Will the disinformation campaign and cover up of Fatima ever cease? Not if that hierarch happens to be Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the long-time newsmaker and Vatican spokesman on Fatima. Needless to say, my inkling is that Bertone didn't get a chance to see Fr. Gruner's new film on Fatima, but perhaps they don't get PAX television over in Rome. In any case, it still amazes me to see the lengths these prelates will go to in order to dismiss Fatima's ominous portents. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos: I know exactly what you went through.
In an interview with one of the Vatican's leading reporters, Giuseppe De Carli, wasting few words trying to squelch the Fatima cult, Cardinal Bertone uttered some of the most audacious and contradictory information ever to come from a Vatican bureaucrat. As reported by Delia Gallagher of Inside the Vatican's December 2004 issue, Bertone was asked:
'Your Eminence, you were responsible for the publication of the third part of the so-called 'Secret of Fatima.' You met Sr. Lucia in Coimbra, Portugal, and received her interpretation. Is there still some part of the 'Third Secret' that has not been revealed? Was it a revelation only in part?'
Bertone answered: 'I completely deny that the full secret has not been revealed. The famous 'Third Secret' of Fatima was kept in the Secret Archive of the ex-Holy Office. Four small pages written by Sr. Lucia. I brought the text to Sr. Lucia in the presence of the bishop of Leiria-Fatima and Sr. Lucia exclaimed, 'This is my text, these are my pages, this is my envelope and this is my writing. There is nothing else.' I want to add this: Sister Lucia did not write anything prior to this nor anything after it. Absolutely not. We published the text in an anastatic edition [process of printing reproductions from slightly raised metallic plates]. The interpretation of it may be subject to differing opinions, but I am convinced that the most coherent interpretation is that furnished by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.'
First notice that since De Carli asked whether the Third Secret has been fully revealed, this means the suspicion that the Vatican has not been completely honest with us about Fatima simply won't go away. De Carli is the umpteenth reporter who has asked the same question since the Vatican's purported release in June 2002: Do we have it all? Apparently, De Carli is speaking for a lot of curious minds, otherwise he wouldn't bother pursuing this line of interrogation.
Why would intelligent people doubt the Vatican's word? Well, one reason is that the famous 'etc' clause still hasn't been released. The Third Secret contains the partial sentence: 'In Portugal, the doctrine of the faith will be preserved, but…etc…' So how is it that Bertone can make the claim: 'I completely deny that the full secret has not been revealed' when, in fact, he knows the 'etc' clause is still locked up in the Vatican vaults? Evidently, either someone's wires are crossed or Bertone is following the old adage of Adolph Hitler: when you tell a lie, tell a big one, and the people will believe you.
Of course, we all know that the most likely conclusion of the 'etc' clause is that, in the rest of the world, including the prelates in Rome itself, the doctrine of the faith will NOT be preserved. Logic dictates two things upon reading the famous sentence: (1) the 'etc' clause is setting up a contrast between what will happen in Portugal and what will happen in places outside of Portugal, and (2) if the 'etc' clause points an accusatory finger at Rome or the Church at large outside of Portugal, this would indeed serve as a primary motive for them never to release that part of the Secret. Unless we are missing some piece of the puzzle, the only reason those in power would not reveal the contents of the 'etc' clause is that it reflects badly on those in power. Obviously, a prophecy of doom and accusation would be quite difficult to match with the 'springtime' of the post-conciliar era. In their better days, John Paul II (a private speech in 1980) and Cardinal Ratzinger (private interview with V. Messori n 1984) revealed that the Fatima message contains 'cataclysmic' and 'apocalyptic' predictions of the future, although Bertone does his best to ignore these truths.
Of course, we cannot forget that Pope John XXIII squelched the reading of the Third Secret in 1960 (the precise year Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that she wanted the Secret read to the world) simply because the contents spoke of 'doom' for the world. Pope John arbitrarily decided that this ominous prediction was not meant for his pontificate. Optimism was at the forefront of his mind and unfortunately there was no room for the terrible portents of the Third Secret. But no one at the Vatican seems to have noticed that Vatican II opened it doors on the heels of a pope who decided to go against the direct command of heaven. It didn't make any difference to Pope John that the sun danced in the sky for 12 minutes while shooting out all the colors of the rainbow. No wonder he died of stomach cancer three years later, and never saw his dream of removing the 'prophets of doom' from the Church. God removed him instead. And now the Vatican is trying to cover it over by canonizing him a saint, adding him as another icon of John Paul II's 'saint factory.'
Next, De Carli asks: 'A recently published book suggests that the 'Third Secret' refers to John Paul I, Papa Luciani, rather than to Pope John Paul II,' to which Bertone replies: 'It is an assertion without foundation. On the 9th of December, 2003, I returned to Coimbra. I celebrated Mass for the Carmelite community and spent a few hours with Sr. Lucia. I went over with her the question of John Paul I and I can tell you that there was no vision regarding Albino Luciani.'
