A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima

A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima: Part I. Post-conciliar correctness versus the truth about Fatima

by Christopher A. Ferrara
August 1, 2015

The respected English Catholic journalist Joanna Bogle is an intelligent woman and an accomplished writer whose objectivity concerning the crisis in the Church, however, is hampered by an ideological commitment to post-conciliar correctness. An indefatigable defender of whatever the post-conciliar “regime of novelty” has officially approved, even though the post-conciliar “reforms” have produced nothing but decline and corruption in the Church, Bogle’s blinkered view of the ecclesial scene does not allow her to recognize the seriousness of traditionalist objections to what Cardinal Ratzinger so rightly described as “a continuing process of decay” since the Council. Her response to these objections is that of an ideologue: demagogy and character assassination.

Rather than engaging traditionalists on the merits of their contentions, Bogle caricatures what they are saying so as to elicit a chorus of hissing and booing from the grandstand before which she indignantly struts back and forth, exhorting her audience to fear and loathing at the Catholic Herald and elsewhere. I am sure she and her public find this approach emotionally satisfying, but it fails to meet the standards of rational discourse, still less rational Catholic discourse. When dealing with the positions taken by traditionalist commentators on the state of the Church today and the reasons for it, the otherwise sober Bogle comes off as little more than a literary harridan.

And so it is with her approach to the traditionalist contention that the Vatican has not been entirely forthcoming regarding publication of the Third Secret of Fatima and that there must be a text in which the Virgin Herself explains the meaning of the vision published on June 26, 2000, wherein we see a future Pope, members of the hierarchy and laity being executed by soldiers on a hill outside a devastated city filled with corpses.

Not just traditionalists, but Catholics the world over find incredible the Vatican’s contention that the vision standing alone is all there is to the Third Secret and that for its “interpretation” we must look to none other than the former Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano, whose “interpretation” is cited no fewer than four times in the Vatican’s “official” (but non-binding) commentary on the vision. According to Sodano, the Secret concerns nothing more than 20th-century events culminating in the failed attempt on the life of John Paul II in 1981. A Pope escaping death at the hands of a lone assassin in 1981 cannot possibly correspond to the vision of a Pope being executed along with clergy and laity on a hill outside a devastated city. Sodano’s “interpretation” is a clumsy contrivance that bespeaks an attempt to obscure rather than reveal the truth.

For Bogle, however, it’s all very simple. We must believe Sodano. The idea that the Mother of God must have explained the vision Herself is just the feverish dream of a few crackpots to be ridiculed and reviled. In full caricature mode, she writes in the Catholic Herald that “Fatimists” contend that “St John Paul and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lied in 2000 when the Third Secret was published,” that they are “sinister characters” and that “Pope Emeritus” Benedict XVI “is a virtual prisoner; a double is sometimes presented to the public in his place; he has been hypnotised; he is actually now talking in a sort of code; they are putting drugs in his tea.”

Please. Either Bogle is profoundly ignorant of this subject or deeply dishonest in her discussion of it. None of the serious, carefully researched sources on this controversy advance such laughable contentions. A brief and necessarily partial review of the evidence, more fully summarized here and here, is thus in order by way of response to Bogle’s crude agitprop. That will be subject of the next two columns in this series.

At the outset, however, it must be said that the most likely explanation for the suppression of the explanatory text is not that John Paul and Benedict “lied.” In fact, they never made any positive representations on the matter and never imposed Sodano’s preposterous “interpretation” on the Church. Rather, as the Catholic public intellectual and commentator Antonio Socci maintains, the two pontiffs considered themselves governed by a prudential judgment during the pontificate of John XXIII: that the suppressed text cannot be an authentic revelation by the Virgin and that it reflects only Sister Lucia’s personal impressions.

Indeed, the Vatican’s commentary on the vision suspiciously avoided Sister Lucia’s more complete Fourth Memoir recording the integral Message of Fatima. There we read what would appear to be the beginning of the Virgin’s explanation of the vision: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.” Lucia added the “etc.” to indicate the Virgin’s further words concerning what would logically be a prophecy of a grave dogmatic crisis in the Church outside of Portugal.

