Russian Consecration Done?

Note- if consecration was done, whyt Assisi 1986 and 2002? Why world more dangerous and pagan now?

Catholic Apologetics International

March 25, 2004: John Paul II Continues the Cover Up of Fatima

March 25, 2004 is the 20th anniversary of John Paul II’s March 25, 1984 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The headlines from the Vatican read:

The Pope said that at three different times during his pontificate, he has made consecrations to the Virgin Mary. On December 8, 1978 - just weeks after his election - he consecrated the Church and the world to the Immaculate Conception. In June 1979 he renewed that consecration during a visit to the shrine of the Black Madonna in Poland. Then on March 25, 1984, he made the consecration which, he said, fulfilled the terms of the Virgin's plea at Fatima.

The Pope said:

"Twenty years have gone by since that day when, in spiritual union with all the bishops of the world, I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima." Today's world remains too full of "hatred, violence, terrorism, and war," the Pope said. He asked for prayer for all the innocent people who suffer from violence as "so much blood continued to be shed." He appealed to the Virgin Mary's aid to help turn men's hearts and minds, to end the violence.

Now, let's analyze what the pope said, what the reporter said, and what Our Lady actually said back in 1929 when the request for consecration was first given. You will find that all three of them are not only different, but they are diametriclly opposed to one another.

First, the reporter writes: "Then on March 25, 1984, he [John Paul II] made the consecration which, he said, fulfilled the terms of the Virgin's plea at Fatima."

Notice that the reporter said that John Paul's 1984 consecration "fulfilled the terms of the Virgin's plea at Fatima." But is that what John Paul II really said? Pay close attention to the pope's exact words:

"I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima." Notice that John Paul II DID NOT say that he "fulfilled" Our Lady's plea, but only that his consecration was a "response" to Our Lady's plea. "Fulfilling" a request and "responding" can refer to two totally different realities. If, for example, you made a contract with someone to paint your house the color white, but in "response" to your request the painter painted your house the color pink, we could all agree that the painter did not fulfill the terms of the contract, and his response was, indeed, a response, but not the response you were anticipating. In essence, his response was the wrong response. Only one response would be correct, which is painting the house white.

And so it is with John Paul II. He knows in his heart he has not "fulfilled" Our Lady's request of consecration, because he is well aware of the fact the she specifically requested that Russia, not mankind, be consecrated to her Immaculate Heart. Never once, since 1929, has Our Lady, or anyone else from heaven, ever requested the consecration or entrustment of all mankind to her Immaculate Heart.

Thus, knowing that he did not consecrate Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart (and thus he would be lying if he had said he "fulfilled" her request), the pope has no choice but to say that his entrustment is merely "in response" to Our Lady's plea, without admitting to us that his entrustment is not the response Our Lady was anticipating. Instead, the pope makes it appear to unsuspecting patrons that he has fulfilled Our Lady's request, but in reality he is not saying he has fulfilled it at all. Cleverly, no one can accuse him of lying, simply because the pope never asserted that he "fulfilled" Our Lady's request. He only "responded" to it with HIS OWN consecration -- a consecration for which Our Lady never asked, either in 1984 or in 1929 when the reuqest was first made.

What else can we conclude from John Paul’s statement?

First, by his words "I entrusted all of mankind to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in response to Our Lady's plea in Fatima" John Paul II is making it appear as if he is the only pope to have fulfilled Our Lady’s plea at Fatima. Logically, this means that John Paul II judges all attempts by previous popes to be failures, either in part or in whole, otherwise he would not have to step in and correct what they supposedly did wrong.

This means that John Paul II has frankly admitted that those who occupy the papacy can, indeed, fail in their mission; not only in their ordinary duties, but also when they receive a direct message from heaven (Fatima being a direct message from heaven). In effect, John Paul II’s claim to have "responded" to Our Lady's request, in turn, reveals just how obstinate the popes have been in answering her request, since it wasn’t until 55 years later (beginning from 1929) that the request was supposedly answered, in full, by John Paul II.

If we examine the facts, we can readily see why John Paul II merely said he "responded" to Our Lady's request, not that he "fulfilled" it.

