1. Fatima Christmas

    image
  2. Moscow Conference

    image
  3. Rome 2017

    Rome 2017
  4. Fatima Portugal

    Fatima Portugal 2017
  5. Ask Father

    image
Report from Italy:

My Meetings with Archbishop Capovilla and the Socci-Cardinal Bertone Struggle

by Solideo Paolini
Dear Friends,
Reverend Father,
Your Most Reverend Excellencies,

I am here to share the joy, the grace given to me by Providence, and to thank our good Lord together with all of you. I’ve received in fact the great honor to be involved in two important events in the last year. These two events became public news; they are both very important for all who love Our Lady of Fatima.

  1. I had the great satisfaction to meet Archbishop Mons. Loris Francesco Capovilla and to receive his testimony. He is (as we will see afterwards) a key witness to the Fatima events in general and to the Third Secret specifically.


  2.  I also had the satisfaction of being the indirect cause of the controversy between Italian author Antonio Socci and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican Secretary of State, which was reported widely in the Italian and international press and other media.

Let me start with my meetings with Archbishop Capovilla.

First of all: who is Archbishop Capovilla?

Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla is one of the most important witnesses to the Third Secret of Fatima, because he was the Personal Secretary of Pope John XXIII. He is still alive, almost 50 years after he became the Pope’s secretary, and he is now in his nineties. The Personal Secretary of John XXIII lives today in Sotto il Monte, a small town in the province of Bergamo, in northern Italy. He lives in this town because it is the famous birthplace of his illustrious principal, Pope Roncalli. There is a museum there, run by Sisters in honor of Pope John XXIII.

Archbishop Capovilla is one of the very few people known to have read the Third Secret of Fatima. In fact, as he himself declared — many years ago, even before the Vatican publication in the year 2000 — he knows the Third Secret. He declared he was present at the time the envelope containing the Third Secret was opened in the summer of 1959, at Castel Gondolfo, in Rome. Moreover, he declared that it was he himself who wrote on the outer envelope, at the dictation of John XXIII, the words “The Pope has read the contents of this package, spoke about it with his closest collaborators…” Eventually John XXIII told me to put it back in the envelope with the written statement “I don’t give any judgment.” He therefore maintained silence regarding something that might have been of divine origin or might not have been.

Archbishop Capovilla is therefore a key witness to this aspect of the Fatima events and to the content of the Third Secret. For many years now, both before and after the year 2000, the Italian media have always mentioned there are only four living persons who were known to have read the Third Secret, or at least to know it entirely: Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, Sister Lucy and Archbishop Capovilla. This information is not exact because there were, at the time, other persons who also knew or read it. But those four names were the only ones widely known in the public to know the whole Secret. Archbishop Capovilla is one of them, he knows the Third Secret and did read it personally.

Now today two of those witnesses, Pope John Paul II and Sister Lucy, are dead, the other living one being our present Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI; so Archbishop Capovilla is one of the two people, widely known, and who are still alive, to have read entirely the Third Secret, since it was first opened in 1959.

Everyone must realize, therefore, that his testimony is of extreme importance!

Here is what he told me during my meetings with him — I had four meetings in total with Archbishop Capovilla. The first one was in early April 2003; the second one was on July 5, 2006; the third one was in November 2006, a few days before Mr. Socci’s book was published — at that time Archbishop Capovilla already knew about that book, even before it was published. And the last time I met him was on June 21, 2007.

During this fourth and last meeting, in particular, I realized that Archbishop Capovilla was quite annoyed by the turmoil caused by his declarations. It is understandable: who knows what they might have done or said to him!

He told me on June 21, 2007, and as I saw for myself, Archbishop Capovilla was preparing a written report, consisting of documents, photocopies, papers, etc., and they “were things”, as he said, “that I have to reply to”. It seemed like the Vatican had asked him to give them a complete file about his statements; it is as if they said to him: “what exactly did you say to him? And why?”, or something like that.

So, if he was asked to justify himself or something like that, it is clear that the most important fact is that he has not retracted what he had said to me the year before, nor disowned the material he had sent to me: namely those statements and documents which I carefully transcribed and recorded. I did that so that I could report in detail everything that he said and sent to me, word for word. Of all those things he said, Archbishop Capovilla has not retracted anything, substantially. It is now August 2007, 10 months after the publication of Mr. Socci’s book, which caused all the turmoil: TV and newspapers have widely reported this book; debates, TV talk shows and major magazines reported it. The same paragraph in Socci’s book which spoke about my main meeting with Archbishop Capovilla was published in anticipation of the publication of that book, by the Italian newspaper Libero, on the front page, in November 2006. Thus his meetings and his statements were a major media event at that time.