In a blatant attempt to evade the profound implications of the Virgin’s reference to Portugal and the dogma of the Faith, the Vatican relied on the Third Memoir instead of the more complete Fourth, dismissing the reference as “some annotations that were added in the Fourth Memoir” and consigning the Virgin’s words to a footnote. There we have it: the very words of the Virgin, obviously continuing her prophecy, are reduced to “annotations” deemed extrinsic to the Secret. Therefore they need not be published.

In the next two columns I will indicate some of the major grounds for the reasonable belief, held commonly by well-informed Catholics, that Sister Lucia’s “annotations” belong to a suppressed explanatory text that must exist in which the Mother of God continues to speak on the subject She introduces with the momentous reference to Portugal and the dogma of the Faith that the Vatican buried in a footnote in the hope Her words would be forgotten.

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2016/08/03/a-reply-to-joanna-bogle-respecting-the-third-secret-of-fatima/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

6 comments on “A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima

  1. Who do neo-Catholic modernists think they are fooling by pretending that there were never any words by the Blessed Virgin Mary declaring that “the dogma of the faith in Portugal will always be preserved, etc.”? The piece of paper on which those words were written was either lost, stolen, burned, or withheld for some reason.

    People will wonder whether the chastisements of the Third Secret of Fatima are already beginning in Europe. The selection of the “Fatima” site may be a clue there.



  2. Emily Litella: What’s all this I hear about the secrets of fat imams? It’s no secret that heavyset swarthy middle eastern men have a peculiar smell about them. But only an Islamophobe would think this has to do with religion. I think it comes from eating camel intestines and things like that … what Jane? Fatima? Oh, that’s different. Never mind.

  3. A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima: Part II. What Bogle Will Not See

    by Christopher A. Ferrara
    August 4, 2016

    In the first part of this series I promised a brief review of the facts and circumstances, more fully summarized here and here, which put the lie to Joanna Bogle’s absurd caricature of the “Fatimist” position that the vision published by the Vatican in 2000, standing alone, cannot possibly be the Third Secret in its entirety.

    First of all, the Vatican’s “official” commentary on the vision (written by then Cardinal Ratzinger) describes it as “difficult to decipher.” But why would the Mother of God leave us with a cipher to be “decoded” by a Vatican Secretary of State 83 years after the fact when the rest of the Message of Fatima is simple and pellucid in its predictions, warnings and promises?

    Moreover, Sodano, a corrupt Vatican bureaucrat, is an inconceivable choice to speak for the Mother of God regarding the meaning of what She revealed to the three seers. It was Sodano who for decades covered up the crimes of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, accepting money and gifts from Maciel’s Legionaries of Christ while blocking any investigation into his rape of boys, his out-of-wedlock children, his drug use and financial improprieties. Cardinal Ratzinger finally ordered an investigation and then, as Pope Benedict XVI, approved the findings that Maciel was guilty of “very serious and objectively immoral acts… confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies” and “true crimes” that manifested “a life without scruples or authentic religious sentiment.” Maciel died in disgrace after being stripped of his leadership of the Legionaries and his priestly faculties and ordered to spend the rest of his life in prayer and penance.

    The mere fact of the Vatican’s absurd reliance on Sodano and his successor Cardinal Tarcisio (“penthouse”) Bertone to promulgate an “official version” of the Third Secret demonstrates that something must be missing: namely, the Blessed Virgin’s own explanation of its meaning. It is impossible to believe that God would have left the interpretation of His mother’s precious message-warning to the Church and all of humanity to a pair of scandal-plagued Vatican officials.

    At any rate, as The New York Times reported, Cardinal Ratzinger made clear during the June 2000 press conference at which the Third Secret vision was published that “It is not the intention of the Church to impose a single interpretation. But in light of history, we can decipher the vision.” No single interpretation is imposed. But we can “decipher” it. Then again, others are free to “decipher” it differently. So, Our Lady left us with a riddle to which there could be several different solutions, take your pick? Hardly.