First, identical to John Paul II, Pius XII also consecrated “the world” to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He did so in 1942, and even more correctly than John Paul II in 1984, since Pius XII had all the bishops of the world participate, whereas John Paul II only had a relative sampling (see below). Nevertheless, John Paul II has judged the 1942 consecration as insufficient, otherwise he wouldn’t have initiated another consecration in 1984. But how could a consecration of the “world” in 1942 be considered insufficient, and yet replaced with another consecration of the “world” in 1984 and be considered sufficient?

As it stands, if the “entrustment of all of mankind” is John Paul’s “response” to Our Lady’s plea at Fatima, then John Paul has given Our Lady a snake when she has asked for bread, since she never once requested the entrustment of all mankind when her communications started in 1929. She specifically and undeniably requested the consecration of Russia, and Russia alone, to her Immaculate Heart, at least a half-dozen times.

Since John Paul II knows of the attempted consecrations of Pius XII (for he has cited them on previous occasions), he should also know that Pius XII was more or less verbally chastised by Our Lady for not specifically consecrating Russia in his 1942 consecration, as Sr. Lucia reports in her memoirs. After receiving the message of Our Lady through Sr. Lucia, Pius proceeded with another consecration in 1952, this time using the word “Russia,” but failing to include all the bishops of the world. Obviously, John Paul II regards both of these as insufficient, otherwise he would not have attempted another consecration in 1984. No where did Our Lady request multiple consecrations. She only requested one -- the right one.

So John Paul II knows of the specific request of Our Lady to consecrate "Russia," but he has consistently obscured that fact in his entire 25 year pontificate. In essence, John Paul II has come very close to lying to us, for he is giving the impression that Our Lady requested one thing, when she actually requested something quite different.

Hence, identical to the miscues of previous popes, John Paul II has not fulfilled the request of Our Lady, and thus the Church will continue in its present turmoil until a pope of the future, once and for all, decides to make a consecration exactly as Our Lady specified -- which is consecrating the nation of Russia alone to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. No excuses from heaven will be tolerated.

Apparently, John Paul II thinks that, as supreme pontiff, he has the authority not to obey the precise words of Our Lady. He has reserved himself the right to disregard a direct request from heaven, but at the same time make it appear to the Catholic world that he has obeyed the request. I think that is very deceptive, although God will be his final judge, of course. All we can do is state the facts of the case against him and leave it to God to make the final determination. With these facts in hand, however, I don't think it will go well for John Paul II when he stands before God's tribunal.

For those who know John Paul's history with Fatima, John Paul's obfuscation of Fatima shouldn't surprise us at all. The following is an excerpt taken from my essay: Fatima: Consecration or Cover Up?
(http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/mary/fatima-controversy-print.htm)

After this, Fatima does not become an issue at the Vatican until 1978 when John Paul II is elected Pope. In 1980, Cardinal Josyf Slipyj sponsors a campaign that amasses three million signatures for the direct and immediate consecration of Russia. The petition is then sent to the Vatican.

On March 21, 1982, Sister Lucia meets with the Papal nuncio and another bishop. She reiterates the exact requirements for the consecration of Russia. After the meeting, the bishop accompanying the nuncio tells him that it is not necessary to mention to the Pope that the bishops of the world are required to participate in the consecration.

On May 12, 1982, the papal newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, contains an article by Fr. Umberto Maria Pasquale concerning his conversation with Sister Lucia and the letter she wrote to him regarding the consecration of Russia. Fr. Pasquale is significant to this issue because he had known Sister Lucia since 1939. Up to 1982, he received 157 personal letters from her. The newspaper article reveals that Sister Lucia told Fr. Pasquale that Our Lady never asked for the consecration of the world, but only the consecration of Russia. Here is Fr. Pasquale’s own words:

I wanted to clarify the question of the Consecration of Russia, in having recourse to the source. On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel of Coimbra, I had a lengthy interview with the seer of Fatima, Sister Lucy. At a certain moment I said to her: ‘Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be! But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you, for you to clear up a point for me which does not appear clear to many people....Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to her Immaculate Heart?.... ‘No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia...to prevent the spreading of her errors throughout the world, wars among several nations, persecutions against the Church....In 1929, at Tuy [Spain], as She promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)...” To make sure of what Sister Lucy was saying, and seeking documentation of her earthshattering statement, Fr. Pasquale asked her to make the same reply to him in a letter. On April 13, 1980, Fr. Pasquale received a written response from Sister Lucia. The photographic copy (left) is her actual handwriting. Translated, the note reads: “Reverend Father Umberto, In reply to your question, I will clarify: Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the Consecration of Russia. Coimbra 13 IV - 1980. [Signed] Sr. Lucia.”

