The Controversy of the Third Secret of Fatima

By Robert Sungenis

Introduction

Jesus once said, "So then, by their fruits you shall know them" (Matt 7:20). The plain meaning of His words is that the best way to judge the veracity of one's claims is to measure the fruit issuing from the one making the claim. If one asserts a certain claim, then the effects of that claim should be plainly evident.

St. Augustine once said, "the peace of all things is the tranquility of order" (City of God, Book 19, Chapter 13). In this context, Augustine teaches how one can recognize when peace has arrived. An ordered arrangement brings a certain tranquility that is not disturbed by competing forces.

Jeremiah the prophet once said, "They heal the brokenness of the daughter of My people superficially, Saying, 'Peace, peace,' But there is no peace....We waited for peace, but no good came; For a time of healing, but behold, terror!" (Jer 8:11, 15). Here Jeremiah warns us that false prophets will claim that there is peace when in reality there is nothing but terror awaiting God's people.

The above principles are vitally important in discerning the issues surrounding the Fatima controversy. As most people know, in the early part of the 20th century Our Lady gave the Church specific instructions that Russia was to be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart in order to exorcize that nation of its demons. Up to that time, Russia had already been wrecking havoc in the world, and Our Lady warned that its errors would become worse unless it was consecrated.

As of June 2000, Vatican officials asserted that the long-awaited consecration of Russia, although having been delayed by all previous pontiffs since 1929, was finally accomplished by Pope John Paul II's 1984 consecration of the "world" to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They further stated that the vision Our Lady gave to Sister Lucia, which concerned a bishop in white being killed by arrows, was fulfilled in the attempted assassination of John Paul II on May 13, 1981.

If these things are so, then in accordance with the three criteria established by Jesus, Jeremiah, and St. Augustine, we must ask the obvious question: Are we seeing the fruits of Russia's consecration that Our Lady promised, or have we been deceived into accepting there is peace when in reality there is no peace? The fruits she promised were very specific. She said when the consecration is performed Russia would be "converted" and the world would enjoy a "period of peace." According to Our Lady's use of the words "convert" and "peace" in other apparitions and messages, and according to the way the Church has historically understood those two words, they can have only one meaning. A few excerpts from her Fatima message will show this quite convincingly.

At different times during the Fatima message, Our Lady spoke the following words:

** "Will you offer yourselves to God, and bear all the sufferings He sends you? In atonement for all the sins that offend Him? And for the conversion of sinners?"

Notice that Our Lady speaks of "atonement for all the sins that offend" God, and then follows this with the phrase "conversion of sinners." Obviously, Our Lady's understanding of "conversion" refers to a turning away from sin, sin that offends God.

** "Make sacrifices for sinners and say often, especially while making sacrifice: O Jesus, this is for the love of Thee, for the conversion of sinners and in reparation for sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary."

Again, "conversion" refers to a turning away from sin and a reparation for sins previously committed.

** "You have seen hell, where the souls of sinners go...."

Here we see that the "sinners" she mentioned above receive the ultimate punishment from God if they do not convert from their evil ways.

** "To prevent this, I shall come to the world to ask that Russia be consecrated to my Immaculate Heart, and I shall ask that on the First Saturday of every month Communion of reparation be made in atonement for the sins of the world. If my wishes are fulfilled, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, then Russia will spread her error throughout the world..."

Here we notice that the wording "Russia will be converted" is in the same context as making atonement for sin. The connection is plain to see. "Convert" refers in the first sense to a spiritual transformation of Russia. A transformation in which she turns from her sins, makes atonement for them, and seeks to escape the wrath of God.

** "Pray, pray very much. Make sacrifices for sinners. Many souls go to hell, because no one is willing to help them with sacrifice."

Again, we see the connection between sin and hell, and that many people go to hell, despite the message from many theologians today that "hell may be empty." All in all, it is quite obvious when one views Our Lady's words in context that "conversion" refers to the radical transformation of one's life from sin to holiness; from opposition to the laws of God and His Church to acceptance of the same. In turn, "peace" means the absence of war and terror; the absence of the spreading of errors that influence other people to sin.

From the evidence we will show, it seems clear that, not only has Russia not converted and provided peace, but it has sunk even further into the depths of debauchery, and the world remains an armed camp ready for self-annihilation at any moment, and in many instances, already in battle. Most people are unaware that there are approximately thirty skirmishes taking place in the world at present.

To prove the case concerining Russia, we will first quote from a number of sources which describe the spiritual, moral and political situation according to verified statistics.

Item #1: Report from VATICAN CITY: "In the latest in an increasingly bitter battle with Moscow, the Vatican on Monday (Oct 14, 2002) denounced what it called a 'despicable operation' to discredit the Roman Catholic Church in Russia. The statement by Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls followed an appeal to human rights groups last month by the head of the church in Russia against what he called a 'large-scale anti-Catholic campaign.' As examples, the Vatican statement cited the transformation of an apartment rented out for charitable purposes by the Franciscan Order into a house of prostitution and Russian news reports depicting people in religious dress in 'immoral poses.' The newspaper and TV reports were 'deceitfully constructed' and clearly aimed at 'damaging the reputation of the Catholic community,' the statement said.

"An Oct. 7 article in the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda featured a photograph showing a woman lounging in an armchair in a nun's habit and a skimpy bra and panties, a man in a hooded monk's robe praying and the headline, 'A Moscow monastery turned out to be a bordello.' 'We see this as part of the campaign that has been going on for several months,' said the Rev. Nikolai Dubinin, the deputy head of the order in Moscow. 'We didn't think they would stoop this low.' Asked about the article, the newspaper's managing editor, Vladimir Mamontov, said, 'In no way did the newspaper intend to compromise the Franciscan Order. The people who rented the apartment clearly used it for improper activities.'

"Tensions have increased following Pope John Paul II's visits to former Soviet republics and the Vatican's decision to upgrade its presence in Russia by creating full dioceses. The Orthodox Church has accused the Vatican of poaching on traditional Orthodox territory. Moscow's Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II recently charged that the Vatican was following an 'expansionist strategy.' The Vatican was particularly angered by the expulsion of five foreign-born Catholic priests, pointing out that actions on visas are carried out by the government, not the Orthodox Church. Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, the head of the Catholic Church in Russia, has also complained about bans on construction of new churches and vandalism and desecration of existing churches. With an estimated flock of 600,000, Catholics are a tiny minority in mainly Orthodox Russia. The tensions have blocked John Paul from visiting Russia, a major disappointment of his papacy. Attempts to set up a meeting between the pope and patriarch have also failed."

Item #2: According to the Federal Research division of the Library of Congress, as of 1998 Russia has the highest abortion rate in the entire world. Statistic show there are two abortions for every live birth, amounting to 3.5 million abortions per year. Russian women have, on average, five abortions each. With this high rate of abortion, Russia can no longer replace its dying population, which decreases by 2,500 per day.

Item #3: Associated Press, October 18, 2002: "Russia Abortion Rate High," by Vladimir Isachenkov, Moscow correspondent: "About 60 percent of all pregnancies in Russia end in abortion, and another 10 percent of pregnant women lose unborn children because of health problems, the nation's chief gynecologist said Friday. Russia ranks second in the world behind Romania in the number of abortions per capita," Vladimir Kulakov, the head of the Scientific Center for Obstetrics and Gynecology, said at a news conference. "Girls in Russia under 18 account for every tenth abortion, he said. Doctors say the use of contraception is less widespread in Russia than in the West. Of some 38 million women of childbearing age, about 6 million are infertile, and medical authorities consider abortions a major cause of infertility," Kulakov said. "About half the women who bear children in Russia do not get enough nourishment or vitamins during pregnancy, and that 58.8 percent of all newborns last year were born with illnesses. Federal programs to provide pregnant women with additional food and vitamins have been thwarted by a lack of funds. Financial problems have also stalled use of new medical technologies that would help high-risk expectant mothers," Kulakov said. "Budget spending on health protection is increasing year after year, but is clearly insufficient," he said.

"The 1991 Soviet collapse and the ensuing economic turmoil has led to the disintegration of the Soviet-era state health care system -- a key factor behind Russia's population decline. According to the State Statistics Committee's latest estimate, Russia's population has declined by about 4 million to 143.4 million since 1989. Health statistics have improved in recent years as the Russian economy has registered several successive years of growth. The infant mortality dropped from 19.3 deaths per every 1,000 babies under age 1 in 1993, to 14.6 last year," said Larisa Gavrilova, a deputy chief of the maternity department of the Russian Health Ministry. "That was still twice as high as in the United States, where 6.9 out of every 1,000 infants died before their first birthday in 2000. The number of women who died during delivery also decreased from 50 per 100,000 births in 1997 to 36.5 last year," Gavrilova told the ITAR-Tass news agency.

Item #4: ISTANBUL, Turkey: On September 27, 2002, CNN reported that Russia was supplying countries in the Middle East with nuclear material for the making of atomic bombs. The reported stated: "Turkish officials said Saturday they have seized 34.6 pounds of uranium and arrested two Turkish men in Urfa, a town in southeastern Turkey. U.S. officials are in touch with authorities to get information about the seizure. The men were arrested carrying the material in a box as passengers in a taxi that was en route from Urfa to the nearby city of Gazi Antep, police said. They were identified as Salih Yasar and Mehmet Demir. The driver was interviewed and released. Authorities displayed the material, which they said was worth $5 million and originated in the former Soviet Union, to reporters in Urfa. It will be taken to Ankara for analysis, police said. The seizure was made close to the border with Syria and is about 250 km (155 miles) from the Iraqi border."

Item #5: On September 15, 2002, Zenit.org disseminated the following to its Internet readers: "Russia Reportedly Has a Blacklist of Catholic Priests." The Zenit reporter quotes Bishop Werth of Novosibirsk, in Western Siberia, saying that: "Russia has compiled a blacklist of Catholic priests it intends to expel in the near future," and there is a "'new wave of persecution' against the Catholic Church in the [Russian] federation¼.the police blacklist includes about a dozen names of foreign Catholic priests who will soon be expelled." Zenit adds that: "To date, Bishop Jerzy Mazur of St. Joseph in Irkutsk, eastern Siberia, as well as four priests of Italian, Polish and Slovak nationality, have been expelled....Bishop Werth said that Russia needs a 'spiritual rebirth, because people want to experience a real inner conviction.' Only 1% of Russian Orthodox go to church."

Item #6: On September 9, 2002, the Associated Press revealed that another Roman Catholic priest is in the process of being expelled from Russia. The report stated: "A Roman Catholic priest was detained at an airport in the Russian Far East upon arrival from Japan, a duty officer at the Vatican's embassy in Moscow said Monday." The priest, Jaroslaw Wisniewski, was stopped at the airport in Khabarovsk, in Russia's Far East. The AP also notes that, "the detention comes amid tension over the activities of the Roman Catholic Church in predominantly Orthodox Russia. The Russian Orthodox Church complains that Roman Catholics are poaching converts from among people who traditionally would have been Orthodox adherents¼. In recent months, at least three Catholic priests have been forced to leave Russia when their visas were not renewed." Added to these is the expulsion of Bishop Jerzy Mazur, the bishop for all of Siberia, where the vast majority of Russian Catholics still reside.

Item #7: Today in Russia, the Catholic Church is forbidden to evangelize and cannot even set up a parish without government permission. But Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism have little, if any, restrictions. Muslims outnumber Catholics a hundred-to-one. Even the Catholic parishes that exist in Russia are required to apply for an annual registration, which can be revoked at will by any local official. Priests and nuns are given visas that last only three months, and which cannot easily be renewed. Russia today contains only 600,000 Catholics, out of a nation of 143 million, totaling less than half a percent of the population. Ironically, this is little more than the Catholic population of Russia in 1917 when the Fatima visions first appeared, and far below the per-capita ratio. Just a few years ago, the Patriarch of Russian Orthodoxy, Bishop Bartholomew, stated that of the two faiths, Catholicism was heretical. Even within the Russia, only 54% are baptized in the Russian Orthodox church. Those practicing their faith on a regular basis amounts to less then one percent. Patriarch Alexy II has remarked quite often on the spiritual degeneration of Russian society. He noted that many became interested in the occult and Satanism soon after the departure of the communistic economy (CWNews.com, Dec. 12, 1998).

Item #8: In Russia, divorce is at an all-time high, equaling the highest divorce rates in the world. Russia has the highest consumption of alcohol of any industrial nation; and the nation with the most number of alcoholics. According to a recent Associated Press report, Russia has one of the largest child pornography centers in the world, as well as XXX-rated television programming that permeates the airwaves. Homosexuality (now legal in Russia) and suicide, to name a few, are at an all-time high. Moscow has the highest incidence of both homosexuality and AIDS cases in the country. Moscow houses about two dozen Satanist organizations, complete with ritual murders, rapes, torture, dismemberment, and sexual orgies. Moscow is also one of the main centers for occult practices, including televised seances. Its current leader, Vladimir Putin, has shut down the independent mass media and is re-centralizing Moscow's authority over the former Soviet Union. On January 12, 2002 the London Times reported: "Russia's last independent television station was closed yesterday, leaving the country's entire broadcast media under Kremlin control." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn has stated that "Russian democracy is a myth," and that Russia's demographic trends are "frightening." (NewsMax.com, March 21, 2000; courtesy CFN).

Item #9: Russia still has nuclear arms directly pointed at the United States and other prominent nations which can annihilate these countries an estimated 40 times over, and likewise these nations can do the same to Russia. Similar to its KGB spy network, which changed its name five times in the past 80 years, Russia changes its name but the same corruption exists. The Robert Hansen spy case; Gorbachev's continual thirst for political power through the United Nations; the report of Colonel Stanislav Lunev on CNN and the CBS Nightly News that Russia is still preparing for war with the United States; and the reports that al Qaeda has acquired tactical nuclear weapons from Russia, should alarm anyone to the real condition of Russia that exists today. In September 2002, it was reported that Russia is also supplying North Korea with armaments.

Item #10: October 28, 2002: The Russian government, under Vladimir Putin, chose to end a crisis by spewing lethal gas into a building holding hundreds of hostages, resulting in the killing 116 innocent victims. Of those victims who survived and were being treated in nearby hospitals, the Russian government refused to release information regarding the type of gas used in the siege. Their reluctance is probably due to the fact that the gas has been internationally banned.

With such raw evidence at our disposal (and there is much more that could be added), it seems highly unlikely that Russia has been "converted" and that "peace" has come to the world. If Russian has not been converted, then it certainly has not been consecrated, and thus we are left wondering what the nature of the Vatican's claims really are, and whether the Church herself has been deceived into thinking that the consecration has been performed, when, in actuality, it has not.

There is another reason to question whether the consecration of Russian has been accomplished. Technically speaking, if from Our Lady's 1929 words to Sister Lucia, "consecrate Russia to My Immaculate Heart," we are to understand that:

(a) Russia, singly and officially, is to be named in the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; and,

(b) that the Pope, with all the Bishops of the world simultaneously participating from their respective dioceses, are to consecrate Russia,

then obviously Russia could not have been consecrated. The Vatican admits as much. On June 26, 2000, the Vatican asserted only that the consecration of the WORLD by Pope John Paul II in 1984, which did not mention Russia by name and which merely informed the bishops that the consecration was performed, has been sufficient to replace or fulfill Our Lady's request. Replacing the consecration of Russian with the consecration of the "world" was a decision the Church made on her own. She received no divine directive to that effect. Thus the crucial question remains: Does the Church have that right? And if she does not, then what are the consequences for her presumption?

Why is Fatima so Important?

Regarding the matter of Fatima, one might ask why there is such concern about its contents and fulfillment. What is it about Fatima that sets it apart from all the other Marian apparitions, and why has this particular apparition been the subject of so much intrigue in the Church for the last 70 odd years?

There are many and varied reasons, but some of the more pertinent regard what certain people privy to the Third Secret have said about its contents. Here is one example. Papal theologian Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, who had access to the complete third secret of Fatima, is quoted as saying, "In the Third Secret is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top" (Catholic, March 2002, Fr. Gerard Mura)[1]. That's enough to turn even the most reluctant heads into the depths of this controversy.

Here is another example. Fr. Joaquin Alonso's fourteen volume work, Fatima: Texts and Critical Studies, concludes that Fatima, among many other things, speaks of "the internal struggles of Catholics," to the "fall of priests and religious," and "the failures of the upper hierarchy of the Church." Even though he was the official archivist of Fatima, it is not hard to wonder why all 14 volumes of Fr. Alonso's work were placed on the Index of Forbidden Books in 1976; and only one volume, highly edited, was ever released. Even the actual text of Sister Lucia's Third Secret is locked up in the Church's Index of Forbidden Letters, and, not surprisingly, it was not included in the June 26, 2000 Vatican release, The Message of Fatima.

Other things also cause high interest in Fatima. The specificity of the portents revealed by Our Lady, such as the mentioning of World War I and the coming of World War II, make even the most dire skeptic take notice. This is especially true since Fatima is an officially approved apparition, and one whose miraculous occurrences, predicted three months in advance, were witnessed by over 70,000 people at one time. On October 15, 1917, the Portugese newspaper, O Seculo covered the story in vivid detail, declaring that the sun cris-crossed the sky for about twelve minutes. Other miraculous events were also witnessed by the huge throng of people.

In the Second Fatima secret Our Lady told the three child-seers:

In order to save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If people do what I ask, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war [World War I] is going to end. But if people do not stop offending God, another even worse, will begin in the reign of Pius XI [World War II].

This prophecy is very intriguing, since at the time Our Lady gave it, the future Pius XI was not even a cardinal at the time. No one but heaven could have known that he would become pope and what name he would assign to himself. Unfortunately, during his reign people did not stop offending God, Pius XI did not consecrate Russia, and, as promised, World War II came upon the world - with a vengeance directed by God Himself. Pius XI had already declared in October 1930 that Fatima was "worthy of belief," but for some reason he failed to consecrate Russia in his remaining nine years as pontiff, dying in February 1939.

In the approval of the Fatima apparition, on October 13, 1930, Bishop Correia da Silva issued a pastoral letter which summarized the findings of the commission. The letter stated: "In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reasons of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the Most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our advisors in this diocese, we hereby: (1) Declare worthy of belief the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May, to the 13th October, 1917. (2) Permit officially the cult of Our Lady of Fatima."

Sister Lucia, the last surviving Fatima visionary, told the next pontiff, Pius XII, that "If this [consecration of Russia] is done, Our Lady promises to convert Russia and there will be peace." Pius XII performed a consecration in 1942, but it was not to the specifications requested by Our Lady. In May 1952, Sister Lucia reported that Mary appeared to her again seeking for the consecration of Russia. Our Lady stated: "Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace" (Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meravigle, p. 440 (Rome, 1960))[2]. Once again, Pius XII failed to do the consecration properly. Although World War II came to an end, not surprisingly, the Korean War followed right on its heels, traced by Russia's relentless pursuit of world domination, which they would maintain for the rest of the century.

Malachi Martin's interview with Art Bell

In a recent interview with the popular radio personality Art Bell, the distinguished Catholic author, Malachi Martin (d. 1999) revealed some very startling information. On the program, Fr. Martin revealed that, before he was laicized from the priesthood, early one morning at the Vatican he was given the Third Secret of Fatima to read in February, 1960. Before he read it, he had to agree to take an oath of secrecy not to reveal its details to anyone. For the forty years until his death, Fr. Martin was faithful to that oath. Nevertheless, he was able to give the audience hints as to the contents and import of the Third Secret. The following is the conversation between Art Bell and Fr. Martin:

Art Bell: It is my understanding that you have taken a vow of silence or secrecy. You have read the Third Secret. It was shared with you. Is that correct?

Fr. Martin: Yes, it was given to me to read one morning, early, in February 1960. And of course, before I got it I had to a simple oath you always take of maintaining the secret. So the details of it I cannot communicate - I mean, the actual verbiage and expressions.

Art Bell: If this Third Secret of Fatima were made public, could it be the shock that the public, that the Church, needs?

Fr. Martin: It could be. And that is one reason why it is not published; why it sunk into a limbo; out of which it is not going to come easily. It would be a shock. There's no doubt about that. It would effect people in different ways though, Art. Some people would, on being told this is authentically the Third Secret of Fatima, they would get extremely angry.

Art Bell: Oh I understand. Believe me, I understand, father.

Art Bell: The following is a transcription of what is possibly the Third Secret of Fatima as read by Art Bell on 5-14-98 at 34 minutes and 38 seconds into the program. And I began it with this preamble: "All right. I in no way warrant the following as being authentic. I have no way of knowing. All I can tell you is, it feels real. It is alleged to be the Third Secret of Fatima. You decide for yourself. Here we go.

A great plague will befall mankind. No where in the world will there be order. Satan will rule the highest places determining the way of things. He will succeed in seducing the spirits of the great scientists who invent arms, with which it will be possible to destroy a large part of humanity in a few minutes. Satan will have his power. The powerful who command the people will incite them to produce enormous quantities of arms. God will punish man more thoroughly than with the Flood. There will come the times of all times, and the end of all ends. The great and powerful will perish together with the small and weak. Even for the Church, it will be the time of its greatest trial. Cardinals will oppose cardinals. Bishops will oppose bishops. Satan will walk among them. And in Rome, there will be changes. The Church will be darkened and the world will be shaking with terror. One great war will erupt in the second half of the twentieth century. Fire and smoke will fall from the sky. The waters of the oceans will change into steam, and the steam will rise and overflow everything. The waters of the ocean will become mist. Millions and millions of people will die from hour to hour. Whoever remains alive will envy the dead. Everywhere one turns his glance there is going to be anguish and misery, ruins in every country. The time draws nearer. The abyss widens without hope. The good to perish with the bad. The great with the small. The princes of the Church with the faithful. The rulers with their people. There will be death everywhere because of the errors committed by non-believers and crazy followers of Satan which will then, and only then, take control over the world. At the last, those who survive, will at every chance, newly proclaim God and His glory, and will serve Him as when the world was not so perverted. That's it. Fr. Martin?

Fr. Martin: Yes, Art?

Art Bell: Any comments on that?

Fr. Martin: I've listened to that, and I suppose the measured response I should give to it is this, in two parts, really, two statements. It is not the text which was given to me to read in 1960. There are elements in it which belong in the text.

Art Bell: So, in other words... I'm trying to step as carefully as I can... in other words, you're suggesting that this is not precisely what you had but there are elements of what you just heard...?

Fr. Martin: Yes, there are elements which do belong in the Third Secret. That's about the most measured response I could give to it.

Art Bell: Okay, that's fine, and I won't ask you to say more but bearing in mind what I just read, would you consider the Third Secret to be as traumatic as is suggested in what I read or more so?

Fr. Martin: More so.

Art Bell: More so??

Fr. Martin: More so, yeah. Much more so. The...without...again...you know Art, stepping very carefully, the central element in the Third Secret, is awful. And its not in that text.

Art Bell: Its not in the text?

Fr. Martin: No its not, thank God.

Art Bell: Now, I guess I would ask this. I understand you have taken an oath, but have you considered that the shock that is required to turn things around, may be this very serious, it may be that...it should be revealed.

Fr. Martin: To your last sentence, I fully assent. It should be revealed, but here is my difficulty, Art. I'm one small little man. I have no public authority to do that. I do not know if that will be the will of God. And since it would have such dire effects on much more than Christians, and many others, I can't make that decision. Do you understand what I am trying to say....?

Art Bell: Father, in what manner were you shown the Third Secret?

Fr. Martin: The cardinal who showed it to me had been present at a meeting held by Pope John XXIII in that year, 1960, to outline, to a certain number of cardinals and prelates what he thought should be done with the Secret. But John XXIII, Pope John XXIII, the pope in 1960, did not think that he should publish the Secret. It would ruin his, at that time, ongoing negotiations with Nikita Kruschev, the boss of all the Russians. And he also had a different outlook on life, which, in two years later, opening the Vatican council, he echoed very succinctly and almost contemptuously in the middle of his speech on October 11, 1962 in St. Peter's to the assembled bishops who had come to the Vatican council, and the visitors, the place was crowded, huge basilica, he derided, contemptuously, the people he called "prophets of doom." And there was no doubt in any of our minds he was talking about the three prophets of Fatima. He was against that.

Art Bell: There are those within the Church who minimize what is contained in the Third Secret...

Fr. Martin: Absolutely.

Art Bell: And then there are others who don't minimize it at all.

Fr. Martin: They exaggerate.

Art Bell: They exaggerate. So without minimizing or without exaggerating, you're telling me what's in the Third Secret is more horrible than what I just read...

Fr. Martin: Oh yes, Art, it is. Because, what you have just read, essentially, it is the onslaught of natural powers...sure, Satan is walking, etc, like that amongst man...but essentially it is as if nature revolted against the human race. That's essentially, through all these terrible catastrophes a chastisement, and that's not the essence of the Third Secret, not the frightening one.

Art Bell: Wufff!

Fr. Martin: Yes. It does stagger the imagination.

(A few minutes later)

Art Bell: Father, how much weight do you give to the entire Fatima revelations?

Fr. Martin: I consider it to be the key event in the climbing fortune of the Roman Catholic organization, and the defining event for the near future of the Church in the next millennium, the third millennium. It's the defining event. And that is why strong men, strong men but I mean...you see, Art, when we speak about strong men, the amazing thing about this state craft, people, people who practice the craft of state, like Casaroli who just died, or Pope John Paul II, its what people always remark about great figure in history, like Napoleon, like Hitler, like Stalin. They had a will of indestructible power! And they could oppose the united wills of millions and make their point of view stick, to a certain degree anyway, until they fell, till they became a cropper, as we say in England. And similarly, in Rome there are men with strong wills. They're in state craft all their lives. They are engaged in macro-government. Not merely a religion, but in fate. They're up there amongst the greats. And THEY will not touch this with a large pole.

Art Bell: In what way does the Church have role in what many see coming as a one world government, a one world control point?

