Amidst Conflicting Fatima “Secrets,” a Clear Message Shines
In other words: why all the secrecy and misdirection? What part of the Fatima message was the Vatican so afraid of?
I have never found a satisfactory answer to these questions. And it seems that the more I investigate, the murkier the waters get. Nevertheless, it’s a subject that never really goes out of fashion. There are periodic lulls in Fatima interest, and then some new detail, some previously unconsidered angle, makes its way to the surface, and the whole discussion begins anew.
And so it was that on May 8th, 2017, Vatican expert Marco Tosatti published a piece that re-ignited a part of the debate. In it, he referenced a book (not yet available in English) by Spanish journalist José María Zavala, entitled The Best Kept Secret of Fatima (El Sécreto Mejor Guardado de Fátima). In it, Zavala claims to have received a photo of a handwritten Portugese document in an email in August of 2016. According to Zavala, the message came from an anonymous sender with a blank subject line, and thus wound up in his spam folder where it was very nearly deleted. But he claims that in a providential decision, he decided to open it and take a look, and he “immediately noticed that it was a text about the apparitions of Fatima.” The text reads, in English:
Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944Though it is not mentioned in the book, it is worth noting here that my own research indicates that the same text most likely first appeared on a bizarre website called Fatimamovement.com — a website which, despite its use of Catholic imagery, blasphemously claims that “Our Lady is God” and “The Biblical Lord is Satan.” The pages on the “Fatima Movement” website are not date stamped, but the author takes credit for having “asked God Our Lady [sic] for assistance in finding the Real Third Secret of Fatima. This Rosary request forced the Illuminati to release one of the two copies in existence.” The text of this alleged secret itself is claimed to have been introduced to the world by the author on April 21, 2010.
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the ‘holy Father’ in front of a multitude that was cheering him.
But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.
Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter’s grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44
Just six days later, the (somewhat fringe, but certainly not blasphemous) traditionalist Catholic website Tradition in Action posted a photo of the same document, stating that, “One of our readers from Portugal sent us the facsimile of a handwritten text that could be the text of the Third Secret of Fatima.”
So we have a text of dubious origin, claiming to be the authentic Third Secret of Fatima, championed by a website that acts as a (arguably unwitting) parody of authentic Catholic belief, that has at last landed in the hands of an interested journalist some six years after it first appeared online. Ordinarily, such a document would be easy to dismiss, but this particular text also has a rather unique claim to authenticity.
It should be observed that there are several noteworthy things about this document:
1.) In 2004, Pope John Paul II did give a piece of the tomb of St. Peter to the rector of the new Fatima shrine to use as the cornerstone. If this text is a forgery, this fact could obviously have been included after the fact, because it was first seen by the public in 2010. If it isn’t, that’s a significant and specific prediction.
2.) The “gaze of evil” of the pope in the vision is very similar to what many Catholics (myself included) have described perceiving when first seeing Pope Francis after his election. This is, however, not a falsifiable claim, which also leaves it out as an objective criteria for evaluating authenticity.
3.) The allegation of “apostasy in the Church” dovetails with the report given by Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, as published by OnePeterFive on May 12, 2016, in which she revealed a conversation she and her husband had in June of 1965 with “a priest named Msgr. Mario Boehm…who had been one of the top editors of L’Osservatore Romano for many years.” As Mrs. von Hildrebrand recounted:
The topic of Fatima came up. My husband raised the question, “Why was the third secret of Fatima not revealed?” For the Holy Virgin had said it should be shared with the faithful in 1960.4.) In his post of May 8th, Tosatti links to a May 6, 2017 interview conducted by Zavala with Spanish graphologist (handwriting expert) Begoña Slocker de Arce for the Spanish-language publication, Es Diario. Slocker is, according to Zavala, an “expert of the active Courts of Justice” in Spain with more than two decades of experience. For Zavala’s book, Slocker was asked to analyze a text purporting to be the the real Third Secret of Fatima, and Zavala discussed her findings and process in the interview. The most significant and verifiable point as pertains to the alleged authenticity of this newly-revealed “secret” is that Slocker claims, in her professional analysis, that she is certain the handwriting belongs to Sister Lucia. From the interview with Zavala and Slocker (translation by Andrew Guernsey):
Don Mario: It was not revealed because of its content. My husband: What was so fearful about it? Msgr. Boehm (as a well-trained Italian) did not say that he had read it, but intimated that the content was fearful: “infiltration of the Church to the very top”. It shattered us but confirmed my husband’s fear that the way Vatican II was interpreted was going to expose the Church to terrible dangers. Alas, this fear was well founded.
Q: Why are you so sure that the document of the Third Secret of Fatima not revealed was written, like the first two secrets, by the same hand of Sister Lucia?By my count, Slocker is claiming that the handwriting analysis was checked by at least four individual experts in that field of competence, plus members of the Spanish Society of Graphology.
A: How am I so sure? I only know that my work is done with rigor, with all the knowledge put at the service of the expert analysis. I think that it is impossible to write two identical letters, since we have life, movement, and this is what gives the writing of the same person certain differences in the same letter. We also have personal traits that come from our unconscious part, and that it is impossible for another author other than the same person to reproduce them. Velocity is very important because it is very difficult to imitate, the inclination, the cohesion … These are traits that a counterfeiter cannot keep up for more than six lines in a row, because the unconscious part betrays and the hand movement obeys the brain, not our intentions. This is a clear case, that of the document we have studied, in which all those factors test positive, never with differences sufficient to doubt its authenticity.
Q: Are there other prestigious experts, like you, who support your conclusion? Who are they? Once I finished the work with my regular team, to which belongs Lorena Gilaranz, an expert from the courts of justice, I went to two of the most prestigious experts, my colleagues, who gave me approval, as well as also obtained the support of the Spanish Society of Graphology.
And yet…something about this text feels off. Its provenance, insofar as it is associated with a website run by someone who is not only blasphemous, but oftentimes incoherent, is incredibly suspicious. It is longer than the described 25 lines as described by Bishop Venancio, the auxiliary bishop of Fatima who held the envelope containing the secret up to the light to ascertain what he could about its contents in 1957.