First, Sr. Lucia never claimed to have visions that 'interpreted' the Third Secret. She merely had a vision, and most of it was in symbols. It was only Joseph Ratzinger who interpreted the 'bishop in white' as being a symbol of John Paul II. But this interpretation was so unbelievable (especially considering that the rest of the vision's symbols do not fit the pontificate of John Paul II) that even the Los Angeles times, as well as media outlets all over the world, considered it nothing more than a desperate fabrication to save face for the Vatican because it had not released the Secret previously. The more traditionally-minded Catholics knew that Ratzinger's interpretation was merely an attempt to promote the new church of ecumenism, with John Paul II as its first martyr.
In any case, why is Bertone suddenly considering Sr. Lucia an expert witness and interpreter of the consecration considering the fact that on five separate instances between 1984 and 1989 Sr. Lucia is documented as stating that the 1984 consecration DID NOT fulfill Our Lady's 1929 request to consecrate the nation of Russia? Why did the Vatican and Bertone dismiss her expert testimony during those crucial years? It was only in mid-1989 that the Vatican hierarchs got involved and attempted to change Sr. Lucia's story, and apparently they were successful in doing so, since the reports of subsequent 'interviews' now claim that Sr. Lucia has said the 1984 consecration DID fulfill the request. No one at the Vatican, including Bertone, seems troubled by this duplicity.
Second, perhaps one of the reasons Bertone would be so willing to dismiss John Paul I as a candidate for the 'bishop in white' is that rumors have never ceased that his death was caused by murder. David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name' not only reveals the intrigue of the Vatican bureaucracy that had a hand in the alleged murder, but he exposes the whole Vatican underworld that dealt heavily in international finance and which was populated by some of the most shady characters known in modern history. Yallop reveals that Pope John I had plans to root out the corruption at the Vatican but these plans were forestalled by his enemies who, it seems, resorted to the 'ultimate solution' to get him out of the way. Although there have been attempts to refute Yallop's thesis, to this date no one has been successful.
We should also be aware of the fact that Pope John Paul I met with Sr. Lucia a little while before his untimely death, and there he probably learned of the message of 'doom' that his predecessors, John XXIII and Paul VI, refused to hear. Because of this, John Paul I would be a much more likely candidate for the 'bishop in white' because, as Sr. Lucia's vision details, the 'bishop' was actually killed, and immediately before his demise he saw the poor condition of the Church symbolized by 'corpses' of Christians strewn along the path as he 'climbed the mountain.' Conversely, John Paul II continued the optimism of John XXIII, and it was business as usual at the Vatican, except that we now had Hindus and Buddhists lending us their prayers for world peace while the peace promised by Our Lady, if John Paul II would only mention the name of Russia, was spurned.
Next, De Carli asks: 'Is it true that Sr. Lucia 'saw' the Virgin Mary on other occasions after the famous apparitions of 1917,' to which Bertone answers: 'Without a doubt. She had other visions. She herself confirmed this to me.' De Carli asks for 'an example,' and Bertone offers just one: 'An apparition in which the Virgin showed Sr. Lucia that she accepted and was pleased with John Paul II's consecration of the world and Russia to her Immaculate Heart.'
This is amazing. When asked for an example of another apparition that occurred to Sr. Lucia after 1917, Bertone doesn't mention the half dozen or so times Our Lady appeared to Sr. Lucia between 1929 and 1952, apparitions given to her in order to confirm that Our Lady wanted Russia consecrated. Bertone makes no mention of the fact that in one of these apparitions Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that She wanted the Third Secret revealed in 1960, which, incidentally, makes Bertone's claims of fulfillment about four decades too late.
But more amazing is this: Here for the first time in any news outlet with which I am aware, Bertone claims that the reason Sr. Lucia now says that the 1984 consecration fulfills the request is that she received an 'apparition' from the Virgin Mary saying so! If this apparition actually occurred, why has Bertone waited until 2004 to reveal it to the world, and in such a low-brow venue as the last sentence in a very short interview that he himself did not prompt? Why, if there was an 'apparition' available to vindicate the Vatican did he and his consorts attempt, and eventually get caught, forging a 1989 statement from Sr. Lucia claiming that the 1984 consecration was accepted? Why go through that risky venture if an 'apparition' could have already settled the case?
Why, in various interviews with Sr. Lucia since 1989 was it never revealed that Sr. Lucia had such an apparition? An apparition is no casual event. It is an occurrence just as astounding as what Sr. Lucia experienced in 1917, so why was the church and the world not made aware of this tremendous event until Bertone decided to use it for a defense to convince us that the Vatican's hands are clean in this whole affair? This has all the earmarks of a total fabrication, and it appears to be just another attempt to silence the critics, this time trying to use heaven itself as a witness in their favor. The audacity of these men is absolutely uncanny.