But after 10 months Archbishop Capovilla has not retracted a single word of what he said to me. It is obvious that if there is no retraction after 10 months from the beginning of the problem, this very fact speaks for itself. It is understandable to be upset or annoyed by the clamor, by the fact of being forced to submit a complete dossier to the Vatican, in answer to their questions, to be forced to justify himself. It is obvious, but this doesn’t weaken but on the contrary it reinforces the value of this first testimony of such a qualified witness — as we will see later.

Archbishop Capovilla, at our last meeting in June, just two months ago, read to me some phrases out of a letter he wrote in answer to a French writer, who asked him for some clarifications on the matter. However, what he said to me clearly shows his actual desire not to be in the public eye anymore. But without any doubt, he never retracted what he had told me before, and what I had reported. For instance, he wrote to this French writer that “I didn’t speak of two different versions of the Third Secret.” This is obvious; try to imagine Sister Lucy writing one version saying “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved”, and another in which she says “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will NOT always be preserved”. These would have been two versions of the text! What I’ve reported, instead, is a whole different thing: not two different versions, but two different texts, two different parts, let’s call them; but it’s a whole different thing than calling them “different versions”. It is not a denial, it is actually a confirmation!!

Archbishop Capovilla continued in his letter to the French writer: “I think that the Message of Fatima does not belong to just one writer or to one single association…” We all agree on this, this is why we say “Publish everything!” If, as we’ll see afterwards, you at the Vatican think that it is not authentic, from a supernatural point of view, so if you think that this part does not come from Our Lady, but was written and conceived by mistake by Sister Lucy, then allow its publication anyway, without certifying it as authentic, without giving it official recognition. We all agree on this: all of us have the right to know everything, and not just a single person, or a private association, or just the scholars!

Therefore, these phrases he read to me from the letter that he wrote to the French writer, do not deny at all those things that I’ve passed on to Socci and which were reported so accurately by him in his book. I repeat: 10 months have passed, all these events and facts have been widely discussed, therefore this silence speaks for itself. The fact that Archbishop Capovilla has not denied any of the real things that have been said on this, and the fact that he has not yet published an official retraction, all these things contribute to create a very “loud” silence, a silence that speaks.

After this introduction, let me talk about my main meeting with Archbishop Capovilla of July 5th, 2006. July is the month when the Secret was given to the seers, a month prolific with supernatural events! On that date I went to visit Archbishop Capovilla at his house in Sotto il Monte, the small town, as I said before. I knew him because he was the Pontifical Bishop Delegate of the Marian Sanctuary of Loreto, which is near my house. I live, in fact, in the Marche, an eastern region of Italy — so we started talking about his presence in Loreto. I reminded him of his stay there during the eighties, so he received me with great courtesy and helpfulness. So I said to him: “Your Excellency, the reason for my visit is due to the fact that I am a Fatima researcher.” He was nodding his head, as if to say “I understand”, so I continued: “Since you are a first class source of information, I would like to ask you some questions.” He then said immediately, “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said.”

Now, this brings up a very well known problem regarding the so-called official version on Fatima. If they said everything on it, absolutely — and not only relatively, as I will explain afterwards — why then does a key witness tell me, in some way, that he is bound to talk only about what has been officially revealed? If we know everything about it because it has been publicly revealed, then I should not feel bound not to talk about it. If instead I feel bound by an official revelation, then this means that not everything has been said, in the whole sense of the word. Let’s examine again the words of Archbishop Capovilla: “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially …” What imprecisions could have anything to do with what has been revealed officially? Maybe these “imprecisions”, when using the language style of the Roman Curia, which is a diplomatic way of speaking, mean instead the “discrepancies” that could emerge between his testimony and the official version? This would be like saying that the official version is wrong!

Archbishop Capovilla continued: “Also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said…Even if I should know something else…”; and when saying these last words he smiled openly. But what were these “other things”? Is there something more then? He continued, “Even if I should know something else… I must limit myself to what is said in the official documents…” The logical meaning of this last sentence is that there is something more besides what has been officially revealed, no matter what you think these “other things” might be or look like.

Therefore he cannot speak openly about this because there was an official revelation; it is quite clear! Something must be further analyzed: we can ask the Vatican, respectfully but insistently, the following request: “If everything has been revealed, absolutely (in an absolute sense, not just in the relative sense, as we’ll see afterwards) — then we respectfully ask our Holy Father to release from the vow of the Pontifical Secret any one who has read or knows the Third Secret.”