    Now, if the faithful are not obliged to accept Sodano’s ludicrous interpretation, that leaves us — and it leaves Bogle — with no authoritative explanation whatsoever of what the vision really means. Does it seem likely that Our Lady would have left us completely in the dark on a matter of such epochal significance?

    But the curious role of the Vatican Secretary of State in this affair is only one element in a mountain of proof indicating that there must be a text in which the Virgin, not Cardinal Sodano, explains how the vision will come to pass and the who, what, why and when of the prophecy. This would only be in keeping with the specificity of the rest of the Fatima message, including the very name of the Pope (Pius XI) who would be in office at the commencement of World War II and the accurate prediction of “a night illumined by an unknown light” just before the war’s commencement.

    The evidence for an explanatory text is so overwhelming that the decidedly non-traditionalist Socci, who set out to write a book demolishing the “Fatimist” position, completely reversed himself and concluded the text must exist and that it is “well hidden” in the Vatican. As he describes his own change of mind: “In the end, I had to surrender…. Here I recount my voyage into the greatest mystery of the 20th century and set forth the result I honestly reached. A result that sincerely contradicts my initial convictions.” From Bogle, however, we can expect no such openness to serious arguments and powerful evidence. Her ideological commitment to anti-traditionalism precludes it.

    My own exhaustive study of the controversy, The Secret Still Hidden, was inspired by Socci’s groundbreaking work. Both Socci’s book and my own were written in a context of widespread skepticism about the completeness of the Vatican’s disclosure in 2000, extending far beyond “Fatimist” and “traditionalist” circles. Mother Angelica spoke for millions of Catholics when she declared before a worldwide audience on live television: “I happen to be one of those who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing.”

    As Socci maintains, the explanatory text would be found in the envelope on which the late Archbishop Loris Capovilla, personal secretary to John XXIII, wrote the names of those who had read the text and the judgment of Pope John, dictated to Capovilla by the pontiff, that he would leave to his predecessors the decision whether to publish it (even though the entire Church was awaiting publication in 1960, the year the Virgin had specified). Before his death this year at the age of 100, Archbishop Capovilla repeatedly confirmed the existence of “the Capovilla envelope” and even its precise location (a writing desk in John XXIII’s bedroom from which Paul VI retrieved it). He did so even in an edited video interview Cardinal Bertone presented during a television show hastily staged to quell the controversy. The Vatican has never denied the envelope exists. Yet the envelope has never been produced.

    Given even these few but very telling facts, reasonable, intelligent and open-minded Catholics want to know what is going on here. Consider, for example, Robert Moynihan, a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. from Yale and editor of the mainstream journal Inside the Vatican. To his great credit, Moynihan ignored post-conciliar correctness and the risk to his own position (from ideologues like Bogle and others in much higher places) when he revealed in the August 2011 edition of his journal that his friend the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi, who was no less than Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, recommended that he read my book:

    We were discussing the Third Secret of Fatima, the allegations that the Vatican has not published the entire text of the Third Secret as revealed to Sister Lucia, and the response of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, in a book where Bertone states that there is nothing more to be revealed. Archbishop Sambi said, “Excuse me.” He got up, went out of the room, and came back with a book.

    “Here,” he said. “Do you know this book? You should read it.” It was Christopher Ferrara’s The Secret Still Hidden. “Wait,” I said. “You are the Pope’s representative in the US, and you are urging me to read a book that questions what the Secretary of State wrote?” Archbishop Sambi replied, “All I am saying is that there are interesting things worth reading in this book. And in the end, we are all after the truth, aren’t we? The truth is the important thing …”

    Moynihan, who was also a personal friend of the late Monsignor Capovilla, very recently expressed the enduring skepticism of sensible Catholics around the globe in two of his e-letters to subscribers. On May 27 he wrote as follows concerning the “Capovilla envelope”:

    “There was a second envelope.” — The late Cardinal Loris Capovilla, speaking to me in his residence in Sotto il Monte in early 2007, when I asked him why the letter of the Third Secret of Fatima held up on Italian television by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone did not contain any writing. Capovilla told me that he had written on the envelope in August, 1959, when Capovilla, together with Pope John XXIII, read the Third Secret at Castel Gandolfo. Pope John told Capovilla to write on the envelope that the two had read the text that day, and that he, Pope John, had decided not to publish it but to leave it to one of his successors to publish. Capovilla did write those words on the envelope, he told me. Capovilla passed away yesterday in Italy at the age of 100. May his soul rest in peace, and may eternal light shine upon him.

