|
Post by Admin on Sept 29, 2020 14:44:11 GMT
CHAPTER IX
«I AM OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY» (SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13)
On October 13 at noon, the hour of the apparition and the miracle, there were between fifty and seventy thousand people at the Cova da Iria. The whole population of Portugal was represented there. Many people among this multitude of witnesses gave their version of the prodigious events they contemplated that day. Their witness is an important historical fact from which we must draw all the consequences. But the presence of these crowds, and the extraordinary reality of the solar miracle must not make us forget the apparition of Our Lady to the three little seers and the contents of Her last message. That is why, temporarily leaving aside the enormous mass of evidence that we have, in the present chapter we will content ourselves with explaining events from the viewpoint of our three seers and their usual entourage.
I. BEFORE THE APPARITION
“A... PERSISTENT RAIN FELL.” While long lines of pilgrims converged on Fatima from every direction, praying the Rosary and singing hymns, the rain fell with a gentle persistence. «The whole night and morning», a witness reports, «a thin, persistent rain fell, wetting the fields, muddying the ground, and penetrating with its cold humidity the women and children, men and animals, who were hurriedly advancing along the muddy pathways towards the place of the miracle.» 519One had to be among the first to arrive at the Cova da Iria to be sure of having a place near the holm oak of the apparition. «Since the 12th (says Maria Carreira), there were so many people, so many people... God knows how many! All these people made so much noise they could be heard clear to our house. 520 They spent the night in the open air, without the slightest shelter. «Well before the break of dawn, they were praying, weeping and singing. I myself arrived at dawn, and I was able to get near the holm oak, of which only the trunk remained, which the night before I had decorated with flowers and silk ribbons... I was sad because it was the last time Our Lady was to appear, but at the same time it made me joyful to think of what the Most Holy Virgin was going to say, as we waited for the miracle She was going to work so that all the people might believe.» 521 THE DEPARTURE OF THE SEERS“MY PARENTS WERE AFRAID.” Meanwhile, at Aljustrel, for the first time it seems, Maria Rosa was disturbed at the thought of the tragedy that might follow... if the miracle predicted did not take place. «With tears running down her cheeks she looked tenderly at Lucy who tried to comfort her mother while drying her tears. “Don’t be afraid, mother, dear. Nothing will happen to us I’m sure. Our Lady will do what She promised!”» 522 «My mother», Lucy writes in her Memoirs, «her heart torn with uncertainty as to what was going to happen, and fearing it would be the last day of my life, wanted to accompany me.» 523 Elsewhere she writes: «My parents were very much afraid, and for the first time they wanted to accompany me, saying that if their daughter was going to die, they wanted to die by her side.» 524However, Maria Rosa was troubled at the thought of disobeying her parish priest, who once again had recommended that she not go to the Cova da Iria. It was only the grave danger her daughter was in that made her decide to go, she later confessed before the commission of inquiry. For greater safety, she came armed with holy water, as Bernadette did after the apparition of February 14, 1858. TI MARTO: AN UNSHAKEABLE TRUST. First they went to Ti Marto’s house. The crowd filled the whole house, for everybody, both the curious and the devout, wanted to speak to the seers. While Olimpia, who like her sister-in-law was impressed by so many priests “who did not believe”, feared the worst, Manuel Pedro remained supremely calm: «I am going because I have faith in it», he declared. «I’m not at all afraid and am quite sure that everything will go off all right!» The children, too, were quite calm; neither Jacinta nor Francisco were in the least perturbed. But what a trial for them with all this hustle and bustle! They were undoubtedly about to go through the most exhausting day of their life! Before they left, Ti Marto recalled, a lady from Pambalinho brought dresses for the girls and dressed them herself. Lucy’s was blue and Jacinta’s was white, and she put white wreaths on their heads so that they looked like the little angels in processions. 525A PATH THROUGH THE CROWD. «We left home quite early», Lucy continues, «expecting that we would be delayed along the way. Masses of people thronged the roads. The rain fell in torrents. On the way, the scenes of the previous month, still more numerous and moving, were repeated. Not even the muddy roads could prevent these people from kneeling in the most humble and suppliant of attitudes.» 526 This caused Ti Marto to remark: «“Come on, ladies, none of that!” For they seemed to think that they had the power of saints. After a lot of trouble and interruptions we at last arrived at the Cova da Iria. «The crowd was so thick that you couldn’t pass through. It was then that a chauffeur picked up my Jacinta and pushed and shoved his way to the lantern arch, shouting out: “Make way for the children who saw Our Lady!” I went behind him, and Jacinta, who was frightened to see me among so many people, began to cry out: “Don’t push my father, don’t hurt him!” The chauffeur at last put her down by the tree but there, too, the crush was so great that she began to cry. Then Lucy and Francisco made their way into the middle of it. «My Olimpia was somewhere else, I don’t know where, but Maria Rosa was quite close.» 527As for Antonio, who had led Lucy by the hand right up to the holm oak, he was separated from her by the movements of the crowd: «But from the moment of the apparition itself, I did not set eyes on him again until I was back home with the family that night.» 528 AT THE COVA DA IRIA“SHUT YOUR UMBRELLAS!” It was almost one o’clock in the afternoon and it was still raining. «Once we arrived at the Cova da Iria, near the holm oak», Lucy recalls, «moved by an inner impulse, I asked the people to shut their umbrellas and say the Rosary.» 529Up on the road, sheltered in their automobiles, all those who did not have the courage to venture into the claylike mire of the Cova witnessed a stupefying spectacle: «At a given moment», one of them writes, «this confused and compact mass shuts the umbrellas, uncovering itself in a gesture either of humility or respect, but leaving me surprised and full of admiration, for the rain went on insistently, moistening everybody’s heads, soaking and flooding everything.» 530 Avelino de Almeida, editor of O Seculo, writes for his part: «Lucy asks them, orders them to shut their umbrellas. The order is transmitted and executed right away, without resistance... groups of the faithful kneel in the mud.» 531
II. THE SIXTH APPARITION OF OUR LADY
THE HOUR OF THE FINAL RENDEZVOUS. According to the watches, it is already almost one thirty in the afternoon, that is around noon by solar time.532 Suddenly, Maria Carreira relates, «Lucy looked in the direction of the east, and said to Jacinta: “Oh, Jacinta! Get on your knees, Our Lady’s coming! I already saw the lightning!”» 533Maria Rosa, who had succeeded in remaining there, near her daughter, did not forget to give Lucy a motherly counsel: «Look carefully, Lucy, make no mistake!» But Our Lady was already appearing over the holm oak, placing Her feet over the silk ribbons and flowers piously laid there the night before by the faithful Maria Carreira. This time Lucy seemed to fall into an ecstasy: «The child’s face, a witness recalls, became more and more beautiful and took on a rosy tint, and her lips became thinner.»534 Jacinta gave Lucy a poke and said: “Speak, Lucy, Our Lady is already here!” Then Lucy came back to herself, breathed deeply two times, like someone out of breath, and began her conversation with Our Lady.535 THE LAST MESSAGE OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN536 – What does Your Grace want of me? – I want a chapel to be built here in My honour. I am Our Lady of the Rosary. Continue to say the Rosary every day. The war will end soon and the soldiers will return to their homes. – I have many things to ask of You: to heal some sick people and to convert some sinners, etc. – Some, yes; others no. People must amend their lives and ask pardon for their sins. Then, growing sadder: – They must not offend Our Lord any more for He is already too much offended. 537 – Do you want anything more of me? – No, I want nothing more of you. – Then neither will I ask anything more of You. 538DURING THE APPARITION. While Our Lady was speaking with Lucy, just as on September 13 the crowd could see the same cloud forming around the holm oak, going up in the air before it disappeared. Another prodigy, which took place for the second time: when Our Lady went up into the sky, Lucy shouted: «She’s going! She’s going!» 539 At this moment, reports Maria dos Anjos, «my mother smelled the same perfume as on August 19.» 540 Then Lucy shouted: «Look at the sun!» «THE DANCE OF THE SUN» «Then, opening Her hands (Lucy relates), Our Lady made them reflect on the sun, and as She ascended, the reflection of Her own light continued to be projected on the sun itself. «That is the reason why I cried out to the people to look at the sun. My aim was not to call their attention to the sun, because I was not even aware of their presence. I was moved to do so under the guidance of an inner impulse.» 541It was at this precise moment that the crowd could contemplate the extraordinary spectacle of the “dance of the sun”. The rain had suddenly stopped, the clouds were quickly dispersed and the sky was clear. Let us be content here to report the facts briefly, since later on, using the statements of numerous witnesses, we shall present each of the phases of this wonderful prodigy. Here is Ti Marto’s account of the event to Father de Marchi: «We looked easily at the sun, which did not blind us. It seemed to flicker on and off, first one way and then another. It shot rays in different directions and painted everything in different colours – the trees, the people, the air and the ground. What was most extraordinary was that the sun did not hurt our eyes at all. «Everything was still and quiet; everyone was looking upwards. At a certain moment the sun seemed to stop and then began to move and to dance until it seemed that it was being detached from the sky and was falling on us. It was a terrible moment!...» 