets.

Evidence 4. The book says that for a 2 hour interview only 44 words were given to Sister Lucia about the controversy. Why not divulge all?

my comments: I dont know what is reasonable for an interview. The book seems to demand a full in-depth question and answer session. I agree that a longer article would have been more helpful for those that doubt so severely. The Vatican seems more content on just stating a position with the expectation that the faithful will believe them.

Evidence 5. Why not let Sister Lucia speak to the world herself? She was completely invisible during the process of revealing the 3rd Secret (in May-June of 2000s)

my comment: This would be the most convincing for the strongest doubters. I suspect that many of those that dont think the Vatican is totally corrupt found the article to be satisfying.

Evidence 6. It says Sister Lucia confirms everything including charges against her on p 197, which undermines its own credibility, because it means she would confirm: 1. since it (the vision) incorporates images she may have seen in devotional books she made it up
2. Ratzingers praise of the modernist Dhanis as an eminent scholar on Fatima and
3. that she very well could be a sincere and pious fake

my comment: This is misleading.
First, the commentary makes it very clear that they accept the validity of the visions. Although they state basically that past experiences can influence the content of a vision, they clearly state that it is not fantasy or made up:
"..we are dealing with the middle category, interior perception. For the visionary, this perception certainly has the force of a presence, equivalent for that person to an external manifestation to the senses. ..Interior vision does not mean fantasy, which would be no more than an expression of the subjective imagination. It means rather that the soul is touched by something real, even if beyond the senses. It is rendered capable of seeing that which is beyond the senses, that which cannot be seenseeing by means of the interior senses. It involves true objects, which touch the soul, even if these objects do not belong to our habitual sensory world..."

Second, Ratzinger doesnt praise Dhanis for being an eminent scholar on Fatima. He praises him for being an eminent scholar on private revelations. Also, the book never actually states that even though Dhanis doubted the content of the secrets, he believed in the miracle of the sun and the apparitions.

Third, the Commentary never said this. It says the opposite. Dhanis held a belief that Sister Lucia was sincere and pius, but not a fake. Rather, he believed she was unintentionally making some things up. But that is not part of the Commentary. The book is being unfair to state these things in the way that they did.

Evidence 7. She wasnt asked about the letter to the Pope or visit by Father Bianchi

my comment: This is not entirely true: "Is it true that speaking to Rev. Luigi Bianchi and Rev. Jose dos Santos Valinho, you cast doubt on the interpretation of the third part of the secret?" Sr Lucia answered: "That is not true. I fully confirm the interpretation made in the Jubilee Year."

Evidence 8. The book says on pg 196 that less than ten percent of what Sister Lucia is quoted as saying had anything to do with the stated purpose of the interview

my comment: This is misleading. From my reading, 6 of the 9 subjects addressed in the article were directly related to concerns related to the consecration and the third secret. The interview doesnt seem out of balance given its stated cause.


Here are some other general points about Sister Lucias silence:

1. The book claims there is an unnatural enforced silence--that Ratzinger must approve all visitors, and that seems to be a curious restriction on the liberty of a witness who, so we are told, has nothing to add to what she has already said. I tend to agree. On the other hand, she certainly can come out and correct the Vatican if they have misrepresented anything. She isnt a prisoner. Thats what we have to keep in mind. If the Vatican really was hiding part of the secret then Sister Lucia would have to know they are clearly lying, and she would have to blow the whistle. She has shown that her highest value is to serve God first. I think it is most reasonable to conclude that since she hasnt come out and blown the whistle on the Vatican that the Vatican has presented all that they have and that she has truly reflected on their interpretation and come to believe it is acceptable to God.

2. pg 286 Sister Lucia not allowed to participate in the revelation on 6/26/2000.

my comment: She was there during the commentary on the third part by Sodano on May 13, 2000. If something didnt sound right, she surly could have said something then. But, she didnt. As for the 6/26 revealing, I dont think this is a critical point. The May 13 revelation was a much more exciting event. It was during the beatification of Jacinta and Francisco, millions of people were there, and the Pope was there. The June 26 was just a press conference.

3. A related point is that The documents in the official Fatima archive, which Father Alonso will compile between 1965 and 1976 (more than 5000 documents in 24 volumes) will be barred from publication I agree that this seems unusual and without knowing more about it, suspicious. There are other reasons it may be banned: First of all, it is a highly inflammatory area. The release of Sister Lucias memoirs in 1939-1941 resulted in a lot of controversy because so much new information was added, and a lot of things on the surface seemed to be contradictory. It led to some publications which cast doubt on her credibility. This hurts faith. The Vatican may be concerned that additional information can hurt faith. Or, it could be a conspiracy. Who knows? We just dont know. Maybe someday some more of it will be published.


SUMMARY
CLAIM #15 The Vaticans interview in 2001 highlights the unusual control the Vatican takes over Sister Lucia in order to see that she doesnt contradict the Party Line.