    Then, only days ago, Moynihan followed up on his May 27 letter. He further revealed the following:

    He [Capovilla] had intentionally led me to believe that there was something not clear about the publication of the secret or secrets — that there might even have been two different letters, with two different envelopes, with two distinct texts, he had left me in the dark about what that something might be. He had clearly had some hesitation about speaking definitively on the subject of the letter, as if he had been asked not to do so by some higher authority.

    Citing conversations he had had with Roman sources during the summer, Moynihan stated his conclusion:

    Still, in Rome during June and July, I did have conversations which touched on the Third Secret of Fatima.

    Those conversations persuaded me that there is an ambiguity and a lack of transparency about the way the texts have been presented to the world.

    I do not know what the ambiguity or lack of transparency is, but it seems, from what Capovilla told me, and from what I heard in Rome, that something is imperfect, or incomplete, in the way the secret has been published.

    As we will see in the concluding part of this series, this missing something was revealed by none other than Benedict XVI, who, to quote Socci, “reopened the dossier” on the Third Secret of Fatima.

  4. That modernists in the Vatican covered up the Maciel scandal contradicts the modernist spin that the same Vatican bureaucrats would never lie (or suppress information) about the Third Secret of Fatima. It also demonstrates an appalling lack of familiarity with modernist casuistry on mental reservation. But that won’t stop invincibly ignorant anti-Catholic converts and modernists from ridiculing Fatima and those who know that something has been suppressed. Europe is already in an apocalyptic situation of anti-Catholic persecution and chastisements. If they weren’t in the Third Secret of Fatima, they should have been.

    Quote (Moynihan): “He [Capovilla] had intentionally led me to believe that there was something not clear about the publication of the secret or secrets — that there might even have been two different letters, with two different envelopes, with two distinct texts, he had left me in the dark about what that something might be. He had clearly had some hesitation about speaking definitively on the subject of the letter, as if he had been asked not to do so by some higher authority.”

    The most absurd part of the suppression of the Third Secret of Fatima is the way the condescending anti-Fatima modernists try to act like there never were any words by the Blessed Virgin about “the dogma of the faith” in Portugal being preserved. If that was the case then why did neither Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict assert that those were spurious claims? There is another possibility – that the piece of paper on which the Blessed Virgin’s words about the dogma of the faith in Portugal was either stolen or destroyed. If that is what happened, then the Vatican’s famous rollout was technically true (that was all they had on Fatima then, just the vision, because the document with the Blessed Virgin’s words on the dogma of the faith in Portugal was gone by then).

  5. A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima: Part III. Father Dollinger’s Revelation and Pope Benedict’s Negation of the Vatican Party Line

    by Christopher A. Ferrara
    August 5, 2016

    As the first two columns in this series should have made clear, the enduring controversy over the Third Secret of Fatima is a mysterious and complex affair. But Joanna Bogle thinks she has it all figured out, and that Catholics who disagree with her are crackpots to be declared ecclesial non-persons in the manner of an ideological purge.

    In the article which prompted this series, Bogle appears to view the case as closed merely because an unsigned Vatican press release, quoting two isolated phrases from a purported statement by the Pope Emeritus this past May, rejects the recently publicized testimony of his friend and colleague Father Ingo Dollinger that before the vision alone was published in 2000 then-Cardinal Ratzinger had admitted to him that there is a text pertaining to the Secret that mentions “a bad Council and a bad Mass.”