542Maria Carreira described the stupefying “dance of the sun” in the same terms: «It turned everything different colours, yellow, blue, white, and it shook and trembled; it seemed like a wheel of fire which was going to fall on the people. They cried out: “We shall all be killed, we shall all be killed!” Others called to Our Lady to save them and recited acts of contrition. One woman began to confess her sins aloud, saying that she had done this and that... «At last the sun stopped moving and we all breathed a sigh of relief. We were still alive and the miracle which the children had foretold had taken place.» 543The promise of Our Lady had been fulfilled to the letter: all had seen it. Maria Rosa herself, who being docile to her parish priest, had still feared that it was a diabolical intervention, could throw out the holy water she was armed with! «Now», she declared, «it is impossible not to believe, because nobody can touch the sun!» Here is a testimony that is as precious as the opposition of Maria Rosa had been tenacious and systematic from the beginning. 544 THREE VISIONS IN THE SKYDuring the ten minutes that the crowd witnessed the spectacular cosmic miracle, the three seers enjoyed a still more beautiful spectacle. The Blessed Virgin fulfilled before their eyes Her promises of August 19 and September 13. It was given them to admire, right in the sky, three successive pictures whose symbolic significance we shall make clear. THE VISION OF THE HOLY FAMILY. «After Our Lady had disappeared into the immense distance of the firmament, we beheld St. Joseph with the Child Jesus and Our Lady robed in white with a blue mantle, beside the sun. St. Joseph and the Child Jesus appeared to bless the world, for they traced the Sign of the Cross with their hands.» THE VISION OF OUR LADY OF SORROWS. «When, a little later, this apparition disappeared, I saw Our Lord and Our Lady; it seemed to me that it was Our Lady of Sorrows. Our Lord appeared to bless the world in the same manner as St. Joseph had done.» THE VISION OF OUR LADY OF MOUNT CARMEL. «This apparition also vanished, and I saw Our Lady once more, this time resembling Our Lady of Carmel.» 545Before going on with the account of the events, and the end of this wonderful day, which was so trying for the three seers, let us pause a moment to comment on this final message of Our Lady at the Cova da Iria.
III. THE MESSAGE: A PRESSING APPEAL FOR CONVERSION
During each of Her last three apparitions, Our Lady had solemnly announced Her message of October: «In October, I will say who I am and what I want.» 546What does Our Lady want? If we can believe the first accounts given, those of the parish priest, Father Ferreira, on October 16, as well as that of Father Lacerda on the 19th, or the written account of 1922, the Mother of God without any introduction declared right away as Her most pressing request: «MEN MUST NOT OFFEND OUR LORD ANY MORE, FOR HE IS ALREADY TOO MUCH OFFENDED!»Such is in effect the most express desire of the Blessed Virgin, the one which made the most impression on the three seers.547 Let us heed Sister Lucy: «Of all the words spoken at this apparition the words most deeply engraved upon my heart are those of the request made by our Heavenly Mother: “Do not offend Our Lord and God any more, for He is already so much offended.” «How loving a complaint, how tender a request! Who will grant me to make it echo through the whole world, so that all the children of Our Mother in Heaven may hear the sound of Her voice!» 548Lucy wrote these lines in 1937. Did she still remember the enthusiasm with which she proclaimed them right after the apparition? The fact was so remarkable, so obviously supernatural that several of the witnesses were visibly impressed: «When the sun was back to normal, relates Mr. Carlos Mendes (this young lawyer we have already spoken of), I took Lucy in my arms to lead her to the road. Thus my shoulders were the first platform from which she would preach the message Our Lady had confided to her. «With great enthusiasm and great faith she shouted: “Do penance! Do penance! Our Lady wants you to do penance! If you do penance, the war will end...” (In Portuguese, to do penance is equivalent to “being converted, returning to God, fleeing sin”, and not “performing mortifications”.) She appeared inspired. It was really impressive to hear her. Her voice had intonations like the voice of a great prophet (and Mr. Mendes is very insistent on this impression of the supernatural in the words and attitude of Lucy at this moment). «Once we emerged from the great crowd, I sent the child back to her family.» 549In the great light of grace, the little seer had well understood. The message of Fatima is first of all «the complaint full of love», the «tender supplication» that «our Heavenly Mother» addresses to us, with sorrow: «Do not offend the Lord our God any more, for He is already too much offended!» It is the call to conversion, the call of John the Baptist, repeated by Jesus Himself: «If you do not do penance, you will all perish» 550 – the insistent echo of which is also found in the Apocalypse: «Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; so be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with Me.» (Apoc. 3:19) Sister Lucy has often repeated that the principal mission that God confided to her was to proclaim unceasingly this vibrant appeal of Our Lady to conversion: «I consider then», she wrote in 1941, «that God willed only to make use of me to remind the world that it is necessary to avoid sin, and to make reparation to an offended God, by prayer and penance.» 551The second request of the Blessed Virgin is also very important and practical; moreover, it is inseparable from the first, as the means is inseparable from the end that it alone can procure. «RECITE THE ROSARY EVERY DAY!»Sister Lucy takes pleasure in stressing this point: in each of Her six apparitions, “our Heavenly Mother” made sure to repeat Her request, always in the same terms, with the same insistence: «Recite the Rosary every day!» This shows how much this beautiful prayer, so traditional in the Church, is supremely pleasing to Her motherly heart. Far from being a completely secondary and optional devotion, the Virgin of Fatima came to reveal to us that the Rosary is the most ordinary condition to infallibly obtain all the graces that we ask of Her. Yes, She is the Mediatrix of all graces, by the good pleasure of Her Son. But this outpouring of favours which She holds in Her Heart, She can only release on each of our souls, our families, our countries and the world, in response to the humble and suppliant imploring of innumerable Rosaries. If, just as at Lourdes, She willed to appear at the Cova da Iria holding in Her hand this blessed instrument, guide of our prayers, it was to show us that it is the surest means, because it is the easiest and the humblest, of winning Her Heart and obtaining Her graces. Such is indeed the message of Fatima, which on this point is only repeating and developing that of Lourdes, but with even more vigour. We recall that on May 13, Lucy asked the apparition: «And will Francisco go to Heaven?» And Our Lady answered by laying down Her condition: «Yes, he will go, but he will have to say many Rosaries!» On July 13, on the subject of John, the crippled son of Maria Carreira, the Blessed Virgin expressed the same requirement, as a condition for Her favour: «... But he must recite the Rosary every day with his family, and he will be able to make a living.» In this conversation alone, Our Lady spoke at least three times of the Rosary. «I made some requests that I don’t remember», recalls Sister Lucy. «What I do remember is that Our Lady said that they must recite the Rosary to obtain these graces during the year.» In 1970, Sister Lucy wrote several admirable letters to exhort the faithful to the practice of the daily Rosary. They are rich in doctrine and precise recommendations for meditating fruitfully on the mysteries of the Rosary. Let us recall here only one phrase: «The Rosary is, for the great part of souls who are living in the world, as it were their daily spiritual bread.» To deprive them of it, inciting them to neglect or ignore this prayer, is to snatch from their mouth the bread of grace. 552 THE LOVE OF A FIRM AND PRUDENT MOTHER“ALL THE MISERIES OF POOR HUMANITY.” Since June 13, when sixty of the faithful came to attend the apparition, until this day of October 13, when there were perhaps sixty thousand – a little more or less, we are not sure – Lucy arrived at the feet of the Most Holy Virgin entrusted with an impressive list of requests: On this last day, she relates, «there were so many of them, so many! I was anxious to remember the innumerable graces that I had to ask of Our Lady...» 553AN EXTRAORDINARY FIRMNESS. What strikes us at the outset, if we consider the replies of Our Lady to all these requests, is their tone of extraordinary firmness. In all these responses, there is not an ounce of sentimentalism. Our Lady here speaks the language of a mother who knows her children and what their true good is, while they themselves, poor and blind as they are, very often delude themselves, mostly desiring what would contribute to their ruin: material favours, the suppression of all crosses, and in short, the immediate satisfaction of all their desires. On June 13: «I asked for the healing of a sick person», Lucy recalls. «If he is converted, he will be healed during the year.» On July 13: Maria Carreira, this exemplary Christian, animated by such a great love for the Most Holy Virgin, asked for the healing of John, her crippled son. «He will not be healed and he will remain poor. But he must recite the Rosary every day with his family and he will be able to make a living.» And so John Carreira kept his infirmities, but he nevertheless became sacristan of the “ Capelinha”, and thus spent the whole of his long life in the shadow of Our Lady’s sanctuary. Rather than healing him, Our Lady had chosen for him a life full of suffering, prayer and service. On August 19: «I would like to ask You for the healing of some sick people.» «Yes, I will heal some of them during the year.» And on September 13: «I will heal some, but others, no, because Our Lord does not trust Himself to them.» These words may seem harsh, but their tonality is so much in line with the Gospel: «Many believed in