Many things have been said, but I have never seen a formula or a statement by which means everyone who has read or who knows the Third Secret was finally released from the Pontifical Secret about it. If everything has been released, as claimed by the official version, then why keep this sort of now useless vow of silence? As a humble proposal to this conference, then, I would like that we would respectfully ask our Holy Father Benedict XVI to publicly, formally and unequivocally release from their previous Pontifical Secret all of those who have read or know something, to any extent, regarding the Third Secret. This way they would be able to convince us, finally, that everything has been revealed, in an absolute sense. I’m asking Your Excellencies and all the Reverend Fathers gathered at this congress to talk about this to the Holy Father, so that at least others might talk about these things openly in the future!

Going on with Archbishop Capovilla, he then said to me: “You write the questions and send them to me, and I will answer them. I will search through my documents, if I still have them, because, you know, I donated everything to the museum… and I will send you something I have, maybe a phrase…”; and when he said this he smiled, like he did when he said “even if I should know something else”. His expression was evident, his face was clear, by looking at him there were no doubts what he was thinking of. “You write to me…”

Before I left his house, Archbishop Capovilla continued to talk freely of various subjects, speaking of many lines of reasoning. I must say that he didn’t openly connect those arguments to the Third Secret of Fatima, but the fact that he was talking about them in that context seems to be a hint towards that direction, an implicit indication, just to make me understand a little, without exposing himself too much.

He started to talk about various things, which apparently didn’t have much to do with my concerns: he spoke about the risk of taking for supernatural things something that might be someone’s fantasies, instead; he spoke about the risk of becoming maniacs on certain things, too fixed upon certain events. I remained silent because I didn’t go there to judge or to comment on anything he said, just to gather his testimony. However, apart from the considerations of what he was saying, something clear emerged out of these freewheeling talks that he spoke in that context and related to the Third Secret.

They revealed that he probably thought that Sister Lucy didn’t really receive the Third Secret, or a part of it, by Our Lady, but that she might have invented some of it, in good faith, being mistaken or having dreamt of it; some parts of Fatima, some parts of the Third Secret might not come really from Our Lady but out of fantasies that Sister Lucy dreamt of.

This consideration was reinforced by another line of reasoning he started talking about, in which he was criticizing the easiness of exorcising people who might only be mentally ill instead. Hence the imprudence of exorcising them while they might only need a psychologist. Imprudence that, we must say, he didn’t have in Loreto, because he told me about many examples of exorcisms he had there while he was bishop. So, before saying that certain events are of supernatural origin, we should first think that they might be of natural origin instead. In the context in which these things were said, they seemed to say that instead of thinking that Sister Lucy received the Fatima Message from Our Lady, we should think instead that they were invented by her by mistake, things she might have believed as coming from Our Lady, while they were her dreams instead. 

The impression I had from his words was quite strong towards that meaning, and it is reinforced by what one of the closest and more intimate prelates to Pope John Paul II once stated. He said, “It is hard to understand when it is Sister Lucy who speaks or when it is Our Lady…” This very statement was mentioned on the TV program Porta a Porta, which was aired on Italian Television Rai 1 on May 31, 2007. So, Archbishop Capovilla continued, we need prudence to understand what has been said by Our Lady and what by Sister Lucy.

 A similar attitude can be found in the letter written by the current Pope to Cardinal Bertone, which was used by the latter as an introduction to his book. This letter is actually extremely vague in its content, and we need to remember that even Mr. Socci received a letter of congratulations for his book from the Pope himself! It sounds strange, doesn’t it? There are two completely different and opposing books which both receive a letter of appreciation by the Holy Father! And in that letter sent to Cardinal Bertone, used by the latter as an introduction to his own book, the Pope speaks of “the authentic words of the Third Secret”!

If we add what was said by Archbishop Capovilla, to what was said in the same vein by the close collaborator of John Paul II (“it is hard to understand when it is Sister Lucy who speaks and when it is Our Lady…”) and to what Pope Benedict XVI has said in his letter “authentic words of the Third Secret”, we must deduct that there is a part of the Third Secret that they don’t deem as authentic, from a supernatural point of view.

It is as if they say that those words come from Sister Lucy and not from Our Lady. Knowing how Pope Ratzinger is widely known to use and weigh each single word used in his sentences, his statement also seems to go towards this direction. Maybe they didn’t publish it because they thought those words were not authentic! Maybe they say that everything has been published, with this meaning: “Everything we thought was the authentic Third Secret, so everything we thought was said by Our Lady, we’ve published it. While instead what we deemed as not authentic, not a revelation from Heaven but mere thoughts of Sister Lucy, we didn’t publish. We have considered these thoughts of Sister Lucy not to be a secret from Heaven, therefore we have discarded them from a supernatural point of view.”