    While Dollinger’s testimony is another piece that fits perfectly into the evidential mosaic indicating the existence of a suppressed text, the case for its existence has never depended on him. Nevertheless, let us consider the press release Bogle thinks is the beginning and the end of the whole controversy:

    Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

    First observation: The press release is a characterization of hearsay statements attributed to Benedict, who issued no statement of his own directly to the public. We are offered only three isolated phrases without context. Why no first-hand statement from Benedict himself, who certainly has no fear of speaking directly to the public on other matters? In fact, he has just signed a deal for the publication of his autobiography, a move that seems difficult to square with his avowal upon abdicating the papacy that he would retire from view and live out his life in prayer and solitude. Indeed, since his abdication under mysterious circumstances, including what his own secretary called “a dramatic struggle,” Benedict has carried on a substantial public life of statements, lectures, interviews and appearances at major Vatican events. Yet where the Third Secret is concerned — but only here — we are to believe that Benedict must hide behind a Vatican press release and cannot speak on his own behalf.

    Second observation: Is it likely that Benedict would declare that his friend and colleague is a boldfaced liar who simply invented his entire story? Here it would be well to provide the context of Fr. Dollinger’s testimony as reported by the One Peter Five blogsite. Having already been told by Ratzinger that the Third Secret involves a “bad Mass and a bad Council,” Dollinger, like Catholics around the world, could not believe the Vatican’s “official” version of the Secret:

    When, on 26 June 2000, Dr. Dollinger read and heard what the Vatican had finally published as the remaining Third Secret of Fatima, he was upset and deeply shaken because of the incompleteness of the message [which he realized due to his earlier conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger about the content of the Third Secret, M.H.]. He had explicitly come from Germany to Rome to be present for the public release of the Secret. But upon hearing the text as revealed, he went at once – with his well-known spontaneity – to St. Peter’s Basilica in order to speak in person with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger about the just released words of the Message. He had also said an extra prayer that he would meet and speak with Cardinal Ratzinger there in the sacristy alone.

    After the Mass at St. Peter’s, he therefore went into the sacristy reserved for the cardinals and met Cardinal Ratzinger – who was alone and in the process of re-dressing himself – and right away he started talking with him about the just-revealed Third Secret.

    Dr. Dollinger greeted Cardinal Ratzinger – to whom he always had access – and said to him that what had just been published that day could not be everything. He knew that Cardinal Ratzinger would not lie since he was so pure. Finally, Cardinal Ratzinger admitted: “Yes, there is still something more” and then he left the sacristy very quickly – most quickly – even as if he had realized that he had already said too much. As soon as Dr. Dollinger returned to Germany, he immediately related everything that happened to his secretary who remembers very well, and in detail, the whole story.

    Does it seem likely that such a detailed account is nothing but a fabrication by an elderly priest who had nothing to gain from lying and everything to lose?

    Third observation: The phrase “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, which is placed between quotation marks and thus purports to be the words of Benedict himself, is a dead giveaway that the press release is not to be trusted. If he were really speaking for himself in the first person, Benedict would not say “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima” but rather “I have never spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima.” This is merely someone’s characterization of what Benedict purportedly said.

    Furthermore, does it seem likely that Father Dollinger and his friend and colleague Cardinal Ratzinger never spoke about Fatima at all throughout their long relationship? Or is it more likely the case that Pope Benedict does not recall any such conversation, which would undermine the entire “official denial”? As it is clear that Benedict will not actually be speaking for himself on this matter, the answer remains unclear. What is clear is that the press release lacks credibility.

    At any rate, immediately after publication of this fragmentary hearsay “denial of Pope Benedict”, Fr. Dollinger emphatically confirmed his account, rejecting the claim that he had invented the whole story. Later, however, he resigned himself to the “official denial”: “If Rome has denied it, then we have to be silent and not to defend ourselves.” One is reminded of a line from Yes, Prime Minister (a popular British TV comedy series): “First rule in politics: never believe anything until it’s officially denied.” Anyone who thinks the present-day Vatican apparatus is not involved in power politics but only the humble performance of its solemn duty to defend the Faith is beyond credulous.