(Insert “LETTER FROM SR LUCIA CROPPED”)

On May 13, 1982, (the day after the L’Osservatore Romano article), John Paul II consecrates the world during his visit to Fatima, without mentioning Russia by name and without the bishops of the world participating. [This is the same type of consecration Pius XII performed on July 7, 1952 but which the Church never recognized as a valid consecration of Russia].
Then on May 19, 1982, a most revealing statement comes from the Pope. In L’Osservatore Romano he states that he purposely did not consecrate Russia, adding that he had “tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances.” Although it is difficult to know what he meant by “concrete circumstances,” we can, perhaps, deduce a few things from his statement:

(1) the Pope inadvertently admits that no prior consecration performed by any prior pope, including his May 13, 1982 consecration, has fulfilled the requirements of the revelation of Fatima;
(2) the Pope knows that Russia, singly and specifically, must be consecrated in order to precisely fulfill the requirements of Fatima, but for some reason he decided not to do it;
(3) the Pope is prepared to accept the consequences, for himself and the world, for not consecrating Russia as commanded.

As for the meaning of the cryptic phrase, “concrete circumstances,” the Pope may possibly be referring to two things:
(1) that he is following the precedent set by his predecessors, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and Vatican II which sought to generate friendly ties with Russia rather than single them out as the major cause of evil in the world;
(2) that the vast majority of bishops in the world would not cooperate with him, in any case, to single out Russia for consecration. “Concrete” most likely refers to a force of will by an opposing party, something hard and immovable. There is nothing more immovable than the force of will of the bishops of the world, who, in large part, have written off Fatima as a relic of the past, and possibly even a hallucination of Sister Lucia. Cardinal Ratzinger, as noted earlier, made the latter suggestion in one of his most recent assessments of Sister Lucia.

On November 26, 1987, Cardinal Stickler confirmed the meaning of “concrete circumstances” by revealing that the consecration had not been performed because the Pope lacks the support of the bishops, for, he is quoted as saying, “they do not obey him.” Later in 1989 it will be revealed that only 350 bishops, which is less than 20% of all the world’s bishops, will agree to participating in a consecration of Russia. This is in spite of more than one million signatures from around the world given to the Vatican requesting the consecration of Russia.

Perhaps not realizing the startling implication of the May 19, 1982 admission that the pope did not consecrate Russia, Soul Magazine, a publication of the renowned Blue Army, states in its July/August 1982 edition that an interview with Sister Lucia reveals that she believes the consecration of Russia was performed by the Pope on May 13, 1982. The Blue Army report will later be found fraudulent, but upon hearing it initially, Sister Lucia strenuously denied that the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. When in 1983 she is asked to make her views public, Sister Lucia states to Fr. Joseph de Sainte Marie that she must have “official permission from the Vatican” before she can declare it.

Then, on March 19, 1983, John Paul II requests that Sister Lucia meet with the Papal nuncio, Archbishop Portalupi and Fr. Messias Coelho. Not surprisingly, Sister Lucia reiterates that the consecration was not performed as specified, since Russia was not named as the single object of consecration, and the world’s bishops did not participate. She states:

In the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration. And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II simply renewed the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942. From this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of Russia.

On March 25, 1984, following the mistake of Pius XII, and knowing, by his own admission (cited above) that Russia must be named in the consecration, John Paul II, following the advice of Cardinal Casaroli who cites “diplomatic reasons,” decides to eliminate the word “Russia” and replace it with the word “world.” It is important to note that Cardinal Casaroli, along with Cardinal Montini (Pope Paul VI), were the principal architects of Ostpolitik, the Vatican policy toward communist Russia adopted in the 1960s, a policy which resolutely decided not to denounce atheism or Marxism. This will become more significant when on June 27, 2000 (the day after the Vatican’s release of The Message of Fatima) the memoirs of Cardinal Casaroli, which had recently been posthumously published, were shown to Mikhail Gorbachev upon invitation by Cardinals Sodano and Silvestrini at a Vatican press conference. To many this was confirmation that on June 26, 2000 the Vatican was attempting to bury the Fatima revelations in order to inaugurate the long-awaited Vatican-Russian alliance put in place forty years prior. In his 1999 radio interview with Art Bell, Fr. Malachi Martin has this to say about Mikhail Gorbachev:

“They [Gorbachev and the Vatican] are in talks because John Paul’s concept of Gorbachev’s function is that, in reality, he is destined to exercise a certain role in the creation of the New World Order. And John Paul II is very keen on participating in the New World Order.” Incidentally, Agostino Casaroli was a known Mason (see In God’s Name by David Yallop, p. 201). He is also the chief figure in Malachi Martin’s book, Windswept House. The character name chosen for Cardinal Casaroli in the novel is “Cardinal Maestroianni.” This identification was confirmed by Malachi Martin in the 1999 radio interview with Art Bell.