Such an explanation would give an explanation to the repeated claim, by the Vatican, that they have published and revealed everything about the Third Secret, while taking into account the evident proofs that something, indeed, is missing. We will see later on, in my last meeting with Archbishop Capovilla, how he explicitly confirmed to me this thesis, this interpretation of the matter, by using a diplomatic style which is quite typical of the Roman Curia. 

Before leaving him, I asked Archbishop Capovilla whether he had any reservation or request that I keep everything he said to me as confidential and reserved, just as a private conversation to help a Fatima researcher like me in his own studies, but not to be published or the source of it to be publicly revealed. But he replied that it was fine, that I could print or use it as I wished, and so I did, and in doing that I was totally loyal to him.

Once back home, I sent the written questions to Archbishop Capovilla, as agreed, and on July 18th he sent me back a small package. As an answer to my question regarding the existence of an unpublished text of the Third Secret, Archbishop Capovilla wrote these two clear words, written in a good and readable handwriting “Nulla so” — “Nothing I know”!

Now, it is strange in itself that one of the very few living people who know the Third Secret, in answering my questions, says that he doesn’t know if there is anything else unpublished, because if the so-called fourth secret — an expression used by Italian media to ironically call the unpublished part of the Third Secret — does not exist, well he should be the first to know, because he read it in the summer of 1959; so he should not have told me that “he doesn’t know about it”! Instead, he should have said something like “no, it’s everything, there is nothing else”. Saying he doesn’t know anything about it sounds strange in itself, but actually, instead, is quite clear: he knows it very well, he just doesn’t want to talk about it!

Moreover, the expression “Nulla so”, “Nothing I know”, does not exist in Italian. It only exists as an idiomatic and dialectal sentence used in Sicily. In Sicily, there are entire cities or areas under control of the Mafia, the well known criminal organization. If someone speaks to the police about them, they get killed. Therefore the locals are afraid of talking about Mafiosi, and when the police ask them about the hideouts of those criminals, they answer with that expression “Nulla so”, “Nothing I know”, which truly means “I know where they are, but I cannot speak because otherwise they will kill me.” The expression, therefore, means “I cannot talk.”

I don’t want to personally offend anyone with this example, but it was Archbishop Capovilla who used such an expression, as I said; and as Mr. Socci has carefully reported in his book, Capovilla said that to clearly and ironically evoke the so-called “omerta’ siciliana”, the “Sicilian code of Silence”. This code of silence is needed when you must keep something hidden. So that’s why Archbishop Capovilla used that expression, ironically, as a joke, which brings us back to what we said at the beginning: He was not able to speak openly about it!

More than this, there were other interesting details in the answers he sent me by mail. All the documents sent to me by Archbishop Capovilla I have forwarded to Mr. Socci, who used them in his book. And among those documents there was one in particular, even if not the only one, which got my attention. Archbishop Capovilla sent me his reserved notes dated May 17, 1967 — 40 years ago, so very close to the facts we are discussing today, when Mons. Capovilla was quite young. Those documents had his seal on them, his personal bishop’s seal; it was a very detailed and precise document, written by his own hand and containing dates, events and locations.

In these reserved notes, he certifies that Pope Paul VI read the Secret in the afternoon of Thursday, June 27, 1963, and that this Secret was held in the Papal apartments, and specifically in a drawer of the desk called “Barbarigo”, in the actual bedroom of the Pope. Meanwhile the official document published by the Vatican in the year 2000, entitled “The Message of Fatima”, stated that Pope Paul VI read the Third Secret, together with Cardinal Angelo dell’Acqua, on March 27, 1965, and sent back the envelope to the archives of the Holy Office, with the decision of not publishing it.

What a discrepancy we have here! Archbishop Capovilla says that Pope Paul VI read it in the afternoon of June 27, 1963, while the official document published by the Vatican says that he read it on March 27, 1965! Two different dates! But there’s more: two different locations in which the Third Secret was being kept! According to the booklet “The Message of Fatima”, the Third Secret had been kept at the Holy Office archives, taken from there and given to Pope Paul VI just to read it, and then brought back to the archives. In the secret notes of Archbishop Capovilla, instead, we read that Pope Paul VI didn’t get the Secret from the Holy See archives, but he took it out of the desk of his own apartment, where the document was being held since the very beginning; while the Vatican booklet states that Pope Paul VI sent it back to the Holy See Archives. There are therefore huge discrepancies of dates and locations! It is the same discrepancy that will happen also with John Paul II, both for dates and locations of when and where he read the Third Secret.