    Fourth observation: Declaring “The publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete” is hardly a denial of the specific claim that a related explanatory test, expediently deemed mere “annotations” by Sister Lucia (see Part I), has not been published. The only way to negate that claim would be to state unequivocally: “Sister Lucia created no text in which the Virgin’s purported words explaining the meaning of the vision published in 2000 are recorded. The one and only text Lucia created pertaining to the Third Secret has been published.” But that is exactly what the Vatican will not do despite repeated demands for a direct answer, even though it knows this has always been the real issue.

    It is worth noting that Antonio Socci attempted to obtain a direct answer from Cardinal Bertone by waiting with other reporters outside the hall where Bertone was about to defend the “official version” so that he could pose this question to the Vatican Secretary of State: “Your Eminence, are you ready to swear on the Gospel that the famous phrase of the Madonna contained in the Third Secret of Fatima noted by the Vatican in 2000 — ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.’, said the Madonna — is not followed by anything else?”

    Socci, targeted for removal from the premises if he showed up, was manhandled by security guards and thrown out of the building. The other reporters were left alone. As Socci recounts the incident (also reported in the major Roman newspaper Corriere della Sera):

    It was a shameful thing. I had only wanted to ask one question for one minute and to receive a terse response: yes or no. But Cardinal Bertone, alerted to my presence, entered directly into the auditorium through a service door. A stratagem that made everyone present laugh. Afterwards, three Vatican gendarmes pushed me outside the place, saying that I could not give interviews. A ridiculous scene that astounded my colleagues who were present and put me in a difficult position, seeing that I am a strenuous defender of the Vatican.

    At least Bogle does not advocate the use of physical force against those who dare to buck the Vatican party line she so unthinkingly defends. She prefers the approach of stigmatization and marginalization.

    The remainder of Bogle’s catty diatribe need not detain us very long. She repeats no fewer than five times the party line’s insistence that the Message of Fatima is reducible to prayer and penance and that the events depicted in the Third Secret, to quote the Vatican commentary of 2000, “belong to the past.” On the contrary, none other than Pope Benedict XVI destroyed that claim during his pilgrimage to Fatima in 2010, revealing that the Secret concerns not only the pedophile scandal but also:

    realities involving the future of the Church, which are gradually taking shape and becoming evident…. As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church…

    But this is exactly what we don’t see in the vision published in 2000, which depicts only an attack by external enemies on the Church and the Pope who is executed on a hill outside a devastated city. So where might we find what Benedict alluded to? Bogle, of course, doesn’t want to know. But thoughtful Catholics everywhere do, and Socci was right to declare that “The Pope has now reopened the dossier of Fatima in such a precise and obvious way, that everyone who, in the last years, had rushed to give praise to the official Curial version is now caught in panic in the face of the Pope’s words…”

    In light of Benedict’s explosive revelation that the Third Secret concerns how sin within the Church is a greater threat to her than external enemies, we can add another piece of evidence to the mosaic. We now know from Cardinal Caffarra that Sister Lucia, writing in light of what the Virgin had revealed to the seers, warned him in a letter sent in the 1990s that “the final battle between the Lord and the reign of satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be fought and opposed in every way, because this is the decisive issue.”

    Suitably informed by the last surviving Fatima visionary, Cardinal Caffarra was one of the five cardinals who, during the disastrous “Synod on the Family” — widely and justly ridiculed as the “Sin-Nod” — contributed to a book defending the Church’s traditional teaching, affirmed by both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, on the impossibility of the divorced and “remarried” receiving absolution and Holy Communion without a commitment to abandonment of their immoral relations. That book was literally stolen or diverted from the mailboxes of the Synod participants by Cardinal Baldisseri, handpicked by Pope Francis to preside over a gathering that merely concealed the predetermined outcome later revealed in Amoris Latetia. That document has rocked the Church to its foundations precisely on the matter of marriage and family.

    But what about prayer and penance, which certainly are an integral part of the Fatima message? For what intentions would Bogle have us pray and do penance in light of Fatima? Her prior ideological commitment will not allow her to mention the intentions Our Lady of Fatima actually indicated: that Russia be consecrated by name to Her Immaculate Heart and thus converted and reunited with Rome; that the Immaculate Heart triumph and devotion to the Immaculate Heart be established in the world; that true peace reign in society and in the hearts of men under the Social Reign of Her divine Son, Christ the King, who sent His Mother to Fatima because He wishes devotion to the Immaculate Heart to be placed alongside devotion to His Sacred Heart. All very “pre-Vatican II,” you know.