His name, seeing His signs which He did; but Jesus did not trust Himself unto them, for that He knew all men, and because He needed not that any should give testimony of man; for He knew what was in man.» (Jn. 2:23-25) No, Our Lady of Fatima does not have “confidence in men” any more than Her Divine Son! And if She said, «Our Lord does not trust Himself to them», of those who prayed to Her with their lips, but whose heart was far from Her, what would She say, a fortiori, of Her declared enemies who glory in their impiety? “THEY MUST AMEND THEIR LIVES...” Finally, on October 13, Our Lady made the same response, full of sadness. Certainly, sickness is an evil, but She insists so that we finally understand: sin is a much greater evil of a completely different order, since it leads souls to eternal ruin! And just as Jesus said to the sick people that He healed, «Go, and sin no more», His Mother wishes us to be much more concerned with eternal salvation than the mere healing of the body: «I have many things to ask You: to heal some sick people and to convert some sinners, etc.» «Some, yes; others, no. They must amend their lives and ask pardon of their sins.» And taking on a sadder expression: «They must no longer offend God, Our Lord, for He is already too much offended!» “TO OBTAIN THESE GRACES DURING THE YEAR.” Our Lady also wishes to recall to our minds another lesson of the Gospel, which is as important as it is little known. To obtain a grace, it is not enough to ask for it once in passing... We must desire it ardently and ask for it insistently, with confidence, without ever giving up. This is undoubtedly why the Blessed Virgin, responding to the requests Lucy had made to Her, promised to hear them, but not immediately. On June 13 She said, regarding a sick person: «If he is converted, he will be healed during the year.» She said the same thing on July 13: it is necessary to recite the Rosary every day «to obtain these graces during the year.» Finally, on September 13, regarding a little deaf mute Lucy was interceding for: «In a year from now, she will be better.» And on October 13, Our Lady responded to all the requests of Lucy by saying that «She would grant certain graces during the year.» 554 What an eloquent lesson to encourage us to pray with greater perseverance! “I WILL SAY WHAT I WANT.” To cease offending God, to amend our lives, to be converted, to faithfully recite the Rosary every day and ask Her with perseverance for the graces we need, and first of all the grace of our conversion – this is what Our Lady asks of us, as She reminded us for the last time on this October 13. But She had made another promise: «I will say who I am.» «I AM OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY»Just as at Lourdes, although Her confidants had of course recognized Her right away, She did not wish to reveal Her name at once. Why this delay, why this mystery, if not to draw our attention still more to a name which, as is always the case in the Bible, is the concrete expression and effective evocation of the very mystery of the person? At Massabielle, Our Lady had not revealed Her name until March 25, at the sixteenth apparition: «I am the Immaculate Conception.» And, observed Bernadette, «these are the last words She spoke to me.» 555 At Fatima as well, She did not reveal Her name until the last of Her appearances: «I am Our Lady of the Rosary.» This name calls to mind a whole mystery which we shall explore little by little. “A CHAPEL IN MY HONOUR.” For the first time, in one simple phrase, but in the most explicit and formal manner, She asked for the creation of a pilgrimage in the place where She had visited the earth: 556 «I want a chapel to be built here in My honour. I am Our Lady of the Rosary.» Let us admire the immense modesty of these words, which established the pilgrimage. Canon Formigao himself is astonished at them... On the evening of October 13, he asks Lucy: «Did Our Lady say She wanted many people to come, from everywhere?» «No, She didn’t order anyone to come here», 557 is the answer. «Go tell the priests to have a chapel built here», the Immaculate had asked Bernadette on March 2, 1858. At Fatima it is the same request, marked by the same charming discretion, without there even being any mention of the clergy: «I want a chapel to be built here in My honour.» And that is all! What modesty... but also what power! To draw the crowds to the place She had chosen, She has other means, much more divine and efficacious than grandiose, wordy appeals: Her irresistible attractions, which in a few years would lead the whole good Portuguese people to Her feet, in spite of the opposition of the government and indifference of the priests, are the prodigies and graces that flow profusively from Her motherly hands, on all the pilgrims at the Cova da Iria. Barely one year later, Her request will be fulfilled; but ever so modestly, and without the help of the parish priest! It was due purely to the initiative of a humble peasant, Maria Carreira. On August 6, 1918, construction was begun on a small commemorative chapel, the “ Capelinha”, built on the very spot of the apparitions. Since that time, at Aljustrel, Maria Carreira was known by the charming and well merited nickname of “Maria de Capelinha”. And on May 13, 1928, the cornerstone of the great basilica of the Rosary was laid by the Archbishop of Evora. THREE LIVING IMAGES OF THE MYSTERIES OF THE ROSARY. Undoubtedly, the title «Our Lady of the Rosary», chosen by the Virgin of Fatima, most clearly explains the astonishing multiform vision that the seers enjoyed while the crowd witnessed the great miracle of the sun. Do not the three successive visions that passed before their dazzled eyes remind us of the joyful, sorrowful, and glorious mysteries of our Rosary? To illustrate the joyful mysteries, first appears the Holy Family: St. Joseph and the Child Jesus blessing the world, and on the left, Our Lady, such as She appeared on the holm oak. Then «the light changed and suddenly the Virgin appeared as Our Lady of Sorrows. St. Joseph was replaced by Our Lord, who blessed the multitude.» 558 On the evening of October 13, Lucy declared to Canon Formigao: «Our Lady appeared dressed like Our Lady of Sorrows, but without the sword in Her heart.» 559 Our Lord appeared in His adulthood, dressed in red, no doubt to remind us of the purple mantle in which He was dressed in the praetorium, during the scene of the outrages and the crowning with thorns. 560Finally, corresponding to the glorious mysteries, Lucy could see Our Lady of Mount Carmel. «Why did you say that the Lady at one moment seemed to be dressed like Our Lady of Mount Carmel?» Canon Formigao asked Lucy on the evening of October 13. «Because She had something hanging from Her hand», she answered. Thus She was holding the scapular in Her hand, just as She had held the Rosary in all Her previous apparitions. We will return later to this important detail. OUR LADY OF THE ROSARY, QUEEN OF PEACE. If the title chosen by Our Lady of Fatima is reminiscent of the three sets of mysteries in Her life, the joyful, sorrowful and glorious mysteries, it also reminds us of Her powerful intervention in the life of the Church and defence of Christendom. Surely this is even the most specific character of this Marian title. Since the time of St. Dominic, since the time of St. Pius and the victory of Lepanto, on October 7, 1571, which was miraculously repeated in 1716 at the walls of Vienna, Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary is invoked as the rampart of Christendom under assault, the final recourse in the greatest perils. At Fatima, Our Lady came to reveal that She is the only dispensatrix of the gift of peace. We will see that this is even one of the essential points of Her great secret. Our Lady wills that we obtain this peace, which She alone can grant, through the Rosary. On May 13, She said to the shepherds: «Recite the Rosary every day to obtain peace for the world, and the end of the war.» On July 13: «Continue to recite the Rosary every day in honour of Our Lady of the Rosary, to obtain peace for the world and the end of the war, because She alone can help you.» Again on September 13: «Continue to recite the Rosary to obtain the end of the war.» Finally on October 13, Our Lady once again associates the obtaining of peace with the recitation of the Rosary, as one of its essential conditions. «Continue to recite the Rosary every day. The war will end and the soldiers will return home soon.» Here is an important lesson that we must remember: Heaven cannot grant true peace to the impious nations in revolt against it, to a proud world which refuses to implore Mary, the universal Mediatrix of God’s graces. More concretely, the conversion of hearts and the daily recitation of the Rosary are essential conditions for peace, imposed by God in His just Mercy. This is the essence of the message of October 13 which Lucy recalled again in 1940, at the moment when the world was suffering the horrible chastisement of the Second World War: «It would be good if we could inculcate in people at the same time as a great confidence in the Mercy of Our Good God and in the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the necessity of prayer accompanied by sacrifices, especially those which are necessary to avoid sin. «This is the request of Our Good Mother in Heaven since 1917. This request came from Her Immaculate Heart with an inexpressible sadness and tenderness: “Do not offend the Lord our God any more, for He is already too much offended!” What a pity that nobody has meditated on these words, and grasped their whole significance!»561
October 1917: The three seers, in the company of pilgrims from Vila Nova de Ourem, under the porch built by the
Carreira family to mark the location of the apparition. «Almost every day, people went to the Cova da Iria to implore the protection of our heavenly Mother. Everyone wanted to see the seers, to put questions to them, and to recite the Rosary with them. «At times, I was so tired of saying the same thing over and over again, and also of praying, that I looked for any pretext for excusing myself and making my escape. But those poor people were so insistent, that I had to make an effort, and indeed no small effort, in order to satisfy them. I then repeated my usual prayer deep down in my heart: “O my God, it is for love of You, in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for the conversion of sinners, and for the Holy Father”.» (II, p. 82-83).