In an interview with the Italian magazine Famiglia Cristiana, in fact, Cardinal Bertone has recently said that the theory of the Secret being held in the Pope’s apartments was just pure fabrication, a lie. But then, Your Eminence, if these are all fantasies, then Archbishop Capovilla has lied to me! He must have forged an official document 40 years ago! We will get back to this point later, but I just want to specify that Archbishop Capovilla already talked about this thing, but now it is proved by written documents, detailed and original.

I immediately called Archbishop Capovilla, thanking him for his quick answers to my questions, and I spoke to him about this incredible discrepancy. He answered saying, “Well, but I spoke the truth, I’m still lucid, you know?!” So I said, “Of course, Excellency, but how do you explain this certified discrepancy?” He then started to talk about something else, but I asked him again: “All right, Excellency, but I am referring to an official written document of the Vatican, which is obviously based on archive documents!” So he answered, “But I justify…” As if to say, we both tell the truth, me and Cardinal Bertone — this was the sense of his reply!

And then he continued with this telling phrase: “Maybe the Bertone package was not the same as the Capovilla package!” — meaning the envelope and the text that Cardinal Bertone speaks of is not the same as the one Capovilla speaks about! So I immediately interrupted him and asked: “So both dates are true because of the Third Secret there are two texts?” He remained silent for a while, a brief and telling pause; it was evident that Archbishop Capovilla was thinking about it, so his answer was well reflected upon and thought about, it was not a rushed reply. After that pause of silence, the Archbishop answered me this way: “Per l’appunto”, which in Italian means “Precisely so”, “It is as you said”!!!

After this shocking statement I obviously tried to get more information from him, but Archbishop Capovilla interrupted me and said, “Please, let it go; we have got the Gospel, let us think about the Gospel…” It was a diplomatic answer, obviously, to say “Stop, I cannot say anything more.” And this is quite revealing of how he thinks, which is quite common in the Vatican, that the Third Secret is just simply a private revelation, something for fanatics, something that does not pose any obligation on anyone, at all, something that you can believe or not, something you can just ignore if you choose. They think this way because, according to them, we don’t even know what comes from Our Lady and what comes from Sister Lucy, it’s not an important thing, etc.

This answer of his, therefore, made me think that he was trying to get away from a difficult situation, but also made me think that he maybe didn’t consider the Message as authentically supernatural. It is probably due to considerations like the one expressed by Archbishop Capovilla that a certain Party Line has been followed about Fatima.

This last June, on the 21st, I came back to visit again with Archbishop Capovilla, and he confirmed what he said to me, even if he didn’t want to. Upset, he said to me that he “was speaking freely at the time”, but that’s exactly the confirmation I needed! When someone speaks openly, without restrictions, it is then that he says all the truth. This remark from Archbishop Capovilla was probably more for the Vatican than for me! Anyway, with a few phrases here and there, he gave me an extremely important confirmation of our thesis that I said regarding the Secret! He hinted to the existence of an attachment of some sort to the four pages published in the year 2000, something else that — he made me understand — contains the thoughts of Sister Lucy! Not that they were written like that by Sister Lucy but Archbishop Capovilla said that they were surely examined carefully by the Church authorities, and those Church authorities must have deemed this “something else” as just thoughts of Sister Lucy, which she might have thought — at least at the beginning — as coming from Our Lady!

Archbishop Capovilla has said exactly this to me! Now, they tell us that our positions and theories are not acceptable, because we say that leading bishops and Cardinals in the Vatican have lied to us, and to do this is unacceptable!

Many try to finish up with us by using this argument. But this is an irrational way of thinking! Actually, I should say it is quite opportunistic, because they don’t want to be bothered by problems, but if you’re Catholic what would you expect? A quiet life? Just by listening to the Gospel of any Sunday we should well know that ours is not an easy religion!

But apart from this, we don’t say that they are lying, we are talking about mental reservations, of reticence. So, if someone says that the official position is correct otherwise the Vatican hierarchy would have told us a lie, and this is unacceptable, then we could answer that if the official position is true, then it was Archbishop Capovilla who lied — the former Personal Secretary of John XXIII is a liar! Wouldn’t this thing be unacceptable too? Moreover, therefore he would have forged an official document! He would have forged some “reserved notes” 40 years ago! It is an extremely grave accusation! At the time when those documents were written, Archbishop Capovilla was not old at all (but then even Sister Lucy was very “old” during her meetings with Cardinal Bertone, so this argument should be valid for both of them). Therefore we cannot say that he made a mistake because of his age, as he wrote those documents more than 40 years ago!