Fr. Martin: Two responses to that, Art, very brief responses. One is, the response already chosen by the leaders, by the managers, by the prelates, by the papacy, at the end of this millennium, and then there is what one sometimes thinks will be God's response. The response of the present moment is this: Beginning with John XXIII, and then with Paul VI, and now with John Paul II, the response is: Let us cooperate. It has joined, as Paul VI said in his famous speech in December 1965: "Let's cooperate with man to build his habitat." And John Paul II is an ardent supporter of, the tendency to one world government for geopolitical reasons. He wants to bring in his brand of Christianity, of course, and Catholicism, but he certainly is in favor of it [one world government]. When he addressed the United Nations, in his last big letter to them, he salute was this: "I, John, bishop of Rome, and a member of humanity." Now this was no longer, let's say, Pius IX or Pius X. Pius X would have said at the beginning of this century: "I am the vicar of Jesus Christ. If you do not listen to my voice, then you are going to be damned forever. We will not participate in any government behavior, in any government plans that do not recognize the kingship of Christ." That is completely absent. There now is the policy of cooperation with the formation of the European Union, cooperation with the United Nations, and the Vatican and the Church has entered the list in the struggle amongst the general assembly of the United Nations, and in the non-governmental organizations...

Art Bell: So it is well under way?

Fr. Martin: Well under way! That is the response, and remember, the Vatican has, on Vatican hill, it has about, what, the figure varies, over one hundred and forty ambassadors from the nations. It is an integral part, and has built itself into it over the centuries of our international life. And it has ambassadors and representatives in over ninety countries, including Russia, including Israel, and it has its representative in Beijing, not quite diplomatic status yet, but they will get to that.

Art Bell: Again, Fr. Martin, referring to what I read, which you said had a partial relevance, would you imagine that the person who wrote this had been privy in some way to the original text?

Fr. Martin: Yes, yes, yes, certainly, at least by word of mouth, not by reading.

Art Bell: I understand.

(Later in the program)

Art Bell: All right, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read, one from a friend in Australia, Father who says, "I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the Third Secret of Fatima years ago, in Perth. He said among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted, thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest." Any comment on that?

Fr. Martin: Yes. It sounds as if they were reading or being told the text of the Third Secret.

Art Bell: Oh my!

Fr. Martin: It sounds like it, but it is sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.

In light of what Malachi Martin revealed, one might say that Pope John XXIII seemed somewhat out-of-touch with the actual condition of the world. His dismissive remarks regarding the "prophets of doom" were simply not shared by the four popes previous to him. Pope John was a puzzle in many ways. It is known that his Vatican file was marked "Suspected of Modernism," a label he discovered upon reaching the papacy. When he was known as Fr. Roncalli, he Bishop Radini as his mentor, a prelate who was marked by Pius X as a "modernist." Because of Roncalli's modernist views, Pope Pius XII transferred him from place to place in an effort to limit his sphere of influence. Other forces at the Vatican, however, were supporting Roncalli and his modernist tendencies.

As we all know, when he was finally elected to the papacy, Roncalli chose the name John XXIII. Curiously, there was one man about five hundred years prior who had taken the title, "John XXIII." He was an anti-pope, formerly known as Baldassare Cossa. All popes since had avoided "John XXIII" precisely because they did not want to be associated with an anti-pope. The previous pope who took the name "John" was John XXII in the year 1316, yet he was one of the more notorious figures in the history of the papacy.

In his understanding of the world, Pope John XXIII did not share the same view as his predecessors. All the pontiffs of the 20th century had seen the condition of the Church and the world as very grave.

For example, Pius X stated: "We felt a sort of terror considering the disastrous conditions of humanity at the present hour. Can we ignore such a profound and grave evil, which at this moment much more than in the past is working away at its very marrow and leading it to its ruin?... Truly whoever ponders these things must necessarily and firmly fear whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign of announcing, and the beginning of the last times" (E Supremi).

Benedict XV, because he suffered greatly from World War I, recognized the sins of mankind and publicly prayed to Mary for peace. Within eight days, on May 13, God sent Our Lady to earth in the vision of Fatima. World War I came to an end shortly thereafter.

Pius XI stated: "With God and Jesus Christ excluded from political life, with authority derived not from god but from man...the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that society is tottering to its ruin because it no longer has a secure and solid foundation" (Quas Primas).

Pius XII, after World War II, stated: "We are overwhelmed with sadness and anguish, seeing that the wickedness of perverse men has reached a degree of impiety that is unbelievable and absolutely unknown in other times (Letter of February 11, 1949).

Pius XII also wrote: "I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Sister Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy...A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God..." (Monsignor Roche's "Pie XII Devant L'Histoire")[3].

What Should We Expect from a Proper Consecration

Along with the above anomalies, there are even more significant reasons to doubt that the Church has obeyed Our Lady's request to consecrate Russia. On May 13, 1931, Our Lady gave evidence of what to expect from a faithfully performed consecration. On that date, in the presence of 300,000 Catholics at Fatima, the bishops of Portugal consecrated their nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Their motive was to protect Portugal from the threat of communism that was sweeping Europe. The Red Army had already enveloped Spain, their closest neighbor. Miraculously, in a few short years after the consecration, the Portugese people experienced an astounding change. In less than ten years, the number of religious vocations quadrupled. Catholic radio, a Catholic press, Catholic pilgrimages and spiritual retreats dotted the landscape as never before. The country was totally transformed, to say the least. Antonia Salazar took the reigns of government in 1933 and inaugurated a Catholic social movement unprecedented in recent history, wherein government and Catholic ideals were integrated at the highest levels.

The nuclear family was restored By 1960, over 90% of all Portugal's marriages were canonical. Salazar's efforts were so extraordinary that he received personal congratulations from Pius XII for producing a model country for the world to follow. And that's not all. While countries around them were being swallowed up by Nazism and Communism, Portugal was miraculously spared the effects both of the Spanish Civil War and any repercussions of World War II. On February 6, 1939, Sister Lucia wrote to her bishop in Portugal, Monsignor da Silva, stating: "...in this horrible war [World War II], Portugal would be spared because of the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made by the bishops" (The Whole Truth About Fatima, p. 428). At about the same time, Sister Lucia wrote to Pius XII and told him that, had the other nations done likewise, they to its inherent value. Divorce was outlawed. would have enjoyed the same blessings as Portugal.

Another example of Our Lady's answer to prayer comes from the events surrounding May 1917. Having suffered greatly from World War I, Pope Benedict XV publicly prayed to Mary for peace. In doing so he acknowledged that mankind was dependent upon God for blessing and protection. Within eight days, on May 13, God sent Our Lady to earth in the vision of Fatima. As most know, she appeared on the thirteenth of each month thereafter. In the final vision of October 13, she provided the Miracle of the Sun to confirm Her message. As a blessing from God, World War I came to an end shortly thereafter.

With such results, anyone with the least bit of curiosity cannot help but wonder about the consecration the Vatican claims it performed already in 1984. Are the fruits in Russia today anywhere near those of Portugal in the 1930's? Except for a change in their economic philosophy, anyone who knows what is actually taking in place in Russia, based on the national statistics, would have to answer with an undeniable NO. They are as godless and as anti-Catholic as they were before. We will touch upon this aspect of the problem in more detail later in this paper.

Could it be possible that Church officials are deceived into thinking that the Fatima consecrations have been accomplished? Is it possible for Church officials to fall into such blindness that they actually ignore a direct command from heaven? The implications of these questions are staggering.

In searching for an answer, another apparition experienced by Sister Lucia - an apparition that was confirmed by many witnesses - helps to see things in perspective. In August 1931, Sister Lucia reports that Jesus himself appeared to her with the words:

Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune.

One cannot miss the import of what is being said here. In this vision, Jesus Himself tells us that it is not only possible for His "ministers" to disobey His direct command, but they have already done so. Who are the "ministers"? They can be none other than popes, bishops and priests. There are no other "ministers" in the Catholic Church, and there was no other group to whom the command to consecrate Russia was given. The Pope at that time was Pius XI. He had ten years to consecrate Russia after the command was first issued by Our Lady in 1929. We learn from what Jesus tells Sister Lucia that Pius' negligence plunged the world into God's promised punishment, which came partly from World War II. Logically, Russia never stopped offending God, because Russia was never consecrated.

Instead of consecrating Russia, records show that Pius XI had been initiating peace gestures with the Bolsheviks in Russia. At that time, the Bolsheviks had just established the Orthodox Church in Russia. Pius XI's plan was to secure a pact with the Bolsheviks which he thought would guarantee the safety of Catholics, since they were a small minority in Russia. As a result, the consecration of Russia was not performed, since, in Pius XI's mind, it would have had negative consequences on his proposed peace plans. Thus, for his entire pontificate, Pius failed to consecrate Russia. Ironically, having been double-crossed by the Bolsheviks, Pius XI issues an encyclical, Divini Redemptoris, against Communism in 1937. It was one of the strongest condemnations produced in his entire pontificate.

The Church could not say she wasn't warned about the ill effects of the communists in Russia. In the series of visions Sister Lucia received from May to October 1917, she was told by Our Lady: "If My requests are not granted...the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer and various nations will be annihilated." This is precisely what happened. The deaths of Christian martyrs in the twentieth century is more than all other centuries combined. Pope Pius XII suffered greatly under the Nazi regime and was, more or less, imprisoned in the Vatican. Many nations were obliterated, beginning from the 1940's to the present. Today's topographers can hardly keep up with the changes in world demography[4].

Compared to what happened in the failures of Pius XI and Pius XII to consecrate Russia, there is little assurance, based on what the Vatican has stated, that the consecration of the world in 1984 suffices for the consecration of Russia. These suspicions are being echoed by a large number of dedicated Catholics. One of the more prominent is Mother Angelica of EWTN. Mother Angelica has been a stalwart for orthodox Catholicism. Her whole apostolate has been blessed by God because she has not been afraid to tell the truth and admonish the wayward. In commenting on whether the Vatican has given us the truth about Fatima, Mother Angelica, speaking to a priest on her program, said:

As for the Secret [the Third Secret of Fatima], well I happen to be one of those individuals who thinks we didn't get the whole thing. I told you! I mean, you have the right to your own opinion, don't you, Father? There, you know, that's my opinion. Because I think its scary.

For her to reveal such ominous reservations about what the Vatican is claiming means that she is troubled by what she has heard, or, shall we say, what she has not heard. Her emotion is expressed best by the word "scary." Yes, when one thinks about the staggering implications of "not getting the whole thing," it is very "scary," in fact, it is horrifying. Unfortunately, if it is true, the most horrifying thing is contemplating what kind of ecclesiastical-political machinery it would take to orchestrate a cover-up the size of Fatima.

If we are not getting the whole story about Fatima, then we must be willing to admit that the Vatican has not been telling us the whole truth about Fatima. It also means that, if true, whoever is behind the disinformation campaign has a devious agenda. And what does that mean? It means that popes, cardinals and bishops in high places have sinned grievously against God and the church. If true, it puts a black mark on the Church that would surpass any scandal in its past history. Our Lady specifically told the Fatima children that if her words were not obeyed many souls would go to hell. Hence, if the Vatican has not been telling the whole truth about Fatima, they have caused thousands, perhaps millions, of souls to perish, all because they refused to obey the simple words of Our Lady.

To see the significance of this issue, let's say, for the sake of argument, that the consecration of Russia was performed in 1984. Unfortunately, this does not get the Church "off the hook," as it were. Logically, if 1984 is the first time the Church is said to have obeyed the 1929 command to consecrate Russia, this means that the Vatican has admitted that they have not performed the consecration for the 55 years from 1929 to 1984. That is 55 years of papal disobedience. How much suffering and damnation was cast upon the human race because of that 55 years of neglect? The answer to that is almost incalculable. We know, from Our Lady's own words, that World War II and the spreading of communism throughout the world was a direct result of failing to consecrate Russia as early as Pius XI's reign. We can imagine that many other global misfortunes after the reign of Pius XI have resulted by the failure to consecrate Russia.

The Infamous Pact of Metz and the Role of Pope John XXIII

As it turns out, there is a sordid history of Vatican intrigue behind Fatima that would even make Hollywood blush. There is everything from obstinate disobedience, to blatant cover-ups concerning the actual contents of the Third Secret, to the quarantine and possible murder of those few who are privy to the contents of the Third Secret, to a deliberate policy not to consecrate Russia due to a long-standing Vatican/Russian political pact which agreed not to condemn Russia or communism. All of this was done right under the noses of the Catholic populous, yet shrouded by the authority of clerical robes and hats. The Vatican/Russian political pact was made in the early sixties and is known as the "Pact of Metz," after the place it was signed in France. Under Pope John XXIII, the Vatican agreed not to condemn either Russia or communism in all sixteen documents of Vatican Council II (Iota Unum, p. 76, n. 6). The agreement is signed by Cardinal Tisserant (and attested to by his personal secretary, Monsignor Roche) and Metropolitan Nikodim, head of the KGB-controlled Russian Orthodox Church. In return, Russia agreed to send two Orthodox prelates to the Council, a gesture most welcomed by the Vatican.

The roots of this pact with the communists go even deeper, and these roots may explain why Pope Pius XII failed to consecrate Russia as he was supposed to do. Franklin Roosevelt and Cardinal Spellman of New York put great pressure on Pope Pius XII to give an official re-interpretation of the encyclical Divini Redemptoris, written by the previous pope, Pius XI, in 1937. Even though Pius XI, as noted in his dealings with the Bolsheviks, was already beginning to move the papacy into more worldly affairs during his pontificate, in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris he stated in no uncertain terms that communism is "intrinsically perverse, and no one who would save Christian civilization and the social order may collaborate with it in any undertaking whatsoever." The word "whatsoever" caused problems for those who were looking to align with Russia against Germany in World War II. Bending to their requests, on September 1942, Pius XII stated: "At the request of President Roosevelt, the Vatican has refrained from all polemics against the Communist regime." Even though Pius XII would later speak out against communism, he sensed that he may have unleashed a horrible monster as he added to the above speech: "May God grant that the free world may not have to regret my silence one day!" (For further development of this issue see, The Whole Truth About Fatima by Frère Michel, pp. 149, 212-219, 450-454). It is precisely this ambivalence toward Fatima that was the most likely cause for Pius XII failing, twice, to consecrate communist Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Obviously, the seeds of the 1962 Pact of Metz between the Vatican and Russia were already laid down in the pontificate of Pius XII.

Before Pius XII became pope, he was the Vatican Secretary of State. At that time, he voiced an astonishing prediction concerning the future of the Catholic Church. He writes:

I am worried by the Blessed Virgin's messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that would be represented by the alteration of the faith, in her liturgy, her theology and her soul...I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past. (Msgr. Roche, biographer of Pius XII, in Pie XII Devant L'Histoire, p. 52).

During the radio interview of Fr. Malachi Martin previously cited, Fr. Martin stated these words concerning John XXIII's failure to reveal the Third Secret:

The secret was meant for the people, not for the popes, not for the bishops, not for the holy office. It was meant to be published in 1960, by explicit order, by the mandate of heaven. John XXIII, God bless him and rest him, but he's with God now in whatever form that is, he decided not to. He had his own reasons. We think, with all due respect and veneration, etc, etc...that he made a very bad mistake. And indeed...in 1963 there was a second appearance, this time in Spain, in Garabandal. And the opening words of that revelation were: 'Because my sons have not listened to my orders, my mandate, here is what is going to happen...' and the message was very dire, a repetition of the Third Secret in brief form."

Our Lady's two messages at Garabandal said the following:

October 18, 1961: We must make many sacrifices, perform much penance, and visit the Blessed Sacrament frequently. But first, we must lead good lives, If we do not, a chastisement will befall us. The cup is already filling up, and if we do not change, a very great chastisement will come upon us.

June 18, 1965: As my message of October 18 has not been complied with and has not been made known to the world, I am advising you that this is the last one. Before, the cup was filling up. Now it is flowing over. Many cardinals, many bishops and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them. Less and less importance is being given to the Eucharist. You should tun the wrath of God away from yourselves by your efforts. If you ask His forgiveness with sincere hearts, He will pardon you. I, your mother, through the intercession of Saint Michael the Archangel, ask you to amend your lives. You are now receiving the last warnings. I love you very much and do not want your condemnation. Pray to us with sincerity and we will grant your requests. You should make more sacrifices. Think about the passion of Jesus.

During the reign of Pope John XXIII, in addition to the Pact of Metz, there was another anti-Fatima track, or we might say, anti-Mary track, that was implanting itself. Catholic liberal theologians, such as Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, Henri de Lubac, Eduard Schillebeeckx, Hans Kung, Yves Congar, Raymond Brown, and many others, had been throwing their theological weight around for quite some time. Many of de Chardin's books were banned as heretical, yet for some reason, Pius XII had lifted the ban on the writings of Teilhard de Chardin in the mid 1940s. De Chardin's works were so bad that the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office issued a monitum in 1962 condemning his writings as, "abounding in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine." The Holy Office urged all bishops, superiors, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities to "protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented in the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers." Yet de Chardin is said to have had a great influence on Vatican II, and Pope Paul VI considered him "a great theologian." Ironically, the monitum against de Chardin was reiterated in 1981.

One of the main objectives of the modernist theologians in line with de Chardin was to lessen the significance of Mary and Marian dogma in the Catholic Church. This would allow them to make inroads with Protestants so as to satisfy the goals of ecumenism. Protestants had an extreme aversion to Mary, which was heightened even more by two things: (a) Pius XII's 1950 ex cathedra dogma confirming her Assumption into heaven, and (b) the talk at Vatican II of dogmatizing her as the Mediatrix of all graces. The quest for the ecumenists, which came almost entirely from the liberal ranks of both Catholics and Protestants, was to minimize her role in Catholic soteriology so that ecumenism could proceed with the least amount of obstacles. To whatever degree they succeeded at Vatican II is debatable, nevertheless, the climate they created, which persists even until today, was that Mary, or at least the traditional views of her, had to be given a back seat to ecumenism.

Conversely, the visions of Fatima and the subsequent appearances of Our Lady to Sister Lucia through the 1950s sought to make Mary an even more prominent part of Catholic teaching and practice. One could say that a covenant with Mary was being established at Fatima, which is why devotion to her Immaculate Heart played such a prominent role in Her communications with earth. The acceptance of this covenant would, more or less, be inaugurated by the consecration of Russia. But how could Mary's role, in both her dogmas and her request to consecrate Russia compete against a Russia that was being dignified by the Vatican in the Pact of Metz? Obviously, these two trains were on a collision course, and only one was going to win the battle. Thus, Pius XII, who many say was heavily influenced by Catholic liberal theologians, made half-hearted attempts at consecrating Russia, and his successors, John XXIII and Paul VI, who were already in the throes of ecumenism, felt no compulsion to make up for his mistakes.

Regardless of what started it, however, the Church ignored the command to consecrate Russia. Rather than trusting in God, she feared the Great Bear of Russia and succumbed to making a secret political pact to stave off her threats. And what, may we ask, happened to the Third secret of Fatima (i.e., the secret that said Russia was an evil nation that was causing havoc throughout the world), which, according to Sr. Lucia's words from Mary, was supposed to be read to the world in 1960, just two years prior to the Pact of Metz? The Vatican put it under lock and key. Obviously, becoming friends with Russia and elevating them as a spiritual force in the world would leave no room for telling Russia that it was singled out by heaven as being the most evil nation on the face of the earth.

As noted earlier, Malachi Martin has written extensively on the corruption in the Catholic Church. He voices the same opinion on the motives and actions of Pope John XXIII, as I have described above. Here is an excerpt from his 646 page book, Windswept House. Although it is a novel, Fr. Martin revealed quite candidly that the contents of the book are taken from actual events, and he confided to many that over 90% of the book is factual.

1960: No more promising enterprise had ever hung in the balance, and no more important piece of Vatican business had ever been transacted between a Pope and his councillors, than the issue on the papal docket this February morning of 1960. Since the day of his election to the papacy just over a year before, His Holiness John XXIII - "good Pope John," as he was quickly called - had moved the Holy See, the papal government and most of the outside diplomatic and religious world into a new orbit. Now it seemed he wanted to raise the world as well.

Already seventy-seven years old at his election, this roly-poly peasant of a man had been chosen as an interim Pope; as an inoffensive compromise whose brief reign would but a little time - four or five years had been the reckoning - to find a proper successor to guide the Church through the Cold War. But, within months of his enthronement and to everyone's astonishment, he had opened up his Vatican in a surprise call for an Ecumenical Council. In fact, nearly every Vatican official - including every advisor who had been summoned to this confidential meeting in the papal apartments on the fourth floor of the Apostolic Palace - was already hip deep in preparations for that Council.

With a directness natural to him, the Pope shared his mind with the handful of men he had gathered for that purpose - a dozen or so of his key Cardinals, plus a number of bishops and monsignor from the Secretariat of State. Two expert Portuguese translators were present.

"We have a choice to make," His Holiness confided to his advisors. "We prefer not to make it alone." The issue, he said, revolved around a now world-famous letter received by his predecessor on the Throne of Peter. The story surrounding that letter was so well known, he said further, that it needed only the barest outline this morning.

Fatima, once among the most obscure towns in Portugal, had become suddenly famous in 1917 as the site where three little peasant children - to girls and a boy - had been the recipients of six visits, or visions, of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Along with many millions of Catholics, everyone in this room today knew that the Fatima children had been given three secrets by the Virgin. Everyone knew that, as their visitor from Heaven had foretold, two of the children had died in childhood; only the oldest, Lucia, had survived. Everyone know that Lucia, now a cloistered nun, had long since revealed the first two of the Fatima secrets. But it was the Virgin's wish, Lucia had said, that the third secret by published by "the Pope of 1960"; and that simultaneously the same Pope was to organize a worldwide consecration of "Russia" to the Virgin Mary. That consecration was to be performed by all the bishops of the world on the same day, each in his own diocese, each using the same words. That consecration would be tantamount to a public worldwide condemnation of the Soviet Union.

The Virgin had promised that if the consecration was done, Lucia had said, "Russia" would be converted and would cease to be a threat. However, if her wish was not fulfilled "by the Pope of 1960," then "Russia would spread its errors throughout all nations," there would be much suffering and destruction and the faith of the Church would be so corrupted that only in Portugal would "the dogma of the faith" be preserved intact.

In the course of her third Fatima visit in July of 1917, the Virgin had promised to seal her mandate with tangible proof of its authenticity as a message from God. She would perform a miracle at noontime on the following October 13. And in that very hour on the very day, along with some 75,000 people who had come, some of them from great distances - along with newsmen and photographers, along with scientists and skeptics, along with many reliable clerics - the children had witnessed an astonishing miracle.

The sun had violated every possible natural law. Breaking from a heavy and unrelenting rain that had drenched everyone and turned the terrain of that remote place into a mud bog, it literally danced in the skies. It had showered a rainbow flood of brilliant colors. It had plummeted downward until it seemed certain to plunge into the crowd. Then, just as suddenly, it had retreated to its normal position and shoe as benignly as ever. Everyone was stunned. Their clothes were as immaculate as if just laundered and pressed. All were entirely unharmed. All had seen the dancing sun; but only the children had seen the Virgin.

"Surely" - good Pope John retrieved an envelope from a humidor-sized box resting on the table beside him - "the first thing to be done this morning must be obvious." Excitement ran among his advisors. They were here, then, for a private reading of Lucia's secret letter. It was no exaggeration to say that tens of millions of people everywhere awaited word that "the Pope of 1960" would reveal the portions of the third secret that had been so closely guarded until now, and would obey the Virgin's mandate. With that thought in mind, His Holiness underscored his exact and literal meaning of the word "private." Certain that his admonition of secrecy was clear, the Holy Father handed the Fatima letter to the two Portuguese translators; and they in turn rendered the secret text, viva voce, into Italian.

"Now." The reading completed, the Pope quickly pinpointed the choice he preferred not to make alone. "We must confide that since August of 1959, we have been in delicate negotiations with the Soviet Union. Our aim is to have at least two prelates form the USSR's Orthodox Church attend Our Council." Pope John frequently referred to the coming Second Vatican Council as "Our Council."

What was he to do, then? His Holiness asked this morning. Providence had willed that he be "the Pope of 1960." And yet, if he obeyed what Sister Lucia clearly described as the mandate of the Queen of Heaven - if he and his bishops declared publicly, officially and universally that "Russia" was full of baneful errors - it would spell ruin for his Soviet initiative. But even aside from that - aside from his fervent wish to have the Orthodox Church represented at the Council - if the Pontiff were to use the full authority of his papacy and his hierarchy to carry out the Virgin's mandate, it would be tantamount to branding the Soviet Union and its current Marxist dictator, Nikita Khrushchev, as criminal. In their rage, wouldn't the Soviets retaliate? Would the Pope not be responsible for a fresh wave of persecutions - for the ugly death of millions - throughout the Soviet Union, its satellites and surrogates?

To underscore his concern, His Holiness had one portion of the Fatima letter read out again. He saw understanding - shock in some cases - on all the faces around him. If everyone in this room had understood that key passage of the third secret so easily, he asked, would not the Soviets be just as quick? Would they not take from it the strategic information that would give them an undoubted advantage over the free world?

"We might still hold Our Council, but..." There was no need for His Holiness to finish the thought. Everything was clear now. Publication of the secret would set off repercussions everywhere. Friendly governments would be gravely disturbed. The Soviets would be alienated on the one hand and strategically aided on the other. The choice the good Pope had to make came down to bedrock geopolitics.

No one doubted the good faith of Sister Lucia. But several advisors pointed out that nearly twenty years had elapsed between the time in 1917 when she had heard the words of the Virgin and the time in the mid-1930s when she had actually written this letter. What guarantee had the Holy Father that time had not clouded her memory? And what guarantee was there that three illiterate peasant children - not one of them twelve years old at the time - had accurately transmitted such a complex message? Might there not be some preliterate and childish fancy at work here? Indeed, might there not be something even more debilitating for the truth? Troops from the Soviet Union had entered the Spanish Civil War raging only miles away at the time Lucia had written her letter. Had Lucia's words been colored by her own fear of the Soviets?[8]

There was one dissenting voice from the consensus that was forming. One Cardinal - a German Jesuit, a friend and favorite confessor to this Pope, as he had been to the last - could not remain silent in the face of such degradation of the role of divine intervention. It was one thing for ministers of secular governments to abandon the practicalities of faith. But surely such banality should be unacceptable for churchmen advising the Holy Father.

"The choice to be made here," the Jesuit argued, "is simple and prima facie. Either we accept this letter, do what it says, and then await the consequences. Or we honestly disbelieve it. We forget it all. We suppress the letter as a historical relic; we carry on as we are going and, by our deliberate decision, we strip ourselves of a special protection. But either way, let not one of us here doubt that we are talking about the fate of all mankind."