    Nor does post-conciliar correctness permit Bogle to mention Our Lady’s ultimatum that if Her requests were not granted, there would be wars (including World War II), famines and persecutions of the Church and that ultimately “various nations will be annihilated.” Hardly in keeping with the post-Vatican II notion of the God who is only mercy and never condemns or punishes anyone.

    Finally, there is Bogle’s parting kick in the shins, delivered to Father Nicholas Gruner more than a year after his passing (a literary harridan has no shame). Bogle quotes a letter she received from Cardinal Burke after she complained to him about Father Gruner and the “Fatimists”: “You are correct that there is much confusion about the message of Our Lady of Fatima, caused especially by Fr Nicholas Gruner, a priest who is not in good standing in the Church, and that this confusion is harmful to many good people who are being led astray about the important message of Our Lady of Fatima.”

    Father Gruner was validly incardinated in the Archdiocese of Hyderabad, whose then Archbishop refused to rescind the incardination under pressure from none other than the corrupt Sodano. He died a priest in good standing. That fact aside, Bogle manages to commit four logical fallacies in a single paragraph: (1) poisoning the well (don’t believe any of those crazy “Fatimists” because Father Gruner was not “a priest in good standing”); (2) argumentum ad hominem (Father Gruner’s contentions concerning Fatima are false because he was “not a priest in good standing”); (3) non sequitur (Father Gruner was not “a priest in good standing,” therefore all of his claims concerning Fatima must be false); and (4) the argument from authority (Cardinal Burke told me that Father Gruner was misleading people, therefore ipso facto Father Gruner was misleading people).

    Even if Father Gruner had never lived, however, the facts would still be what they are, and they would still require rational consideration rather than Bogle’s cheap shots. But Bogle does not want anyone to notice her instinctive application of what happens to be one of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, namely Rule 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. Go after people… people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

    Reduce the Fatima event to Father Gruner and then blacken his name, even after his death. That’s the demagogic ticket!

    Bogle concludes with a schoolmarmish harrumph: “It is time to stop being led astray, and to get on with the prayer and penance.” One wonders how much prayer and penance Bogle has devoted to what Our Lady of Fatima actually called for: the conversion of Russia and the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart — the very subjects post-conciliar correctness seeks to banish from the memory of the Church.

    Bogle is right about one thing: It is time to stop being led astray regarding Fatima. That is, it is time to stop listening to ideologues like Joanna Bogle and to do what any Catholic should in view of the gravity of the situation in the Church and the world today, of which the Third Secret in its integrity is undoubtedly a warning: review the evidence concerning the Secret dispassionately and reach your own intellectually honest conclusions. For intellectual honesty is the last thing you will encounter in Bogle’s unworthy propaganda.

  6. The significance of the request for prayers and reparation for the conversion of Russia might have confused some modernists. Aside from the atrocities and tyranny of atheistic Communism in the 20th century, Russia is now perhaps the only European country (with super-power status) taking seriously the anti-Christian threats from terrorism from the Middle East. Hence, the conversion of Russia has a significance NOW that might not have been apparent in 1960.

    There are too many anti-Fatima modernists and uninformed converts to Vatican II modernism blogging nonsense about Fatima and casting aspersions on those who question the Vatican’s suppression of the Third Secret of Fatima. The confusion in the institutional Church from progressive modernism and the Spirit of Vatican II has created an environment where such charlatans posing as experts on Catholic matters spread errors in support of the regime of novelty and its heretical modernism. Trying to suppress the Fatima prophecies is just one example of this modernist confusion and how it suppresses the true Catholic faith.
    The situation in the world now is much worse than it was in 1960 when “good” Pope John XXIII decided to withhold publication of the Third Secret of Fatima. But that doesn’t fit the progressive agenda of the modernist spirit of Vatican II so any prophecy which might cast doubts about that has to be eliminated.

Leave a Reply