If the official line is true, then he would have lied. If the official version was right, even Sister Lucy would be a liar, because as Cardinal Bertone tells us in his book, on page 92, Sister Lucy told him that “that date of 1960 was my decision, Our Lady didn’t tell me anything about it”. Unfortunately for him, many other authors like Father Alonso (a non-controversial Fatima scholar) tell us that the Sister stated the opposite! So are all of these prelates liars too, then? Or not credible?

But there’s more to that: the same Cardinal Bertone, on the TV program Porta a Porta of May 31, 2007, has shown on television the envelopes containing the Third Secret of Fatima, and on 2 (TWO!) of those envelopes there was a sentence written by Sister Lucy, read by the Cardinal himself, in which the date of 1960 was attributed to “an explicit order by Our Lady”!! And he showed it on television!!! But then if Sister Lucy, as Cardinal Bertone says to us on page 92 of his book, told him that the date of 1960 was the Sister’s decision, that Our Lady didn’t tell her anything about it, then why did Sister Lucy write on the envelope that the date of 1960 was coming from an “explicit order by Our Lady”? It would be an evident and blatant lie! If the Vatican version is right, Archbishop Capovilla is a liar and a forger, many priests like Father Alonso and Father Bianchi have also told lies regarding what was said by Sister Lucy. Additionally, the same Sister Lucy would have written a falsehood on the very envelope containing the Third Secret! Thus, according to the official version, even Sister Lucy is a Liar!

Would not this be an extremely grave accusation? This whole story of “I cannot think that they lied because it would be too serious” simply does not go anywhere. Actually, if we’re coherent, it goes to even worse consequences.

I like to think that no one has told a lie, but used mental reservations instead: “We have published everything there is in the Third Secret, everything that is contained in this specific message from Heaven, because what we have not published, we deemed not to be supernaturally authentic, so we have discarded it as a mere fabrication of Sister Lucy”! Moreover, those thoughts were written at the end of the Second Secret.

In fact, during the press conference of June 26, 2000, someone asked Mons. Bertone if the phrase, cut short by the “etc.”, about the orthodoxy in Portugal pertained to the Second or to the Third Secret. Mons. Bertone answered this way “Well, it is hard to say, I think it pertained to the second one.”

If, therefore, they consider that phrase, which we know is the beginning of the words of the Third Secret, to be part of the Second Secret, then they must have considered the other unpublished words as pertaining to the Second Secret too. Therefore, the Third Secret has been entirely published, for them, in as much as what they have not published is not the true Third Secret, coming from Heaven, but just thoughts of Sister Lucy on the Second Secret, and not on the Third!!! We should then ask a question to them: You say you’ve published the Third Secret in its entirety. Then, what about the Second Secret? Did you publish the Second Secret entirely too? Including any attachments or thoughts by Sister Lucy on it? Are there any “reflections” of Sister Lucy, as they have been considered, on the Second or Third Secret which are yet to be published? It is maybe in this sense that, without saying a formal lie, they are able to say “it is all”. It is probably a difficult and narrow mental reservation, a reticence. It is not a lie then, and this would explain a certain nervousness from them.

Here is another example of this edginess: Cardinal Bertone, in an interview with the Vatican Radio, said that the phrase “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved”, ended with the three dots of suspension (…). NO! It is not true, it does not end that way, but with the word “et cetera”, which literally means “and the other things”. Which other things? Where are they? This is just one of the many imprecisions that we can find in various statements by Cardinal Bertone.

I have written a small essay about the principal contradictions that can be found in Cardinal Bertone’s book. This essay, which is soon to be published, shows how many imprecisions, inconsistencies and contradictions are in his book. These contradictions are probably caused by this sort of nervousness and the reason behind it is his reticence: not to say too much, but he made so many mistakes in his writings and during his radio and TV interviews…

I love to think that he had these mental reservations, and not that he lied willingly, and I would like to conclude this aspect with a consideration, which could seem absurd, but it is not. Let’s think about this: they have cast a doubt over Sister Lucy’s capacity of understanding what Our Lady really said to her. They most probably think she was mistaken. Archbishop Capovilla clearly let me understand this the last time I met him.