For all the trust His Holiness placed in the Jesuit Cardinal's expertise and loyalty, the decision went against Fatima. "Questo non è per i nostri tempi," the Holy Father said. "This is not for our times." Shortly after that day, the Cardinal scanned the brief release distributed to the media by the official Vatican press office. Its words would stand forever in his mind as a curt refusal to obey the will of Heaven.

For the good of the Church and the welfare of mankind, the statement declared, the Holy See had decided not to publish the text of the third secret at this time. "...The decision of the Vatican is based on various reasons: (1) Sister Lucia is still living. (2) The Vatican already knows the contents of the letter. (3) Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, she does not pledge herself to guarantee the veracity of the words which the three little shepherds claim to have heard from Our Lady. In these circumstances, it is most probable that the secret of Fatima will remain forever under absolute seal."

"Ci vedremo." The Cardinal set the release aside. "We shall see." He knew the drill. The Holy See would have amicable words with Nikita Khrushchev. The Pontiff would have his Council. The Council would have its Orthodox prelates from the Soviet Union. But the question still to be answered was whether His Holiness, his Vatican and his Church would now undergo the consequences promised at Fatima.

Or, to frame the issue in geopolitical terms, the question was whether the Holy See had harnessed itself to "the new Europe of the diplomats and politicians," as the good Pope's predecessor had foretold. "On that day," that frail old man had said, "the Church's misfortunes will start in earnest."

"We shall see." For now, the Cardinal would have to settle for that. One way or the other, it would only be a matter of time.[9]

As if Our Lady were already anticipating John XXIII's rejection of the Fatima secret, on October 13, 1962, the forty-fifth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima in 1917, something very significant happened at the Vatican. On that day, Vatican II's bishops met to vote on the schemas for the council. The schemas are the directives on issues which the council seeks to discuss. Three years had been devoted to preparing these schemas. The schemas, a half-dozen in all, were approved by John XXIII and were written in the traditionally accepted manner, with straight-forward declarations in anticipation of canons. As noted above, one of the schemas sought to establish Mary as Co-Redemptrix and Co-Mediatrix of all graces. Coincidentally, on that October 13 anniversary of Fatima, a vote occurred for the candidates who would head up the conciliar commissions concerning the handling of the schemas. In violation of the procedural rules, Cardinal Achille Lienart, one of the German liberal theologians, seized the microphone and began reading a statement demanding consultations before any vote.

Under his pressure, John XXIII was persuaded into allowing a completely new slate of candidates, and the vote was postponed. Hence, the German members succeeded in packing the commission with liberal candidates, achieving majorities on all the key commissions. Soon after, the Vatican Council II's original schemas were discarded. Thus, Lienart's calculating disruption left the Council without written preparation. The schemas were then replaced with "pastoral" formulations, drafted by the very liberals who were put on Pius XII's list of heterodox theologians, e.g., Hans Küng, Edouard Schillebeeckx, Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, et al. In place of the original half-dozen schemas which were to be discussed over two or three sessions, the liberals produced documents at Vatican II that exceeded the length of other councils by at least ten times. The rest is history.

The events leading up to the rejection of the original schemas can be found in the book "The Plot Against the Church" by Maurice Tené, a pen-name adopted by a dozen priests who were living in Rome prior to Vatican II. They knew beforehand of the modernist's plot to get control of Vatican II. To stop the plot, they distributed copies of their book to all the bishops who attended the Council. Once John XXIII got wind of the plot, he wanted to shut down the Council, but he soon died of stomach cancer in 1963 before anything could be done. Cardinal Montini, who had promised the bishops he would allow the Council to move forward, was soon elected as the next pope, Paul VI.

Old Testament Warnings

As the old saying goes, "What is past is prologue." In the Old Testament, as the Israelites mounted the borders of Canaan, poised to take the land that God had promised to Abraham, God commanded them not to fear the Canaanites but to go in and take their land, for their iniquity had come to the full (cf., Gen 15:16-21; Num 13:1-24). But Israel did not listen to God's words. Instead, after forty days of searching the land of Canaan, the spies came back with a bad report, complaining that the people who lived their were too strong to be conquered (Num 13:25-33). God became very angry with them for disobeying His word. For a punishment He told them that for each day that they had spied out the land of Canaan, they would spend a year in the desert. Consequently, they wandered in circles for forty years. That generation of people died in their unbelief and only their children inherited the land of Canaan (1Cor 10:1-5).

Perhaps what happened to Israel for their cowardice and disobedience is the same that has happened to the Catholic Church in the last forty years. God gave the Church a direct command, through Mary, to face down the Russian foe with the message of sin, repentance and judgment (John 16:8). But the Church became frightened of Russia. Instead of preaching the gospel of sin and judgment to her, the Church made a secret pact with Russia not to condemn it at all! And what has been the result? A virtual spiritual desert has come upon the Church for the last forty years, ever since the Pact of Metz was signed in 1962. There has been more dissension and faithlessness in the last few decades than ever before in the history of the Catholic Church. As was the case with Israel in the desert, our spiritual desert will most likely continue until the present generation that caused the problem dies in their unbelief. How can we know this? Because the judgments against Israel apply to the Church today. St. Paul assures us that those incidents "were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come" (1 Cor 10:11).

If the consecration of Russia has not been performed, it is quite significant that the recent sex scandal rocking the Church comes right on the heels of the Vatican's claim to the contrary. Because she is in her forty-year spiritual desert, the Church commits her sexual sins and tries to cover them up. But God is not going to allow the Church to cover it up. As He did with the sin of murder and adultery that David tried to cover up, so God is going to expose the Church's sin to the whole world, so they can look upon her with disgust and hatred (2 Samuel 12:8-12; Ezekiel 23:24-30). And as David suffered the temporal punishment for those heinous sins, so the Church will suffer for its sins. The Church has sown the wind, and now she is going to reap the whirlwind" (Hosea 8:7). "...the priest and the prophet reel with strong drink, they are confused with wine, they stagger with strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in giving judgment. For all tables are full of vomit, no place is without filthiness" (Isaiah 28:7-8).

The Details Behind the Fatima Controversy

On July 13, 1917, three peasant children of Fatima, Portugal received a miraculous vision from Our Lady concerning future events in the church and in the world. On June 26, 2000, the Vatican finally released the vision of the Third Secret along with an interpretation of its contents. The other two secrets had been released many years prior. Many claim, however, that Vatican officials have not released the entire Third Secret; and that the portion they have released suffers from an incorrect interpretation. Specifically, it is held that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady has never been performed, at least not correctly, and thus her warning of that country's proliferation of evil and error into the world is not over. Consequently, it is also charged that the Vatican is involved in a conspiracy to suppress the Fatima revelation for fear of being incriminated by its contents.

Those on the other side of the fence have decried the relevance of Fatima since its inception, some going so far as to claim that Sister Lucia, the only surviving member of the three children, may have suffered from delusions. They have also denied suggestions that Fatima predicted an apostasy within the Church beginning in the 20th century; and have insisted that the Vatican's attempt at cordial relations with Russia since the pontificate of John XXIII is proper for ecumenism and geo-political purposes.

Before examining these issues, let's look at the translation of the text of the vision released by the Vatican. First the introduction:

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

The text:

After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendor that Our Lady radiated towards him from Her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: "Penance, Penance, Penance!" And we saw in an immense light that is God; (something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it) a Bishop dressed in White (we have the impression that it was the Holy Father). Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins, half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in their hands, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God. Tuy, 3-1-1944.

As noted earlier, to stem the tide of speculation, on June 26, 2000, Vatican officials issued an interpretation of the vision. In short, the interpretation, presented by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, applies all of the Fatima vision to "the popes of the 20th century" and "the symbolic visions contain nothing that is now mysterious" ("A Secret Unveiled" in Catholic World Report, June 2000). This denotes that there is no future fulfillment of Fatima to be expected. As reported by the Washington Post, however, Cardinal Ratzinger was careful to add that the Vatican's interpretation is not an "official interpretation," and that the Church is not imposing it as the only possibility.

In brief, the salient feature of the Vatican's interpretation holds that the depiction of the killing of the Bishop dressed in white refers to the assassination attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in 1981 by gunman Mehmet Ali Agca in St. Peter's Square. Suspicion against the Vatican's interpretation was immediately registered by the Washington Post on July 1, 2000. Their suspicion was prompted by the discrepancy between what Cardinal Sodano released and what the vision of the Third Secret actually says. In the press release of May 13, 2000, (which is before the actual release of the Third Secret on June 26, 2000), Cardinal Sodano stated that the Third Secret contained a vision where the pope falls "apparently dead" under a burst of gunfire, which fulfilled the Third Secret's details. This report was spread throughout the major press agencies of the world. But on July 1, the Washington Post reported the following:

On May 13, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, a top Vatican official, announced the imminent release of the carefully guarded text. He said the Third Secret foretold not the end of the world, as some had speculated, but the May 13, 1981 shooting of John Paul II at St. Peter's Square. Sodano said the manuscript tells of a bishop clothed in white, who while making his way over corpses of martyrs, falls to the ground apparently dead under a burst of gunfire. But the text released on Monday June 26 leaves no doubt about the bishop's fate, saying that he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him. Everyone with the pontiff also dies: bishops, priests, monks, nuns and lay people. John Paul, however, survived this shooting at the hands of a single gunman, Mahmet Ali Agca, and no one in the crowd was harmed in the attack.

Does the Third Secret have two parts --

One released, and one not released?

Many claim that not only is the Vatican's interpretation of the Fatima vision filled with contradictions and inconsistencies, but the most important piece of evidence is missing. Those close to Sister Lucia claim to have possession of personal interviews with her showing that she wrote down two separate accounts of the Fatima experience. One account was recorded in a notebook which filled four pages, the other on a single sheet of paper, both in her own handwriting. According to the reports, the notebook, comprising 62 lines, contained a description of the vision the Fatima children saw, while the single sheet, comprised of about 25 lines, contained the actual words that Our Lady said to the children. Fr. Malachi Martin, who read the Third Secret in February 1960, stated on the Art Bell radio program previously cited that the words he read were on a "single sheet of paper." What the Vatican is said to have released on June 26, however, is only the vision contained in the notebook, not the words from the single sheet of paper.

The importance of the single sheet is that it not only contains Our Lady's words (which in her past apparitions have helped interpret the visions she presents), but the addition of a curious and interrupted sentence in the Fourth Memoir of Sister Lucia. The sentence fragment reads, "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc..." In Portuguese, the sentence reads, "Em Portugal se conservara sempre o dogma da fe, etc." In her Third Memoir, written in the Summer of 1941, Sr. Lucia mentioned the existence of the Third Secret about Portugal, but she had said nothing specific about it. But in the Fall of 1941, where the Third Memoir left off with the words "...and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world...," Sr. Lucia added the words noted above concerning Portugal. Why Sr. Lucia chose not to fill in the "etc" at that time is not known, but obviously it indicates that more text is to follow. This sentence fragment has great import, since its implied distinction between Portugal and other the countries of the world in regards to whether they will maintain the Catholic faith suggests that the other nations, whoever they are, will not maintain the faith. Accordingly, the insertion of the abbreviation "etc" implies that there were originally more lines to the text, but these lines were subsequently removed or suppressed due to their specificity about the identity of the other countries and/or the degree and extent of the apostasy within the Church itself. Our suspicions are heightened since, in the Vatican's June 2000 explanation, The Message of Fatima, Cardinal Ratzinger claimed that the "text of the so-called third 'secret' of Fatima" is "published here in its entirety" (p. 25), yet the "ect" sentence is never revealed or explained, but is treated as a mere incidental footnote to the whole affair.

These anomalies are heightened by an analysis of the events leading up to the Vatican's release and interpretation of the vision. First, twelve years after the Fatima visions of 1917, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucia on June 13, 1929, in fulfillment of her promise. The words are clear and the command direct. Russia, only Russia, is to be consecrated, by the Pope and all the bishops of the world. Sister Lucia reports the words of Mary as follows:

The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to make, and to order that in union with him and at the same time, all the bishops of the world make the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to convert it because of this day of prayer and worldwide reparation.

Next, in August 1931, Sister Lucia reported that Jesus appeared to her with the words:

Make it known to My ministers given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune.

Here we have a clear warning of terrible things that will happen if the consecration of Russia is not performed. If, as the Vatican now claims, that the consecration of Russia was performed in 1984 (which we will analyze later in this essay), then this means the Vatican did not believe the consecration of Russia was performed at any time beginning from when the consecration was first requested (1929) to 1984. Fifty-five years, by any reasonable standard, can certainly be considered a "delaying the execution of My command" specified in the 1931 vision.

As noted earlier, the 1931 vision is then followed by another vision of Jesus to Sister Lucia in May 1936. As reported, He reiterates to her that the conversion of Russia will be accepted in heaven only when it is publicly consecrated by the Pope and all the bishops participate in unison. As in the 1931 vision, Jesus states again that if His words are not heeded, then He will use Russia to chastize the world.

Six years later, while World War II was in full swing, Pope Pius XII chose to consecrate the world (not Russia singly and by name, as specified in the 1929 vision) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, both in October and December of 1942. In addition, he performed the consecration without including the bishops of the world. These events tell us several important things:

(1) Pius XII regarded the 1929, 1931 and 1936 visions to Sister Lucia seriously enough for him to perform a consecration. He did not, it should be noted, brush off Sister Lucia's visions as mere devotional fantasies or mental hallucinations (a ploy used recently by certain Vatican officials);

(2) Pius XII, either inadvertently or deliberately, did not feel it necessary to single out Russia by name or call for the bishops of the world during the consecration. As such, current Vatican officials do not consider Pius' attempt to consecrate valid, since, if they did, they would not have devised their own consecration in 1984 under John Paul II;

(3) It proves current Vatican officials realize that a papal consecration must: (a) name Russia specifically, and that a generic consecration of 'the world' is insufficient, and (b) enact the consecration in concert with the bishops of the world who perform the same consecration, whether at the Vatican or in their own dioceses.

(4) The consecration by Pius XII in 1942 and the consecration by John Paul II in 1984 tell us that both pontificates realized that the command to consecrate Russia must be fulfilled. One cannot claim that Sister Lucia's visions were a fantasy and yet act upon them by attempting to fulfill the required consecration. Any attempt today by the Vatican to claim that Sister Lucia's visions were not real, can only end up making the attempted consecration in 1984 appear as an irrational exercise in futility.

Confirmation of Pius XII's failure to properly administer the consecration is confirmed in a July 1946 reply by Sister Lucia to an inquiry by a Professor William Walsh. She specifies that Our Lady did not ask for the consecration of the world, but only of Russia. In her reply to Walsh, Sister Lucia states: "If this is done, Our Lady promises to convert Russia and there will be peace."

NB: According to various reports, there may be extenuating circumstances that mistakenly led Pius XII to consecrate the world rather than Russia in 1942. In June 1938, the Portuguese bishops wrote a collective letter to Pope Pius XI asking for the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (The Whole Truth About Fatima, p. 683). In this they appear to have been chiefly influenced by the revelations to Blessed Alexandrina Costa. (That Pope, as we know, did not respond to their request.)

On 1 September 1940, Sr Lucia wrote a letter to Fr Aparicio in which, for the first time, she mentions a consecration of the world alongside that of Russia (Fatima, Joie Intime, Événement Mondial by Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels - Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity's successor, p. 232). She writes (and I translate from the French): "Latterly, several important persons have spoken to the Holy Father of a consecration of the world and Russia to the Immaculate Heart. His Holiness has shown himself well-disposed to this.".

Shortly afterwards, Sr Lucia was ordered herself to write to the Pope by the Bishop of Gurza, D. Manuel Ferreira, mentioning especially this (conflated) request for a consecration of the world along with a mention of Russia. Naturally she was very perplexed by this novel demand and sought Heaven's help to resolve the dilemma.

Heaven resolved her difficulty in a private revelation of 22 October 1940. Brother Francis writes: "The revelation of 22 October 1940 reveals therefore a new request, quite secondary in the context of the message of Fatima which remains definitively centered on the consecration and conversion of Russia. 'In October 1940,' comments Fr Alonso, 'Heaven acceded to the desires of Sr Lucia's superiors to see the consecration of the world realized with a special mention of Russia. It is the Lord Himself who suggests such an act.'"

Unfortunately, her bishop, Monsignor da Silva, added even further to the confusion by having her alter her original letter to Rome. Brother Francis writes: "Not only did he substitute an indirect style for the Virgin Mary's very own words, but he also arranged them in a way that causes the most unfortunate confusion in the conditions proper to each of Heaven's requests. Regarding the consecration of Russia, Our Lady wanted the Holy Father to order all the bishops to perform this in union with him. On the other hand, Our Lord's desire regarding the consecration of the world was addressed to the Pope and to him alone. Well! Mgr da Silva reversed the conditions. He omitted the necessary union of the bishops with Rome in the request for the consecration of Russia, and he added it to the request for the consecration of the world! The modifications he imposed on the final version of this letter addressed to Pius XII had the most deplorable consequences. For the Fatima experts and the hierarchical authorities have sometimes used this document to obscure Our Lady's exact demands, to disfigure and travesty Heaven's wishes."

Writing with regard to a further revelation on 28 February 1943, Sr Lucia says: "The Good Lord has shown me his pleasure at the act (of Pius XII's consecration of the world), albeit incomplete according to His desire. He promises, in return, to end the war shortly." It seems that the Good Lord, knowing full well that His request for Russia's consecration would go on being ignored, used the services of Alexandrina Costa to at least bring the war to an early close - a war that Pius XI could have prevented altogether if he had effected the original consecration asked of him in 1929 and received in Rome in 1930.

In May 1952, Sister Lucia reports that Our Lady appeared to her again seeking for the consecration of Russia (which, incidentally, confirms that Pius' 1942 consecration was not accepted by heaven). Sister Lucia reports Our Lady as saying: "Make it known to the Holy Father that I am always awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace." ( Il Pellegrinaggio Della Meravigle, p. 440 [Rome, 1960]). Sister Lucia's 1952 apparition was confirmed by Canon Barthas in the Mariological Congress of Lisbon-Fatima in 1967. ("De Primoridiis cultus mariania, Acta congressus mariologici-mariana" appearing in Lusitania anno 1967 celebrati, p. 517 [Rome, 1970]).

At this point, Pius XII made another mistake. On July 7, 1952, he decided to consecrate Russia by name, but for some reason, he did not call all the bishops of the world to join him, a requirement specifically addressed in the 1929 apparition. On the world scene, World War II had ended (the war predicted by Our Lady since Russia was not consecrated as specified) and the Korean War was in full swing. Again, this tells us that Pius XII regarded the visions of Sister Lucia as authentic, yet took it upon himself to obey only what he felt was necessary. Some historians, for example, Jesuit Robert Graham, believe that Pius XII did not consecrate Russia because he was a victim of deliberate misinformation. (30 Days, March 1990).

Nevertheless, since today's Vatican is aware of the reason that Pius XII did not carry out the consecrations in conformity with our Lady's explicit requests, then this means they know precisely what is required in order to have a valid and accepted consecration. In other words, from Pius XII's failure, the Vatican must know that: (a) a consecration of the world cannot suffice for the consecration of Russia; and (b) that a consecration of Russia without the bishops performing a simultaneous consecration cannot suffice.

Now back to the unfolding of the Fatima story.

In October 1943, Bishop Jose Correia da Silva of the diocese of Leiria-Fatima, fearing that Sister Lucia might die of an illness, commanded her to write down both the vision and the words of Our Lady. After experiencing two or three months of intense inner turmoil due to the ominous content of the Third Secret, Sister Lucia was unable to write down the secret. Subsequently, she was visited again by Our Lady on January 2, 1944, who encouraged her to write down the Third Secret. Sr. Lucia finally did so, stating in her letter of January 9, 1944, "...it is sealed in an envelope and it is in the notebook..." This specific instance became known as the "Third Secret of Fatima."

Many believe these specific words ("...it is sealed in an envelope and it is in the notebook...") indicate there were two separate sources of the Fatima revelation. The "envelope" refers to that which held the single sheet of paper containing 25 lines, upon which Sister Lucia had recorded Our Lady's actual words, while the notebook refers to the vision containing the 62 lines. The paper containing the 25 lines was confirmed to exist by Bishop John Venancio who, holding the envelope under a light, counted 25 lines of text, and also observed that the writing was contained between less than one centimeter margins. If so, here is the upshot: The single line, "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved..." is one of 25 lines of text, the rest of which has never been made public.

Bishop da Silva kept the Third Secret from January 1944 until 1957, at which time it was transferred to the Vatican on April 16, 1957 and was personally delivered to Pope Pius XII. Pius then placed the Third Secret in his personal desk, inside a wooden box, with the inscription Secretum Sancti Officii. (Prior to Pope Paul VI's reorganization of the Vatican in 1967, previous popes served as the head of the Holy Office, and thus it was common for them to store important documents within their own quarters). The June 26, 2000 statement from the Vatican acknowledges this 1957 transfer of the Fatima revelation to its Holy Office. Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, presently Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger, states:

The sealed envelope was initially in the custody of the Bishop of Leiria. To ensure better protection for the 'secret,' the envelope was placed in the Secret Archives of the Holy Office on 4 April, 1957.

Many claim that this report reveals a discrepancy, since two different dates are given for transfer, one April 4, the other April 16. This discrepancy raises suspicion that there were two documents transferred to the Vatican on two different dates, but only one was reported on June 26, 2000 - the notebook containing the vision, not the letter containing Our Lady's words.

A few years prior to the 1957 transfer of the Fatima secret to the Vatican, Pius XII had commissioned Father Schweigl to conduct an interview with Sister Lucia in Portugal. He did so on September 2, 1952 at the Carmel de Coimbra. After the interview, Fr. Schweigl is said to have revealed that the Third Secret of Fatima has two parts: one concerning the Pope (although he did not identify which Pope), and one concerning the completion of the sentence: "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved..."

Pius XII then commissioned Cardinal Ottaviani to interview Sister Lucia again in May 1955, specifically regarding the Third Secret. This shows that Pius still had deep concern for the Fatima revelations, even though he conducted previous consecrations. Perhaps he was aware that his consecrations did not fulfill the request of Our Lady. Shortly thereafter, as noted above, the Vatican demanded the transfer of the Fatima revelation to the Holy Office in 1957.

Meanwhile, on December 26, 1957, a priest by the name of Fr. Fuentes is reported to have interviewed Sister Lucia. She tells him that, because the consecration of Russia was not performed correctly, many nations are disappearing from off the face of the earth and that many souls are going to hell. She added that:

The Most Holy Virgin has told me that the devil is about to engage in a decisive battle against the Virgin...and that he knows what most offends God, and what will mike him gain the most souls in the shortest possible time. He does everything to gain souls consecrated to God, for in this manner, he will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them." (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. 3, p. 746).

In 1958, Fr. Fuentes publishes the interview. It contains the Imprimatur of the Bishop of Fatima and is widely distributed. On July 2, 1959, in an unidentified and unsigned report from the chancery office of Coimbra, Fr. Fuentes' interview is suddenly claimed to be fraudulent, yet no official within the chancery, to this day, claims responsibility for the report.

It is no coincidence that during this time, and beyond, Russia is inciting wars in dozens of nations around the world. In the last fifty years, Communist Russia has been responsible for starting the wars in more than a dozen countries (e.g., Algeria, Angola, Cambodia, Chile, Congo, Cuba, Indonesia, Iraq-Iran, Korea, Malaya, Nigeria, Palestine-Israel, Rhodesia-Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Serbia, Zambia, Zanzibar, as well as the Gulf war in 1991). Taking account of the murders committed by communist nations against their own people, the recent book, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression[16], the authors calculate that over 90 million people have been killed since 1917 due to communist atrocities. From Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, to the Sandinistas, the slaughter of innocent victims, including many Catholic priests, nuns, and religious, has been unprecedented in this past century. In fact, Russia's persecution of Christians began in April 1929 under dictator Joseph Stalin, which subsequently led to state control of the Russian Orthodox Church. In each of the countries Russia infiltrated it spread its atheistic philosophy. Thus, it seems to be no coincidence that Our Lady would appear to Sister Lucia in June 1929 with a message concerning how we could avoid persecution from Russia which had already begun two months earlier.

The question regarding the existence of the two Fatima documents grows deeper, since already in 1960 the Vatican acknowledged that a specific text of the Third Secret containing Our Lady's words did actually exist. As reported in ANI, the Portuguese news agency stated on February 8, 1960: "It has just been stated, from very reliable Vatican circles, to the representatives of United Press International, that it is most likely that the letter will never be opened, in which Sister Lucy wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret to the three little shepherds in the Cova da Iria."

This was a significant obstacle to Fatima advocates. Sister Lucia had years earlier received a promise from Bishop da Silva that the Secret would be opened and read to the world upon her death or in 1960, whichever came first. When asked in 1946 why she wanted it read in 1960, Sister Lucia responded to Canon Barthas: "Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so," and that "it would be clearer at that time." Conversely, in the Vatican's recent announcement of June 2000, Archbishop Bertone stated that when questioned about this, Sister Lucia said: "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."

Obviously, one of these accounts is wrong, and the one that gets the most suspicion is Bertone's. His explanation is that the vision applies only to John Paul II's assassination attempt in 1981. If so, then revealing the Third Secret in 1960 would have offered no better understanding or explanation of its contents than revealing it prior to 1960, since there were no significant events in 1960 to make the Third Secret's revelation pertinent to that time.

Supporters also refer to Sister Lucia's statement from her Third Memoir as sufficient evidence why she did not reveal the Third Secret earlier. In the Third Memoir she states:

It may be, Your Excellency, that some people think that I should have made known all this some time ago, because they consider that it would have been twice as valuable years beforehand. This would have been the case, if God had willed to present me to the world as a prophetess. But I believe that God had no such intention, when he made known these things to me. If that had been the case, I think that, in 1917, when He ordered me to keep silence...He would, on the contrary, have ordered me to speak.