Notice precisely what Bertone is claiming. He is not merely claiming that the 1984 consecration was valid, but that it has fulfilled the precise request of Our Lady in 1929 requiring the pope and the bishops to consecrate the nation of Russia. Bertone's wording is clever. Rather than saying 'John Paul II's consecration of the world' or 'John Paul II's consecration of Russia' he says 'John Paul II's consecration of the world and Russia.' Why? Well, Bertone knows that John Paul II consecrated only the world in 1984, but in order for that consecration to be a valid fulfillment of Our Lady's 1929 request, he also knows that it had to include the nation of Russia! Once again, Bertone is caught by his own guilty conscience, since he knows that unless Russia is consecrated, then the 1984 attempt is just another in a long-line of papal failures to do what they've been told to do regarding the consecration. Hence, Bertone just casually slipped in the word 'Russia' into his answer to De Carli, knowing full well that John Paul II purposely left out the word Russia in the 1984 consecration. He must think we are really dull-witted. Either that, or he is very dull-witted himself for thinking that he could pass this by intelligent people.
Usually, Vatican hierarchs don't display such boldness, since they have consistently claimed that John Paul II's consecration of the 'world' suffices, since, as they so ingeniously claim, Russia is 'part of the world.' But Bertone now gives a different angle - according to him 'the world and Russia' were consecrated in 1984, and this is all affirmed, he says, because Sr. Lucia was told so in an 'apparition' from the same heavenly Lady who, conspicuously, told her in 1929 to tell the pope to consecrate Russia alone, NOT the world, and who came to her again in 1946 after Pius XII consecrated only the world in 1942, NOT Russia, and told her that she was 'still awaiting the consecration of Russia.' Go figure.
In effect, in order to cover his own tracks, Bertone is now making Our Lady a liar. Numerous times Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that the only way the 1929 request could be fulfilled is if the pope consecrated Russia, by name, and all the bishops of the world took part in the consecration. Pius XII failed twice to fulfill this specific request, once in 1942 when he consecrated the 'world,' and once again in 1952 when he consecrated Russia, but without the involvement of the bishops. Evidently, the present Vatican thinks these two consecrations performed by Pius XII DID NOT fulfill the 1929 request, since they wouldn't have performed another consecration in 1984 to replace Pius XII's! Unfortunately, they didn't learn from Pius XII's mistakes, since they committed both of them in one shot in 1984: (1) failing to mention Russia by name, and (2) failing to have all the bishops of the world involved.
But more importantly, if Our Lady did not accept Pius XII's two attempts at consecration, then how is it that Our Lady can suddenly be accepting of John Paul II's consecration when, in fact, John Paul II made the same miscues that Pius XII made? How could Our Lady accept a consecration as fulfilling her 1929 request when the most important word she specified, the word 'Russia,' is deliberately left out of the consecration? In order to get himself off the hook, Bertone now seeks, by appeal to a previously unadvertised 'apparition,' to make Our Lady complicit in the coverup! But we know Our Lady is not a liar, since she is immaculate. We know she wouldn't say one thing in 1929-1946 and then say something completely different in, well, whatever year Bertone is claiming that this alleged 'apparition' occurred. Our Lady is not a liar, but Bertone is another story altogether. I don't think he has made one truthful statement about Fatima since he was assigned to the case in the 1980s. He received his red hat since he helped engineer the 1989 forgery and got Sr. Lucia on the Vatican's fast track.
One more interesting fact came out about Fatima this past week. On January 11, 2005, Newsmax published a story about Mel Gibson's visit with Sr. Lucia. As the story goes, Sr. Lucia and her nuns had requested to see 'The Passion of the Christ' so Mr. Gibson flew over to Portugal personally to deliver a copy of the movie and a CD player on which to watch it. After the movie, Sr. Lucia had some questions for Mr. Gibson, which he promptly answered. But the Unity reporter who interviewed the Mother Superior of Sr. Lucia's convent revealed something very interesting. As Newsmax put it:
'According to Unity, what the nuns or Lucia said about the movie is unknown and may never be known because statements by Lucia or for that matter any Carmelite nun throughout the world are always sent through the bishop or the Holy Father first. Because of her power of influence, Lucia must be very careful what she says publicly since she is one of the possessors of the so-called 'Third Secret of Fatima.''
So now it has been confirmed that any 'reports' we receive from Sr. Lucia do not come from Sr. Lucia directly but are first passed through the bishop of her diocese or the pope himself, and who knows who else (e.g., Bertone, Sodano, Ratzinger, et al). No wonder we can't get the truth from Sr. Lucia, since the filtering system surrounding her cleanses her message of anything detrimental to the prelates who are in control. Did Sr. Lucia see another 'apparition'? Well, since she is no longer speaking for herself without a biased interpreter we can only depend on the words of that impeccable prelate, Cardinal Bertone. I think I'd rather buy some swamp land in Florida.
Robert A. Sungenis, M.A.
1-19-05