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 30, 2020 12:01:27 GMT
APPENDIX I - THE MULTIFORM VISION
On the evening of October 13, Canon Formigao wished to interrogate the three seers separately. He managed to do so, once he was able to drag them away from the crowds of curious people, not without difficulty. One episode of this interrogation, concerning the threefold vision in the sky enjoyed by the seers during the dance of the sun, deserves to be quoted. «“All these apparitions came at the same time, did they not?” asked the Canon, setting a trap for Lucy. «From the beginning I had had a presentiment that the apparitions were true, he recounts. Thus I confess that I was almost trembling when I asked this question, and that I had to make an effort to state my question in an affirmative tone. Although it would not have been, strictly speaking, impossible for the children to have had a simultaneous vision of the three Images of the Blessed Virgin, it would clearly have created a serious difficulty. «“No”, Lucy answered. “First I saw Our Lady of the Rosary, then St. Joseph and the Holy Child. After that I saw Our Lord, then Our Lady of Sorrows, and at the end what I think was Our Lady of Mount j Carmel.”» 562The threefold vision promised by Our Lady on August 19 and September 13 is thus firmly attested on the evening of the apparition. However, again according to the Formigao interrogations of October 13 and 19, although the majority of authors pass over this fact in silence, it seems that Jacinta and Francisco only saw the first phase of this heavenly apparition, that of the Holy Family. The last two were contemplated by Lucy alone. This difference would not be astonishing and would not surprise us, since we already know that Francisco did not hear the voice of Our Lady at any of Her apparitions, and that from June 13 to September 13, many pilgrims had not been able to see the striking signs observed by the others. 563The adversaries of Fatima have not failed to stress – no doubt to divert attention from their total disarray when faced with the unquestionable fact of the miracle of the sun – that the descriptions of the vision seen by the three children present numerous variations, and even several doubts or contradictions on details. Thus in the vision of the Holy Family, according to Lucy, the Child Jesus was «in the arms of St. Joseph», while according to Jacinta and Francisco He was «standing next to him». But in such a case the contradiction can only be apparent, and can only come from the misunderstanding of such and such an expression of the interrogator, or an inability of the children to explain themselves with precision. If the Child Jesus was next to St. Joseph, but was nevertheless «supported by him», we understand why Lucy could answer that He was «in his arms», and Jacinta could say on the contrary that He was «standing next to him», to signify that He was not «around his neck», like a child in the bosom of his mother. 564 Moreover Jacinta herself, although she says that the Child Jesus was standing, declared that she did not see St. Joseph’s right arm. 565We may hope that the great critical study of Father Alonso, in confronting all the sources and also using the replies of Lucy to new, more precise interrogations, will unquestionably permit us to clarify the majority of difficulties of this kind. Let us also point out that the rapid succession of these living images which replaced each other, one after the other, in the dazzling light, partly explains the difficulty Lucy experienced in making a firm and precise description. Let us not forget, after all, that she was only ten! Even with her usual good memory, the means of expression of a child of that age, who was still illiterate, were limited. The three seers were also in a state of extreme fatigue, both on the evening of October 13 and during the whole following week, which diminished the usual firmness and precision of their replies. We will return to this point in the context of another difficulty raised by their statements.
APPENDIX II - THE PROMISE OF PEACE ON OCTOBER 13
I. «THE WAR WILL END TODAY»
On the evening of October 13, Father Formigao asked Lucy: «What did Our Lady say?» «She said the war will end today.» 566On October 16, to the parish priest of Fatima, Lucy declared again: «She said... the war will end today.» 567 When Canon Formigao came back on October 19 to interrogate the seers, he did not obtain any new element which could shed light on this thorny question. On the contrary... «Interrogation of Lucy: “On the 13th of this month, did Our Lady say the war would end? What are the words She used?” “This is what She said: ‘The war will end today; the soldiers will be home soon.’” “But the war is going on. The papers announced that there were battles after the 13th. How can that be explained, if Our Lady said that the war would end today?” “I don’t know. I only know that I heard that the war would end on the 13th. I don’t know anything else.”» 568And on that day, the responses of Jacinta, which we will quote later on, were not any more satisfying... The interrogation of Father Lacerda, which was also on October 13, carries the same puzzling affirmation: «The war will end today», which Jacinta repeated on November 2. 569Such are the facts. According to Canon Martins dos Reis, they raise «what is certainly the most difficult and serious objection in all the problems associated with Fatima.» 570 How could Our Lady have said, «the war will end today», when the armistice would not be signed until November 11, 1918, thirteen months later? An historian of Fatima believes he has a plausible explanation... A SECRET DIPLOMATIC ACCORD IN OCTOBER 1917? Such might indeed be the first, the easiest, and the most satisfying solution, since in this eventuality there would be no error in the testimony of the seers. This is the thesis maintained by Canon S. Martins dos Reis: 571 «It is a well known fact in all wars that their conclusion is tacitly decided and fixed by the chancelleries before it is known officially. The formal cessation of a war always precedes and determines its material cessation. War can continue, even when peace has been declared or decided upon...» And our author concludes: «Since it has not been shown with certainty that on October 13, 1917, there was no decision or determinant fact in favour of peace in the chancelleries or military high commands... one cannot invoke the material reality of the continuation of the war against the veracity of the seer and the apparition.» 572This explanation would indeed be the simplest... But is it not in fact too easy? Not without reason has this argument been turned around against its author: As long as this supposed secret accord has not been discovered, its purely theoretical possibility does not explain the disconcerting declaration of the seers: «The war will end today.» Moreover, is it not logical to believe that if an agreement of such decisive importance had taken place that day, it would have been known for a long time? More than seventy years have passed since the events, and the author does not supply any concrete decisive fact in favour of his hypothesis. So the difficulty remains... To clear it up, it is better to leave this hypothesis aside and advance step by step, using more certain data. First of all let us examine the other version of the words of Our Lady, which is quoted by Sister Lucy in her Memoirs.