Some believe that this statement shows Sister Lucia did not reveal the Third Secret because she was not appointed by God to do so. But perhaps a better interpretation is that Sister Lucia did not consider herself to be the one to reveal the Third Secret to the world, since that privilege rested with the pope. Throughout the ordeal of the Fatima revelations, Sister Lucia had always subjected herself to the final judgments of the hierarchy and has never made decisions about the Secret on her own authority. Her obedience was demonstrated again in 1960 when the Vatican forbid her to speak about the Third Secret and did not allow her to receive any visitors, including Fr. Aparicio, her personal and long-time confessor. She was only allowed short visits with close relatives and friends. The reason she was silenced will become clearer as we develop this story.

On August 17, 1959, Pope John XXIII was presented with the envelope containing the Third Secret. The whole Catholic Church eagerly awaited the promised public unveiling of the Secret. In Italy there was a great movement of devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. For several months, an icon of Our Lady of Fatima visited the Italian peninsula. Many conversions occurred and the "miracles of doves" also appeared (During processions of the Pilgrim Statue, doves would often gather at the feet of the statue). The disclosure of the first two Secrets in 1942 with the consent of Pope Pius XII constituted a precedent. The faithful had the right to expect from John XXIII the promised revelation. They had at least a right to a straightforward explanation from the Holy Father. But events did not shape up this way. On September 13, 1959, all the Bishops of Italy solemnly consecrated Italy to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Pope John XXIII took no part in the festivities.

Pope John had the envelope of the Third Secret brought to him at Castelgandolfo (the papal vacation residence) on August 17, 1959, by Monsignor Philippe, an official of the Holy Office. Pope John did not immediately open the envelope. He stated: "I am waiting to read it with my confessor." Monsignor Capovilla states that: "The reading of the Secret was done a few days later. But because of the difficulty raised by expressions peculiar to the language, assistance was requested of the Portuguese translator of the Secretariat of the State, Mgr. Paulo Jose Tavarez" (later to become the Bishop of Macao). Later, Pope John had it read to Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office. On February 8, 1960, it was learned through a simple press release that the Third Secret of Fatima would not be revealed. It was made an anonymous decision, apparently in an effort to deflect blame. The Vatican communiqué had offered inconsistent and contradictory excuses.

The anonymous press release even put doubt on the Fatima message saying: "Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the words that the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them." Hence, the Vatican, without any valid reason, cast the most ignominious suspicion upon the credibility of Sister Lucia and upon the whole of the Fatima Message. According to Monsignor Capovilla, several Roman Prelates had been consulted, but the Portuguese authorities in charge were summarily ignored. Neither Bishop Venancio nor Cardinal Cerejeira had been consulted or notified by Rome of its decision.

After reading the secret, John XXIII revealed its contents to a privileged few prelates. According to Cardinal Ottaviani, the pope placed the Secret "in one of those archives which are like a very deep, dark well, to the bottom of which papers fall and no one is able to see them anymore." Yet, his private secretary, Archbishop Loris Capovilla, has related that John XXIII kept the letter in a box on his desk until he died. Along with the secret, Pope John dictated a note to Capovilla, which was also placed in the box. The note stated:

The Holy Father received this document from the hands of Monsignor Philippe. He decided to read it on Friday, in the presence of his confessor. Having taken note of the presence of obscure idioms, he summoned Monsignor Tavares, who translated. He had his closest colleagues read it also. Finally, he decided to put it back in the envelope, saying: 'I make no judgment on this.'" (CRC, Dec. 1997, p. 7).

Regardless of the exact version, the Fatima secret was never revealed as required by Our Lady. Shortly thereafter, in November 1959, John XXIII announces that he is organizing the Second Vatican Council, which finally opens in October 1962.

Why would Pope John not reveal the Secret? We can make an educated guess based on what we know about him. After reading the Third Secret, John is reported to have said: "This does not concern my pontificate." What, may we ask, characterizes John's pontificate? The most obvious answers are Vatican II and the Pact of Metz. Vatican II was designed to change the emphasis and approach of the Catholic Church to the world. The Pact of Metz was one of the political arms to help implement it. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the Third Secret did not embody the theology and philosophy of Vatican II. If it had, Pope John would have warmly received its message and exuberantly revealed its contents to the awaiting world, for it would have been considered a heaven-sent approval of John's plans for aggiornamento. But since John did not reveal the Secret, it is reasonable to postulate that its contents gave no endorsement to his plans, and most likely opposed his plans. Plans for Vatican II were already being made as early as 1959. Pope John was of the opinion that the Church and the world were ready for God's blessing, and that it would be his pontificate which would inaugurate it. Unfortunately, what we know of the Third Secret did not contain a blessing for the world; rather, it contained warnings of severe judgment. A message of judgment could be the only reason that Sister Lucia trembled for days before she could even write down the Third Secret. A message of aggiornamento would not have frightened her. Since John was looking for blessing upon Vatican II, he would have had every motivation to dismiss or postpone a message of judgment. Obviously, the anticipation of what Vatican II could do for the world must have severely conflicted with the contents of the Third Secret. As such, revealing the Secret would have been a devastating embarrassment to him.

As events unfold, indications of why Sister Lucia is silenced and the Third Secret is scuttled begin to show themselves. As noted previously, John XXIII allows one of the most suspicious concessions ever made in Vatican protocol. Known as the "Pact of Metz," the Vatican agrees not to condemn either Russia or communism in the documents of Vatican Council II. The agreement is signed by Cardinal Tisserant (and attested to by his personal secretary, Monsignor Roche) and representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church. In return, Russia agrees to send two Orthodox prelates to the Council. This, to many, is the smoking gun which reveals the real motive behind the Vatican's unending attempts to alter or silence the Fatima revelations. The very nation that should be named in the consecration due to its reputation as the tower of evil in the world, is the very nation with which the Vatican makes a secret pact, circumventing the very essence of the Fatima revelations. Not only is this the direct opposite of what Our Lady and Christ Himself required, but it is also a complete reversal of the policy toward communism established as far back as Pope Leo XIII, where the reign of atheistic terror had its roots.

In keeping with the Vatican's new policy toward Russia and communism, Pope Paul VI was presented with the Third Secret sometime after his election on June 21, 1963, but he did not choose to reveal its contents. Instead, on November 21, 1964, he chooses to consecrate the world, and, like his predecessor Pius XII, leaves the name of Russia completely out of the wording. Meanwhile, the Korean War has ended, only to be followed by the Cuban Missile Crisis (with Russia at the helm) and the Vietnam War (instigated by Russia), not to mention the beginning of worldwide religious and moral degeneration.

It has been documented that when Paul VI was then Bishop Montini of Milan, he had engaged in unauthorized secret correspondence with the Soviets, while serving as Pius XII's Undersecretary of State. Pius XII knew nothing about Montini's overtures. An advisor to Bishop Montini, a Jesuit by the name of Fr. Tondi, exposed the priests that Pius XII had sent to Russia. The Russian authorities eventually arrested, tortured and executed the priests, or sent them to the gulag. Montini was finally exposed when an agent of the French Intelligence Service[18] reported the incident to Pius XII (Courrier de Rome, Paris: June 1, 1975, No 145). After he became pope, Paul VI gave Tondi a church marriage and employment in Rome in 1965 (Contre-Réforme Catholique auXXe siècle, France, No. 97, p. 12).

Adding to the concern is the 1967 statement by Cardinal Ottaviani, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a press conference on February 11 during the meeting of the Pontifical Marian Academy in Rome. There he stated: "I, who have had the grace and the gift to read the text of the Secret - although I too am held to secrecy because I am bound by the Secret..." Here the Cardinal acknowledges the existence of a "text" of the secret, not a mere vision. Whether the Cardinal meant that his reference to a "text" refers to the whole Fatima revelation written down by Sister Lucia, or just the letter portion, or just the notebook portion, is not discernible. However, the Cardinal was more definitive in the following statement: "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." Ottaviani's description seems to refer to a single sheet of paper containing the text, as opposed to the four notebook pages on which Sister Lucia is said to have written the vision. Unfortunately, Ottaviani made an extended statement explaining why the Third Secret would not be revealed. Those who have read his statements find in them a mass of contradictions and incoherencies.

Further evidence is cited in that what the Vatican released on June 26, 2000 was transcribed on four sheets of paper, which, coincidentally, would correspond to the four sheets from Sister Lucia's notebook, whereas eyewitness testimonies of those who have seen the single sheet state that it contains only about 25 lines of text. As noted earlier, one of those eyewitnesses was auxiliary Bishop Venancio of Leiria-Fatima, who had seen the envelope through a lighted background and noticed that it contained a single sheet of paper with 25 lines of text.

Aside from outright fraud, another possibility is that, if an additional 24 lines of text exists, either the Vatican, at some time or other during the four decades ending on June 2000, inadvertently lost possession of the text, or someone inside the Vatican had, at some time or other, confiscated the text so that it no longer appeared either in the Vatican office or the papal residence.

In order to account for and clear up any discrepancies, in 1966, Fr. Joaquin Alonso was commissioned by Bishop John Venancio to write a complete history of the Fatima revelations. After amassing over five thousand documents in his research, Fr. Alonso finishes his work ten years later in 1976. Renowned scholar Fr. Rene Laurentin confirms the quality of Fr. Alonso's research. In the work, Fr. Alonso confirms as authentic the 1957 interview of Sister Lucia by Fr. Fuentes. To his utter dismay, the new bishop of Fatima, Monsignor do Amaral, prevented Fr. Alonso's work from being published. Fr. Alonso dies in December 1981, but before his death he writes a number of short articles on Fatima. One of his most important is the following:

In the period preceding the great triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, terrible things are to happen. These form the content of the third part of the Secret. What are they? In 'in Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,' it can be clearly deduced from this that in other parts of the Church these dogmas are going to become obscure or even lost altogether.

Thus it is quite possible that in this intermediate period which is in question [after 1960 and before the triumph] the text makes concrete references to the crisis of the Faith of the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves.

Fr. Alonso goes on to include "internal struggles in the very bosom of the Church and of grave pastoral negligence by the upper hierarchy," and "deficiencies of the upper hierarchy of the Church." Continuing further he writes:

Does the unpublished text speak of concrete circumstances? It is very possible that it speaks not only of a real crisis of the faith in the Church during this in-between period, but like the secret of La Salette, for example, there are more concrete references to the internal struggles of Catholics or to the fall of priests and religious. Perhaps it even refers to the failures of the upper hierarchy of the Church. For that matter, none of this is foreign to other communications Sister Lucy has had on this subject.

Fr. Alonso's interpretation is never corrected or denied by Sister Lucia. This is significant since, in the past, she has not hesitated to correct many others who have given wrong assessments of the Fatima visions and text.

In 1967, although Sister Lucia is still under a code of silence, her memoirs are published. In them, she reiterates the 1929 message she received from Our Lady regarding the direct command for the Pope and bishops to consecrate Russia. This reiteration indicates that Sister Lucia does not consider any previous consecrations to have been an answer to the Fatima requirement, including Paul VI's consecration to the world in 1964. With this reminder, a huge campaign is initiated at the grass roots level for the Vatican to consecrate Russia as directed. Implicitly, this shows that the Catholic populous does not consider the consecrations performed by Pius XII or Paul VI to have been an answer to Fatima, and that they implicitly mistrust the way the Vatican is handling this most significant revelation from heaven.

Perhaps taken aback by Sister Lucia's dismissal of his 1964 consecration of the world, on May 13, 1967, Paul VI visits Fatima. While there, Sister Lucia pleads with him to release the Third Secret, but he dismisses her plea and tells her to take her concern to her bishop.

Shortly after this, in 1969-1970, Sister Lucia writes a series of letters which state that the Third Secret includes remarks on the present crisis in the Church. To one priest she writes:

I see by your letter that you are preoccupied by the disorientation of our time. It is sad, in fact, that so many persons let themselves be dominated by the diabolical wave that is sweeping the world and that they are blinded to the point of being incapable of seeing error! The principle fault is that they have abandoned prayer, they have in this way become estranged from God, and without God, everything is lacking. The devil is very cunning and looks for our weak points in order to attack us. If we are not diligent and careful to obtain from God strength, we shall fall, for our age is very wicked and we are weak. Only the strength of God can keep us on our feet.

To a friend she writes:

Let people say the Rosary every day, Our Lady has repeated that in all of Her apparitions, as if to fortify us in these times of diabolical disorientation, in order that we not let ourselves be deceived by false doctrines...Unfortunately, in religions matters the people for the most part are ignorant and allow themselves to be led wherever they are taken. Hence, the great responsibility of the one who has the duty of leading them...It is a diabolical disorientation that is invading the world, deceiving souls! It is necessary to stand up to the devil.

On September 16, 1970, she writes to another friend:

...The fact is that the devil has succeeded in bringing in evil under the appearance of good, and the blind are beginning to lead others...This is like the Lord told us in His Gospel, and souls allow themselves to be taken in. Gladly I sacrifice myself and offer God my life for peace in His Church, for priest and for all consecrated souls, especially for those who are so deceived and misguided.

After this, Fatima does not become an issue at the Vatican until 1978 when John Paul II is elected Pope. In 1980, Cardinal Josyf Slipyj sponsors a campaign that amasses three million signatures for the direct and immediate consecration of Russia. The petition is then sent to the Vatican.

On March 21, 1982, Sister Lucy meets with the Papal nuncio and another bishop. She reiterates the exact requirements for the consecration of Russia. After the meeting, the bishop accompanying the nuncio tells him that it is not necessary to mention to the Pope that the bishops of the world are required to participate in the consecration.

On May 12, 1982, the papal newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, contains an article by Fr. Umberto Maria Pasquale concerning his conversation with Sister Lucia and the letter she wrote to him regarding the consecration of Russia. Fr. Pasquale is significant to this issue because he had known Sister Lucia since 1939. Up to 1982, he received 157 personal letters from her. The newspaper article reveals that Sister Lucy told Fr. Pasquale that Our Lady never asked for the consecration of the world, but only the consecration of Russia. Here are Fr. Pasquale's own words:

I wanted to clarify the question of the Consecration of Russia, in having recourse to the source. On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel of Coimbra, I had a lengthy interview with the seer of Fatima, Sister Lucy. At a certain moment I said to her: 'Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be! But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you, for you to clear up a point for me which does not appear clear to many people....Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to her Immaculate Heart?.... 'No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia...to prevent the spreading of her errors throughout the world, wars among several nations, persecutions against the Church....In 1929, at Tuy [Spain], as She promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)..."

To make sure of what Sister Lucy was saying, and seeking documentation of her earthshattering statement, Fr. Pasquale asked her to make the same reply to him in a letter. On April 13, 1980, Fr. Pasquale received a written response from Sister Lucia. The photographic copy (left) is her actual handwriting. Translated, the note reads: "Reverend Father Umberto, In reply to your question, I will clarify: Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the Consecration of Russia. Coimbra 13 IV - 1980. [Signed] Sr. Lucia."

On May 13, 1982, (the day after the L'Osservatore Romano article), John Paul II consecrates the world during his visit to Fatima, without mentioning Russia by name and without the bishops of the world participating. [This is the same type of consecration Pius XII performed on July 7, 1952 but which the Church never recognized as a valid consecration of Russia].

Then on May 19, 1982, a most revealing statement comes from the Pope. In L'Osservatore Romano he states that he purposely did not consecrate Russia, adding that he had "tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances." Although it is difficult to know what he meant by "concrete circumstances," we can, perhaps, deduce a few things from his statement:

(1) the Pope inadvertently admits that no prior consecration performed by any prior pope, including his May 13, 1982 consecration, has fulfilled the requirements of the revelation of Fatima;

(2) the Pope knows that Russia, singly and specifically, must be consecrated in order to precisely fulfill the requirements of Fatima, but for some reason he decided not to do it;

(3) the Pope is prepared to accept the consequences, for himself and the world, for not consecrating Russia as commanded.

As for the meaning of the cryptic phrase, "concrete circumstances," the Pope may possibly be referring to two things:

(1) that he is following the precedent set by his predecessors, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II which sought to generate friendly ties with Russia rather than single them out as the major cause of evil in the world;

(2) that the vast majority of bishops in the world would not cooperate with him, in any case, to single out Russia for consecration. "Concrete" most likely refers to a force of will by an opposing party, something hard and immovable. There is nothing more immovable than the force of will of the bishops of the world, who, in large part, have written off Fatima as a relic of the past, and possibly even a hallucination of Sister Lucia. Cardinal Ratzinger, as noted earlier, made the latter suggestion in one of his most recent assessments of Sister Lucia.

On November 26, 1987, Cardinal Stickler confirmed the meaning of "concrete circumstances" by revealing that the consecration had not been performed because the Pope lacks the support of the bishops, for, he is quoted as saying, "they do not obey him." Later in 1989 it will be revealed that only 350 bishops, which is less than 20% of all the world's bishops, will agree to participating in a consecration of Russia. This is in spite of more than one million signatures from around the world given to the Vatican requesting the consecration of Russia.

Perhaps not realizing the startling implication of the May 19, 1982 admission that the pope did not consecrate Russia, Soul Magazine, a publication of the renowned Blue Army, states in its July/August 1982 edition that an interview with Sister Lucia reveals that she believes the consecration of Russia was performed by the Pope on May 13, 1982. The Blue Army report will later be found fraudulent, but upon hearing it initially, Sister Lucia strenuously denied that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. When in 1983 she is asked to make her views public, Sister Lucia states to Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie that she must have "official permission from the Vatican" before she can declare it.

Then, on March 19, 1983, John Paul II requests that Sister Lucia meet with the Papal nuncio, Archbishop Portalupi and Fr. Messias Coelho. Not surprisingly, Sister Lucia reiterates that the consecration was not performed as specified, since Russia was not named as the single object of consecration, and the world's bishops did not participate. She states:

In the act of offering of Mary 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration. And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II simply renewed the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942. From this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of Russia.

On March 25, 1984, following the mistake of Pius XII, and knowing, by his own admission (cited above) that Russia must be named in the consecration, John Paul II, following the advice of Cardinal Casaroli who cites "diplomatic reasons," decides to eliminate the word "Russia" and replace it with the word "world." It is important to note that Cardinal Casaroli, along with Cardinal Montini (Pope Paul VI), were the principal architects of Ostpolitik, the Vatican policy toward communist Russia adopted in the 1960s, a policy which resolutely decided not to denounce atheism or Marxism. This will become more significant when on June 27, 2000 (the day after the Vatican's release of The Message of Fatima) the memoirs of Cardinal Casaroli, which had recently been posthumously published, were shown to Mikhail Gorbachev upon invitation by Cardinals Sodano and Silvestrini at a Vatican press conference. To many this was confirmation that on June 26, 2000 the Vatican was attempting to bury the Fatima revelations in order to inaugurate the long-awaited Vatican-Russian alliance put in place forty years prior. In his 1999 radio interview with Art Bell, Fr. Malachi Martin has this to say about Mikhail Gorbachev: "They [Gorbachev and the Vatican] are in talks because John Paul's concept of Gorbachev's function is that, in reality, he is destined to exercise a certain role in the creation of the New World Order. And John Paul II is very keen on participating in the New World Order." Incidentally, Agostino Casaroli was a known Mason (see In God's Name by David Yallop, p. 201). He is also the chief figure in Malachi Martin's book, Windswept House. The character name chosen for Cardinal Casaroli in the novel is "Cardinal Maestroianni." This identification was confirmed by Malachi Martin in the 1999 radio interview with Art Bell.

The March 1984 consecration was performed before 250,000 people at Rome. Prior to this, on December 8, 1983, John Paul wrote to all the bishops of world, asking them to join with him on the March 25th 1984 date to consecrate the world to Mary. Included in his request were the precise words he was going to say at the consecration. Immediately after reciting his scripted words at the consecration ("world" not "Russia"), suddenly, perhaps sensing that he must make at least some allusion to Russia, three hours later the Pope departs from his prepared script and states the following: "Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding." These exact words were reported in L'Osservatore Romano. In Italian, the bolded words are: "Illumina speciolmente i popoli di cui tu aspetti la nostra consacrazione e il nostro affidamento." They were also reported in the Italian Catholics bishop's newspaper Avvenire.

The popes addition to his prepared script reveals several important things:

(1) It tells us that the Pope himself realizes that a valid consecration of Russia, by either himself or his predecessors, was never accomplished, and that Our Lady is still awaiting to have it performed as specified;

(2) It tells us that the Pope is hesitant to even name Russia in a future consecration;

(3) and that for some reason, he is not going to be the Pope who will properly administer the consecration.

Afer the March 25, 1984 consecration, for the rest of that year, Fr. Messias Coelho, the very person whom the Pope commissioned to interview Sister Lucia on March 19, 1983, publicly states that the consecration specified by Our Lady has not been performed, and was not performed on March 25, 1984. He writes:

The consecration of Russia: It will not be done yet at this time...It is certain the more contains the less. Apparently therefore, the consecration of the world will perhaps give the impression of having the power to take the place of consecrating specifically Russia. However, the problem cannot be resolved in logical terms, nor even in the light of systematic theology. (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 172-173)

Apparently, Fr. Coelho felt that no amount of reinterpretation by systematic theologians would allow them to conveniently dismiss the name of Russia from the consecration. Russia must be mentioned, no excuses. Fr. Coelho's words appeared in the magazine Mensagem de Fatima (Feb. 1985) published by the Bishop of Fatima, Alberto do Amaral. Strangely, however, in spite of his above fervor for Fatima, by the summer of 1989 Fr. Coelho will abruptly change his mind concerning the validity of the consecration of March 25, 1984.

In 1984, at the University of Vienna, Bishop do Amaral, referring to the above article, makes an astounding comment about the Third Secret: "Its content concerns only our faith....the loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation; and it is true that faith is continually diminishing in Europe." This statement put real teeth into a modern application of the Fatima message -- Europe was in apostasy. But like Fr. Coelho, Bishop do Amaral will eventually reverse himself. But Bishop do Amaral will also admit in a 1995 interview with Frère François that he "had consulted Sister Lucia, and had obtained her assent before affirming at Vienna that the contents of the Third Secret relate only to our faith, the loss of the faith." (CRC. No 34, p. 6-7. (CFN, Nov 2000).

There are more intriguing facts that we need to cite in order to weave together a more complete picture.

On May 12 1982, in a letter to Pope John Paul II, Sister Lucia said:

...if we have not yet seen the complete fulfillment of the final part of the prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge...it is the people themselves who are preparing their own punishment."

To many, this commentary is significant, since it is only one year after the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. Obviously, what stands out in this statement is its timing. If, as purported by the Vatican on June 26, 2000, the prophecy of Fatima has already been fulfilled in the attempted assassination of John Paul II on May 13, 1981, then why would Sister Lucia write as if Fatima had not been fulfilled in May 1982?

Moreover, on May 13, 1982, a day after he received the letter from Sister Lucia, the Pope stated: "The message of Fatima is more relevant and more urgent today than 65 years ago." As common sense would dictate, if, as the Vatican presently holds, the vision of Fatima was completely fulfilled on May 13, 1981, then there would be little reason for the Pope to speak of a "more urgent" need for Fatima's fulfillment, especially since Fatima does not include anything relating to the ecumenism highlighted by the present pontificate.

Click for larger version.

In an attempt to cover up the discrepancies, the Vatican's June 2000 explanation of Fatima contains a copy of a handwritten note purported to be the one that Sister Lucia wrote to the Pope on May 12, 1982. The note is written in Portugese. It is discovered that the Vatican's version of the letter is missing a crucial clause, in all three languages the Vatican disseminated the note (English, Italian and Portugese). The text from the Vatican reads: "A terceira parte do segredo e uma revelacao simbolica" which translates as "The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation." The original version, in Portugese reads: "A terceira parte do segredo, que tanto ansiais por conhecer, e uma revelacao simbolica," which translates as "The third part of the secret, that you are so anxious to know, is a symbolic revelation." Why is this important? Because the original note which includes the clause "that you are so anxious to know" assumes that the Pope did not know, at least from any conversations with Sister Lucia, about the contents of the Third Secret as of May 12, 1982. Yet according to two accounts coming from the Vatican (accounts which contradict each other) John Paul II read the Third Fatima secret in 1978 just days after his election to the papacy (according to Joaquin Navarro-Valls), or on July 18, 1981 (according to Archbishop Bertone). Regardless of their contradiction, both versions say John Paul knew of the contents of the Third Secret before 1982.

According to Bertone's version, following the assassination attempt on his life on May 13, 1981, John Paul II had asked to see the envelope containing the Third Secret. On July 18, 1981, Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect of the Congregation, gave two envelopes to Archbishop Eduard Martinez, one white envelope containing Sister Lucia's original text in Portuguese; and an orange envelope containing the Italian translation of the secret. On August 11, 1981, Archbishop Martinez returned the two envelopes to the Archives of the Holy Office. If this account is true, then there shouldn't have been any reason why the Pope was "anxious" to hear the secret from Sister Lucia almost one year later in May 1982. Even more portentous is a little known message that John Paul II gave on November 17, 1980 to a group in Fulda, Germany. His words were tape recorded. Here the Pope spoke of a "troubling" message, with predictions of oceans flooding entire continents, with people annihilated suddenly, by the millions:

Due to its shocking content and so as not to allow the global power of Communism to interfere with the affairs of the Church, my Predecessors gave confidential information in a diplomatic way. In addition, it should be enough for every Christian to know what follows: when you read that oceans will flood whole continents, that millions of men will die very suddenly in a few minutes...We must be well prepared, for great trials in the near future, which can even require the sacrifice of our lives... If this is known, it isn't really necessary to make the publication of this secret...Many people want to know it just for curiosity and sensationalism: but they forget that 'knowing' also involves responsibility...but they want to satisfy their own curiosity. This is dangerous when, at the same time, they don't want to do anything, saying: 'It is useless to do anything to improve the situation....." (Vox Fidei [Italian edition, No. 10, 1981]).

We can surmise several things from these words:

(a) The Fatima secret contains details regarding the possibility of a worldwide catastrophe that, both prior to and after this 1981 speech, has never been revealed, and thus remains concealed. (The words regarding cataclysms in the ocean are remarkably similar to the words read in the 1999 radio interview by Art Bell to Malachi Martin, and which the latter affirmed as perhaps being one of the elements of the Third Secret). Unfortunately for the present-day Vatican, there is no way they can erase or retract these words of John Paul II. Those who are privy to them know the truth about Fatima. We can now understand why Sr. Lucia had such a difficult time writing down the Third Secret. If it contains divine judgments on this cataclysmic scale, it is amazing that she even survived under such a burden of stress. She carried the weight of the world upon her shoulders. Imagine the frustration and anxiety she must have had watching pope after pope fail to consecrate Russia, and knowing that a worldwide catastrophe lay right at the doorstep of the world if Our Lady's words were not heeded.