CONCLUSIONS:
It does seem as though the Vatican is imposing more silence on Sister Lucia than what the situation calls for, but it is a very sensitive issue in that it affects many peoples faith. Given the history of issues related to Fatima, close control is very understandable. The Vaticans control over access to her probably is real, but this doesnt have to reflect a cover-up at all. It could reflect a desire to avoid unscrupulous reporters spreading lies like they have in the past, Lucia being misinterpreted, or a respect for her age and status as a cloistered nun. And some of those doubts about her may still be around--there may even exist a fear that a new revelation will occur, or that she might say something controversial or unexpected that they would then have to deal with. It could be all of these things. That is reasonable. From this perspective, they may conclude that continued control is worth the price of having to deal with those who dont believe the Vaticans year 2000 revelation.

We must keep in mind that if something terrible were going on, Sister Lucia certainly could renounce it. She isnt a prisoner. She may feel like the Vatican has given plenty of evidence that all has been revealed, and that she doesnt need to say anymore than what has been said already. She also may believe that the number of people who continue to doubt the Vatican on this issue is actually a pretty small percentage of all Catholics (because it really is), and therefore it isnt as important an issue as those people see it to be, especially if she knows all has been done. Overall, my impression about the 2001 interview is this: The book makes quite a few points that are misleading. It is clear that even if the interview had been longer, and more clear with both questions and answers stated, the book would still not have accepted it as a valid interview, because the article clearly states that Sr Lucia supports the Vatican viewpoint.

It is clear that the book doesnt believe the article because it doesnt believe the Vatican. The book requires that Sister Lucia come out and speak directly to the world to set the record straight. I agree that this is what is required to satisfy some people--those who are convinced the Vatican is lying. However, doubt breeds doubt, and it can get stronger in the face of greater evidence. I am certain that if Sister Lucia publicly confirmed the commentary, there will still be those who will discount Sister Lucias testimony as either being given by a fake Sister Lucia, or the result of years of brainwashing by the Vatican, or the effects of old age. After all, it is the true message of Our Lady that matters. There is no convincing some people. I think the Vatican may be a bit arrogant in not trying to present better evidence, but I can see their viewpoint that they should not have to answer to those that no longer believe the Vatican is representing God.

In conclusion, I think the fact that she has not come forth to dispute anything in the commentary even though she could have done so is strong evidence that she knows the Vatican is not lying about the third part, and that she accepts --at least for the most part-- the Vatican commentary. She must feel no need to set the record straight because it is straight already. And it is reasonable to conclude that the Vatican has decided that the effort it would take to convince those who still do not believe that all has been revealed is not worth the effort because of potential problems such an effort could cause, as well as the fact that for some people no amount of evidence will ever be enough to change their firmly-held anti-Vatican beliefs.


CLAIM #16 Those who do not hew to the Churchs new orientation, including the Party Line on Fatima, are subject to persecution and purging by means of suspension..while those who are faithful to the new orientation..are left alone, or even rewarded.

My comments: This can be a very complicated area. The book paints a very strong picture that there is a war going on between the true Fatima camp and the Church. Certainly the Church is more tolerant of things than in the past. The book seems to say that just about the only thing the Church is intolerant of is those who dispute the Party Line on Fatima, shown vividly in their treatment of Father Gruner. I get the sense that this can be a he said-she said type of situation. Therefore I have decided to review only one of the books primary pieces of evidence:

Evidence: On pgs 191-193. "On September 12, 2001, literally within hours of the fall of the Twin Towers, the Vatican Press Office released its top bulletin for the day: a Declaration from the Congregation for the Clergy concerning, not the terrorist attacks, not the horrendous scandals erupting almost daily from the ranks of the priesthood, not the profusion of heresy and disobedience among the clergy over the past forty years, but Father Nicholas Gruner, the Fatima priest. The Declaration stated that it had been issued by mandate of a higher authority --Vatican-speak for the Secretary of State, Cardinal Sodano, not the Pope (who is the highest authority). The Declaration warned the entire Catholic world about a serious threat to the good of the Church; a threat of such magnitude that the Congregation for the Clergy could not even wait until the dust had settled over the former Twin Towers. The threat consisted of a conference on world peace and Fatima in Rome, sponsored by Father Gruners apostate" It goes on "..The Declaration also stated that Father Gruner had been suspended by the Bishop of Avellino....The Secretary of States obsession with destroying Father Gruner--symbol of resistance to the Party Line--had reached the level of obscenity...The issuance of this baseless condemnation of the Fatima priest within hours of September 11 had such a stink about it that many who might otherwise have been disposed to accept the Declaration at face value began to wonder about its grotesquely inappropriate timing."

my comments: Wow. There are a lot of charges in there. This is a passionately-worded commentary. After doing some simple research, I must conclude that this commentary is greatly misleading to the reader. Heres what the Vatican actually released, which I found in the bottom corner of an inside page (not the front page) of the Sep 19th issue of the LOsservatore. It was so inconspicuous that I didnt see it the first time I looked through the issue!:

"Cong. for the Clergy
The Holy See has been informed of a Conference for Peace in the World to be held in Rome from 7-13 October 2001 organized by the Rev. Nicholas Gruner.