II. «THE WAR WILL END»
«The war will end and the soldiers will return home soon.» This is the formula retained by Lucy as the most certain; nor can she be accused of inventing it later on to tidy up the affair. It is just as well attested as the other expression: «the war will end today». Many direct witnesses who interrogated Lucy on the afternoon of the 13th report this version. Thus for example Joaquin dos Reis: «The war will end soon». The baron of Alvaiazere, responding to an inquiry, wrote on December 30, 1917: «Lucy said to me (on October 13) that the war would end soon.» Several versions appearing in the press adopt the same formula: The Diario de Noticias, in its article of October 15: «The Lady told them that peace would come soon, and that it would not be long before the soldiers returned.» The Primeiro de Janeiro, on October 16: The seer «announced that the end of the war and the return of the soldiers was near, which filled the multitude with joy.» 573As for Lucy, she remembers very well having announced: «The war will end.» 574 And her testimony is corroborated by that of Dr. Carlos Mendez, who carried her in his arms to the road. He reports her as saying: «Our Lady wants you to do penance. If you do penance, the war will end!» 575 Avelina de Almeida, who was present at this scene, also reports her words in this way in his article in O Seculo of October 15: «Lucy, with theatrical gestures (sic), on the shoulders of a man who carries her from group to group, announces that the war will end and our soldiers will return home.» 576We have then for this version a whole series of certain testimonies, confirmed by other affirmations of Our Lady, from previous apparitions, which are exactly identical. We know that in the great secret of July 13, Our Lady had already announced: «The war will end», and on September 13 she had repeated the same prophecy. «The war is to end», says the report of the pastor, Father Ferreira, dated September 15. THE PROPHECY FULFILLED. This announcement of the approaching end of the war was verified by the events, first for Portugal and then for the other belligerents. Even if, as in the majority of biblical prophecies, the diverse plans are not clearly distinguished, a whole part of the message of Fatima concerns first of all the “land of Holy Mary”. In 1916 it was first for their own nation that the “Angel of Portugal” had invited the three shepherds to sacrifice themselves: «In this way you will draw down peace on your homeland.» The definite reference of Our Lady to the approaching return of the soldiers («Soon the soldiers will go home») shows that Her words, «the war will end», concerned first of all Portugal and its expeditionary corps. We will show at length in Volume II that it was effectively in the autumn of 1917, and even precisely in the municipal elections of October 14, that the political turnaround which would determine the future of the nation began. Portugal had been involved in the war since March 9, 1916, and the 40,000 men sent to the French front had begun fighting in the spring of 1917. Yet, after the coup d’Etat of Sidonio Pais on December 8, 1917, the Portuguese participation in the war would be ended earlier than expected. Indeed in April 1918, the new government decided to recall its expeditionary corps and only a contingent of volunteers continued the war on the French front. More generally speaking, in spite of the entrance of the United States into the conflict, which rendered the final victory of the Allies certain, the bitterness and uncertainty of the battles of 1918 showed that in October 1917, the date of the end of the war remained completely uncertain. A collapse of the French front before one of the terrible German offensives of 1918 could have notably prolonged the duration of the hostilities. This means that even as far as the world war is concerned, the words of Our Lady, «the war shall end soon», retain all their prophetic value. We shall return to this point later on. III. LUCY’S ERROR
The other words that the seers attributed to Our Lady on the evening of October 13 remain to be explained. Even before looking to determine the precise phrase pronounced by the apparition, we can definitely affirm that Lucy and Jacinta certainly misunderstood Her words in believing that the battles would cease that very day. Sister Lucy herself recognized it quite simply. However, the explanations she gives us are very valuable for understanding the psychological reasons as well as the limits of her error. DURING THE APPARITION. On May 18, 1941, in a letter to her confessor who had questioned her on this point, Sister Lucy explains: «On the subject of the war, I remember Our Lady expressing Herself in this way: “The war will end and the soldiers will come home soon.”» This is in fact the formula she retains in her Memoirs. «But (she continues) what perhaps prevented me from giving my full attention at that moment was my concern to remember the requests I had been asked to present; at that precise moment I wished to remember them, and that is why I was slightly distracted. Then, anxious to make these requests, I almost interrupted what Our Lady was saying…» 577On July 8, 1924, she had already given this response before the commission of inquiry: «Preoccupied by all the requests which had been confided to me to present to Our Lady, I had not given my whole attention to Her words.» 578 In her Fourth Memoir, in 1941, she writes again: «It was possibly because I was so anxious to remember the innumerable graces that I had to ask of Our Lady that I was mistaken when I understood that the war would end on that very 13th.» 579OCTOBER 13: THE TERRIBLE TRIAL OF THE INTERROGATIONS. Along with this insufficient attention at the very moment of the apparition, we must also take into account another important psychological factor: the extreme fatigue of the seers on October 13, as well as in following days. Before the apparition we have already seen how Jacinta, frightened by this great crowd that pressed her from every side, began to cry. Right after the great miracle, the enthusiastic witnesses harried the seers again with innumerable questions. Avelino de Almeida, the editor of O Seculo, would write: «One of the little seers, Jacinta, is closer to passing out than dancing.» The crowd of curious people was packed so tightly around the three seers that Lucy was deprived of her braids... without even being able to find the perpetrator of the larceny! 580If we remember that all this commotion around them, this haranguing with questions had begun in the morning and had not stopped since then, without leaving them the slightest respite, we can easily understand why they were exhausted with fatigue in the evening. «I spent the afternoon of that day with my cousins», Lucy reports. «We were like some curious creature that the multitudes wanted to see and observe. By night time I was really exhausted with so many questions and interrogations.» 581RUMOURS OF THE END OF THE WAR. And during this afternoon of October 13, Lucy was probably influenced by the ideas of some overenthusiastic pilgrims who imagined that the miracle of the sun would be accompanied by the immediate end of the war. In effect, since Our Lady in Her messages had often requested prayers to end the war, many journalists, going beyond the exact sense of Her words, dared to present the cessation of combat on October 13 as a prophecy of the apparition. Thus for example in O Mundo of August 19, José do Vale affirmed that the Vision had promised to return on October 13 to «end the war». A proof that this idea was widely believed among the crowd is that Avelino de Almeida alludes to it in his article in O Seculo, published the very morning of October 13: «Some pious people cherish the hope that the Virgin Mary will tell them something about the end of the war, and even, in Her goodness, go so far as to tell them when a peace treaty will be concluded.» 582 Another revealing detail about this state of mind: at the Cova da Iria on October 13, images of the Virgin were being sold with the title: “Our Lady of Peace”. 583There is no question that in the enthusiasm of the great miracle observed by all, the seers were assailed with questions on the precise date of the end of the war. There is an additional proof in a recollection of Sister Lucy which she reports to her confessor in the letter already quoted: «I did not say “the war is over”», she explains. «I said: “the war will end”, and when I was asked: “When? Today?” to free myself from so many questions and without attaching great importance to it, or reflecting at all on what Our Lady had said, I answered, “Yes, today.”» 584This gives us a good insight into the psychological causes of Lucy’s error: during the apparition, her attention was distracted by her concern for all the requests to be passed on; and right after, there were continuous questions on the date of the end of the war, suggesting the erroneous response of an immediate peace. Finally on the evening of October 13, in her extreme fatigue, Lucy was convinced Our Lady had announced that the war would end that very day. «Even in the evening the interrogations did not let up», 585 she writes in her Memoirs. It was around seven o’clock in the evening when Canon Formigao arrived to interrogate the seers. Lucy had to respond to all his questions, and it was then perhaps that she pronounced for the first time the incomplete and therefore unfortunate phrase: «Our Lady said... that the war would end today.» She no longer made any mention either of the condition («they must convert!») or the delay («the war will end.»). The investigator, who understood her response as an affirmation by Our Lady of an immediate and miraculous suspension of the fighting, was troubled by it... Perhaps this was the main reason why he decided to come back on the 19th for new interrogations, hoping no doubt to complete them under better conditions. Alas, this would not be the case! AFTER THE INTERROGATIONS OF OCTOBER 13-19. In the days following the apparition, Lucy had neither the time nor the necessary liberty of spirit to reflect on and clarify her recollections... «Several persons who had not been able to interrogate me», she writes, «stayed until the following day to wait their turn. Some of them even tried to talk to me that night, but, overcome by weariness, I just dropped down and fell asleep on the floor... «On the following day, or rather, on the following days, the questioning continued. Almost every day, from then on, people went to the Cova da Iria to implore the protection of Our Lady. Everybody wanted to see the seers, to put questions to them, and to recite the Rosary with them.» 586Unfortunately, it was in these exceedingly unfavourable circumstances that the interrogations which have come down to us took place: on October 16, that of the pastor Father Ferreira and on the 19th those of Father Lacerda and Canon Formigao. We must remember this context, and keep it in mind. On October 17, «a veritable demon in human form, the arsonist of the church of Alcanena, came to interrogate and threaten the children.» When Father Formigao arrived at Aljustrel on October 19, around three in the afternoon, the seers were already in the middle of an interrogation by Father Lacerda, then military chaplain of the expeditionary corps in France, accompanied by the parish priest of Fatima and a priest of Leiria. At the end of his own interrogation which followed immediately after (poor children!), Canon Formigao himself noticed the extreme physical and moral fatigue of the seers. He learned «that Lucy, on the night of the 18-19th, had not returned to her house to sleep, but had remained in her uncle’s house, certainly because she had had to answer insidious and prolonged questions during the night.» With clear perception, he summed up the situation: «Lucy especially, because she was interrogated the longest, could not be more fatigued, and her state of exhaustion causes her to respond to the questions put to her without attention and the desirable reflection. She responds sometimes almost mechanically and she comes to the point that often she cannot well recall certain circumstances of the apparitions. This is contrary to what she did before October 13th. «Unless somebody is careful to spare the children the fatigue of too frequent and prolonged interrogations, their health runs the risk of being profoundly shaken. In truth, it would be prudent to remove the three shepherds of Aljustrel, and send them somewhere they are not known, if we do not want to see them disappear soon, especially since the parents do not have sufficient authority to prevent any visitor from interrogating them whenever he pleases.» 587This excessive fatigue and its consequences – the lack of desirable attention and reflection – do they sufficiently explain the stubbornness of Lucy in believing that Our Lady had announced the immediate end of the war? We may think so. Or was she possibly led into error by the very words of the apparition which she may have remembered, but simply misunderstood? IV. PEACE ON A CONDITION