(b) That the Pope made a decision, contrary to what Our Lady explicitly commanded, to withhold knowledge of the secret. This was not his decision to make, regardless of whether he is the supreme pontiff. The popes from the time of Pius XI onward were given a strict command from heaven to reveal the secret and to consecrate Russia. None of them had the authority to dismiss that command. The excuse the present pope gives is that "my Predecessors gave confidential information in a diplomatic way." This "diplomatic way" is the way of man, not the way of heaven. The popes were told explicitly to reveal the secret and consecrate Russia, but they have been fearful to do so. When God told Jonah to tell Nineveh that he was going to utterly destroy them in forty days if they did not repent, was Jonah diplomatic about his message? Quite the contrary. He boldly told the Ninevites God's message of doom, and they forthrightly repented and saved their city. In fact, Jonah, like our popes, was at first reluctant to bring the message of judgment to Nineveh. Because of his negligence, God punished him severely. Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a whale thinking about the command God gave him to bring the message of judgment to Nineveh. But today's Catholic liberal theologians will tell you that the story of Jonah is a fable, just as they claim that Sister Lucia's visions were hallucinations.

Coinciding with how God dealt with Jonah and contrary to what the Vatican is claiming, it is much more likely that the assassination attempt on John Paul II's life in 1981 was not a fulfillment of the Fatima prophecy but was a judgment from God for failing to fulfill the Fatima prophecy - a fulfillment that could only be made by revealing its contents and consecrating Russia. It is more likely that the pope's life was spared not because it was a miraculous intervention of mercy, but only because God was sending his near-death experience as a warning to heed the contents and commands of the Fatima message. There would be no better way to warn the pope than to have the attempted assassination occur on the sixty-fourth anniversary of the Fatima visions, May 13. This would make it clear that his near-death was directly related to the Fatima message.

There are two possible interpretations to the pope's near-death experience. The one the Vatican is pushing in order to cover up their 64 year negligence in obeying the Fatima commands is to posit that the attempted assassination is the actual fulfillment of the Fatima prophecy (e.g., purporting that John Paul II is the "bishop in white" who is killed). The other interpretation, of course, is that the May 13 assassination attempt was permitted by God as a message to the pope that he has NOT fulfilled the Fatima prophecy, and as a result, he is under God's judgment. Of course, we would never hear THAT interpretation coming from the Vatican, because in their eyes they can do no wrong. Unfortunately, the Vatican is looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective. They think they are in God's blessing when in actuality they are under God's judgment.

(c) "Sensationalism" is the excuse for not revealing the secret. Since when does the reaction of a few - a reaction when anything of a catastrophic nature is presented to them - rule how we are to

disseminate the message of God? Did any of God's prophets who were given the message of judgment complain to God that they shouldn't be giving such messages due to the fact that some people would consider it sensational? No, not at all. Rather, "sensationalism" is the Vatican's way of putting the blame on the people rather than admitting where the blame really belongs - with all the pontiffs since Pius XI who have failed to obey the commands of Our Lady. The people, despite those who would exploit the message of Fatima, are not to blame. They were the ones clamoring for the consecration, but to the deaf ears of their pontiffs.

Perhaps sensing the need to take Fatima more seriously, John Paul decided to make an effort at consecration. Thus, in late 1981, from his hospital bedroom, he performs a small ceremony, but this ceremony does not even come close to obeying the commands of Our Lady. His next attempt is in 1984, but even then, like the two attempts of his predecessor Pius XII, he fails to do the consecration properly. Nevertheless, as Pius XII was offered momentary relief from the dire predictions of the Fatima message for his attempted consecrations, so John Paul II was offered momentary relief. Sister Lucy has written that Pius XII's imperfect act of obedience, while not fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima request, nevertheless hastened the end of the Second World War, thus sparing the lives of tens of millions of souls. Little known facts confirm this divine intervention. For example, Joseph Stalin had plans to overrun Europe. NATO knew that the Russians had the power to do so. Suddenly, Stalin had a heart attack and the plans were postponed. Nikita Kruschev also had plans to overrun Europe. His famous shoe-pounding incident at the United Nations was confirmation of his resolve. Suddenly, Russia's main atomic weapons plant was in an explosion, and 300 of Russia's top scientists were killed, causing Russia's plans to be postponed. Not surprisingly, the explosion happened on May 13, the anniversary of Fatima. (NB: The Cuban Missile Crisis, which is thought by many to be the reason for Russia's withdrawal, was not really a "crisis," since it is documented that John Kennedy did not stop the Russians by the naval blockade of Cuba, but instead made a secret deal with the Russians - a deal in which the United States agreed to remove their missile sites in Turkey in exchange for Russia's agreement to pull out of Cuba. The only "crisis" regarding Cuba was whether the Russians were going to accept Kennedy's offer to remove the missiles in Turkey). Leonid Breshnev was also planning to overrun Europe, but his leading general had a heart attack, and plans were postponed. But these temporary reprieves granted by Our Lady also mean that, if the consecration of Russia is not performed as was precisely stated, then the dire predictions of worldwide cataclysm still hang over the human race. A partial consecration will only give partial relief, but it will not bring about genuine peace and the conversion of Russia promised by Our Lady unless the consecration is done correctly. And so it is the case with all the attempted consecrations of Russia, including the one attempted in 1984 by Pope John Paul II.

As noted, the Vatican's June 2000 interpretation holds that there is no more fulfillment to be expected from the Fatima vision. Cardinal Sodano stated on May 13, 2000: "the events to which the third part of the secret of Fatima refers now seem part of the past...," and Archbishop Bertone stated: "The decision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to make public the third part of the secret of Fatima brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil..."

Bertone's statement makes it appear that a mere revealing of the Third Secret guarantees the promised peace from Our Lady. Indeed, the Vatican's present interpretation categorically eliminates any immediate threat of war or divine chastisement. In reality, Our Lady stated quite plainly that only the consecration of Russia would guarantee peace, not the revealing of the secret itself.

Many argue that not only does the Vatican's interpretation not fit the vision of Fatima, but it is obvious to anyone looking at the world objectively that, contrary to Archbishop Bertone's statement, as of June 26, 2000, the "human lust for power and evil" is very much alive in our present world and continues to grow worse. Abortion, population control, nuclear arms proliferation, Middle East tensions, Moslem incursions, and atheistic regimes, to name a few, remain the order of the day. Not only is moral decay true for the world, it is also true inside the Church itself. Among the Catholic population of North America and Europe less than a combined 20% attend Mass on any given Sunday. Catholics worldwide practice contraception and abortion at will. Since the 1970's homosexuals in the Roman clergy have reached epidemic proportions, erupting into the present world-wide scandal. Liberal theologians, bishops and universities, denying even the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith, permeate the Americas, Europe and other countries. Unfortunately, some Vatican officials still court these defiant theologians, placing them in seats of high influence.

In light of these things, skeptics have suggested what they think are the real reasons behind the intrigue. Similar to the statement by Cardinal Luigi Ciappi cited earlier ("In the Third Secret is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top"), renowned mariologist Rene Laurentin stated on May 21, 2000: "I believe that the Third Secret also spoke of crises and divisions within the Church since the Second Vatican Council." ( New York Times, "Third Secret Raises More Questions," May 21, 2000.). A similar assessment by Fr. Joaquin Alonso was already cited (i.e., "It is therefore completely probable that the text [of the Third Secret] makes concrete references to the crisis of faith within the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves...internal struggles in the very bosom of the Church and of grave pastoral negligence of the upper hierarchy"). Other experts on Fatima who believe the same are: Martin dos Reis, Luis Kondor and Canon Galamba If true, it is reasonable to see why no Pope since 1929 had the courage to reveal the contents of the text of the Third Secret, especially in light of the positive changes anticipated by the aggiornamento of Vatican II.

In Crossing The Threshold of Hope [copyright 1994], John Paul writes:

And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter's Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children of Fatima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem close to their fulfillment.

From this, John Paul II is convinced of a connection between Fatima's Third Secret and his assassination attempt. As reported, he was shot at the same instant he turned to look at a picture of Our Lady of Fatima pinned to a girl's sweater. Gravely effected by it, on June 7, 1981, while still recovering from his wounds in the hospital, John Paul records an address which is broadcasted at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major "offering" the "world" to Mary. Monsignor Hnilica asks John Paul why he only performed an "affidamento" (Italian for "offering") and not a "consacrazione" (Italian for "consecration"), to which John Paul replies: "There are still some theologians who question whether one can make a consecration to anyone other than God Himself" This rather cryptic statement shows that, as suspected, John Paul II is a prisoner of the heterodox liberal theologians that have run rampant in the Church since the 1950s.

A Strange, Anti-Climactic Interpretation

The first two secrets of Fatima were both foreboding and apocalyptic, giving detailed facts about the future and whose contents the Vatican revealed prior to the fulfillment of the events. As such, many inquire why the Third Secret, which is purported to carry an even more pertinent apocalyptic content, is not revealed before the fulfillment of the event, especially since the event it supposedly foresaw (an assassination attempt on the current pope) is somewhat anticlimactic compared to the events in the first two secrets.

The context for this question takes us back to the day of October 13, 1917 when one of the greatest miracles ever recorded in the history of Christendom occurred in front of 70,000 people as the sun literally danced in the sky for eight minutes and then returned to its place of origin. This miracle was predicted three months in advance of its occurrence by Our Lady, specifically so that the people would believe the contents of the Fatima revelation. In accord with the spectacular nature of this miracle, the children were given equally spectacular visions and prophecies. The first secret showed them visions of Hell. Sr. Lucia's memoirs record the utter torment awaiting damned souls. She writes:

And we saw as it were a sea of fire; plunged in this fire we saw the demons and the souls of the damned. The latter were like transparent burning embers, all blackened, burnished, bronzed, having human forms. They were floating about in that conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now they fell back on every side like huge sparks in huge first without weight or equilibrium, amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair which horrified us and made us tremble with fright. (It must have been this sight which caused me to cry out as people say they heard me). The demons were distinguished by their terrifying and repellent likeness to unknown animals, black and transparent like burning coals. The vision only lasted for a moment, thanks to Our good heavenly Mother who, at the first apparition had promised to take us to Heaven. Without that, I think, we would have died of fear.

Our Lady then said to them:

You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart.

Sister Lucia also records the vision and sayings of the "Angel of the Eucharist" that she and the other children saw a year prior to the apparition of Our Lady. At one point the angel prostrated himself down to the earth and repeated three times the following prayer:

Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the Most Precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifference by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of His most Sacred Heart and of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the conversion of poor sinners.

The import of both Our Lady's words and the words of the angel are that they focus on the sins of mankind which had apparently reached up to the heights of heaven and which were to receive God's ultimate judgment unless repentance was made. This was during 1917, a time in which the sins of the world, by any common sense measure, were not half as grievous as they are today. Men were not practicing contraception, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, and blasphemy anywhere near the scale that they are some 80 years later. To some, this suggests that the Third Secret, rather than being a mere anticlimactic appendage of the first two secrets, has as much, or more significance, on the stage of world events. It only makes sense that the Third Secret expands on the first two secrets. If, as many eyewitness accounts hold, the Third Secret includes a prophecy about Catholic faith remaining in Portugal, and implies by the infamous "etc" that many other nations of the world would lose their faith, then the vision of Hell in the First Secret has a much more portentous reason for being revealed by Our Lady, that is, that the souls of the faithless in all the countries outside Portugal will be eternally punished in Hell. If true, this indeed is a grim picture of the future, but in reality, it is no different than the apocalyptic visions of the Old and New Testament prophets, including the book of Revelation, whose preponderant message is one of judgment against the sins of an apostate people.

Of course, the message of God's imminent judgment is not the kind that many Catholics are taught today by the heterodox, modernist and liberal theologians of the world. The abiding message from liberal theology is that there are very few people who go to Hell, if indeed, Hell even exists. It is further reasoned that if officials of the Vatican are heavily influenced by the Church's liberal theologians, and these theologians do not recognize the gravity of the sins that permeate today's world (much more than the world of 1917); and these same theologians foresee and wish for a time of blessing and world-wide salvation, they would naturally be inclined to dismiss the message of apostasy and judgment in the Third Secret of Fatima. Moreover, they would try to suppress its release until a less volatile and innocuous interpretation could be given to it; and seek to release only those portions of the Secret that do not infringe on their liberal-minded goals for the Church. Indeed, the vision of the Fatima children does not suggest the rosy picture of the future that liberal theologians predict. The cry of the angel to do "Penance, Penance, Penance," as the vision is opened, and the fact that the "Bishop dressed in white," along with "other bishops, priests, religious and lay people" are killed, suggests that the sins to which the angel alluded come from within the Church itself and that repentance from the Church is not forthcoming, resulting in God's judgment and the scattering of dead bodies all over the land. These possibilities, though somewhat incriminating, are not far-fetched, since anyone familiar with the goings-on in the Catholic Church for the last 50 years knows quite well of the war between its various factions. That these factions exist even in the Vatican itself is well-known.

Adding to the furor are the comments of other Vatican insiders. For example, Monsignor Corrado Balducci, and several other bishops in Italy, immediately voiced their discontent in Italian newspapers as soon as the Vatican interpretation was made public on June 26, 2000, as well as doubting whether the whole of the Third Secret was released. Monsignor Balducci is quoted as saying: "...there are too many discrepancies...And I am asking myself, where are the other parts of the prophecy regarding the doctrinal crisis of the Church and the Third World War." This objection, of course, alludes to the 24 missing lines of text from the single sheet written by Sister Lucia, as well as the Vatican's lack of a specific interpretation of the vision's half-ruined city and the murder of bishops, priests, religious and lay people. Although some may claim that the murder of Catholics means that they were martyrs, it is also possible that they were rightful victims of God's judgment due to the apostasy they generated in the Church - a judgment that God brought upon them using the atheistic nations of the world from which they sought friendship and ecumenism. As noted previously, God uses the very nations with whom Israel fraternized as the arm of vengeance when bringing His wrath against them.

If the message of Fatima predicts that many in the church will lose their faith, then a judgment from God for apostasy certainly fits. As noted, Revelation chapters 1-3 take great pains to elaborate the judgments of God upon the Catholic churches of Asia minor in the first century, and John is clear, as are the other writers of the New Testament, that these judgments will continue throughout the Church age. 1 Peter 4:17 warns: "For there is a time in which judgment is to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" The New Testament is replete with such warnings (cf., Acts 20:29-31; Rom. 11:18-22; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 4:6-11; 10:29-31; 2 Pet. 2:1; et al).

These were the same kind of warnings that Israel, the people of God in ancient times, received for their apostasy. We read in Ezekiel 9:4-10:

And the Lord said to him, 'Go through the midst of the city, even through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and groan over all the abominations which are being committed in its midst.' But to the others he said in my hearing, 'Go through the city after him and strike; do not let your eye have pity, and do not spare. Utterly slay old men, young men, maidens, little children, and women, but do not touch any man on whom is the mark; and you shall start from My sanctuary.' So they started with the elders who were before the temple. And He said to them, 'Defile the temple and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!' thus they went out and struck down the people in the city. Then it came about as they were striking and I alone was left, that I fell on my face and cried out saying, 'Alas, Lord God! Art Thou destroying the whole remnant of Israel by pouring out Thy wrath on Jerusalem?' Then He said to me, 'The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is very, very, great, and the land is filled with blood, and the city is full of perversion; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' But as for Me, My eye will have no pity nor shall I spare, but I shall bring their conduct upon their heads.

Similar to Ezekiel, Jeremiah 25:29-37 states:

For behold, I am beginning to work calamity in this city which is called by My name, and shall you be completely free from punishment? You will not be free from punishment; for I am summoning a sword against all the inhabitants of the earth, declares the Lord of hosts. Therefore you shall prophesy against them all these words, and you shall say to them...Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'Behold, evil is going forth from nation to nation, and a great storm is being stirred up from the remotest parts of the earth. And those slain by the Lord on that day shall be from one end of the earth to the other. They shall not be lamented, gathered, or buried; they shall be like dung on the face of the ground. Wail, you shepherds, and cry; and wallow in ashes, you masters of the flock; For the days of your slaughter and your dispersions have come, and you shall fall like a choice vessel. Flight shall perish from the shepherds, and escape from the masters of the flock. Hear the sound of the cry of the shepherds, and the wailing of the masters of the flock! For the Lord is destroying their pasture, and the peaceful folds are made silent, because of the fierce anger of the Lord.

The majority in today's Church are reticent to hear any prophetic message of apostasy and warning of future judgment. Indeed, those who have dared preach such a message, and/or interpret the revelation of Fatima as carrying such portents have been publicly maligned and threatened with excommunication by certain Vatican officials. Indeed, the marginalizing of today's prophets is eerily similar to their tormented mentors of old, Jeremiah and Ezekiel (cf., Jeremiah 1:11-19; 20:1-6; 26:7-15; 32:1-5; 37:11-16; 38:1-13; Ezekiel 1-10; 22-23).

Cardinal Ratzinger's 1984 Apocalyptic Interpretation of Fatima

Cardinal Ratzinger states in the press release of June 26, 2000:

A careful reading of the text of the so-called third secret of Fatima, published here in its entirety long after the fact and by decision of the Holy Father, will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled. We see the Church of the martyrs of the century which has just passed represented in a scene described in a language which is symbolic and not easy to decipher.

In an interview with La Repubblica, Cardinal Ratzinger likewise stated:

There will be no new surprises. What is more, I believe that, at the end, the secret will be reduced to its exact dimensions...because not that much can be expected from these private revelations.

From these statements, many conclude that Cardinal Ratzinger, in keeping with the agenda sought by previous Vatican policies, has purposely confined the fulfillment of the vision to past events, namely, those occurring in the attempted assassination of the Pope in 1981. In the June 2000 announcement he stated: "We must agree with Cardinal Sodano that the events to which the third part of the secret of Fatima refers now seem part of the past..." He adds "not that much can be expected from these private revelations."

In 1996, at the 79th anniversary of the Fatima visions of 1917, Ratzinger gave a homily to a crowd of 200,000 at Fatima. In the speech he attributed no apocalyptic dimensions to the Third Secret. Two days prior, on October 11, Ratzinger was interviewed by Portugese Catholic radio, Radio Renascenca, and was asked if the contents of the Third Secret predicted the imminent end of the world. Again he denied that the Third Secret had anything to do with the Apocalypse or the end of the world.

To Fatima advocates, these are certainly a puzzling remarks, considering that the Fatima vision was indeed important enough for Vatican officials to conclude that it was fulfilled in the assassination attempt of John Paul II. If little is to be expected from such visions, then the question arises as to why the Third Secret is applied to one of the most significant assassination attempts in the late 20th century. Hardly any of other visions from Marian apparitions are given specific applications to current events, since most are only general messages of repentance and judgment.

Conversely, Ratzinger has stated on several occasions that he is concerned about an exaggerated emphasis on apparitions. He states that there is no need to "run after" any apparition when the church already possesses sacraments of enormous richness, meaning and power (Inside the Vatican, November 1996).

Although Ratzinger's admonitions against "running after" apparitions is well-taken, in another sense, his remarks are highly misplaced. Fatima is not just "any apparition." It is extraordinarily unique among Marian apparitions, since it was not merely a private revelation, per se, but one authenticated by 70,000 witnesses who saw the sun dance in the sky for twelve minutes, not to mention one that it is officially approved by the Vatican, and has a long history of Popes trying to fulfill its requirements to consecrate Russia, albeit failing in each attempt. Fatima's authenticity is even much more significant today, since on November 15, 1966, Pope Paul VI had changed the Code of Canon Law, allowing for any apparition to be published without Church consent or miracles of authentication. Paul VI's decision may have been a calculated one, since it tends to confuse the situation rather than crystallize it, but that is another subject. His policy, to which Ratzinger alludes, has resulted in a plethora of alleged apparitions around the world in the last 30 years, most of which have not been approved. But this just raises the specter of the Fatima visions that much more. Since Fatima is obviously not in the "alleged" class of apparitions, its authenticity has been proven repeatedly and it remains the single most important and substantiated apparition of all time. It has global and apocalyptic significance, since it mentions the futures of specific countries such as Portugal and Russia, and may include others not yet revealed.

Ratzinger also states:

If the Church does not make known the text of the Secret, it is to oppose sensationalism, the desire for unheard of things...It is to reduce Marian devotion to its essential nature...because the Virgin did not appear to children...in order to cause sensation, but to recall the world, by means of simple people, to simplicity, that is, to the essential: to conversion, to prayer, to the sacraments....To all those who are curious, I would say that they should be certain that the Virgin does not engage in sensationalism; she does not create fear. She does not present apocalyptic visions, but guides people to her Son. And in this we have the essential.

As spiritually engaging as this speech may seem, it is a cleverly devised distortion of the essentials of the Fatima visions. Granted, Our Lady is not a "sensationalist." No saint or angel ever was. And certainly Our Lady desires to bring people to repentance and to the sacraments. That much goes without saying. But contrary to Ratzinger's downplaying of Fatima, Our Lady DID present apocalyptic visions (e.g., of Portugal, of Russia, of the annihilation of many nations, etc). She DID create fear (by warning that if her words were not heeded a greater war would result; and Russia would spread its atheism throughout the world; many people would suffer; and many souls would be lost in Hell). She DID ask for a "conversion," but the most important conversion She desired was that of Russia, which could only be accomplished by consecrating that nation to Her Immaculate Heart; and of which Jesus warned, in a 1931 apparition to Sister Lucia, that if the consecration was not done the world would suffer the wrath of God. Unfortunately, it is precisely the matter of consecrating Russia which the Vatican has still not obeyed. So yes, Ratzinger has certainly avoided "sensationalism," but in doing so he and the Vatican curia have also avoided obeying the easiest task God could have ever asked the church to do. If the church had simply consecrated Russia as commanded, there would be no "sensationalism" among the populous, because God, as promised, would have brought peace to the world.

Within this sphere, many have pointed out the inordinate amount of conflicting statements issuing from the Vatican. For example, Pope Pius XII stated just prior to his death in 1958: "The time for doubting Fatima is past," yet a 1960 press release issued from Vatican sources stated that the Third Secret would not be revealed as planned since "the Church...does not pledge herself to guarantee the veracity of the words which the three little shepherds claim to have heard from Our Lady," a statement the Vatican never retracted or contradicted. Not only does this set Pius XII's statement against the 1960 press release, but the specific mention of, "the words which the three little shepherds claim to have heard from Our Lady" implies, as noted previously, that the revelation of Fatima includes a specific text of spoken words from Our Lady to the children (25 lines of text), rather than just a vision.

Still, in the June 26, 2000 Vatican press release Ratzinger appears to have some lingering thoughts of apocalyptic dimensions regarding the vision of Fatima:

The angel with the flaming sword on the left of the Mother of God...represents the threat of judgment which looms over the world. Today the prospect that the world might be reduced to ashes by a sea of fire no longer seems pure fantasy.

Either this statement is pointing toward the years after June 2000, or it may merely be an anachronistic portrayal of what was then considered future in the years between 1945 (when the first nuclear bomb decimated Hiroshima, Japan) and 1981. Regardless, Cardinal Ratzinger's language implies that the angel's flaming sword refers to the threat of a nuclear war. Indeed, nuclear war was a constant threat in the twentieth century, and in some instances it was an imminent threat. On the other hand, Ratzinger's interpretation makes the fulfillment of the vision's divine chastisement dependent on man's technology. But in contrast to Ratzinger's view, the statement of the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Alberto do Amaral, on September 10, 1984, to the Technical University of Vienna stands out. After questioning Sister Lucia on the Third Secret, he wrote:

The Third Secret of Fatima speaks neither of atomic bombs nor of nuclear warheads, nor of SS20 missiles. Its content concerns only our faith. To identify the Secret with catastrophic announcements or with a nuclear holocaust is to distort the meaning of the message. The loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation; and it is true that faith is continually diminishing in Europe. (Fatima Intimate Joy World Event (FIJWE), Vol. IV, pp. 243-244).

Many point out that Cardinal Ratzinger's reference to a "sea of fire" in the above statement is similar to another statement he made on November 11, 1984 in an interview recorded by the Italian journal Jesus. The interview is titled: "Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis." In it, Ratzinger states that a crisis of faith is effecting the church throughout the world. When asked by the interviewer, Vittorio Messori, if he had read the secret, Cardinal Ratzinger answered:

Yes, I've read the Third Secret .... according to the judgment of the Popes, it would add nothing to what a Christian must know from Revelation: a radical call to conversion, the absolute seriousness of history, the dangers threatening the faith and life of the Christian, and therefore the world. And also the importance of the Last Times [lit. "Novissimi] .... the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what has been announced in Scripture, and also from the Marian apparitions approved by the Church in their known contents, which only reconfirmed the urgency of penance, conversion, forgiveness, fasting. To publish the 'third secret' would mean exposing the Church to the danger of sensationalism, exploitation of the content.

One Vatican approved apparition in particular to which the Cardinal may have been referring is Akita, Japan. In short, Our Lady revealed to the visionary: "If men do not repent and amend their lives, the Father is going to inflict a terrible chastisement on all of mankind. It will be a chastisement more serious than the Deluge...fire will fall from the heavens and annihilate a great part of humanity." Space does not permit us to mention the details of all the other Marian apparitions, such as La Salette, Betania, Sister Elena Aiello, Blessed Anna Maria Taigi, and many others. Each of them prophesy of great calamities to come upon the earth due to the sins of mankind.

Messori then writes:

'Perhaps also political implications, I venture, since it seems that here, also, as in the two other "secrets," Russia is mentioned?' At this point, however, the Cardinal declares that he is not in a position to go further into the matter and firmly refuses to discuss other particulars...

Cardinal Ratzinger's specific mention of the "Last Times" and "Scripture" is not surprising when one considers that Sister Lucia herself is purported to have said that the 8th and 13th chapters of the book of Revelation were intimately involved with the Fatima revelation. It is clear that, in 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger was saying that Fatima pointed to world-wide apostasy and eventual divine judgment.