Another Roman prelate, who spoke with other Cardinals who knew the Third Secret, during the 60s and the 70s, told me privately that maybe Sister Lucy, in the unpublished text, didn’t really understand what Our Lady has said to her. Maybe it is because of the language, since Portuguese is a poor language. By saying it, this prelate made me understand that the unpublished text contains too many serious things, so that they doubt it really came from Our Lady. Well, if this is so, I propose this theory “What if Cardinal Bertone didn’t really understand what Sister Lucy told him, instead?” In his book, Cardinal Bertone says that his Portuguese and Spanish skills were not good at the time he met with Sister Lucy. He said that the seer was very old, that yes, they had someone who was interpreting for him, but the Cardinal said he didn’t transcribe any of his meetings with her, he just wrote down some notes, and then once back home he simply put them together.

The entire procedure of these interviews allows anyone to cast doubt that he might not have understood what the Sister told him, that he might have misunderstood it instead, or even subjectively understood something that he wanted her to say, indulging in his expectations and being eventually influenced by them in his report! There’s just too many possibilities for being mistaken!

I’m not accusing him of not being in good faith, and this is not a personal accusation, but there are so many imprecisions in his book and in his statements, which were explained more completely by my essay on the subject. So then, if he and others cast a doubt about Sister Lucy’s capacity of understanding Our Lady’s words; if they think she was mistaken when she reported Her words, then why can’t I doubt about Mons. Bertone’s report on Sister Lucy? Why can’t I say that he might have misunderstood or wrongly reported what she said to him?

It might seem an absurd thing, but it is not! It would be much more absurd to say that Sister Lucy didn’t understand what Our Lady told her compared to a mere human mistake made by Cardinal Bertone. Because Our Lady knows very well how to be understood: in delivering such an important Message, validated by the public Miracle of the Sun, do you think that Our Lady would not have found a way of being understood by the seer? She, who is the All Powerful Supplicant? THIS would be absurd! Sister Lucy even said that she had the assistance of Our Lady when she wrote the Third Secret, word for word. It is much easier that a human prelate, who went to the convent of the Sister with certain expectations in his mind, talking to an aging seer, commits a human mistake, instead of thinking that there was a misunderstanding between Sister Lucy and Our Lady on a Message of such importance and magnitude! I love to think this instead, and for any further information I refer to my essay soon to be published.

As the Holy Father said in Ratisbon, Germany, last September 2006, Faith is not against the right reason, and the proper use of reason is never against the Faith!

Let me now talk about the controversy between Mr. Socci and Cardinal Bertone.

This book published by the Cardinal, as we said, was conceived as a reply to the Fatima believers’ criticisms against the “official” version on Fatima, and specifically the arguments contained in Socci’s book, titled “The Fourth Secret of Fatima”. The Cardinal made it almost a personal fight against Mr. Socci. The problem is that Mr. Socci is a thinker and writer above any reasonable suspicion. This is maybe the reason why he is being so attacked. He holds fast to his position, and in two articles published by the Italian newspaper Libero, where he usually writes, on May 12 and June 2, 2007, he replied to the Cardinal, with specific questions and concrete facts.

Mr. Antonio Socci, as I said, is an intellectual above any suspicion. No one can affirm that he wrote his book because he was a partisan of the Fatima theories. In fact, just two years ago, at the death of Sister Lucy, he wrote the opposite. In an article which appeared in the Italian newspaper Il Giornale, the day after the death of Sister Lucy, he wrote that the things were exactly as the Vatican said them to be, and that the Fatimite critics were all unbalanced (this was the sense of his article), with no proofs at all on their side.

At the time I wrote an article in a magazine to counteract certain authors, and among them Socci. He was struck by my article, so he called me — I didn’t know him personally before that time. He then read my book and became extremely curious about the matter, as he himself admits in the introduction of his book. Once he examined my objections, he realized that there were many contradictions in the official version. For this reason he started his research on the Fatima events, and he ended up writing in his book this very sentence: “It is certain that there is an unpublished part of the Third Secret which is considered to be ‘unspeakable’”. He writes in the introduction of his book: “I am reporting the conclusions that I have reached, conclusions which contradict my initial beliefs.”

Socci, in fact, was convinced that the official version was right. But being an intellectually honest man, and a courageous one too, and seeing all those contradictions, he didn’t pretend to close his eyes before these facts. He didn’t say, “No, it would be too serious, I don’t want to write against them; I don’t want to read; I don’t want to know.” No, as an intellectually honest man who loves the truth, he carefully studied the matter, he realized that there was much more behind it, and reached a conclusion which was diametrically opposite to his previous one. Maybe this is the reason why the Vatican is so upset by his testimony. Because Socci is a very well known author, a famous Italian journalist and TV anchorman, they cannot say that what he affirms now (which is, that the Third Secret has not been published entirely) is because he is a Fatima partisan, or because he had prejudices on the matter: they can’t say that because he had an exact opposite opinion no more than two years ago.