The March 1984 consecration was performed before 250,000 people at Rome. Prior to this, on December 8, 1983, John Paul wrote to all the bishops of world, asking them to join with him on the March 25th 1984 date to consecrate the world to Mary. Included in his request were the precise words he was going to say at the consecration. Immediately after reciting his scripted words at the consecration (“world” not “Russia”), suddenly, perhaps sensing that he must make at least some allusion to Russia, three hours later the Pope departs from his prepared script and states the following: “Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.” These exact words were reported in L’Osservatore Romano. In Italian, the bolded words are: “Illumina speciolmente i popoli di cui tu aspetti la nostra consacrazione e il nostro affidamento.” They were also reported in the Italian Catholics bishop’s newspaper Avvenire.

(Insert “FATIMA L’OSSERV” JP2)

The popes addition to his prepared script reveals several important things:
(1) It tells us that the Pope himself realizes that a valid consecration of Russia, by either himself or his predecessors, was never accomplished, and that Our Lady is still awaiting to have it performed as specified;
(2) It tells us that the Pope is hesitant to even name Russia in a future consecration;
(3) and that for some reason, he is not going to be the Pope who will properly administer the consecration.

Afer the March 25, 1984 consecration, for the rest of that year, Fr. Messias Coelho, the very person whom the Pope commissioned to interview Sister Lucia on March 19, 1983, publicly states that the consecration specified by Our Lady has not been performed, and was not performed on March 25, 1984. He writes:

Apparently, Fr. Coelho felt that no amount of reinterpretation by systematic theologians would allow them to conveniently dismiss the name of Russia from the consecration. Russia must be mentioned, no excuses. Fr. Coelho’s words appeared in the magazine Mensagem de Fatima (Feb. 1985) published by the Bishop of Fatima, Alberto do Amaral. Strangely, however, in spite of his above fervor for Fatima, by the summer of 1989 Fr. Coelho will abruptly change his mind concerning the validity of the consecration of March 25, 1984. In 1984, at the University of Vienna, Bishop do Amaral, referring to the above article, makes an astounding comment about the Third Secret: “Its content concerns only our faith....the loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation; and it is true that faith is continually diminishing in Europe.” This statement put real teeth into a modern application of the Fatima message -- Europe was in apostasy. But like Fr. Coelho, Bishop do Amaral will eventually reverse himself. But Bishop do Amaral will also admit in a 1995 interview with Frère François that he “had consulted Sister Lucia, and had obtained her assent before affirming at Vienna that the contents of the Third Secret relate only to our faith, the loss of the faith.” (CRC. No 34, p. 6-7. (CFN, Nov 2000).
There are more intriguing facts that we need to cite in order to weave together a more complete picture.

On May 12 1982, in a letter to Pope John Paul II, Sister Lucia said:

...if we have not yet seen the complete fulfillment of the final part of the prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge...it is the people themselves who are preparing their own punishment.” To many, this commentary is significant, since it is only one year after the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II. Obviously, what stands out in this statement is its timing. If, as purported by the Vatican on June 26, 2000, the prophecy of Fatima has already been fulfilled in the attempted assassination of John Paul II on May 13, 1981, then why would Sister Lucia write as if Fatima had not been fulfilled in May 1982?

Moreover, on May 13, 1982, a day after he received the letter from Sister Lucia, the Pope stated: “The message of Fatima is more relevant and more urgent today than 65 years ago.” As common sense would dictate, if, as the Vatican presently holds, the vision of Fatima was completely fulfilled on May 13, 1981, then there would be little reason for the Pope to speak of a “more urgent” need for Fatima’s fulfillment, especially since Fatima does not include anything relating to the ecumenism highlighted by the present pontificate.