Critics point out that when a comparison of the ominous tone in Ratzinger's November 1984 statement is made with the virtual dismissal of any future relevance to the Fatima vision in his June 2000 statement, it seems that, over a sixteen year period, the Cardinal has totally reversed his position on the meaning and relevance of Fatima. In the latter part of that sixteen year period, Fatima is minimized as a mere private revelation containing little new information, whereas sixteen years ago Fatima was put on par with the revelations of the Last Times mentioned in Scripture. This is a significant discrepancy, since the mention of the "Last Times" and "Scripture" is being stated three years after the purported final fulfillment of Fatima had already taken place in 1981 in the attempted assassination of John Paul II. Why, in 1984, would Ratzinger be anticipating apocalyptic fulfillments still coming from the Fatima visions if the entire Fatima vision was fulfilled in the assassination of John Paul II in 1981?

To add fuel to the fire, the book which contains Cardinal Ratzinger's interview with Vittorio Messori has been edited, indicating that the few pages dealing with Fatima have been modified. The book records the question by Messori addressed to Cardinal Ratzinger. The original version is in Italian and is translated as follows:

[Messori]: Undenied versions are circulating in the world, I continue, which describe the contents of that "secret" as disquieting, apocalyptic, as warning of terrible sufferings. John Paul II himself, in his personal visit to Germany, seemed to confirm (albeit with prudent circumlocutions, privately, to a select group) the undeniably disconcerting contents of that text. Before him, Paul VI, during his pilgrimage to Fatima, also seems to have alluded to the "apocalyptic" themes of the "secret." Why was it never decided to make it public, if only to counter rash speculations?

[Ratzinger]: Yes, I've read the Third Secret .... according to the judgment of the Popes, it would add nothing different to what a Christian must know from Revelation: a radical call to conversion, the absolute importance of history, the dangers threatening the faith and life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And also the importance of the Last Times [lit. novissimi]. If it is not made public -- at least for the time being -- it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational. But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what has been announced in Scripture, and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima in what is already known of what its message contains. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for salvation.

Click for larger image.

On June 1985, Ignatius Press includes the above interview in the book The Ratzinger Report. The book, translated into English, French and German from the Italian, has over one million copies in print. Upon comparing the original November 1984 interview with what appears in the 1985 Ratzinger Report, one will notice that the words "...the dangers threatening the faith and life of the Christian, and therefore the world. And also the importance of the Last Times...the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what has been announced in Scripture..." are missing from the interview in The Ratzinger Report. (The Ratzinger Report (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1985), pp.109-111). Further, there is no indication in the Ratzinger Report that the words were removed, giving the reader the impression that Cardinal Ratzinger said nothing to the interviewer of an apocalyptic note, except, as noted previously, to a crisis of faith across the world.

Not only does there seem to be a concerted effort by Ignatius Press to subvert what the Cardinal actually said, but without the actual words, it makes Ratzinger's view undercut all Marian apparitions and makes one wonder why Our Lady would even appear to various people if Her accompanying messages give no greater knowledge and provide no greater impact than what the people already know. It also undercuts the specificity of the Fatima revelation, namely, the mention of Portugal and Russia, details of which, according to his abrupt ending of the interview with Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger was not at all anxious to reveal.

Adding to the confusion is an article in the March 2, 1998 issue of Catholic World News which claims that Sister Lucia stated that John Paul II averted a nuclear war when he consecrated Russia in May 1984. She is also purported to have said that the Third Secret of Fatima was not intended for public revelation but was only destined for the Pope and the ecclesial hierarchy close to him. If true, this certainly would contradict Sister Lucia's well-known desire to have the Third Secret revealed to the world in 1960 or after her death, which ever came first.

More on the Required Consecration of Russia

Concerning Russia, the Second Secret states:

In order to save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If people do what I ask, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war [World War I] is going to end. But if people do not stop offending God, another even worse, will begin in the reign of Pius XI.

When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that it is the great sign that God gives you that He is going to punish the world by means of war, hunger and persecution of the Church and the Holy Father. To prevent this I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays.

If they attend to My requests, Russia will be converted and the world will have peace. If not, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, fomenting wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.

In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me: it will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.

In an interview with Sister Lucia, she stated: "Many times the Blessed Virgin told me and my cousins Jacinta and Francisco that Russia is the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation."

NB: The evidence shows that on three separate occasions in the 1980's, Sister Lucia indicated, in no uncertain terms, that the consecration of Russia had not yet been performed.

First, on March 19, 1983, she stated to the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Sante Portalupi: "The consecration of Russia has not been made as Our Lady has determined." At this meeting, she then set forth the requirements to accomplish the consecration of Russia: (1) Russia must be clearly indicated as the object of the consecration; (2) each bishop must make a public and solemn ceremony in his own church simultaneous with the Pope. These requirements are clearly listed in the text of the Second Secret.

Second, in an interview which appeared in Sol de Fatima (September 1985), Sister Lucia was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy, Spain, when he consecrated the world on March 25, 1984. Sister Lucia answered: "There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia." The interviewer then asked, "So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?" Sister Lucia answered: "No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act." [This coincides with the previous statement cited from John Paul II that he did not consecrate Russia though he "tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances"]. On March 22, 1984, Sister Lucia was celebrating her seventy-seventh birthday at the Carmel of Coimbra. Her long-time friend, Eugenia Pestana, visited her, as was her annual custom. Eugenia asked her: "Lucia, Sunday is the Consecration?" referring to the March 25 date. Having already read the text of the Pope's speech, Sister Lucia answered: "That consecration cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as the sole object of consecration." (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 172-173).

During this time, Cardinal Gagnon, in an interview with Fr. Caillon, states that the consecration of Russia has not been accomplished. In 1986, Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sister Lucia, publicly quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the consecration of Russia has not been performed. But similar to Fr. Coelho's reversal (previously cited), Maria will also mysteriously change her mind in 1989. In addition, in 1988, Cardinal Gagnon will castigate Fr. Nicholas Gruner for publishing his remarks in the Fatima Crusader, claiming they were not meant for publication.

Third, after interviewing Sister Lucia outside her convent, Enrico Romero publishes the contents on July 20, 1987. He reports that Sister Lucia again stated that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima had not been accomplished. This is followed on October 25, 1987 with an acknowledgment by Cardinal Mayer, in front of an audience of a dozen Catholic leaders, that the consecration of Russia had not been accomplished.

Fourth, prior to July 1989, Cardinal Law of Boston is reported to have visited Sister Lucia to ask her about the consecration of Russia. Sister Lucia remarked: "Has it been done on the narrow road of collegial consecration that Our Lady demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done."

In July 1989, the screws begin to tighten. Sister Lucia is given explicit instructions from unidentified Vatican operatives ordering her to say that the consecration of Russia was accomplished in the March 25, 1984 ceremony. [As noted, in that particular consecration the Pope neither singled out Russia for consecration, nor did the world's bishops simultaneously participate in the consecration]. After achieving her silence, Archbishop Bertone then produces a four-page, typewritten statement, purportedly typed and signed by Sister Lucia herself on November 8, 1989, that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. In the Vatican announcement Bertone states:

On 25 March 1984, in St. Peter's Square, while recalling the fiat uttered by Mary at the Annunciation, the Holy Father, in spiritual union with the bishops of the world, who had been convoked beforehand, entrusted all men and women and all peoples to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

He adds that the words of consecration included:

...this human world of ours...we entrust and consecrate to you, for we are full of concern for the earthly and eternal destiny of individuals and peoples. In a special way we entrust and consecrate to you those individuals and nations which particularly need to be thus entrusted and consecrated.

Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished. Hence any further discussion or request is without basis. (Archbishop Bertone stated that the words of Sr. Lucia, in her letter of November 8, 1989, were, in Portuguese: "Sim, esta feit a, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Marco de 1984," which translates to: "Yes it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984.")

Many point out, however, that Sister Lucia has never stated, privately or publicly, that she composed the statement, let alone sign it. She has never been known to type a letter, since all her correspondence thus far has been from her own handwriting. Her own blood-sister, Carolina, indicates that Sister Lucia does not even know how to type. And certainly, an admission by Sister Lucia that the March 25, 1984 consecration satisfied Our Lady's request would completely contradict every statement she has made on the requirements for the consecration over the previous sixty years, including her five denials of 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989, respectively.

Other aspects of the November 8, 1989 letter also cause suspicion. First, in its June 26, 2000 press release, the Vatican does not provide the source of the November 1989 letter. Only the date is provided. Thus, it is not known to whom Sister Lucia was writing the letter; nor what prompted her to write it. The most obvious reason the Vatican wishes not to reveal the source is that they are quite aware that on October 22, 1990, a court-accredited forensic scientist who analyzed the signature on the four-page typewritten statement stated, in writing, that the person who signed it was not the same person who signed Sister Lucia's memoirs. If so, then this is a case of forgery perpetrated by the Vatican itself. The Vatican purports that Sister Lucia wrote the letter to a man named Walter Noelcker.

In addition, why didn't Sister Lucia reveal this earth-shattering information to the pope or her bishop, or to any number of important people, but instead she decides to reveal it to a man that she did not even know, and whom no one else knows? It appears that the Vatican has made it appear as such so that the November letter could not be traced. Even the letter itself contains problems, since it refers to a consecration made by Pope Paul VI in 1967, yet no such consecration occurred. He performed one in 1964. The letter also purports that a consecration could not be done during a council [Vatican Council II]. This flatly contradicts earlier statements from Sister Lucia that a council, because it gathers the world's bishops together, would be an ideal time to perform the consecration of Russia. In fact, several attempts to organize a consecration of Russia were made at Vatican II, but Paul VI always refused to allow it.

If, indeed, Sister Lucia had confirmed to Vatican officials that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished, there would have been no better way to silence the critics than to have her make a vocal presentation to the world at the time the Pope visited Fatima on May 13, 2000. When it is considered that in the Vatican's report on Fatima released June 26, 2000 there is no mention of a consecration of Russia, one can surmise that there is a concerted effort to remove the requirement to name Russia as a specific request of the Fatima revelation.

All of the Vatican maneuvering is done while Sister Lucia is still held in seclusion and disallowed from speaking about Fatima to anyone but Vatican officials. Perhaps frustrated and disenchanted, Sister Lucia did not desire to go to Fatima on May 13, 1991 during the Pope's visit. Hearing of her reluctance, the Vatican ordered her to attend. At Fatima, John Paul II met with Sister Lucia for about one half-hour. The curious lacuna coming forth from this meeting is that neither the Pope nor Sister Lucia expressed anything regarding the accomplishing of the consecration of Russia which supposedly took place on March 25, 1984, after five decades of waiting. One would think that if Sister Lucia indeed drafted the four typewritten pages stating that there was a valid consecration in 1984, that the Pope and she would be overflowing with satisfaction and exuberance as to its completion. Instead, the silence of the two is almost deafening. That silence is compounded by the fact that Sister Lucia is still bound by a code of silence - the same silence imposed on her since 1960. Why, one would ask, is she still told to keep silent if she has already agreed that the consecration has been accomplished in 1984 and that the Fatima vision has already been fulfilled? It seems that the only credible reason the Vatican still imposes the silence is that they know that if Sister Lucia speaks she will tell the same story she has told for sixty years prior - that the consecration of Russia has never been accomplished, including the consecration on March 25, 1984, which she already stated three times in the 1980's that a proper consecration did not occur. On August 29, 1989, Sister Lucia is purported to have composed a letter to a Sr. Mary of Bethlehem. The letter reads as follows:

Received your letter and, although I have very little time at my disposal I will answer your question which is: Is the consecration of the world, according to the request of Our Lady, made? On October 31, 1942, His Holiness Pius XII made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I answered "NO," because it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world. Later, on May 13, 1967, His Holiness Paul VI made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made as Our Lady requested. I responded "NO," for the same reason, it was not made in union with all the bishops of the world. On May 13, 1982, His Holiness John Paul II made the Consecration. I was asked if it was made. I responded "NO." It was not made in union with all the bishops of the world. Then this same Supreme Pontiff, John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him. He sent for the stature of Our Lady of Fatima - the one from the little Chapel to be taken to Rome and on March 25, 1984 - publicly - with the bishops who wanted to unite with His Holiness, made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They then asked me if it was made as Our Lady requested, and I said, "YES." Now it was made. Why this urgency of God that this Consecration should be made in union with all the bishops of the world? Because this Consecration is a call for unity of all Christians - The Mystical Body of Christ - whose head is the Pope, the one, true representative of Christ on earth to whom the Lord confided the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and on this union depends the faith in the world and the charity which is the bond that must unite all of us in Christ, as that which He wants, and as He asked the Father: 'As you, O Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You have sent Me...I in them, and You in Me; that they be made perfect in one, and the world may know that You have sent me and have loved them as You have loved Me" (John 17:21-23). As we see of the union depends the faith and the charity that must be the bond of our union in Christ, whose true representative on earth is the Pope. A hug to your mother and my greeting to the rest of the family in union with prayers. Coimbra, August 29, 1989. Sr. Lucia.

There are several anomalies in this letter:

1) Since we know that the November letter which bore a signature purporting to be that of Sr. Lucia's was judged a forgery by a court-accredited forensic scientist, this does not speak well of the authenticity of the above letter written to Sr. Mary of Bethlehem.

2) For having such "very little time" to respond, the letter goes into detail that is not really needed in her response. It appears as if the person composing the letter has a specific agenda in mind. See below.

3) As it stands, the detail shows that all previous pontiffs had failed to consecrate Russia as Our Lady requested, including Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI. This means that the judgments of God (e.g., World War II and beyond) remained on the Church and the world for the 55 years from 1929 to 1984 - a stinging indictment against the pontiffs who the letter repeatedly states are: "...the one, true representative of Christ on earth to whom the Lord has confided the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." If four popes failed to consecrate Russia for 55 years, then that is one of the longest acts of neglect or disobedience ever perpetrated on the Church of Jesus Christ by his "one, true representative." Yet we are told that John XXIII introduced a "breath of fresh air" for the Church, and which was followed by the implementation of Paul VI, yet these two pontiffs were in direct disobedience to God regarding the consecration of Russia - a disobedience that, amazingly enough, God had already punished by sending World War II.

4) One of the more telling features of the letter, considering that it attempts to go into some detail regarding the past failed attempts to consecrate Russia, is that it ignores the 1952 consecration of Russia by Pope Pius XII, a consecration performed without the bishops. The letter only mentions the 1942 consecration in which Pius XII consecrated the world without the bishops. Why might the 1952 consecration be left out? Well, if someone had an agenda to make it appear that Sr. Lucia approved of John Paul's 1984 consecration of the "world," then they would have a vested interested in eliminating Pius XII's 1952 consecration of Russia, for this would show that the name of Russia is specifically required in the consecration. This is significant, since from 1929 to 1989 (70 years) we do not hear anything from either heaven, Sr. Lucia, or the Church stating that a consecration of the "world" is now sufficient to pass for the consecration of Russia.

5) We have already seen that after the 1984 consecration, Sr. Lucia stated four times (1984, 1985, 1987, 1989) that the consecration of Russia was not performed as Our Lady requested. So why in late 1989 would she suddenly change her mind?

6) The letter denotes that the reason for the "urgency" for the consecration is

Because this Consecration is a call for unity of all Christians - The Mystical Body of Christ....and on this union depends the faith in the world and the charity which is the bond that must unite all of us in Christ, as that which He wants, and as He asked the Father...

As nice as it sounds, there is one big problem with that answer: It was never given by either Our Lady, Jesus, or even Sister Lucia in all the years prior as the reason Russia needed to be consecrated. There was one reason heaven gave for the consecration of Russia -- Russia was an evil nation which needed to be exorcized of her demons so that she would stop spreading her errors around the world. The stark contrast between the real Fatima message and the one perpetrated by the ecumenists could be no clear then this apparently forged letter.

The only one calling Russia an "evil" nation during the 1980s was America's President Ronald Reagan because he, unlike the Vatican for the seventy years prior, was not afraid to do so. When Russia pressured him to capitulate, Reagan, not wishing to give them any appeasement, walked out of the peace talks in Iceland rather than compromise any of his principles. As a result, Russia itself capitulated. By 1989, Reagan had single-handedly dismantled their government by driving them into bankruptcy. At that moment, the Vatican, who had little success with Russia ever since the Pact of Metz in 1962, attempted to capitalize on Reagan's victory and call it her own. What better way to make it appear as if they had been obedient to the Fatima vision then to create an "approval" by Sister Lucia, via a computer generated statement, that the collapse of the Russian government was due to the consecration of the world in 1984. It was the perfect out for them, and the Vatican bureaucrats took full advantage of it.

If the Church had performed the proper consecration of Russia, there would have been real peace. There was never a call from any of the Fatima visions to "unite the Christians" of the world into the "Mystical Body of Christ." That kind of ecumenical language is purely post-conciliar and was not even in the minds of those who first received the message of Fatima, let alone being the reason for the consecration of Russia by the bishops. The purported letter is attempting to spin the long-attested evil of Russia into a long-awaited quest for Christian unity. Moreover, the letter assumes that heaven does not accept the Church as unified already, but that surely wasn't the view of Pius XI, the pope who had received the original Fatima message, in his encyclical Mortalium Animos of 1928, an encyclical that told Catholics not to fraternize with those of other faiths, since it would tend to disunify rather than unify.

On October 11, 1992, an interview with Sister Lucia conducted by Carlos Evaristo is circulated. Evaristo later admits to doing some "creative editing" of Sister Lucia's remarks. Suspicion of his involvement arises when it is discovered that the interview contains a statement from Sister Lucia that Mikhail Gorbachev knelt in front of the Pope and asked for pardon for his sins. The supposed event is just as quickly denied by Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, and a retraction of the interview is subsequently published. The interview also claimed that Sister Lucia stated the following: (a) "the Virgin did not request the conversion of Russia to Catholicism"; (b) "He who is not with the Pope is not with God"; (c) "the Third Secret is not meant to be revealed"; and (d) "God condemns no one to Hell." These alleged statements, of course, would be the exact opposite of what Sister Lucia has maintained regrading the Fatima visions for all the seventy years prior. It was she who admonished Popes for failing to consecrate Russia. It was she who told us the Third Secret must be revealed by 1960 or her death. It was she to whom Our Lady gave a vision of Hell so terrifying that Lucia and her fellow seers could only observe it for a moment, and that God sends "many" people there. As for John Paul II, Sister Lucia's relationship with him has been cordial but not gushing. Her initial refusal to attend John Paul's visit to Fatima in 1991 is an indication of her resolve.

On May 13, 2000, during ceremonies for the beatification of Jacinta and Francisco (the other two seers), Cardinal Sodano announces that the Third Secret of Fatima will be revealed. As noted, on June 26, 2000 the Vatican releases a text it claims is the entire Third Secret.

The Vatican Interpretation Does Fit the Details of the Third Secret

If one reads the account of Sister Lucia's vision very carefully, it reveals events that have minimal, if any, connection to the assassination attempt on John Paul II in 1981. Here again is the portion of that account taken from the vision released by the Vatican:

...before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

The salient points of this vision include the following:

1) "The Holy Father passes through a big city half in ruins with halting step."

Literally speaking, as of May 1981, St. Peter's Square was not a "city half in ruins." Rome, and St. Peter's Square, remain intact and vibrant, at least in regards to physical demographics. Moreover, the "halting step" was not characteristic of the demeanor or physical capability of John Paul in 1981, since his life at that time was full of vim and vigor. Of course, John Paul may have had a "halting step" after he was shot, but that would force an anachronistic interpretation into the vision, since the vision shows that the "halting step" comes before the Bishop in white is accosted.

Employing a symbolic interpretation to this part of the vision would most likely have it refer to a spiritual decimation either in Italy where the Vatican is located, or throughout the entire world. The "halting step" could refer to the extreme difficulty of John Paul II, or the other Popes of the twentieth century, to maintain the Christian faith against a host of odds, both within and outside the Church. In the face of the proliferation of communist regimes throughout the world during the 1940's-1980's, along with many within the Catholic Church who supported Marxist-Leninist ideologies (e.g., the Jesuits), the Popes of the twentieth century have faced very formidable foes, not to mention the heterodox and liberal theologians and prelates that infest the Catholic Church.

2) "Afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way."

Many point out that the scene at St. Peter's Square in 1981 was a festive one, not one that even remotely portrayed a sad man walking through a scene of morbidity. Rather, the scene in the Fatima vision depicts the Bishop having temporarily escaped the violence of his assassins and with enough time to view the carnage those assassins left just prior to his own demise. This part of the vision is almost identical to the vision of Pope Pius X, who foresaw one of his successors stepping through a sea of bodies, escaping from Rome, and then being killed himself. It is also very similar to the vision of St. John Bosco concerning a Pope who is wounded and falls, recovers slightly, and then falls again, dead, after which the next Pope guides the Church to safety between a pillar of the Holy Eucharist and a pillar of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

3) "Having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him."

In the eyes of many, this part of the vision contains the most obvious contradiction to the Vatican interpretation, since: (a) Pope John Paul was not killed, (b) Ali Agca was not a soldier, (c) Ali Agca was a lone gunman, (d) Ali Agca did not use arrows in addition to bullets, (e) Pope John Paul was neither at the top of a mountain nor kneeling at the foot of a big Cross when he was shot. In fact, there is nothing in this vision which matches what happened to John Paul II.

Of course, if this scene is merely symbolic, the critic's objections hold little weight, since there would then be an unspecified freedom in interpreting its details. Similar to biblical prophecies, there is often a mixture of literal and symbolic scenes, as well as a compression of time so that one scene may represent a whole era. Moreover, elements such as "arrows" could be a sign that the vision is not to be interpreted literally, since such weaponry had by 1917 long become obsolete when the vision was given to the Fatima children. It is also possible that Sister Lucia's account of the vision was as if the crippling of John Paul II after the shooting was dead, but not necessarily literally dead. If we add to this that, similar to biblical prophecies, the eventualities detailed in apparitions are often conditioned on the actions of its subjects to heed the warnings given in the message, John Paul II's surviving of the gun shot wound may have been due to Mary's intercession - a scenario that John Paul II himself has supported. Cardinal Ratzinger took advantage of these possibilities when giving the Vatican's interpretation:

The history of an entire century can be seen represented in this image. Just as the places of the earth are synthetically described in the two images of the mountain and the city, and are directed towards the cross, so too time is presented in a compressed way. In the vision we can recognize the last century as a century of martyrs, a century of suffering and persecution for the Church, a century of World Wars and the many local wars which filled the last fifty years and have inflicted unprecedented forms of cruelty.

However, since the Vatican has chosen to interpret the "bullets" of the vision literally, that is, that they refer to the actual bullets from the gun of Ali Agca, then they have locked themselves into a more literal interpretation for the rest of the vision. Once one commits to a literal interpretation of one part, it would logically require a literal interpretation to the other parts, or at the least, an convincing explanation why the other parts were not to be interpreted literally. If not, then the interpreter could be accused of fabricating an interpretation to fit a preconceived idea or agenda, especially when one considers that the first two secrets of Fatima were fulfilled very literally, with little symbolism. One of those predictions concerned Our Lady's statement: "if what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war [World War I] is going to end; but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pius XI." All of the prophecy, of course, was literally fulfilled, since World War II broke out in 1939 when Germany annexed Austria during the pontificate of Pius XI.

It might also be said that if one interprets the vision symbolically, then the attempted assassination of John Paul II would fulfill the vision no better than some other symbolic invention. For example, the vision's portrayal of the assassination of the Holy Father could be symbolic of the Church going through a time of spiritual persecution and that the Pope will be maligned and lose respect from the world. Similarly, the killing of the other bishops, priests and religious could be symbolic of a spiritual decimation of the world's Catholic churches through persecution. There are any number of symbolic interpretations that could be given to the vision. Hence, the point stands that choosing which parts of the vision are literally fulfilled and time-specific, as opposed to other parts being symbolic and time-compressed, becomes quite an arbitrary exercise, especially since Vatican officials are not claiming to have received their interpretation of the vision from heaven, and, in fact, have stated that there interpretation "is not binding" on Catholic faithful. To have relative consistency, the interpretation should answer all the dimensions of the vision on the same level, and it must do so with the same specificity that the vision was given. In choosing a literal interpretation of the vision's portrayal of the assassination of the Bishop clothed in white, the Vatican has, more or less, confined itself, since it would then be expected to give a literal interpretation to the remaining killings that occur in the vision. In light of this, critics point out that there is no evidence for such killings, at least not in St. Peter's Square in 1981.

There is one more caveat. If the Vatican chooses to symbolize the assassination of the Bishop in white, depending on one's perspective and interpretation of the world scene, it might have even more difficulty in finding a past fulfillment, for in no time during the reigns of the last few popes have any of them been spiritually "assassinated" by the world. If anything, compared to their predecessors, the last few popes, beginning with John XXIII and up to John Paul II, have enjoyed world-wide acclaim and have been pivotal in choosing the direction that the world scene has taken. In the age of ecumenism, one might say that there has been far less spiritual persecution of Catholics and of the Pope then there has been in all the time commencing from the Reformation. Although the murderous reign of communist regimes is a viable candidate as a fulfillment to persecution, most of the countries eliminated were ideological enemies of communism, not necessarily Christian nations.

4) "And in the same way there died one after another the other bishops, priests, men and women religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions."

As noted above, the Vatican's interpretation would find it difficult to explain how this particular facet of the vision was fulfilled by the attempted assassination of John Paul II. The vision specifies that "other bishops, priests, men and women religious, and various lay people" were killed. None of this literally occurred in 1981. Since the assassination of the Bishop in white is, according to the vision, virtually at the same time as the killing of the other bishops, priests, religious and lay people, then the interpretation of the vision is required, by normally accepted rules, to show the simultaneity of the two events.

Moreover, as noted above, since the Vatican's view interprets the assassination of the Bishop dressed in white to be fulfilled literally in the attempted assassination John Paul II, then interpretive equilibrium would require it to apply a similar interpretation to the death of the other bishops, priests, religious and lay people. Since the Vatican offered no figurative interpretation of the killing of the "Bishop dressed in white," then it has offered no alternative explanation as to how the killings of the "other bishops, priests, religious and lay people," which appear to be an integral part of the vision, fit in.

