Hello, dear Readers!

The other day, someone brought to my attention a video entitled “Fatima was not Ignored. It was Managed.”[1] This video was made by Fr. Jason Charron of the Ukrainian Catholic Church.[2] In this video, Fr. Charron discusses the apparitions of Our Lady at Fátima in relation to the situation of the contemporary Church, as he sees it. There is a lot of great material in this video that is worthy of reflection. Unfortunately, there are some finer points within Fr. Charron’s discourse that need to be challenged.

On the positive side, Fr. Charron discusses Fátima reminding men of the eternal consequences of their actions. Fr. Charron also points out that “history unfolds under the judgment of Christ.” I also found powerful his words “Fatima . . . says the trouble is in souls” and that repentance is the pathway we need to take if we are going to see the end of many contemporary troubles facing us. I also found a point that Fr. Charron made about the meaning of the “errors of Russia” that Our Lady referenced at Fátima to be thought-provoking.

Within the course of his discussion, Fr. Charron created some dichotomies that were under the larger umbrella of his main point: Fátima was “managed,” not “ignored.” Among the dichotomies Fr. Charron creates is a vision of two churches: one “managed,” and the other “prophetic.” The “prophetic” is depicted as the true Church whereas the “managed” Church is a “false” Church. There has always been the institutional Church with its various structures. The “institutional” side of the Church is the administrative side, willed by God and part of the hierarchical structure of the Church. Historically, we find examples of the institutional dimension becoming too hardened or stuck in its ways at times and required a little uncomfortableness. Take, for example, the Avignon Papacy and St. Catherine of Siena.

Returning to Fr. Charron’s video, he cites the third part of the Secret of Fátima in support of his point about a “managed” Church around the 16:04 mark. He does so within the context of arguing the fact that the text wasn’t published in 1960 is proof-positive of the “managed” Church trying to “control” the message of Our Lady at Fátima. Fr. Charron states “a warning from heaven was entrusted to the shepherds of the Church. And what met it? Not the prophetic reflex of holy obedience that you would find or expect from prophets. Too often the instinct was administration, timing, interpretation, moderation, and control of the message.” Immediately after these words, Fr. Charron cites the third part of the Secret: “In 1960, when the world was told the Secret of Fatima should be revealed, the pope and the cardinals chose silence: ‘It’s not for our time.’ Well, heaven had spoken and given direction, and the warning was in their hands, and instead of unveiling it, they withheld it. That was management.”[3]

I am compelled to disagree with Fr. Charron’s assessment and characterization of the facts. He focuses upon Pope St. John XXIII’s policy of Ostpolitik and returns to the language of “managing” with regard to the third part of the Secret.[4] Doing so limits his scope to this one area when, in fact, the historical record paints a much larger picture.[5] For example, Fr. Charron does not tell his audience what the Virgin Mary actually said about the year 1960. She never said that the third part of the Secret was to be opened by the pope. She told Sr. Lúcia in January of 1944 that, after writing down the text, Lúcia was to seal it in an envelope and write on the outside that it “could only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria” (Fátima). Lúcia did as she had been told and everything was given to Bishop José da Silva in June of 1944.[6] Bishop da Silva held onto the text in Leiria for close to thirteen years, never having opened it.

Sometime between 1956 and 1957, the Holy See ordered that copies of all Lúcia’s documents be made and given to the Holy See. The question of the third part of the Secret arose and Bishop José da Silva gave the order to send the original, not a copy. The auxiliary bishop of Leiria, João Venâncio, strongly urged Bishop José to make a copy and was refused.[7] The original was sent to Rome and control over the document was ceded to the Holy See.

Various testimonies left by Pope St. John XXIII’s personal secretary, Mons. Loris Capovilla, tell us what happened after the text was transferred to the Vatican. In one of them, an interview with Lampade Viventi in 1978, Capovilla stated there was no document saying the third part of the Secret had to be published in 1960.[8] Capovilla’s recall was correct as the instruction of Our Lady to Lúcia was on the envelopes: they could be opened (aberto) in 1960. Nothing was said about being published. Sr. Lúcia herself verified this fact in 1993. She wrote that an order to publish “did not exist” (essa ordem não existe). Not publishing it, she wrote further, was a “norm of prudence” (uma norma de prudência) which seemed good to her (parece-me bem).[9]

Moreover, Capovilla admitted they had to call for Mons. Paolo Tavares from the Vatican Secretariat of State to translate for them. We must also add the fact that the text was a description of a vision without an explanation. Therefore, the decision by Pope John (in consultation with various Vatican figures), was to wait and let time pass to see what happens. Capovilla admitted in a sworn deposition for John XXIII’s canonization that the late pontiff wasn’t convinced the text had a supernatural origin.[10] With such a vague text (i.e., no explanation), one might be able to understand why the pope thought as he did.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger further explained events of 1959/1960 on June 26, 2000. Ratzinger stated that it would have been irresponsible for the Church to publish the text without an explanation. Time, he said, needed to pass so that concrete historical realities could bring out the meaning of the images in the vision.[11] Ratzinger was correct. Publishing the text that showed a pope and others being shot would, as I argued in my book, be the equivalent of putting a target on the pope. Pronouncements of doom and gloom would have followed wherever the pope went with people wondering “will he be killed today?”

In short, attention would have been misdirected. Instead of focusing upon the pope’s message during his travels (or even normal ones from the Vatican, for example, the Wednesday audiences), people would have been preoccupied with the prophecy. The Church could not allow that to happen. Fr. Charron calls this “management,” and “controlling the message” when, in fact, it is nothing more than simple prudence. This is a far cry from attempting some kind of questionable “managing” of the message of Our Lady at Fátima. Rather, it shows maternal care of the Church for that message and a desire that it be properly understood by the faithful.

[1] Fr. Jason Charron. “Fatima was not Ignored. It was Managed.” Fr. Jason Charron YouTube Channel (April 12, 2026).

[2] Cf. “Ministry Heads.” Holy Trinity Ukrainian Catholic Church (date unknown).

[3] Between these two quotes, it is not clear if, in the first one, Charron’s identification of the “shepherds of the Church” (who were entrusted with a warning) is specified in the second quote with the specification of the “pope and cardinals” (who chose silence).

[4] I have no difficulty if Fr. Charron states that Ostpolitik certainly had a role in the pontificate of John XXIII as it relates to Fátima. The question is: is that the entire story?

[5] I go into detail in my book On the Third Part of the Secret of Fátima but provide some highlights here.

[6] Carmelo de Santa Teresa – Coimbra, Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria: Biografia da Irmã Lúcia de Jesus e do Coração Imaculado, O.C.D. [Coimbra, Portugal: Edições Carmelo, 2013], 266ff.

[7] One of the first sources for this story was a conference given by Abbé Pierre Caillon entitled “L’Epopée Mariale de notre temps” in the early 1980s. It is readily available nowadays on the Internet. The talk is divided into six parts and the facts in question appear in the fourth part from 18:10 mark onward, especially 19:00 and following.

[8] Cf. the information in my book On the Third Part of the Secret of Fátima (St. Louis, Missouri: En Route Books & Media, 2025), 122.

[9] Cf. Dr. Cristina Sobral (edit.), Lúcia de Jesus Memórias (Fátima: Santuário de Fátima, 2016), 451.

[10] Cf. Symonds, 117.

[11] Ibid., 312-313.