The Congregation of the Clergy, by mandate of Higher Authority, wishes to inform the faithful that the Rev. Nicholas Gruner has received the censure of suspension a divinis and that the censure was confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature.

As a consequence, the activities of Rev. Nicholas Gruner, including the Conference for Peace in the World, do not have the approval of legitimate ecclesiastical Authority.
Vatican City, 12 September 2001
DARIO Cardinal CASTRILLON HOYOS Prefect
CSABA TERNYAK Secretary"

First, Im not sure why the book says it is a top bulletin, but to imply that this is more important to the Vatican than the attack on the Towers is not at all born out by the facts. The fact is that the Vatican absolutely responded to the attack. They sent a very appropriate telegram to President Bush the same day. The book didnt mention this. Second, the days three bulletins focused on world-peace issues, which may be why this Declaration was included. 1. the telegram to Bush 2. the informing of the faithful regarding Father Gruners Conference for Peace in the World and 3. A comment from the Islamic-Catholic committee.

All three issues have to do with world peace. The Vatican may have been sensitive to the likelihood that Father Gruner would blame the Vatican for the terrorist attacks in light of his beliefs about Fatima. and that such an opinion likely would be expressed in his conference to be held in Rome in 3-4 more weeks. Such a stance is very inflammatory.

The book says or implies 4 things that are not true:

1. This Declaration was a huge story. The capitalized word Declaration is completely the books invention and does not seem appropriate here. In fact, the article was a small 2 by 5 box and only has 3 sentences. It was hardly even noticeable in the Sep 19 LOsservatore in which it was included. The Sep. 11 attacks were given much more attention in that issue.

2. The Declaration never referred to Father Gruner as the Fatima priest

3. The suspension was just given. This is quite questionable, given the fact that the Vatican has called him a wandering priest since 1994, and had sent him letters regarding excommunication previous to 2001. The Oct, 2001 Inside the Vatican says that the Clergy issued a statement reminding the faithful of the suspension in divinis. This implies that this is not a Declaration of anything new, but is another reminder, given each year prior to the conferences, and that the Church does not approve of his activities.

4. This was done without the papal approval (implied on pg 290) The article clearly says the Holy See has been informed in the first sentence.


SUMMARY
CLAIM #16 Those who do not hew to the Churchs new orientation, including the Party Line on Fatima, are subject to persecution and purging by means of suspension..while those who are faithful to the new orientation..are left alone, or even rewarded.

CONCLUSIONS
While I dont want to get into all of the back and forth legal arguments that have taken place over the years, from an analysis of one of the major evidences the book writes passionately about, I conclude that the book seems to have a very distorted view of the how that instance was handled. In my opinion it grossly misleads the reader by appealing to emotion-laden issues such as sexual scandal in the Church, and by making a number of misleading comments about the actual statement. While the book indicates that the Church is pre-occupied with Father Gruner to the point of behaving in a grotesquely inappropriate manner, this viewpoint seems overly self-conscious, and is not supported by the facts in this case.


SUMMARY
THE COVER-UP: The Church, knowing the secret, has undertook numerous measures to cover-up the true Third Secret.

CONCLUSIONS: So, was there a cover-up that points to apostasy in an unrevealed Third Secret? The consecration of Russia may reflect some apostasy or simply practical politics. Similarly the decision to not release the secret in 1960 also very possibly reflect a number of considerations unrelated to apostasy--some doubts about the authenticity, concern about inciting fear, and political considerations all are reasonable explanations for this cover-up. Contrary to the claim, there is not a mountain of evidence that there is an unrevealed text of the Third Secret. This is little evidence. Common sense and other evidences show that it is actually unreasonable to believe in a two-part Third Secret. The book misleads the reader with regard to their treatment of Sister Lucia which falsely support their premise of a cover-up. There are reasonable explanations for their watching over her to some degree, but also one must remember that she is not a prisoner, and is free to renounce such a cover-up if it has existed. Finally, in the one instance the book highlights as evidence of a cover-up by the Vatican in their treatment of Father Gruner, the book greatly distorts the situation, making it seem way more important to the Vatican as the actual action would indicate to a reasonable observer. Overall, the book reflects a very unreasonable interpretation of the facts. THE TRUTH IS that in totality the facts and common sense both indicate that the Vatican is concerned with issues related to Fatima and how they affect the Church but that their actions show little evidence of a massive cover-up.

Boston Lasik