If someone wrote something similar to the following: “It is like the Vatican says, just as the official version says. Whoever denies this is crazy”; and then that same person, contradicting his previous statement, now states that “It is certain that there is an unpublished part of the Third Secret which has not been published”, that person can’t possibly be accused of having a prejudice on the matter, for sure! He is a witness of primary importance. So, if someone who had a certain opinion, overturns it so abruptly, this must mean that he found extremely serious arguments, facts, elements and proofs. This is maybe the reason why his honest testimony is so upsetting them. And how sad it is, seeing how all of this was taken as a “personal affront” by the Cardinal Secretary of State. Don’t we have the right and the duty to seek the truth? Are we not allowed to talk?

The Socci affair reminds me of Father Alonso’s one. As Socci, Father Alonso was initially completely for the official version, in good faith. But just because he was a man in good faith, just because he was an intellectually honest man, by being in touch with the seer, he started to move to positions close to ours, and he wrote many documents in that sense. But even if they say that everything has been published, there’s still no authorization to publish the works of Father Alonso. Why? If you had said everything in an absolute sense, if there’s anything else to say, why don’t you publish all the works of Father Alonso, all of his writings? The path undertaken by Socci seems to me quite similar to Father Alonso’s one, and this is a fact that speaks for itself.

Apologizing for the length of my speech, there would be many more things to say on the matter. Once again I invite the persons present at the conference to refer to my soon to be published essay, and I would like to conclude my speech with an exhortation:

Let’s pray, Reverend Fathers and dearest friends, let’s pray a lot for some persons in particular. Surely for Mr. Socci, who wrote such a truthful book. Let’s pray to Our Lady so that She grants him perseverance and courage, so that he might go on this way, regardless of the pressures, the wickedness and the inconveniences he might find on his path. Let’s pray so that he continues on the good way, and that Our Lady grants him Her blessing for the good service he gave to the cause.

Then, let’s pray for Archbishop Capovilla. He too has given service to the truth. Let’s pray for him because he is very old. Let’s pray in general for all who know the Third Secret or know something about the Third Secret. They remain silent, sometimes for spiritual reasons because they think they are bound to a vow of silence (but why? If everything has been revealed…). Sometimes instead, they remain silent for human and opportunistic reasons: because they don’t want trouble, they are afraid of opposing the Vatican… and they think this way although our religion is the religion of the martyrs! Let’s pray for them, for whoever remains silent due to spiritual, and therefore nobler reasons and also for those who remain silent because they are afraid of hassles and persecutions. Let’s pray so that the Holy Ghost might move them to talk, so that through our prayers to Our Lady (ad Jesum per Mariam) the Immaculate Heart of Mary might triumph in them and they might finally talk; let’s pray for them so that they will follow the example of the Maccabeans.

In addition, I would like to ask the humblest prayer for me, for my efforts and my writings; and all the more so, we should not forget to pray for Father Nicholas Gruner, who is the principal leader and the flag holder of this pious and militant Fatima Crusade!

But in the end, let us pray for our Holy Father Benedict XVI. The Message of Fatima asks us to pray, to pray a lot for our Holy Father; and the reigning Pope said, at least once, that Fatima is one of his biggest regrets of his life. He was probably moved to act in a certain way and has remained trapped by it. Let’s pray to the Immaculate Heart of Mary so that he receives from Her the strength and the courage to break the veil of silence. He is trying to find a solution, in some way. He has signed, for instance, the document that liberates the Tridentine Mass, in his Motu Proprio, on a very telling day: the first Saturday of the month, the first Saturday of the month in which, 90 years ago, the Third Secret was given to the seers, and on the 55th anniversary of Sacro Vergente Anno, the act in which Pope Pius XII attempted a partial Consecration of Russia.

The Pope is therefore trying to give something to Fatima, to do something for Fatima, but maybe he has been someway trapped by the circumstances. Let’s pray to the Holy Ghost so that (per Mariam ad Jesum) He will obtain for the Holy Father all the strength and the audacity needed to break out of the situation in which he might have been trapped. And so that he might use, soon, the marvelous tool that Heaven gave to him, which he needs to straighten and correct the current situation of the Church. It is not an easy task, surrounded as he is by enemies. Through the intercession of Our Lady, let’s pray so that Our Holy Father Benedict XVI becomes the harbinger of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

To Listen to the Audio or view the Video Please click below

Audio
Audio
Video
Video


Return to
Table of Contents