Indeed, it is not impossible that the Virgin Mary Herself pronounced the contentious phrase that Lucy and Jacinta attributed to Her so firmly. Yes, She might have said, «The war will end today», but in a context that would have made its precise meaning clear. This is the solution proposed by one of the best historians of Fatima, Father Messias Dias Coelho, in his masterly work O que falta para a conversâo da Russia. 588 The Most Holy Virgin may have said: «Let men amend their lives and the war will end today.» With the two prophecies linked to one another in this way, the words of Our Lady would not be a prophecy of a sudden and miraculous end of the hostilities, but a conditional promise to grant peace when men conform to Her desires. We could then perfectly understand where Lucy’s error lay: she literally reported the words pronounced by Our Lady, but separating the two propositions which were linked: «Let men amend their lives and the war will end today», entirely transforming the character of the second proposition, removing its conditional character. 589 A twofold series of solid arguments can be advanced in favour of this solution. THE STATEMENTS OF THE SEERS. Lucy herself, immediately after the apparition, seems to have repeated the words of Our Lady in their conditional form. Doctor Carlos Mendes reports that, while he carried her in his arms towards the road, she shouted: «Do penance! Do penance! Our Lady wants you to do penance! If you do penance, the war will end!»590 But very quickly, under the influence of fatigue and incessant questions, Lucy forgot the link between these two propositions and when she was asked about the end of the war, she answered with the only phrase that mentioned war: «the war will end», or «the war will end today». But we have a proof that Jacinta retained a better recollection of the words of Our Lady and their conditional meaning. In her account of the apparitions written in 1922 Lucy writes: «Then I understood that Our Lady had said to me: “When I go back to Heaven, the war will end today.” But my cousin Jacinta said that this is what She had said: “If the people amend their lives, the war will end today.” This is why I cannot affirm how She pronounced these words.» 591 This important text, of which Father Messias Dias Coelho was unaware, confirms his hypothesis. What is more, we find a trace of this divergence of interpretation between the two seers in the Formigao interrogation of October 19, 1917. The Canon asked Jacinta: «What did Our Lady say this last time?» Jacinta answered: «I come here to tell you not to offend Our Lord any more, for He is already too much offended. If the people amend their lives, the war will end; if they do not amend their lives, the world will end.» 592 Jacinta then had grasped the conditional meaning of the promise. But the humble girl, who was used to trusting her older cousin, went on: «But Lucy heard what Our Lady said better than I did.» What is important is this: if, in the first three days following the apparition, Lucy and she had not even had time to consult each other, 593 they were surely able to do so before the 19th. And then, after having given her own recollection, Jacinta repeats word for word the interpretation of Lucy: «“Did She say that the war would end that very day, or that it would end soon?” “Our Lady said that the war would end when She arrived in Heaven.” “But the war has not ended.” “But it will end, it will.”» Note that these two replies only repeat those of Lucy. And when the Canon insists: «When will it end?» Jacinta, obviously bewildered, answers: «I think it will end on Sunday.» 594 We must observe however that she does not attribute this childish expression to the apparition. Her replies in which she blindly follows Lucy’s interpretation – whom she thought had surely better understood! – must not make us forget her original testimony, which in this case turned out to be more precise than her cousin’s: «If the people amend their lives, the war will end.» THE GENERAL CONTEXT OF THE MESSAGE. In addition to Jacinta’s testimony we can put forward in favour of the conditional version («Let men amend their lives and the war will end today») another weighty argument which is practically decisive – the consideration of the general context of the message. Indeed an expression pronounced by the Blessed Virgin on May 13 sheds much light on Her requests of October 13. Already Lucy had asked Her then: «Can You tell me if the war will go on long, or will it end soon?» And Our Lady answered: «I cannot tell you yet, because I have not yet told you what I want.»595 From the beginning, then, Our Lady had announced that obtaining peace would depend on whether men obeyed Her requests. She had also made clear that only on October 13 would She solemnly express Her desires: «In October, I will tell you who I am and what I want.» Thus it becomes clearer how Her final message corresponds to this twofold announcement. On October 13, Our Lady of the Rosary in effect solemnly redoubled all Her requests. We have every reason to believe that She proposed them as necessary preliminaries for peace. To the question that was then on everybody’s lips, «When will the war end? Today?» the Blessed Virgin responds: “Men must do «what I want», they must be converted and say the Rosary, and then «the war will end, even today.» Mercifully, the chastisement will not last one day longer than the refusal of men to conform to My requests.” This is undoubtedly the most probable meaning of the words pronounced by Our Lady, at least to the extent they can be reconstructed using the oldest testimonies of the seers and later declarations of Sister Lucy, as well as in the light of the general context of the message. FROM THE PROMISE OF OCTOBER 13... TO THE GREAT SECRET. This promise of peace in response to the accomplishment of Her requests is found in the great secret of July 13: «If men do what I tell you... there will be peace.» Far from being banal or utopian because the conditions could not be fulfilled, we will soon see the unprecedented and eschatological character of this offer of peace made to the world. This means that as of this day the divine decision had been declared: God in His mercy would expect nothing more than the fulfilment of the few requests in honour of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to immediately (and miraculously) grant the gift of peace to humanity: «The war will end today» or as Lucy said: «I understood that Our Lady had said: “When I arrive in Heaven, the war will end today.”» «... and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world.» These are the last words of the Secret. CONCLUSION ON THE ERROR OF THE THREE SEERS. With great probability we can believe that: 1. They forgot the exact order of the words of Our Lady. 2. Lucy did not grasp the link between the promise of peace and the requests for conversion, which in effect were preliminary conditions for peace. 5963. Given their extreme fatigue and the questions that suggested to them an erroneous response, on the evening of October 13, Lucy believed in the imminent end of the war. All these errors can easily be understood when we consider that the children were exhausted with fatigue, and in a sense they even prove the veracity of their witness: their stubbornness in reporting such baffling words clearly shows – yet another proof! – that nobody was dictating the message to them, but, on the contrary they had it from Our Lady and Her alone! Now after having manifested Her power by the prodigious “dance of the sun”, She allowed Her messengers to make this error in the transmission of Her message. For that matter, do we not find analogous difficulties in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection of Our Lord? As Pascal said regarding the difficulties of the Gospel: «All the most apparent weaknesses are in reality strengths.» 597
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 2, 2020 10:53:43 GMT
SECTION III: The divine seal, the miracle of October 13
CHAPTER X «THE DANCE OF THE SUN»
Here are the facts, briefly recounted by a journalist that nobody could suspect of impartiality in this affair, and with reason! The man in question is Avelino de Almeida, Editor in Chief of O Seculo, the great “liberal”, anticlerical and Masonic daily of Lisbon: «From the road, where the cars were packed together, and several hundred people had remained, not having had the courage to advance towards the muddy field, one could see the immense multitude turn towards the sun, which appeared at its zenith, coming out of the clouds. «It resembles a dull silver disc, and it is possible to fix one’s eyes on it without the least damage to the eye. It does not burn the eyes. It does not blind them. One might say that an eclipse was taking place. «An immense clamour bursts out, and those who are nearer to the crowd hear a shout: “Miracle! Miracle! Prodigy!... Prodigy!...” «The attitude of the people takes us back to biblical times. Stupefied and with heads uncovered, they watch the blue sky. Before their dazzled eyes the sun trembled, the sun made unusual and brusque movements, defying all the laws of the cosmos, and according to the typical expression of the peasants, “the sun danced”…» 598Violently challenged by all the anticlerical press, Avelino de Almeida renewed his testimony fifteen days later in his review, Illustraçao Portuguesa. This time, he illustrated his account with a dozen photographs of the immense crowd, in a state of ecstasy, and all through his article he repeated like a refrain: «I saw it... I saw it... I saw it.» Let us quote his conclusion: «What did I see at Fatima that was even stranger? The rain, at an hour announced in advance, ceased falling; the thick mass of clouds dissolved; and the sun – a dull silver disc – came into view at its zenith, and began to dance in a violent and convulsive movement, which a great number of witnesses compared to a serpentine dance, because the colours taken on by the surface of the sun were so beautiful and gleaming.» And our reporter concludes, quite appropriately: «Miracle, as the people shouted? A natural phenomenon, as the learned would say? For the moment, I do not trouble myself with finding out, but only with affirming what I saw... The rest is a matter between Science and the Church.» FIRST HISTORY, THEN SCIENCE, FINALLY FAITHThis conclusion of the agnostic and positivist journalist we can make our own. It is not a question of saying, «I believe in it!» or «I don’t believe in it!» The fact does not belong first to the domain of faith, or even that of science. Before all else it is a historical event, which must be related with the greatest precision, even to its tiniest details. Then, and only then, science or more exactly the rational sciences can consider the facts and judge their natural or supernatural character. And finally, after the results of the scientific examination, the Church must make a pronouncement... This order in the analysis of the fact by which one passes successively from history to science, and only then to theology and faith, cannot be dispensed with by anybody without confusing the whole process. And this confusion, which is so common, easily leads us to adopt a conclusion which corresponds neither to reality or the facts, nor their rational interpretation, but only to subjective a priori passions and prejudices.