(Insert “FATIMA TEXT ALTERED BY VATICAN”)

In an attempt to cover up the discrepancies, the Vatican’s June 2000 explanation of Fatima contains a copy of a handwritten note purported to be the one that Sister Lucia wrote to the Pope on May 12, 1982. The note is written in Portugese. It is discovered that the Vatican’s version of the letter is missing a crucial clause, in all three languages the Vatican disseminated the note (English, Italian and Portugese). The text from the Vatican reads: “A terceira parte do segredo e uma revelacao simbolica” which translates as “The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation.” The original version, in Portugese reads: “A terceira parte do segredo, que tanto ansiais por conhecer, e uma revelacao simbolica,” which translates as “The third part of the secret, that you are so anxious to know, is a symbolic revelation.” Why is this important? Because the original note which includes the clause “that you are so anxious to know” assumes that the Pope did not know, at least from any conversations with Sister Lucia, about the contents of the Third Secret as of May 12, 1982. Yet according to two accounts coming from the Vatican (accounts which contradict each other) John Paul II read the Third Fatima secret in 1978 just days after his election to the papacy (according to Joaquin Navarro-Valls), or on July 18, 1981 (according to Archbishop Bertone). Regardless of their contradiction, both versions say John Paul knew of the contents of the Third Secret before 1982.

According to Bertone’s version, following the assassination attempt on his life on May 13, 1981, John Paul II had asked to see the envelope containing the Third Secret. On July 18, 1981, Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect of the Congregation, gave two envelopes to Archbishop Eduard Martinez, one white envelope containing Sister Lucia’s original text in Portuguese; and an orange envelope containing the Italian translation of the secret. On August 11, 1981, Archbishop Martinez returned the two envelopes to the Archives of the Holy Office. If this account is true, then there shouldn’t have been any reason why the Pope was “anxious” to hear the secret from Sister Lucia almost one year later in May 1982.

Even more portentous is a little known message that John Paul II gave on November 17, 1980 to a group in Fulda, Germany. His words were tape recorded. Here the Pope spoke of a “troubling” message, with predictions of oceans flooding entire continents, with people annihilated suddenly, by the millions:

Due to its shocking content and so as not to allow the global power of Communism to interfere with the affairs of the Church, my Predecessors gave confidential information in a diplomatic way. In addition, it should be enough for every Christian to know what follows: when you read that oceans will flood whole continents, that millions of men will die very suddenly in a few minutes...We must be well prepared, for great trials in the near future, which can even require the sacrifice of our lives... If this is known, it isn’t really necessary to make the publication of this secret...Many people want to know it just for curiosity and sensationalism: but they forget that ‘knowing’ also involves responsibility...but they want to satisfy their own curiosity. This is dangerous when, at the same time, they don’t want to do anything, saying: ‘It is useless to do anything to improve the situation.....” (Vox Fidei (Italian edition, No. 10, 1981). We can surmise several things from these words:

(a) The Fatima secret contains details regarding the possibility of a worldwide catastrophe that, both prior to and after this 1981 speech, has never been revealed, and thus remains concealed. (The words regarding cataclysms in the ocean are remarkably similar to the words read in the 1999 radio interview by Art Bell to Malachi Martin, and which the latter affirmed as perhaps being one of the elements of the Third Secret). Unfortunately for the present-day Vatican, there is no way they can erase or retract these words of John Paul II. Those who are privy to them know the truth about Fatima. We can now understand why Sr. Lucia had such a difficult time writing down the Third Secret. If it contains divine judgments on this cataclysmic scale, it is amazing that she even survived under such a burden of stress. She carried the weight of the world upon her shoulders. Imagine the frustration and anxiety she must have had watching pope after pope fail to consecrate Russia, and knowing that a worldwide catastrophe lay right at the doorstep of the world if Our Lady’s words were not heeded.

