Responding to Taylor Marshall-7

Hello Everyone! Part VII is available and the transcript is below. The eighth, and final, installment is soon to come!

In the present video, I look at Marshall and Gordon’s discourse on tying together the contents of their discussion.


Hello everyone and welcome to this video! In the last video, we saw a presentation on the private revelations in Quito and Ákita from Gordon. In this section, Marshall and Gordon begin to tie together all of the information. We shall look at how they pull it all together and offer remarks accordingly.

(48:37) Marshall offers commentary to “wrap all this [material] together for people.” He essentially bullet-points the highlights from the prophecies discussed. He connects these to Archbishop Viganò’s accusations against various Church officials (the Pope included), saying that it begs the question, “What is that third secret stating with regard to the vision of ‘3A’ in Fátima?” After presenting, quickly, some of the content of the third part of the secret, Marshall asks Gordon, “But what’s going on here? Is that a good pope? Is that bad pope? Are these good clergy? Bad clergy?” [show clip]

Before getting into Gordon’s response, I would like to answer directly Marshall’s question. Sr. Lúcia was very clear in her depiction of the third part of the secret. The scene is that of martyrdom. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that those who are being martyred are “good” people. Naturally, then, those who are doing the killing are the “bad” people.

For his part, Gordon begins by indicating that the vision is not all that clear. On this point, he and I agree. He expresses it, however, in a way that presents difficulties. As part of his explanation, Gordon critiques Cardinal Bertone’s interpretation of the third part, saying that the vision itself “doesn’t submit itself to the kind of ‘ready-made application’ that Cardinal Bertone presented.” [show clip] This statement is undoubtedly a pot-shot at Bertone.

The jeering and mocking of Bertone on Fátima is nothing new as he had critics prior to Archbishop Viganò’s allegations. Now, however, these allegations have empowered Bertone’s critics. Viganò has essentially given them a pretext to dismiss outright (or, at best, cast heavy suspicion upon) everything Bertone has said on Fátima. To defend Bertone now is to commit political suicide, so to speak, and be branded as the “enemy.” “The first casualty of war is truth.”[1]

Returning to Gordon’s discourse, he says that the only thing we really know about the vision is the figure of the bishop dressed in white. That’s not true, as I indicated in my direct response earlier to Marshall’s question. Gordon then proceeds to address further the matter of what we know about the third part.

It is at this point that Gordon enters into one of the worst misinterpretations of Fátima ever to hit the printed page. He discusses the false narrative of Sr. Lúcia’s terror over the third part of the secret being the reason why she experienced difficulty in writing down the secret. This narrative is absolutely false. It turns out that this false narrative was based upon a contradiction made by none other than Fr. Joaquin Maria Alonso.

During the course of going over this false narrative, Gordon says (52:59): [show clip][2]

Gordon’s characterization is false.

On June 26, 2000, the Holy See published the third part of the secret during a press conference. There were speeches from Bertone and Ratzinger, followed by a Q&A. The speeches are available on the Vatican’s web site. My book has an Italian-English transcription of the Q&A (it had not been published by the Holy See).

A reading of the Q&A transcript makes it very clear that these prelates never said that the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981 fulfilled the third part of the secret. [show clip] Ratzinger and Bertone indicate that the assassination attempt was one component of a much larger history of evil and its workings that the vision encapsulated. These prelates interpreted the attempt as having been the culmination of all that evil, but the third part was about that overall evil, not just the assassination attempt.

(53:39) Immediately following this mischaracterization, Gordon then takes another pot-shot at Bertone (as well as Sodano), raising these names specifically within the context of Viganò’s accusations, saying that they presented the preceding (mis)characterization about John Paul II. I note here that Gordon leaves out a notable fact. He says that it was Bertone and Sodano who presented this (mis)characterization/(mis)interpretation back in 2000. [show clip]

In fact, Gordon leaves out that Ratzinger was also part of the publication of the text. This is a curious omission because Ratzinger, as Benedict XVI, was treated favorably by Viganò in his August, 2018 testimony. I cannot help but wonder why this fact is left out by Gordon.[3]

After an interjection by Marshall, Gordon continues his point on how the third part of the secret cannot be fulfilled by the assassination attempt on John Paul II. He argues that Sr. Lúcia could not even have known which pope it was that was in the vision, calling it an “abstraction” and that “she didn’t even know who would be pope.” [show clip]

Two things about this statement. He is technically correct that she didn’t know which pope because Sr. Lúcia herself has in fact stated that they did not know at the time. Secondly, I find it curious that Gordon, who previously argued a “preternatural connection” with Pope Pius XII with the third part of the secret, would not entertain a similar thought here (if it were a debatable matter in the first place).