I. THE HISTORY: A PRODIGIOUS, EXTRAORDINARY EVENT
It is easy to relate what happened at the Cova da Iria on October 13: The witnesses of the event were innumerable, their testimonies agree, and the documents they left us are superabundant. Is a brief summary needed? THE HISTORICAL SOURCESTHE CONTEMPORARY PORTUGUESE PRESS. First of all there are the numerous accounts which appeared immediately in the Portuguese press. It is noteworthy that the first publications to bear witness to it were the anticlerical papers. The three articles of Avelina de Almeida, that of October 13, written right after the event, that of the 15th, written the same night at Vila Nova de Ourem, and that of October 29 merit special mention. In spite of the derisive tone and Voltairian irony which in part inspire the first article, in spite of the anticlerical prejudices which still appear in the article of the 15th, these texts of a talented journalist, who was also honest and conscientious, are incomparable historical documents. 599 But he was not the only one to relate the facts, and all through our exposition we will cite the testimony of other journalists present at the Cova da Iria. THE OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS. In November of 1917, at the request of Msgr. Vidal, who was then directing the diocese of Lisbon, the parish priest of Fatima began his inquiry and interrogated several witnesses from the parish. Unfortunately, he wrote down only four depositions... And why? The other depositions, he explains ingenuously, «were not written down because they add nothing to the preceding ones.» Granted, it is tiring to write down texts which all say the same thing! But what a pity from the historian’s point of view! The canonical investigation did complete the documentation, but without assembling the mounds of evidence it was then possible to collect. We will return to this point in Volume II. THE INVESTIGATIONS OF HISTORIANS. Fortunately, there were more zealous investigators to make up for these negligences. All the first historians of Fatima went to interrogate the witnesses. Father Formigao obtained from Dr. Almeida Garrett, professor of the Faculty of Sciences at Coimbra, the most scientific and detailed account we have of the events. Father da Fonseca went to verify the points disputed by Father Dhanis, 600 then Father de Marchi, Canon Barthas, Father Messias Dias Coelho, Father Richard, and in 1960 John Haffert, who collected the statements of forty witnesses in a book, Meet the Witnesses. 601 In 1967, Father Martins dos Reis devoted a whole new book to the solar phenomenon of October 13. 602All these successive inquiries conducted by the historians of Fatima resulted in the collation of an impressive number of accounts of the event, which were published during the lifetime of numerous witnesses. Thus they were completely at liberty to publish any corrections, where they were necessary. In 1977, to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the last apparition, it was still possible to reunite at Fatima more than thirty persons who had attended the solar prodigy, and who were able to give their testimony once again. 603REPORTING ON THE EVENTS OF OCTOBER 13. Rather than cite only a few documents at length – it is to be hoped that soon almost all of them will be collected in the great critical work of Father Alonso – we prefer, using extracts from numerous accounts of the witnesses, to reconstruct a precise report which will permit us, hour by hour and minute by minute, to relive this decisive day, which is certainly one of the most important of this century.604 WAITING FOR THE EVENTFRIDAY, OCTOBER 12: THE PILGRIMS ON THE MARCH. To begin with, let us follow the report of Avelino de Almeida, which is particularly vivid and colourful. Having arrived at the train station of Chao de Macas, the director of O Seculo had the annoying surprise of not finding the car which was to take him to Vila Nova de Ourem, where he would spend the night. «The stagecoach has no more room, and all the carts which await the passengers have long been booked.» So courageously, he set out on foot. «... On the road (from Chao de Macas to Vila Nova de Ourem), we encounter the first groups which are on their way to the holy place, a good thirteen miles away. «Men and women are for the most part barefoot, the latter carrying their shoes in bags on their heads, while the men lean on thin sticks and are also prudently armed with umbrellas. Apparently indifferent to what is going on around them, they do not seem to notice the countryside nor their fellow-travellers, but murmur the Rosary as they go along immersed in thought. «A woman recites the first part of the Ave Maria and immediately her companions continue the second part in chorus. They move rhythmically and rapidly in order to reach the place of the apparitions by nightfall. Here, under the stars they will sleep, keeping the first and best places near the little tree.» «... It is only thanks to an extreme favour that we are able to obtain lodgings in Ourem. During the night the most varied types of vehicle have arrived in the square, bringing their loads of the devout and the curious...» 605SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13: A PILGRIMAGE OF PENANCE. The whole night it rained. But as the proverb says, «the morning rain does not stop the pilgrim». «The sudden change in the weather, which allowed the stubborn rain to transform the dusty roads into muddy quagmires, for one day made the gentle autumn give way to the bitterest winter weather. This did not move the crowd, or cause it to give up or lose hope.» 606 «At daybreak fresh groups hurry through the town and the habitual quiet is broken by singing of the most varied kind… At sunrise the weather looks threatening. Black clouds gather right over Fatima but this does not deter the people who by now are flocking in from all sides, employing every means of transport. There are luxurious motor cars travelling at speed, oxcarts pulled in to the side of the road, victorias, closed carriages, carts in which seats are improvised and in which not another soul could be squeezed. Everyone is provided with food both for themselves and for the beasts... valiantly playing their part. «Here and there one sees a cart decorated with greenery, and although there is an air of discreet festivity people are sober and well-mannered. Donkeys bray at the side of the road and the innumerable cyclists make prodigious efforts not to collide with the carts. «By ten o’clock the sky was completely hidden behind the clouds and the rain began to fall in earnest. Swept by the strong wind and beating upon the faces of the people, it soaked the macadam and the pilgrims, often without protection against the weather, to the marrow of their bones. But no one complained or turned back, and if some took shelter under trees or walls, the great majority continued on their journey with remarkable indifference to the rain. AT THE COVA DA IRIA: HOURS OF WAITING... IN THE RAIN. «The place where the Blessed Virgin is alleged to have appeared is fronted to a large extent by the road which leads to Leiria, along which the vehicles that bring the pilgrims are parked. But the great mass of the people congregate round the oak tree which, according to the children, is Our Lady’s pedestal. It can be imagined as the centre of a large circle round which the spectators gather to watch events. «Seen from the road the general effect is picturesque. The peasants, sheltering under their huge umbrellas, accompany the unloading of fodder with the singing of hymns and the recitation of decades of the Rosary in a matter-of-fact way. People plod through the sticky clay in order to see the famous oak tree with its wooden arch and hanging lanterns, at closer quarters... «Groups take it in turns to sing the praises of the Virgin, while a terrified hare runs through the crowd and is hardly noticed except by a half a dozen or so of small boys, who catch and beat it to death with sticks...» ( O Seculo, October 15; De Marchi, p. 130-131). BETWEEN 50,000 AND 70,000 WITNESSESHow many people were there at the Cova da Iria? It is difficult and even impossible to get the exact number. The exact figure does not matter much, for it changes absolutely nothing – neither the reality of the fact, nor the explanation we can give of it. It is only a question of approaching the historical reality as closely as possible. For this purpose, all we can do is compare the different estimates, trying to discern each one’s degree of credibility. G. de Sede claims that it is the “incense-bearers” of Fatima who inflate the number of witnesses each year. 607 Nothing could be more false. For the largest estimate, that of Dr. Almeida Garrett, was proposed a few months after the event. He estimates the spectators at over 100,000. In his article published in O Seculo of October 15, Avelino de Almeida wrote: «This crowd, which unbiased estimates of learned persons, very foreign to mystical influences (sic), place at somewhere between thirty to forty thousand people.» 608 Fifteen days later, he corrected his first estimate: «On October 13, according to the calculations of completely unbiased people, some fifty thousand people were gathered at the moor of Fatima.» 