(b) That the Pope made a decision, contrary to what Our Lady explicitly commanded, to withhold knowledge of the secret. This was not his decision to make, regardless of whether he is the supreme pontiff. The popes from the time of Pius XI onward were given a strict command from heaven to reveal the secret and to consecrate Russia. None of them had the authority to dismiss that command. The excuse the present pope gives is that “my Predecessors gave confidential information in a diplomatic way.” This “diplomatic way” is the way of man, not the way of heaven. The popes were told explicitly to reveal the secret and consecrate Russia, but they have been fearful to do so. When God told Jonah to tell Nineveh that he was going to utterly destroy them in forty days if they did not repent, was Jonah diplomatic about his message? Quite the contrary. He boldly told the Ninevites God’s message of doom, and they forthrightly repented and saved their city. In fact, Jonah, like our popes, was at first reluctant to bring the message of judgment to Nineveh. Because of his negligence, God punished him severely. Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of a whale thinking about the command God gave him to bring the message of judgment to Nineveh. But today’s Catholic liberal theologians will tell you that the story of Jonah is a fable, just as they claim that Sister Lucia’s visions were hallucinations.

Coinciding with how God dealt with Jonah and contrary to what the Vatican is claiming, it is much more likely that the assassination attempt on John Paul II’s life in 1981 was not a fulfillment of the Fatima prophecy but was a judgment from God for failing to fulfill the Fatima prophecy – a fulfillment that could only be made by revealing its contents and consecrating Russia. It is more likely that the pope’s life was spared not because it was a miraculous intervention of mercy, but only because God was sending his near-death experience as a warning to heed the contents and commands of the Fatima message. There would be no better way to warn the pope than to have the attempted assassination occur on the sixty-fourth anniversary of the Fatima visions, May 13. This would make it clear that his near-death was directly related to the Fatima message.

There are two possible interpretations to the pope’s near-death experience. The one the Vatican is pushing in order to cover up their 64 year negligence in obeying the Fatima commands is to posit that the attempted assassination is the actual fulfillment of the Fatima prophecy (e.g., purporting that John Paul II is the “bishop in white” who is killed). The other interpretation, of course, is that the May 13 assassination attempt was permitted by God as a message to the pope that he has NOT fulfilled the Fatima prophecy, and as a result, he is under God’s judgment. Of course, we would never hear THAT interpretation coming from the Vatican, because in their eyes they can do no wrong. Unfortunately, the Vatican is looking at the whole thing from the wrong perspective. They think they are in God’s blessing when in actuality they are under God’s judgment.

(c) “Sensationalism” is the excuse for not revealing the secret. Since when does the reaction of a few – a reaction when anything of a catastrophic nature is presented to them – rule how we are to disseminate the message of God? Did any of God’s prophets who were given the message of judgment complain to God that they shouldn’t be giving such messages due to the fact that some people would consider it sensational? No, not at all. Rather, “sensationalism” is the Vatican’s way of putting the blame on the people rather than admitting where the blame really belongs – with all the pontiffs since Pius XI who have failed to obey the commands of Our Lady. The people, despite those who would exploit the message of Fatima, are not to blame. They were the ones clamoring for the consecration, but to the deaf ears of their pontiffs.

Perhaps sensing the need to take Fatima more seriously, John Paul decided to make an effort at consecration. Thus, in late 1981, from his hospital bedroom, he performs a small ceremony, but this ceremony does not even come close to obeying the commands of Our Lady. His next attempt is in 1984, but even then, like the two attempts of his predecessor Pius XII, he fails to do the consecration properly. Nevertheless, as Pius XII was offered momentary relief from the dire predictions of the Fatima message for his attempted consecrations, so John Paul II was offered momentary relief. Sister Lucy has written that Pius XII’s imperfect act of obedience, while not fulfilling Our Lady's Fatima request, nevertheless hastened the end of the Second World War, thus sparing the lives of tens of millions of souls. Little known facts confirm this divine intervention. For example, Joseph Stalin had plans to overrun Europe. NATO knew that the Russians had the power to do so. Suddenly, Stalin had a heart attack and the plans were postponed. Nikita Kruschev also had plans to overrun Europe. His famous shoe-pounding incident at the United Nations was confirmation of his resolve. Suddenly, Russia’s main atomic weapons plant was in an explosion, and 300 of Russia’s top scientists were killed, causing Russia’s plans to be postponed. Not surprisingly, the explosion happened on May 13, the anniversary of Fatima. (NB: The Cuban Missile Crisis, which is thought by many to be the reason for Russia’s withdrawal, was not really a “crisis,” since it is documented that John Kennedy did not stop the Russians by the naval blockade of Cuba, but instead made a secret deal with the Russians – a deal in which the United States agreed to remove their missile sites in Turkey in exchange for Russia’s agreement to pull out of Cuba. The only “crisis” regarding Cuba was whether the Russians were going to accept Kennedy’s offer to remove the missiles in Turkey). Leonid Breshnev was also planning to overrun Europe, but his leading general had a heart attack, and plans were postponed. But these temporary reprieves granted by Our Lady also mean that, if the consecration of Russia is not performed as was precisely stated, then the dire predictions of worldwide cataclysm still hang over the human race. A partial consecration will only give partial relief, but it will not bring about genuine peace and the conversion of Russia promised by Our Lady unless the consecration is done correctly. And so it is the case with all the attempted consecrations of Russia, including the one attempted in 1984 by Pope John Paul II.

