Old Interview with Cardinal Ratzinger

The other day I came across an old interview with Cardinal Ratzinger that was conducted by the Italian journalist Orazio La Rocca in May, 2000. It was published in La Repubblica on May 19.

Not a week prior to the publication of this interview, Cardinal Sodano had announced the impending publication of the third part of the secret of Fátima. La Rocca took the opportunity to speak with Ratzinger about the matter.

Continue reading

More on Fr. Edouard Dhanis

Last year, I posted an English translation of an article written by Dr. José Barreto of Lisbon, Portugal, on the writings of Fr. Edouard Dhanis concerning Fátima.

While in Fátima this past June, I noticed that there was some discussion on Fr. Dhanis on an Internet forum. I am quite happy to see this discussion taking place as I discuss Dhanis in my book On the Third Part of the Secret of Fátima.

I noticed that Joachim Bouflet wrote a book about Fátima entitled Fátima: 1917-2017. I have found Bouflet, generally speaking, to be a good writer and I looked forward to reading his book. I saw that he, too, has written about Fr. Dhanis (pgs. 126-132). Overall, I think he wrote well of the situation with the Flemish Jesuit. I like how he appears to acknowledge the opprobrium to which Dhanis was subjected.

For your reading pleasure, I have worked-up an English translation (by no means a polished one) of Bouflet’s discussion. I hope he does not mind that I have done so.

Continue reading

New Fátima Articles

Hi Everyone! I want to direct you to some new articles that I have written about Fátima that are published by the World Apostolate of Fatima, USA Inc. (WAF-USA).

The first article is: Open or publish? A question on the third part of the secret of Fátima.

The second article is: Sister Lúcia and interpretation of the third part of the Secret.

The Open or Publish article discusses whether or not Our Lady had commanded that the third part of the secret was to be published in the year 1960. Some information has recently come to light which gives one pause to examine the matter.

The Sister Lúcia and Interpretation article examines a discrepancy between some new information from Sister Lúcia with a statement from Cardinal Ratzinger in his Theological Commentary.

Please do check them out!

Fátima and Zavala

Versión en español aquí

Hello Everyone! Summer is winding down but life is still as busy as ever!

I want to write about the book El secreto mejor guardado de Fátima by the Spanish writer José María Zavala. Earlier this summer, Zavala received some publicity from the famous Italian journalist and vaticanista Marco Tosatti. I have seen that Zavala’s work is being discussed in various circles and decided to take a look at the book. The present post is not intended to be a strict book review. Rather, I want to highlight some things that are of interest.

In summary: I am not a fan of El secreto mejor guardado de Fátima.

Zavala attempts to talk about Fátima, matters pertaining to the famous third part of the secret are a special focus. I am reluctant to say that Zavala has a mind for conspiracy, but neither does he shy away from it. In fact, he adds to the headache of existing conspiracies with the introduction of a letter attributed to Sr. Lúcia and dated 1 April, 1944.[1]

This document gives a much sought after “interpretation” of the third part of the secret of Fátima. Zavala came across the document, found it interesting, and provides the conclusion(s) from a professional analysis of the handwriting in the back of his book (297-320). Zavala earlier prefaced the report in his book with an entire chapter (10) entitled La carta (233-268). I believe the document to be a fraud and I state my belief unequivocally.[2] I will here explain my reasons.

The biography of Sr. Lúcia from the Carmelites of Coimbra, Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria, goes a long way to offer some answers on this matter. Zavala was clearly aware of the biography. He cites it in his own book (pgs. 266-267) and included it in the bibliography (p. 321). Critical to my discussion is the fact that the biography provides us with an account from Sr. Lúcia about how the third part of the secret was written. I have written elsewhere on this history.

For our purposes here, Our Lady made a key distinction between the vision and its meaning (significado). She ordered that the vision be written, but not its meaning. This fact was previously unknown to the larger public until 2013 and helps to address some discrepancies that have arisen over the years. Nevertheless, Zavala evidences that it is apparent that the biography has yet to take firmer root in people’s understanding of Fátima.

As the above pertains to Zavala’s book and the alleged letter of Sr. Lúcia, I wish to point out a couple of things. First, notice the date of the letter: 1 April, 1944. The date is just shy of three months from the January 3rd, 1944 apparition of Our Lady to Sr. Lúcia. If the 1 April letter is authentic, what was the point of Our Lady telling Lúcia not to write down the meaning of the vision only for Sister to write it down less than three months later? Zavala does not ask this question (and other related questions), much less answer it.

Secondly, notice how the text of the document is 20-25 lines. The number of lines plays right into the argument from Frère Michel (FM) that Sr. Lúcia’s text was probably (probablement) comprised of 20-25 lines. I demonstrated in my book (chapter 2) that FM appeared to be giving his own interpretation to something Bishop Venâncio had told him. FM provides no quotation marks, thus there is difficulty in discerning the exact words of Bishop Venâncio from the interpretation of Frère Michel.

The fact that the alleged letter of Sr. Lúcia plays right into the above fact as well as it not being in harmony with the distinction between the vision and its meaning tells me that this alleged letter is fraudulent. I wish to point out one other consideration in Zavala’s book. On page 62, he discusses a famous hypothesis in support of a second text: the difference in dates between January 3 and January 9, 1944. Zavala asks, “Why did Lucia wait six full days to inform the Bishop of Leiria that she had already fulfilled his petition?”[3]

The Carmelites answered the question in their biography: Lúcia was permitted to write letters on Sundays.[4] Since January 3, 1944 was a Monday, Sister wrote down the vision in a non-epistolary style document. January 9, 1944 was a Sunday, hence the letter (in epistolary form) to Bishop da Silva. Either Zavala missed this reference or he addresses it later in his book and I missed it. One thing is for sure: in the section, wherein he raises the question, Zavala does not present the Carmelites’ answer. He finishes out the section with a discussion about the new vision afforded to Sr. Lúcia on January 3, 1944.

In conclusion, Zavala appears to have a good desire to examine a matter of interest to many people. Regretfully, he does not appear to see the problem(s) with his presentation despite the fact of the evidence staring him straight in the face. I applaud him for going to the trouble to obtaining a handwriting analysis. It appears, however, that he did not exercise the same caution when it came to checking the information against the known facts and history of Fátima for any potential inconsistencies that questioned his presentation.

Overall, Zavala provides a speculative discussion that cobbles together various sources involving the usual suspects (Socci, Frère Michel, Tornielli, Tosatti, et al.). To Zavala’s credit, he does go back to some of the earlier sources (for example: Canon Barthas). This fact, however, does not save his discussion from becoming a hodge-podge of speculation that employs all sorts of sources in what strikes me as being somewhat indiscriminate. Zavala has an eye for mysticism, not as a theologian but more so as a journalist. This deeply impacts his presentation and runs a serious danger of imparting to people the wrong idea about Fátima.


[1] Tosatti noticed this letter and it appears to be one of the things that drew him to Zavala’s book.

[2] I do not believe that Zavala is the originator of the hoax. In fact, he clearly explains how he came across the letter (p. 233). He received it from an anonymous source in the spam folder of his E-mail account. I have no reason to doubt his account. Besides, this 1 April, 1944 letter has circulated around in the Internet in the past.

[3] ¿Por qué aguardó Lucia entonces seis días completos para comunicarle al Obispo de Leiria que ya había concluido su petición?

[4] Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria (1st edition), 274.

Continue reading