Adding to the suspicion concerning the Vatican's interpretation, many point out that Archbishop Bertone's explanation is filled with anomalies. Bertone quotes Sr. Lucia as saying,

We did not know the name of the Pope; Our Lady did not tell us the name of the Pope; we did not know whether it was Benedict XV or Pius XII or Paul VI or John Paul II; but it was the Pope who was suffering and that made us suffer too.

The problems with this explanation are as follows: First, Sister Lucia's statement, though honest, is anachronistic, since neither she nor her cousins knew the identity of either Pius XII, Paul VI, or John Paul II, at the time the Fatima vision was given in 1917. Thus, it is irrelevant for her, at this time, to give a list of Popes which she could not have possibly identified in 1917. Hypothetically speaking, for all we know, the vision could be speaking about the future Pope Pius XIII or Pope John Paul III, or any other pope.

Second, although Sister Lucia agreed with John Paul's claim that Mary had guided the path of Ali Agca's bullet away from the pope, Archbishop Bertone attempted to make her agreement into an interpretation of the vision, stating that, "it was a mother's hand that guided the bullet's path and in his throes the Pope halted at the threshold of death." (Pope John Paul II, Meditation from the Policlinico Gemelli to the Italian bishops, May 13, 1994). Although Bertone puts more of a literal interpretation on the key words in the vision: "bullet," "halted," and "death," this seems to be a forced interpretation, since the vision literally specifies: (a) "arrows" with bullets, (b) that the Bishop in white was "halting" prior to being shot, and (c) that the Bishop was not at the "throes of death," but actually died. As noted above, the more literal one attempts to make the interpretation (as is seen by Archbishop Bertone's attempt to use the very words of the vision), the more the interpreter confines himself into having to provide a literal interpretation to the whole vision. Hence, the problem with the Vatican's idiosyncratic interpretation of the vision is that there are so very few notable events that occurred in St. Peter's Square in May 1981 which qualify as viable candidates for a convincing interpretation of the Third Secret's vision.

Events as They Continue to Unfold

As to Vatican's excuses why the Third Secret was not revealed until June 2000, the real reason may be read between the lines of Cardinal Silvio Oddi's statement in the magazine Sabato on March 17, 1990. There he stated that, in May 1982, Sister Lucia had conferred with the Pope about the release of the secret. "Together they had decided that it was more opportune not to reveal the Secret, for fear, she explained to me, that it might be 'misinterpreted.'"

This is certainly an odd statement. If John Paul II's assassination attempt in May 1981 was the central focus of the Third Secret, and if the Vatican had released that interpretation shortly thereafter, what would there be to misinterpret? If the Vatican did not possess an interpretation as of May 1982, we could understand why they would be reluctant to release the secret, but they already had the fulfillment as of May 1981, and thus they had the interpretation. Surely if the pope and Sister Lucia together agreed that the "bishop in white" was John Paul II, they would have been overjoyed that the Third Secret had finally been fulfilled, and even more so since John Paul survived the assassination attempt. The world would have been happy to hear that the vision was now part of the past and the world could anticipate the promised peace. Unfortunately, the Vatican's release of their interpretation in June 2000 suggests that what really happened is that someone in the curia just prior to June 2000 had suddenly thought of the idea that John Paul could be the "bishop in white." Even though they realized the inadequacy of their interpretation (as noted earlier), they thought it was worth the risk in order to accomplish their main objective - silencing those who keep insisting that there are apocalyptic dimensions of the Third Secret. Indeed, if, as many believe from the evidence available that the Third Secret predicted an apostasy within the Vatican curia itself, then that same curia would have a vested interest in eliminating itself as the villain of the secret. Needless to say, having the Vatican interpret the Third Secret forms a conflict of interest, especially since heaven did not reveal an interpretation to them.

Second, in his tape recorded message of November 17, 1980 (previously cited) John Paul II told the audience: "If a message announces that millions of people are going to die, one doesn't really wish to have it made public. Many want to know it only out of curiosity, but they forget that knowledge brings responsibility." Reaching into his pocket for a rosary, he continued: "Here is the medicine against this evil. Pray, pray, and don't ask any more questions. Leave everything else up to the Madonna." This tells us that John Paul knew of the contents of the Third Secret as of 1980, before his assassination attempt in May 1981. Two things are of note:

(a) the statement "one doesn't wish to have it made public," betrays a reticence on his part to reveal the Third Secret. But according to Sister Lucia account of Our Lady's request, the secret should have been made known in 1960, at the latest, irrespective of its contents. Hence, there was no room for the Pope to make a personal judgment as to whether the Third Secret should be revealed;

(b) the supposed fulfillment of the Third Secret (the attempted assassination of John Paul in 1981) contains nothing of what John Paul told this German audience (i.e., "people annihilated suddenly by the millions, from one instant to the next"), but the Third Secret does envision many people being annihilated ("... and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions") - a part of the vision that the Vatican's June 2000 interpretation does not explain. Obviously, there is a conflict between what John Paul said to the German audience in November 1980, and the supposed complete and final fulfillment of the Third Secret in May 1981 at his assassination attempt.

Third, many point out the anachronism issuing forth from the Vatican's claims. If the vision of the Third Secret concerning the assassination of the "Bishop in white" was supposed to have been fulfilled in 1981 at the attempted assassination of John Paul II, and the Second Secret was supposed to be fulfilled in 1984 at the consecration of the world to Our Lady by John Paul II, then why is the Third Secret fulfilled before the Second Secret? This is not to say that the fulfillment of the Third Secret must come after the fulfillment of the Second Secret, but the juxtaposition of the respective fulfillments certainly raises questions concerning the propriety of the Vatican's interpretation.

Incidentally, John Paul II's assertion that he is the lead figure in the Fatima vision did not generate the adulation that usually goes along with papal revelations. The Portuguese newspaper, O Publico reported: "...Dismayed, cheated and betrayed, that is how many people feel." Portuguese bishop Januario Torgal stated: "If the Vatican knew that it was not apocalyptic, why on earth did it make it public only now?" (London Times, June 29, 2000).

Fourth, why would Sister Lucia be reluctant to reveal the Third Secret when she has been insisting on its release since the early thirties and had set a final date for release in 1960, under command from Our Lady? An agreement not to release the secret in 1982 would have implicated her in disobedience to Our Lady.

Vatican apologists claim that, if they had released the Third Secret other assassination attempts might have been perpetrated on the Pope from a mad-men who desired to be the fulfillment of the Fatima prophecy. In addition, the Russian government, in an attempt to answer the negative characterization it received from the Fatima prophecy, may have increased its proliferation of atheism and Christian persecution throughout the world. But these excuses do not make sense. First, if the Vatican knew as of May 1982 that the fulfillment of the Third Secret had already taken place in May 1981, and if they had released that information to the world, then as far as the world would be concerned, there could be no other fulfillment from future mad-men. Second, the Vatican's fear of the Russian government inadvertently reveals why the Vatican has been reluctant to consecrate Russia in the first place - for fear that it would generate even more reprisals from Russia! The whole seventy years since the consecration was ordered by Our Lady has been a test of faith for the Vatican, a test, as we have seen, that they had failed several times before, even under threat of punishment from Our Lord in the apparitions Sister Lucia received in 1931 and 1936. The simple fact is that the Vatican, for seventy years, has not taken the Fatima visions seriously at all, but have, in effect, only staged compliance.

It must also be pointed out that although Vatican officials keep insisting that the consecration of Russia has been accomplished by the March 25, 1984 consecration, John Paul II has never stated publicly to the Church that he has performed the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Further evidence leads one to wonder about John Paul II's intentions regarding the consecration. In a reported conversation the Pope had with Cardinal Wyszynski in 1980, the Cardinal stated to him that the "most important act he would have to do during his pontificate would be the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in union with all the bishops," whereupon John Paul II responded: "the Russians would regard such a consecration as an interference in their internal affairs." (The Awesome Fatima Consecrations, Rev. Paul Trinchard, p. 104). Corroborating this is the account of Monsignor Paul Joseph Cordes, Vice President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity who states that John Paul did not mention Russia in the 1984 consecration because he was afraid "that his words might be interpreted as an act of provocation by the Soviet leaders." (Fatima, joie intime, p. 363-364). If this is what John Paul said, then it is quite revealing concerning the Vatican's motives in this whole affair. It is a statement that reveals the Vatican's fear of man and their lack of fear of God. In a word, the whole Fatima debacle can be summed up within those two polarities.

The Biased Analysis of Fr. Edouard Dhanis, S.J.

At this point, a new solution to neutralize the Fatima revelations begins to appear. In addition to the apparent downplaying of the necessity to name Russia in the consecration, the Vatican employs the writings of the Flemish theologian of the 1940's, Fr. Edouard Dhanis, S.J., to help in formulating the explanation of the Fatima vision. In his efforts, Dhanis had consulted none of the official archives of the Fatima revelations, and he dismissed the Fatima documents offered to him. Sister Lucia, as reports testify, pleaded with Dhanis to interview her, but he resolutely refused. And despite the fact that Dhanis' conclusions have been throughly rebutted by other scholars, he was the only person the Vatican consulted for their June 2000 interpretation of the Third Secret.

In his day, Dhanis remained one of the most vocal critics of the reliability of the Fatima revelation. Among his analyses, which appeared in an article published by the Streven Journal (The article is titled Bij de Verschijningen en de voorzeggingen van Fatima, 1944, pp. 139-140), it was Dhanis' opinion that Sister Lucia had combined her own personal experiences with the visions of the three secrets. In suggesting such a fabrication took place, Dhanis successfully created doubt about the whole Fatima revelation, since, if accepted, no one could safely say what was true and what was false about the vision. It is rather amazing that the Vatican would put such stock in his interpretation, since Dhanis is the only one of all the Fatima scholars who has suggested such a thing. But obviously, since Dhanis' interpretation is the only one that eliminates the Vatican as the villain of the vision, it was very convenient for the Vatican to side with him alone.

Along with the John Paul II's statement that "the Russians would regard such a consecration as an interference in their internal affairs," Dhanis held to the belief that the consecration of Russia was "a practical impossibility." Naturally, the Vatican's thinking is that a world-wide public event singling out Russia as the object of the Church's prayers would draw outrage from that country, since it would be obvious that they were being targeted as an evil nation which needed to be exorcized of its demons. The outrage would come not only from the seats of Russian political power, but more importantly, the Russian orthodox church, to whom the Vatican has been making ecumenical overtures ever since the 1960 Pact of Metz, cited earlier. As it stands, Russian Orthodoxy is at odds with Roman Catholicism, and would consider a consecration of their country as instigating spiritual warfare. In the Vatican's thinking, the goals of ecumenism with the Orthodox faith, so treasured by the post-conciliar agenda, would be shut tight for another thousand years. But, of course, that is not the way Our Lady promised it would happen at all. Without a consecration, Russia will never bend to Christ. This is why, for example, that Russian Patriarch Alexy II (a former KGB agent) recently condemned the Pope's television appearance in Russia. He also condemned the Pope's attempt to establish Catholic dioceses in Russia as "an invasion of Russia."

Not surprisingly, the day after the Fatima secret was released by the Vatican (June 27, 2000), the former Soviet dictator and present promoter of a one-world socialist government under the auspices of the United Nations, Mikhail Gorbachev, was the honored guest of Cardinal Sodano, the Vatican Secretary of State, at a press conference in Rome. [For more information on the ties between the Vatican, John Paul II and Mikhail Gorbachev, see Malachi Martin's The Keys of This Blood : The Struggle for World Dominion Between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West. Malachi Martin also believed that the consecration to Russia was not accomplished on March 24, 1984 as claimed by the Vatican. See also the article "Gorbachev Calls for 'Central Soviet' To Run Global Economy" in the Wanderer, September 21, 2000. This article highlights Gorbachev's recent plea to the United Nations to strive for a one-world socialist government with punitive and taxation powers to make all nations comply ]. Gorbachev was invited to the Vatican again in November 2000 where he addressed the pope and other prelates under the label "Jubilee of Politicians," a gathering of over five thousand of the worlds rulers. Considering his advocacy of world-wide abortion, Gorbachev is the very emblem of the "culture of death" which John Paul II has spoken out against so vehemently. Gorbachev is the architect of the "State of the World Forum 2000," which has as its purpose "...to work with partners worldwide to help galvanize this spiritual, political and cultural renaissance...such that momentum toward a global civilization is established." On a PBS television program on October 23, 1996, Gorbachev stated: "The cosmos is my God. Nature is my God." It is obvious that Gorbachev, still speaking for the goals of Russia, has only changed his spots but not his mind. Unfortunately, the Vatican makes cordial gestures toward him to their own destruction. Perhaps for fear of exposing the moral and social contradictions his presence generated at the Vatican in the minds of the press, no questions were allowed to be asked of Gorbachev at the press conference.

As noted earlier, such gestures are a continuation of the Vatican's policy of Ostopolitik in an effort to gain concessions from Russia. It is also a continuation of the 1984 Balamand Statement between the Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church not to proselytize in each other's religion. Vatican officials defend such political policies by claiming that those who see it otherwise are naive about how to deal with the geopolitical world. But critics retort that it is not complicated at all, for God is the One who raises up nations and casts them down, not the political maneuvering of men. Very simply, God raises or casts down based on the obedience (or disobedience), the very message Our Lord gave to Sister Lucia in 1931. Unfortunately, as long as men think that they are the ones who control the destiny of the world, we will all reap the divine repercussions of such blindness.

This kind of Vatican "politicking" is similar to the political maneuvering attempted by Judah with Egypt many years ago. Instead of obeying the means that God ordained to influence the nations, Judah began to make alliances with the surrounding powers. To get a sense of the gravity of this sin, we can replace the word "Egypt" with the word "Russia" in the following quote from Isaiah 30:1-3:

"Woe to the rebellious children," says the LORD, "who carry out a plan, but not mine; and who make a league, but not of My spirit, that they may add sin to sin; who set out to go down to Egypt [Russia], without asking for my counsel, to take refuge in the protection of Pharaoh, and to seek shelter in the shadow of Egypt [Russia]! Therefore shall the protection of Pharaoh turn to your shame, and the shelter in the shadow of Egypt [Russia] to your humiliation.'"

Similarly, Isaiah 31:1-2 states:

"Woe to those who go down to Egypt [Russia] for help and rely on horses, who trust in chariots because they are many and in horsemen because they are very strong, but do not look to the Holy One of Israel or consult the LORD! 2 And yet He is wise and brings disaster, He does not call back His words, but will arise against the house of the evildoers, and against the helpers of those who work iniquity. 3 The Egyptians [Russians] are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, and not spirit. When the LORD stretches out his hand, the helper will stumble, and he who is helped will fall, and they will all perish together."

Jeremiah also has some stinging words in Jeremiah 42:19-22:

"The LORD has said to you, O remnant of Judah, 'Do not go to Egypt' [Russia]. Know for a certainty that I have warned you this day that you have gone astray at the cost of your lives. For you sent me to the LORD your God, saying, 'Pray for us to the LORD our God, and whatever the LORD our God says declare to us and we will do it.' And I have this day declared it to you, but you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD your God in anything [consecration of Russia] that he sent me to tell you. Now therefore know for a certainty that you shall die by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence in the place where you desire to go to live."

These words are eerily reminiscent of what the Vatican has apparently been doing regarding God's clear command through Our Lady to consecrate the nation of Russia. They keep saying with their lips, "Oh, give us good fortune in the church; give us a new springtime for the faith," but when God tells them how to do it (by consecrating Russia) they instead make secret pacts with Russia that negate both the consecration and the evangelism that nation so desperately needs, and devise a plan of political ecumenism that God has not ordained.

Along these lines of thought, many point out that the apparent fall of Russian communism in 1989 came at the same time the mysterious four-page "typewritten" letter, supposedly written and signed by Sister Lucia and stating that the consecration of Russia had already been performed in 1984, suddenly appeared. Apparently, Russia's shift from a communistic economy to a world-friendly economy was interpreted as her "conversion." Consequently, the Vatican eliminated the need for a future consecration. In its place they gave themselves license to find a suitable consecration from the past. Besides the consecrations of Pius XII and Paul VI, the only other candidate was the consecration of the world by John Paul II on March 1984. Although it did not fit the specifications laid down by Our Lady and Our Lord, the Vatican had to do its best to make it fit.

After receiving Dhanis' report, Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed the results when, in reference to the Third Secret, he suggested that the vision could have come from what "...Lucy may have seen in devotional books....the projections of the inner world of children." With such evaluations in the public domain it was obvious even to the secular press, as noted by the Los Angeles Times in June 2000, that Cardinal Ratzinger "gently debunked the cult of Fatima." With the Vatican's appeal to images from devotional books, many conclude that the Vatican gave only a partial interpretation to the vision (the part stating that the assassination of the "bishop dressed in white" refers to the attempted assassination of John Paul II) so that it could more easily dismiss the other parts of the vision as the invention of Sister Lucia's mind. What better refutation of Sister Lucia than a Sister Lucia who has hallucinations?

As noted previously, Cardinal Ratzinger's new interpretation of Fatima is a total about-face from his 1984 interview with Vittorio Messori. There is no longer any mention of what Ratzinger termed "dangers threatening the Faith and the life of the Christian and therefore the world." There is nothing about the "importance of the Last Things." There is nothing about what is prophesied "in many other Marian apparitions" (all of which say nothing about John Paul being the fulfillment of heavenly apparitions). There is nothing about "prophecies fulfilled in Scripture." The whole Fatima vision, as fantastic as it is (e.g., confirmed by hundreds of witnesses seeing: the most spectacular celestial miracle the world has ever seen; the movement of the oak tree limbs upon which Lucia sat motionless; the flower petals falling from the sky; the cloud that appeared whenever Our Lady came and went from Fatima; and the prediction of world events that no imagination could conjure) has been neatly tucked away into the archives of "childhood devotional images."

Power Plays and False Excuses

In order to explain his about-face on Fatima, Ratzinger threatens opponents with Vatican power-plays, such as "be submissive to the Magisterium," yet, under canon law, he admits that his interpretation "is not binding" on Catholics. In the face of this, those who pursue the appeal to consecrate Russia are hunted down like animals and are threatened with everything from physical violence to excommunication if they resist. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church runs rampant with liberal heretics and homosexuals to which the Vatican and its underlings have virtually turned a blind eye for the last 30 years. As Jesus said to the Pharisees, they strain the gnat but swallow the camel.

In the face of all this, Cardinal Sodano stated in the Vatican's June 2000 announcement that "the successive events of 1989 led, both in the Soviet Union and in a number of countries of Eastern Europe, to the fall of Communistic regimes which promoted atheism." Accordingly, in the 1994 book, Crossing The Threshold of Hope, John Paul II wrote on page 131:

And what are we to say of the three children of Fatima who suddenly, on the eve of the outbreak of the October Revolution, heard: 'Russia will convert.' and 'In the end, my Heart will triumph.' They could not have invented those predictions. They did not know enough about history or geography, much less the social movements and ideological developments. And nevertheless it happened just as they had said.

Despite this glowing assessment of Russia, many have been convinced that their suspicions about Russia are correct when a comparison is made between the apparition of Our Lady at Guadalupe, Mexico in the 16th century and what supposedly happened on March 25, 1984. After Guadalupe, within only nine years, nine million Aztecs turned from paganism to Christianity. Yet in Russia today there is hardly any voice of Catholicism and virtually no conversions reported of Russian people almost two decades after the supposed 1984 consecration. As noted above, on a per-capita basis, there are significantly less Catholics in Russian today than in 1917 when the Fatima vision was first given. This problem is compounded by the growth of Protestant sects and Eastern religions in Russia, as well as a dramatic increase in occult practices and new age beliefs.

To cover up these inconsistencies, Vatican officials continue to make excuses for the elimination of Russia's name from the March 1984 consecration. Excuses range from saying that Sister Lucia may have misunderstood the request, to the idea that Our Lady wouldn't have asked for Russia's consecration when the whole world needed it, to the excuse that the collegial consecration of Russia is not possible in today's world, to asserting that Our Lady is satisfied with the consecration of the world, to the presumption that the last consecration is good enough, if not better, than what was requested. One wonders why such a simple request from heaven could be ignored with the most childish obfuscating.

Some try to defend the contradictions between what we see in Russia today and the words of Our Lady ("And Russia will convert") by saying that "convert" does not necessarily refer to Russia's conversion to Catholicism or Christianity, per se, but to its conversion from its attempted domination of the world and its warlike aggression. This explanation is further supported by pointing out that Our Lady's stated "there will be peace," not necessarily conversion to Christianity. Unfortunately, those who advocate such a definition of "conversion" cannot cite one instance in which the Church has used or established such a meaning for the word "convert." Moreover, it was Our Lady herself who used the word "convert," yet there is no instance in any of her apparitions that she understood the word to mean anything less than conversion from sin and to Christianity. Considering that Russia has avowed itself as an atheistic nation and divested itself of any relation to God since the days of Lenin in 1917, what else could "convert" mean?

Undaunted, the same people claim that even if the Portugese word for "convert" refers to a conversion to Christianity, the conversion does not have to happen overnight. It may be decades before a genuine conversion to Christianity takes place in Russia. But the evidence shows that, after eighteen years (1984 to 2002) the spiritual and moral degradation in Russia continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Moreover, if the experiences in Mexico or Portugal are any indication of what we can expect from Mary's advocacy, then the conversion of Russia should be the same. Why would Our Lady, who at other times is so prompt and so thorough in her distribution of the graces of God upon those who obey her heaven-sent message, be so tardy in blessing Russia, the very nation she has been waiting to bless for over seventy years? If anything, the excuses just show that those who say the consecration has already been performed sense deep in their hearts that Russia has not changed and they are looking for any way they can to rationalize it. As Fr. Alonso, personal friend and advisor to Sister Lucia stated:

...we should affirm that Lucia always thought that the conversion of Russia is not to be limited to the return of the Russian people to the Orthodox Christian religions, rejecting the Marxist atheism of the Soviets, but rather, it refers purely, plainly and simply to the total, integral conversion of Russia to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. (La Verdad Sobre el Sacradoto de Gartima, Fatima sin mitos (2nd edition, Ejercito Axul, Madrid, 1988), p. 78).

Those who think the Vatican could never stoop to such disobedience simply do not understand how the Church operates. It is plainly obvious from the available facts that both Pius XI and Pius XII failed to consecrate Russia as commanded. Pius XII failed twice in ten years. It is plainly obvious that John XXIII chose to put Our Lady's request to consecrate Russia under lock and key, seeking instead to make a political pact with Russia and pursue ecumenism via Vatican II. It is plainly obvious that Paul VI decided to shun Sister Lucia's request and chose to consecrate the world instead of Russia (although there is some doubt as to what he actually did). Thus, there is no reason to conclude that such negligence could not also be occurring in the pontificate of John Paul II. In fact, John Paul II's self-insertion into the Fatima vision to make it appear as if the vision has been fulfilled; and his refusal to release the entire third secret concerning the fourth memoir's "etc" clause, makes him a willing accomplice in this coverup. But disobedience does not come without a price. As noted earlier, the last time such disobedience occurred, Our Lady warned that the perpetrators would cause the overthrow and punishment of their society. This happened in France in the seventeenth century when Our Lord appeared to Margaret Mary to tell the King of France to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart. For political reasons, King Louis XIV refused to do so. The next two occupants to the throne also refused to do so. One hundred and twenty years later, the French Revolution occurred in 1789 - one of the worst upheavals of society and culture in modern history, of which we are still feeling the effects today. In its wake, France lost the faith and it has never recovered. Today in France, only 12% of French Catholics attend Mass on any given Sunday. A story that Hollywood itself could not write any better, Our Lord came to Sister Lucia in 1931 and, according to her own testimony, said to her: "Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune." It could not be any clearer. The Lord Himself reveals to us that the Popes and Bishops have the free will to disobey His command to consecrate Russia, and, in fact, they have. The only way this could possibly be dismissed is by saying that Sister Lucia was hallucinating. As noted earlier, that is precisely what Cardinal Ratzinger said was a possibility concerning Sister Lucia's visions.

Why are there dozens upon dozens of reports of statues of Mary crying tears of blood all over the world? Why are their countless apparitions telling the world to repent of its sins? Because the "ministers" at the Vatican refuse to consecrate Russia, and Russia alone, to Her Immaculate Heart. Despite what they say, heaven does not accept a consecration of the "world," for as long as there have been Marian apparitions, she has never once asked for the consecration of the world. Unfortunately, the "ministers" that Jesus accused of disobedience find it much easier to call all the world's religions to Assisi to pray for world peace than to call all the bishops of the world to Rome to consecrate the nation of Russia so that we can have God's peace. As Jeremiah writes:

For from the least to the greatest of them, every one is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, every one deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, 'Peace, peace,' when there is no peace (Jer 6:13-14).

Then I said: 'Ah, Lord GOD, behold, the prophets say to them, 'You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this place.' And the LORD said to me: 'The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds" (Jer 14:13).

If anyone has any doubts that these Scriptures, although historically true of Israel and Judah, cannot apply to the New Testament church, we have already cited the New Testament's intimate connection with such Old Testament warnings (cf., 1 Cor 10:1-12; 2 Cor 11:1-15; Hebrews 3-4, 6, 10; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 3:1-13; 1 Peter 4:17-18; 2 Peter 2:1-22; Jude 18-19; Revelation 2-3). And so that no one can accuse their use as "end-time fanaticism," the above passages are chosen specifically because they do not necessarily apply to an end-time scenario, but are true at any time in the Church's existence. The passages that refer to the end-times are even more ominous.