As noted, the Vatican’s June 2000 interpretation holds that there is no more fulfillment to be expected from the Fatima vision. Cardinal Sodano stated on May 13, 2000: “the events to which the third part of the secret of Fatima refers now seem part of the past...,” and Archbishop Bertone stated: “The decision of His Holiness Pope John Paul II to make public the third part of the secret of Fatima brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil...”

Bertone’s statement makes it appear that a mere revealing of the Third Secret guarantees the promised peace from Our Lady. Indeed, the Vatican’s present interpretation categorically eliminates any immediate threat of war or divine chastisement. In reality, Our Lady stated quite plainly that only the consecration of Russia would guarantee peace, not the revealing of the secret itself.

Many argue that not only does the Vatican’s interpretation not fit the vision of Fatima, but it is obvious to anyone looking at the world objectively that, contrary to Archbishop Bertone’s statement, as of June 26, 2000, the “human lust for power and evil” is very much alive in our present world and continues to grow worse. Abortion, population control, nuclear arms proliferation, Middle East tensions, Moslem incursions, and atheistic regimes, to name a few, remain the order of the day. Not only is moral decay true for the world, it is also true inside the Church itself. Among the Catholic population of North America and Europe less than a combined 20% attend Mass on any given Sunday. Catholics worldwide practice contraception and abortion at will. Since the 1970's homosexuals in the Roman clergy have reached epidemic proportions, erupting into the present world-wide scandal. Liberal theologians, bishops and universities, denying even the most basic tenets of the Catholic faith, permeate the Americas, Europe and other countries. Unfortunately, some Vatican officials still court these defiant theologians, placing them in seats of high influence.

In light of these things, skeptics have suggested what they think are the real reasons behind the intrigue. Similar to the statement by Cardinal Luigi Ciappi cited earlier (“In the Third Secret is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top”), renowned mariologist Rene Laurentin stated on May 21, 2000: “I believe that the Third Secret also spoke of crises and divisions within the Church since the Second Vatican Council.” ( New York Times, “Third Secret Raises More Questions,” May 21, 2000.). A similar assessment by Fr. Joaquin Alonso was already cited (i.e., “It is therefore completely probable that the text [of the Third Secret] makes concrete references to the crisis of faith within the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves...internal struggles in the very bosom of the Church and of grave pastoral negligence of the upper hierarchy”). Other experts on Fatima who believe the same are: Martin dos Reis, Luis Kondor and Canon Galamba If true, it is reasonable to see why no Pope since 1929 had the courage to reveal the contents of the text of the Third Secret, especially in light of the positive changes anticipated by the aggiornamento of Vatican II.
In Crossing The Threshold of Hope [copyright 1994], John Paul writes:

And thus we come to May 13, 1981, when I was wounded by gunshots fired in St. Peter’s Square. At first, I did not pay attention to the fact that the assassination attempt had occurred on the exact anniversary of the day Mary appeared to the three children of Fatima in Portugal and spoke to them the words that now, at the end of this century, seem close to their fulfillment. From this, John Paul II is convinced of a connection between Fatima’s Third Secret and his assassination attempt. As reported, he was shot at the same instant he turned to look at a picture of Our Lady of Fatima pinned to a girl’s sweater. Gravely effected by it, on June 7, 1981, while still recovering from his wounds in the hospital, John Paul records an address which is broadcasted at the Basilica of Saint Mary Major “offering” the “world” to Mary. Monsignor Hnilica asks John Paul why he only performed an “affidamento” (Italian for “offering”) and not a “consacrazione” (Italian for “consecration”), to which John Paul replies: “There are still some theologians who question whether one can make a consecration to anyone other than God Himself” This rather cryptic statement shows that, as suspected, John Paul II is a prisoner of the heterodox liberal theologians that have run rampant in the Church since the 1950s.