Immediately following, Gordon talks about some remarks from Cardinal Burke on Fátima in 2017 as well as some earlier ones from Cardinal Oddi. He does so in the sense that these two cardinals affirm what he is saying about the third part of the secret. I encourage people to read what these cardinals have said about the matter.

(57:41) After Gordon finishes, Marshall talks about how he “can’t help but think” about John XXIII opening up the text and that the text “says something about a bad pope.” He then goes into some interpretation of the bullets and arrows in the vision. [show clip] (58:50)

On a personal level, I quite liked when Marshall spoke of an allegorical meaning to the third part of the secret. Moreover, I found rather fascinating his connecting pestilence with the arrows imagery and would love to see him do more of this sort of interpretive work.

In doing so, though, Marshall has laid himself open to accusations of being in line with Cardinal Sodano’s interpretation on Fátima. Why? Marshall is here arguing for allegorical meaning, i.e. symbolic meaning. Sodano argued for much the same in his May 13, 2000 announcement. Sr. Lúcia and Ratzinger also said that the third part is “symbolic.” Sodano publicly stated it first. Since he and Bertone have thus far been the public faces to the entire interpretation (as this podcast would make us believe) under scrutiny, well, I think you get where I’m going with this.

Gordon responds to Marshall, saying that he thinks that people (he identifies them as “our friends”) are “loathe” to accept any other interpretation than that put out by Bertone. There are two things about this remark that I’d like to note.

First, by this point in the podcast, Gordon has made it look like Bertone and Sodano concocted the whole interpretation. Around the 59:30 mark, Gordon explicitly states, “It wasn’t even the CDF in 2000 that presented this, Ratzinger, it was Sodano [and] Bertone who weren’t even the head of the CDF. So, it was the undersecretary to Ratzinger, which is an odd choice.” I don’t agree with Gordon here.

The facts are clear: John Paul II ordered the publication. In May, 2000, Cardinal Sodano revealed, in the presence of John Paul II, the impending publication of the text and gave a verbal summary of its contents. The text was published on June 26, 2000, and was presented by Ratzinger, Bertone and Dr. Joaquín Navarro-Valls. So, what is Gordon even talking about?

Secondly, I do agree with Gordon’s assessment that people are not really willing to entertain any other interpretation—and here I deviate with Gordon slightly—from what is found in The Message of Fatima booklet. I am one who happens to agree that there is room to discuss charitably some of the finer points in this booklet. Thankfully, during the Q&A, Ratzinger clarified that we are free to do so.

Continuing along, Gordon agrees with Marshall’s thought on the third part being open to allegorical interpretation. Did he also just wave a pom-pom at Cardinal Sodano?

I shall end my commentary on that note. There is no need to continue from here as to the specifics of the rest of the podcast. The next video shall be a wrap-up of my thoughts to the podcast overall.

[1] I am not “waving my pom-poms” for Bertone. Bertone was clearly wrong or mistaken about some things on Fátima, but not everything.

[2] “You’re asking me to believe, again, just subject this to the court of public opinion, people don’t talk about this enough, I’m not wearing a tin-foil hat, but these are facts. Third Secret: You’re asking me to believe that the entire bit of it is one pope gets shot and survives? […] And that she’d [Sr. Lúcia] be quaking over this, where she’d…without batting an eye the second secret is millions of people will die and did die in World War II. Get. Real. I mean, that’s the only response one could have reasonably….”

[3] Interrupting Gordon, Marshall interjects to point out that Sodano “was a protector” of a pervert priest, Fr. Maciel.