As if the experience of King Louis would not be enough for the Vatican to learn its lesson, another event occurred on May 13, 1931 which served as a heaven-sent sign of what a valid consecration would do. As noted earlier in this essay, on that date, in the presence of 300,000 Catholics who came to Fatima, the bishops of Portugal consecrated their nation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They desired to protect Portugal from the threat of communism that was sweeping Europe, having already entered into Spain, their closest neighbor. Nothing short of the miraculous was experienced by the Portugese people as a result of this consecration. Within ten years, the number of religious vocations quadrupled. Catholic radio, a Catholic press, Catholic pilgrimages and spiritual retreats dotted the landscape as never before. The country was totally transformed, to say the least. Antonia Salazar ascended to power in 1933 and inaugurated a Catholic social movement unprecedented in recent history, wherein government and Catholic ideals were integrated at the highest levels, along with a total restoring of family values. Divorce was outlawed. By 1960, over 90% of all Portugal's marriages were canonical. Salazar's efforts were so extraordinary that he received the personal congratulations from Pius XII. Miraculously, Portugal was spared the effects both of the Spanish Civil War and any involvement in World War II. On February 6, 1939, Sister Lucia wrote to her bishop in Portugal, Monsignor da Silva stating: "...in this horrible war [World War II], Portugal would be spared because of the national consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary made by the bishops" At about the same time, Sister Lucia wrote to Pius XII and told him that, had the other nations done likewise, they would have enjoyed the same blessings as Portugal. In any case, when one compares what transpired in Portugal to what is going on in Russia today almost twenty years after a supposed consecration for which the whole world had been waiting for fifty-five years, it is absolutely shameful.

The Continuing Saga

One would think after all this the matter would be over. But there is another twist to this sordid tale which reveals the agenda of the powers-that-be. On October 8, 2000, another consecration of the WORLD, not Russia, is performed in a Vatican ceremony. The event is called an "entrustment." Amazingly, 1,400 bishops and 76 cardinals meet at the Vatican for this event. Most of the bishops think that they are gathered to consecrate Russia. (Why they would have this impression if the Church has already consecrated Russia in 1984 is a mystery). Curiously, however, the texts of the speeches are not released until October 7, the day before the big event. The text, true to form, makes no mention of Russia; rather, it contains only an "entrustment of the world," as well as "the unemployed," "youth in search of meaning," etc. 

Commenting on this event, Inside the Vatican reports on November 30, 2000 that "one of the Pope's closest advisors" admits that John Paul is "counseled" once again not to make any mention of Russia in the entrustment, since such an action would offend the Russian Orthodox Church. His exact words were are: "Rome fears the Russian Orthodox might regard it as an 'offense' if Rome were to make specific mention of Russia in such a prayer, as if Russia especially is in need of help when the wold world, including the post-Christian West, faces profound problems..." Since the Orthodox have been a favorite prize in the ecumenical efforts of the Vatican, it was almost to be expected that John Paul would comply with the "counsel" not to mention Russia. In fact, not only is the word "Russia" missing from the entrustment, but the words "consecration," "Immaculate Heart," "conversion," "Fatima," "sinners," or "salvation" are not mentioned either. Nevertheless, we wonder, why Russia was even an issue for the Vatican if, as reported in June 2000, the consecration of Russia was already satisfied on March 25, 1984. To anyone looking at this without rose-colored glasses, it is very obvious that the prior Vatican agenda to circumvent the fulfilling of Our Lady's request is still very much in play.

Adding insult to injury, on September 12, 2001, one day after the attack on the World Trade Center, Cardinal Sodano, Vatican secretary of state, issued a "Declaration" to the world alleging that Fr. Nicholas Gruner was "suspended" from the priesthood, and that no more Fatima conferences will be allowed (even though Canon law states that no such approval is needed for such a conference). This so-called "Declaration" against one priest is unprecedented in the annals of Vatican operations. Obviously, the enormity of the attack on the World Trade Center, which once again reminded the world that they live in a virtual war-zone, doesn't sit well with the "era of peace" supposedly initiated by the March 25,1984 consecration of the world. Nor does the present Arab-Israeli conflict, which grows more ominous every day, give us any assurance of world peace. But since the Vatican has committed themselves to their original story, they simply cannot turn back, for the exposure of such high-level corruption and faithlessness would bring down their house of cards within minutes.

On December 20, 2001, the Vatican Information Service releases a report stating that Archbishop Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Ratzinger (and co-author with Ratzinger of the June 26, 2000 interpretation of the Third Fatima Secret), purportedly had a two-hour conversation with Sister Lucia on November 17, 2001. The words of Sister Lucia are purported to be: "...the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted by Heaven...everything has been published, no secret remains." Additionally, Sister Lucia purportedly says she "attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation of the Faith and confirmed everything that was written there." (Vatican Information Service, December 20, 2001; Also L'Osservatore Romano, January 9, 2002).

First, such sudden and abrupt admissions certainly contradict everything else that Sister Lucia is known to have stated about the Third Secret for the last seventy years. Yet the irony is that it was these same Vatican officials who suggested that Sister Lucia may have conjured up her Fatima visions from "images which Lucia may have seen in devotional books," as Ratzinger suggested in the June 26, 2000 release from the Vatican. So, how, on the one hand, can she "confirm everything" that the Vatican says about the visions and their fulfillment as of 1981-84, and, on the other hand, base her supposed confirmation on "images from devotional books"? Obviously, the Vatican has a glaring contradiction in its explanation.

Second, if Sister Lucia is "confirming everything," this must also include the interpretation of the Third Secret that the Vatican curia has published. Yet Cardinal Ratzinger has already admitted that the Vatican's interpretation of the Third Secret is not one given from heaven itself; that it is only a possible interpretation; and as such, is not binding on the faithful. So how could Sister Lucia "confirm" something that the Vatican itself has not yet confirmed? In reality, the Vatican's attempt to portray Sister Lucia as giving a wholesale endorsement to whatever the Vatican claims actually proves too much for their case.

Third, if Sister Lucia is saying that "...everything has been published; no secret remains..." then what are the words that follow after the "etc" in the famous statement: "In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc..."? As we noted earlier, the wording regarding Portugal remaining faithful is one line out of 25 missing lines on the sheet of paper in question. Obviously, Our Lady did not say "ect." Since the words after the "ect" have never been released, then obviously everything has NOT been published; and the secret still remains hidden. It is no coincidence that these missing words, as many have noted, are probably the most damning words against the modern Church contained in the Third Secret, since, in naming Portugal as remaining faithful, the logical corollary is that there are other nations and individuals who will not remain faithful. If, as the approved apparition of La Salette states, that among those who will not remain faithful are those in the Roman curia itself, then the Roman curia would have a vested interest in both covering up the remaining portion of the Third Secret, and claiming that "everything has been published; no secret remains." v Fourth, if the Vatican is so keen on using Sister Lucia's supposed agreement with "everything" the Vatican has said about Fatima, why did the Vatican choose not to have her personally appear with Cardinal Ratzinger when he released the definitive Vatican statement on June 26, 2000? For such a monumental declaration to the Church; a declaration for which people have been waiting seventy years; a declaration which has been surrounded by significant intrigue and suspicion; and one which contains elements that no other apparition contains, we would expect that, since Sister Lucia is still living, she would have been the perfect witness for such a controversial issue. The Vatican is too smart not to take advantage of such support if it would help their case. The fact that they avoided summoning Sister Lucia for this all-important declaration, and chose, rather, to refer to an eleven year old letter that Sister Lucia purportedly typed via a computer, strongly suggests that they did not desire her to appear for the June 200 announcement for the simple reason that she would not have verified their claims, not to mention, as we noted earlier, that the signature of Sister Lucia on the typed letter to which they refer was found to be a forgery back in 1990.

The facts remain. They are stubborn facts that will not go away by any waving of the Vatican wand. Sister Lucia, in every instance she has been asked whether the consecrations performed by the Vatican fulfilled Our Lady's wishes, has denied such fulfillment, either because, as she stated so clearly each time, the Church failed to mention Russia specifically and alone, and/or the Bishops of the world did not participate in a simultaneous consecration in their respective dioceses. No amount of revisionist narration is going to change those stubborn facts. For Sister Lucia to change her mind and suddenly say precisely the opposite, as the Vatican purports to have said in 1989, speaks more of a Vatican misinformation campaign than it does of Sister Lucia.

In the same November 17, 2001 interview with Sister Lucia, she allegedly responds to a report that signatures are being gathered requesting the Pope to consecrate Russia. She is purported to have said, "The Carmelite Community has rejected the forms for gathering the signatures. I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted by Heaven." The first question raised by this statement is: When did Sister Lucia "already say that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984..."? And to whom did she say it? Except for the alleged statement she is said to have typed by a word processor (which has been declared a forgery), there has never been a documented statement from Sister Lucia that the consecration of the world in 1984 was what Our Lady desired. She has explicitly stated the converse, many times.

Second, the addition of "and was accepted by Heaven," is rather odd. How would Sister Lucia know that the 1984 consecration was accepted by heaven if she received no revelation from heaven that the consecration was accepted? Sister Lucia has never made a claim of having received a confirmation from heaven regarding the 1984 consecration. Moreover, for her suddenly to say that the consecration is valid, when prior to this we have documented evidence that she said it was not valid, such a reversal of opinion would certainly need more corroboration than a letter from a word processor. This is especially significant since Sister Lucia has never said that anyone in heaven has given her the sole right to judge whether any consecration was valid. Rather, when asked, she has simply stated the fact that all previous consecrations, including the 1984 consecration, neither mentioned Russia by name nor included the bishops of the world. Thus, for Archbishop Bertone to hold Sister Lucia's judgment as the final criterion for whether the 1984 consecration was valid simply holds no weight, especially since she apparently told Bertone of no messages from heaven saying that the 1984 consecration was valid.

Third, let's assume for the sake of argument that Sister Lucia's has now accepted the 1984 consecration as valid. If Archbishop Bertone is a caretaker of the flock and must seek verification of Sister Lucia's new claims, he naturally should have inquired why Sister Lucia suddenly changed her mind regarding the fulfillment of Fatima. After all, for the seventy years prior she had been saying that neither a consecration of the world nor a consecration of Russia without the bishops participation would serve as a valid consecration. As we noted previously, she has denied on at least four occasions after 1984 that the 1984 consecration was not valid. Logically a sudden departure from her established claims should have sounded off an alarm in Bertone's mind, but he seems all too ready to promote her new revelation as the final lynch pin. Anyone else who reported such contradictory statements would immediately be under suspicion of fraud. (In fact, this is one method the Vatican uses to determine fraudulent visionaries - by getting them to change their story). But Bertone and the rest of the Vatican officials mixed-up in this wily web of deceit are all too ready to accept Sister Lucia's new interpretation without question.

Unfortunately for them, Sister Lucia has a reputation for being honest, even in the face of danger and opposition. The Vatican hierarchy does not share the same reputation, which then means that Sister Lucia did not suddenly change her mind, rather, the Vatican suddenly changed it for her.

The only thing that will remedy the present corruption is a complete removal of every Vatican bureaucrat that has anything to do with the Fatima revelations. Their constant falsifications and reinterpretations of the facts; and their utter refusal to allow for the unconditional and unmitigated consecration of Russia, and Russia alone, has resulted in more bloodshed and spiritual degradation than any time in Catholic history. Imagine the souls in Russia, and around the world, who have perished because these prelates have refused to obey the voice of Our Lord and Our Lady! Imagine the suffering that the world has had to endure because the Church chose to make a secret political pact with Russia that promised not to condemn her, rather than, as she was told to do - tell Russia that it was an evil nation under the wrath of God. Until they are removed from power, there will be no consecration of Russia, and the world will proceed on the brink of disaster.

The implications of all this are absolutely staggering. It casts a long shadow on much of what the Vatican has tried to do since the command to consecrate Russia was given in 1929. It puts suspicion on the whole ecumenical effort begun in the early 1960's, for if the Vatican was involved in a concerted effort to avoid the divine plan for evangelism, which would have been inaugurated by the consecration of Russia, replacing it by a man-made effort of political and ecclesiastical ecumenism, then what we have seen coming from the Church for the last forty years is another gospel that is doomed to failure. In fact, this is precisely what we have seen. Despite the efforts of John XXIII, Vatican II, Paul VI and John Paul II, the churches of the world are no closer toward truth and obedience than they were before. In fact, they are much further away. In 1963, 71% of American Catholics attended Mass. Thirty years later in 1993 that number dwindled to 22%. In France less than 12% attend Mass. The rest of Europe is not much better. At the end of 1995 there were 44,000 fewer priests in the world than twenty-five years prior, even though the world population doubled in that same time period. Of those remaining, we have learned in the Church's most recent sex scandal that a significant portion of the remaining clerics are either homosexual or condone homosexuality, and may other godless beliefs and practices.

The only thing we see is a watering-down of the Catholic faith in an effort to get the opposing religions to create some kind of quasi-spiritual relationship with the Church. Instead of calling all the bishops of the world to pray and consecrate Russia, the Vatican calls the false religions of the world to pray for "world peace." This is an illusion. A desperate attempt to patch up the very thing that the consecration of Russia would have given - the peace for the world through the conversion of its worst sinners.

Pius XII would never have had to hide Jews in the Vatican if he, or his predecessor, had consecrated Russia as requested, for World War II would never have occurred. Our Lady said so herself. ("The war [World War I] is going to end. But if people do not stop offending God, another even worse, will begin in the reign of Pius XI...If this [consecration of Russia] is done, Our Lady promises to convert Russia and there will be peace"). If anything, Our Lady's prediction of World War II and Pius' failure to consecrate Russia show us that the whole world is completely under the control of God, and that all we see happen around us is the direct result of how we obey or disobey His commands. As He says in Isaiah 40:15: "Behold, the nations are like a drop from a bucket, and are accounted as the dust on the scales; behold, he takes up the isles like fine dust."

Due to Pius XII's failure to consecrate Russia properly, one might wonder if the hesitancy on his part was due to his own ideas of the place of the Church in the world. Did Pius XII entertain ideas of making the Church more amenable to the world as his successor John XXIII most definitely did? Did this cause Pius XII to view the consecration of Russia as an obstacle to that goal? Did he placate both sides of the fence by feigning two consecrations while he prepared speeches that taught of a new world order? It cannot be known for sure but it is a fact that references to a "new era," a "new order" and a "new social order" dot some of the allocutions of Pius XII (Dec. 24, 1940; June 1, 1941; Dec. 24, 1941). Some of this speculation is confirmed in the following information.

Pius XII's experience with Fatima teaches us one very important thing: it is possible for a Pope to attempt to consecrate Russia but utterly fail to do so. Since he failed (which, apparently, the present Vatican believes is the case, since they tried to perform the same "world" consecration in 1984 that Pius XII performed in 1942), then what makes anyone think that, in their attempt to do a consecration, the present Vatican could not also fail? After the failure of Pius XII, we would have hoped to have seen another effort by John XXIII to consecrate Russia. Instead, John XXIII, deliberately put the Fatima revelations under lock and key, even though Sister Lucia made it plain that Mary had requested the secret to be revealed by 1960 or her death, whichever came first. John XXIII had ascended to the pontificate in 1958. But instead of revealing the Secret and exorcizing Russia of her demons, in 1959 he announces the planning of Vatican Council II and anticipates making a political/religious pact with Russia.

Obviously, John XXIII was a pivotal figure in this whole affair. His reluctance not to reveal the Fatima secret shows us, quite vividly, the two competing forces in the Catholic Church today:

(A) The historic view, which says that Russia is evil and needs to be exorcized of her demons; and

(B) The current view, which says that Russia is spiritual and thus we can advance ecumenism.

But is this not precisely what Our Lady warned would happen? In a letter to her nephew, Sister Lucia states Our Lady's words:

People must recite the Rosary every day. Our Lady repeated this in all Her apparitions, as if to arm us in advance against these times of diabolical disorientation, so that we would not let ourselves be fooled by false doctrines, and that through prayer, the elevation of our soul to God would not be diminished.

She adds:

It is painful to see such a great disorientation and in so many person who occupy places of responsibility...It is because the devil has succeeded in infiltrating evil under cover of good....he has succeeded in leading into error and deceiving souls having a heavy responsibility through the place which they occupy....They are blind men guiding other blind men..." (The Whole Truth About Fatima, v. 3, pp 754-758).

Only three years after Vatican II, Paul VI was remarking about "the auto-destruction of the Church," such that "It was as if the Church were beating herself." (Allocution to the students of the Pontifical Lombard Seminary on December 7, 1968, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI, vol. 6, p. 1188). Four years later, Paul VI made one of his most famous statements: "Through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God; doubt, uncertainty, problems, disquiet, and dissatisfaction have appeared." (Allocution Resistite fortes in fide of June 29, 1972, in Insegnamenti di Paolo VI (Vatican: Poliglotta Vaticana), vol. 10, pp. 707-709). John Paul I was originally a skeptic of any apocalyptic application to Fatima. He then went on a pilgrimage to Cova da Iria in 1977, upon which Sister Lucia asked to meet him. Conversing at length with him, she revealed the contents of the Third Secret. After the meeting, the pope is reported to have said, "The Secret, its terrible." He began to urge recitation of the rosary to avert what he termed "the apostasy."

The curious thing about John Paul I is that the circumstantial evidence shows he was murdered by his own Vatican curia. Author David Yallop, whose book In God's Name spent four weeks on the New York Times best-seller list, shows by the most meticulously documented evidence that the Vatican bank was awash with financial mis-dealings for decades, aided mostly by Paul VI's appointees. It was John Paul I's stated goal to clean up that mess. It is also reported that Sister Lucia had predicted Albino Luciani's rise to become John Paul I. Upon ascending the papacy, John Paul I vowed to return to Fatima to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Apparently he too knew that all the popes previous failed to do so. Unfortunately, he may have been silenced before he could do any of those good things. (As reported by CRC on line edition at www.crc-internet.org/aug00b.htm). If true, this would then give reason why the present hierarchy does not want the rest of the Third Secret revealed, for it speaks in even greater detail concerning the ominous words above.

Pope John XXIII scuttled the Fatima message and instead called a Council for a "new breath of fresh air" in the Church, but all he received for his ignoring of God's plan was division, dissent and a massive rupture unprecedented in our two thousand year history. God was not about to bless such wilful disobedience. John sowed the wind, and now the Church is reaping the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7). In the wake of the so-called "fresh air," the homosexual/pedofile scandal, among many other unprecedented scandals, both theological and moral, have been brewing for the past forty years. Like the Jews of old, we have been wandering in the spiritual desert because of the disobedience of our leaders and their cowering before the enemy.

Epilogue

Throughout the centuries of the Catholic Church, the message of the Gospel has been clear and unmistakable. For nearly two millennia the Church has brought a message of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8). She was unafraid to tell the world that the Catholic Church was the one true Church of Jesus Christ. She was undaunted in bringing the message that men were born in sin and death and needed to repent and be washed with the blood of Christ. She sent missionaries far and wide with the message of repentance, accepting no compromises, allowing no excuses. Even though she was faced with the anomaly of those in distant lands who would never hear of Christ, or babies who died without baptism, the Church knew she was required, objectively, always and everywhere, to tell the peoples of the world that they were lost and under the wrath of God, in desperate need of the salvation that came from the font of the Catholic Church.  

But just a little while into the 20th century, theologians in the Catholic Church began to voice a different gospel. Their gospel claimed that most men, with very few exceptions, were already saved. A new term was coined for them - "anonymous Christians." What was once only considered an exception in God's saving of men now became the rule by which He saved them. Hence, the Church's job, they said, was not to preach that men were on the wide road to destruction, but that few, if any, would ever travel that road at all. The theologians also said that the Church was privileged to carry this message not because she was the source of salvation, but only because her members were singled out with an acute awareness of God's plan. As the saying went, "All men are saved, but only the Christians know about it." With this new outlook, there was no longer a need to climb mountains and forge oceans to preach the old gospel of sin and repentance, for those on the other side of those obstacles were already included among the saved, whether they recognized it or not. Buddhists, animists, atheists, and even those leading amoral lives would be saved since their human dispositions were merely cultural idiosyncracies that the grace of God had already overcome, with or without their help.

From these ideas came the notion that, if, indeed, God was saving virtually everyone in the world, then the concept of hell had to be reevaluated. For the most part, hell was relegated to the dust bin of "medieval superstitions," if not in official doctrine at least in practical teaching. The new gospel taught that hell was, if anything, only a remote possibility. In fact, hell could very well be empty, and in that sense, non-existent. This ushered in a new hermeneutic to interpret the Scriptures, for Scripture was the last bastion of revelation that contained a relentless image of the wrath of God upon sinners. But with the wave of the historical-critic's wand, the most explicit passages expressing these terrible judgments were magically turned into mere story-fillers. Jesus' stark remarks on hell, for example, were said only to heighten the dramatic effect of God's determined goal to save everyone in the world. What better way to emphasize the certainty of salvation, they said, than to contrast it against a horrifying hell, but one, in reality, that was merely a literary tool.

The new gospel also sought to center the focus of life upon man. It harbored a utopian dream of the brotherhood of all mankind. Its ideals were tolerance, equality and liberty, so that each could live the life he chose without having to be hampered by a religious monolith. It became a humanistic gospel whose message of salvation is rooted in liberating man from worldly suffering, not eternal damnation. It teaches that man must strive to build a new world order, an ideal society, an earthly paradise of peace and contentment.

In order to lessen the shock that such an innovation would bring to the more critical segments within the Church, the new gospel was dressed up in traditionally-sounding words but with a meaning far different than what had been previously accepted. Whereas the Church of the past had made a point of producing direct and clear propositional statements, the purveyors of the new gospel often resorted to vague, ambiguous, obscure and evasive language, on the one hand, to promote their agenda, on the other hand, to hide it. The sting of the old gospel was eliminated, or, as a popular hymn of the day aptly expressed: "We will save each man's dignity; we will save each man's pride."

They all loved this new gospel. It took the edge off of life; broke down many barriers; and was a message the world loved to hear. It was an easy gospel; an attractive gospel. No longer did one have to subject himself to being ostracized and perhaps killed for bringing a message of sin and wrath; rather, he could make friends with anyone, religious or non-religious, and that would be enough to spark a godly comradery that would eventually lead both toward a destiny of eternal bliss. Not surprisingly, those who embraced the new gospel would then look back on the previous 1900 years and conclude that all those who went before were biased and confused and missed the real essence of Christianity. Almost everything that came from the past was looked upon with suspicion and embarrassment, from the decrees of popes and councils to the form of prayer and worship.

But alas, God was watching from heaven above. Which of these two gospels did He have in mind for the Church to preach? The traditional gospel that assumed all men were born in sin and stood condemned until they embraced salvation in the graces of the Catholic Church? Or the gospel that assumed God had already saved everyone, and all that needed to be done was to bring this good news to them?

God confirmed the answer to that question by sending Our Lady to Fatima in 1917. In the midst of the rise of the new gospel, Our Lady of Fatima reminded the Church of the nature of the true gospel, and how it was to be proclaimed. Speaking ever so softly, Our Lady told the three seers of Fatima that the gospel consisted of telling the world it was sinful and under the wrath of God; was in desperate need of repentance, and that if its people did not mend their lives they would suffer chastisement on earth and be damned to hell. To reinforce her message, Our Lady showed the three child-seers a vision of hell. It was so horrible that they could only look upon it for a few seconds. Our Lady concluded by telling the children that, indeed, many people go to hell, so much so that she saw them falling like snowflakes.

Not only did Our Lady remind us of the true nature of the gospel, she singled out one nation as the perpetrator of most of the world's evil, the nation of Russia. In order to save the world from Russia's evil, Our Lady told the Church to consecrate that nation, and that nation alone, to Her Immaculate Heart. Once done, she promised Russia would convert and there would be peace in the world. This was a very simple request for the Church to obey. No one had to cross oceans or climb mountains to accomplish what Our Lady sought. All the Church had to do was preach the traditional gospel to the Russian people and organize a universal prayer over them. But unfortunately, the Church considered it an impractical task. Not because it was hard to preach or pray, but because she was embarrassed and fearful of what the Great Bear of Russia would think once it found out it was the world's pariah. Pope after pope, bishop after bishop, cowered in fear and never performed the proper consecration.

Not only did the prelates of the Church ignore fingering Russia as an evil nation, they proposed that the new gospel was much better and a much less embarrassing way to relate to the world at large. No one need hear that they were condemned sinners, least of all, Russia. They considered the message of Fatima archaic, and some even claimed it was delusional. The nations would respond much better and be much more friendly if they were told that God's redemption had already saved the world.

And so the Church, by and large, shelved the gospel that Our Lady brought to Fatima, replacing it with another gospel. Her pastors have been preaching this new gospel for the greater part of the 20th century, and now in the 21st century. At the same time, she has feigned obedience to the request of Our Lady to consecrate Russia. After many years of struggling with how to silence the faithful followers of Fatima who have been waiting for the consecration, one of the pastors suddenly had a brilliant idea. He proposed that the Church claim the consecration of Russia was already performed many years prior, and all the events predicted by the Fatima visions were fulfilled in the reigning pope's brush with death.

The spark that led to this idea was the small change that had occurred in the Russian economy. Seizing on what appeared to be a shift toward free market economy, the Church made the bold claim that this was the sign of Russia's "conversion." And since for forty years prior the pastors had been preaching that "conversion" meant little more than that one became friendly with the Church and oriented to the new world order, it would also appear that the "consecration" was a success. But the reality is that Russia was never consecrated, and the Church has been involved in one of the most deceptive plots on record to cover it up. Russia today, despite the picture created by Vatican spokesmen, is still an evil nation bent on spreading its errors across the world, and it seems that the Vatican has become complicit in these errors by hiding the truth from the world.

No greater evidence of the failure of the Church is seen than in the worldwide perversion of homosexuality in its cardinals, bishops and priests, in addition to the incidences of pedophilia and sexual relations with women. History has shown us that if there is one sin which points to the utter degradation of mankind with little hope of reversal, it is the sin of homosexuality. It is also the one sin that is a portent of God's ensuing judgment. As noted earlier, Catholic seminaries across the world have been filling our dioceses with homosexual predators for the last four decades, all under the knowing eye of the Vatican who, failing miserably to discipline its heretical and immoral clerics, is responsible for untold tragedies, both physical and spiritual. Unfortunately, there are few good prophets left in the Church who can, and will, point out the Church's path of destruction. If the present pope had obeyed the original command rather than listen to the words of his curia advisors not to mention Russia in the consecration; if he had fearlessly made the consecration as specified by Our Lady rather than cowering in fear to the Great Bear, there would have been no need to stoop to the level that Assisi I and Assisi II have brought the Church in seeking for world peace. Our Lady and Our Lord promised world peace if we obeyed Their voice, not if we gathered pagan nations to pray to their gods for world peace. Unfortunately, it may be too late. God help us all.

Robert Sungenis, M. A.
President of Catholic Apologetics International
October 31, 2002
(My thanks to John Vennari of Catholic Family News for some of the source material for this article