609 A neutral journal, the Primeiro de Janeiro, also estimated the crowd at fifty thousand people. Thus one can say, with near certitude, that this is a minimum figure; this is why the majority of historians propose that there were probably 70,000 witnesses in the crowd. A DIVERSIFIED CROWD. Although «the peasants dominated» the crowd, as Avelino de Almeida noted, the whole population of Portugal was represented at the Cova da Iria. Was such a representative and motley crowd ever seen? People of all sorts, from all regions of the country, from all social classes and cultural levels, the faithful already certain of witnessing a miracle and the fanatical and sceptical unbelievers, all were side by side, waiting for what would take place, and preparing to observe it as best they could. «At the moment of the great miracle», notes a Portuguese historian, Leopoldo Nunes, «there were present some of the most illustrious men of letters, in the arts and the sciences, and almost all were unbelievers coming out of simple curiosity, led by the prediction of the seers.» 610 After the account of the event, we will report the reactions of some of them. Even the national Minister of Education for the masonic government was there! We will analyse his version of events. Although the great mass of people was composed of the faithful, there were many of the curious and the incredulous. They had come to see, to amuse themselves, and make fun of the credulity of the others! 611Finally let us point out that a good number of believers, who were practicing Catholics, were in no way disposed to believe in the apparitions. Among them there were also many who had remained on the road to Leiria, observing the spectacle from afar, well sheltered by their cars, such as Dr. Almeida Garrett, Professor Ferreira Borges or the lawyer Pinto Coelho, to whom we shall return... OCTOBER 13, 1917. BEFORE THE APPARITION. As seen from above the Cova da Iria during the morning. «I arrived at noon. The rain which had been falling since the morning, fine and persistent, propelled by a fierce wind, continued to fall...» (Dr. Almeida Garret). THE HOUR APPROACHES... «The presence of the seers (writes Avelino de Almeida) is announced perhaps a half hour before the moment indicated for the apparition.612 The little girls, crowned with flowers, are led to the place where the platform has been erected. The rain continues without stopping, but nobody loses hope. Some late-coming wagons arrive on the road. Groups of the faithful kneel in the mud and Lucy asks them, orders them, to shut their umbrellas. The order is transmitted and executed right away, without resistance.»613 AT NOON, SOLAR TIME... According to the watches it is already almost 1:30 p.m. 614 Near the seers, a priest who has spent the whole night there begins to get impatient: «He asks them what time Our Lady is to appear, recounts Maria Carreira. “At midday”, said Lucy. The priest looked at his watch and said: “Look, it’s midday now! Our Lady doesn’t lie!.. Well! Well!...” After a few minutes he said again: “It’s past midday. You see, it’s all a delusion! Run along, all of you!...” «But Lucy refused to go and the priest began to push the three children with his hands. Lucy who was nearly crying, said to him: “If anyone wants to go, they can go. I shall stay where I am. Our Lady said She would come. She came the other times and She will come this time, too!” «At the same time she looked to the east and said to Jacinta: “Jacinta, kneel down; Our Lady is coming. I saw the lightning!” «The priest didn’t say another word and I never saw him again!» 615 THE SERIES OF MARVELLOUS PHENOMENAIn comparing the numerous accounts of the witnesses, we can distinguish fairly well the various aspects and order of the stupefying phenomena observed by all. 616 For this analysis, which attempts to reconstruct the picture of the events in their various phases, we generally follow the account of Dr. Almeida Garrett, professor of the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Coimbra. This account is the work of a learned person used to making subtle and precise observations, which he expresses with perfect clarity. 617 I. AT THE MOMENT OF THE APPARITION: A COLUMN OF CLOUD
Here is the first marvellous fact observed by Dr. Almeida Garrett: «It must have been about one-thirty by the legal time and about midday by the sun, when on the very spot where the children were, a fine, slender, bluish column of smoke rose straight up to about six feet above their heads, and vanished at this height. This phenomenon, which was perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted a few seconds. Not having kept track of the time, I could not say whether it was less than a minute or longer. The smoke suddenly disappeared, and a few moments later the phenomenon took place a second and then a third time. All three times, and especially the last one, the beams went up and clearly disappeared in the grey atmosphere. «I looked in that direction with my glasses. I was not able to see anything except the columns of smoke, but I remained convinced that they were produced by some censer, with incense inside it being swung. Then some people worthy of faith told me that this phenomenon was a regular occurrence on the 13th of the five previous months, and that nobody had made any fire, either this time or the others.» 618
The professor said at the beginning of his account that he was only a little more than a hundred yards from the holm oak. Thus he was well placed to observe everything with precision. II. THE SUDDEN STOPPING OF THE RAIN
Although there had been a steady rain all morning, during the apparition the rain totally stopped, and suddenly the sky cleared. «The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly clears up; the rain stops and it looks like the sun is about to fill with light the countryside that the wintry morning had made so gloomy...» 619This sudden change in the weather surprised all the witnesses: «It was a rainy day, with a thin but steady rainfall. But a few minutes before the miracle, it stopped raining.» 620 «The rain suddenly stopped.» (Dr. Pereira Gens) «At this moment, I got out of the car, and as I extended my hand to my wife to help her step out, suddenly all the clouds disappeared without the slightest breeze, and the sun was shining in a clear sky.» (Professor Ferreira Borges). 621The crowd is waiting expectantly. The believers think the promised miracle is about to happen: «The miraculous demonstration, the visible sign that had been announced is about to take place, many of the pilgrims said.» 622 Meanwhile the chilly spectators were getting impatient: «... I was looking at the spot of the apparitions», writes Dr. Almeida Garrett, «in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention... «The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and shone clearly and intensely.» 623 III. THE VISION OF THE SUN
«Suddenly I heard a shout from thousands of voices and saw the multitude which straggled out at my feet, here and there concentrated in small groups round the trees, suddenly turn its back and shoulders away from the point towards which up to now it had directed its attention, and turn to look at the sky on the opposite side. «Then they saw a unique spectacle», remarks the reporter from O Seculo, «an unbelievable spectacle for anyone who did not witness it. From the road... one could see the immense multitude turn towards the sun, which appeared free from clouds and in its zenith. «It resembles a dull silver disc, and it is possible to look at it without the least discomfort. It might have been an eclipse which was taking place.» 624Dr. Almeida Garrett, who observed things more keenly, sought to express with minute precision what his eyes saw: «I veered to the magnet which seemed to be drawing all eyes and saw it as a disc with a clean-cut rim, luminous and shining, but which did not hurt the eyes. «I do not agree with the comparison which I have heard made in Fatima – that of a dull silver disc. It was a clearer, richer, brighter colour, having something of the lustre of a pearl. «It did not in the least resemble the moon on a clear night because one saw it and felt it to be a living body. It was not spherical like the moon. It looked like a glazed wheel made of mother-of-pearl... «It could not be confused, either, with the sun seen through fog (for there was no fog at the time), because it was not opaque, diffused or veiled. In Fatima it gave light and heat and appeared clear-cut with a well-defined rim. «The sky was mottled with light cirrus clouds with the blue coming through here and there but sometimes the sun stood out in patches of clear sky. The clouds passed from west to east and did not obscure the light of the sun, giving the impression of passing behind it, though sometimes these flecks of white took on tones of pink or diaphanous blue as they passed before the sun. «It was a remarkable fact that one could fix one’s eyes on this brazier of light and heat without any pain in the eyes or blinding of the retina. «The phenomenon, except for two interruptions when the sun seemed to send out rays of refulgent heat which obliged us to look away, must have lasted about ten minutes.» 625Ti Marto, who left us a brief account of the event, which is particularly remarkable for the precision of his observations, also declared: «What was the most extraordinary was that the sun did not hurt our eyes at all.» 626OCTOBER 13, 1917. THE GREAT MIRACLE. Some pilgrims during the dance of the sun. «Thousands of God’s creatures fell on their knees on the sodden ground... Everybody wept, everybody prayed, the men holding their hats in their hands, under the spectacular impression of the awaited miracle! These seconds, these instants, seemed like hours, so intensely were they lived!» ( O Dia, October 19, 1917). IV. THE THREEFOLD DANCE OF THE SUN
Suddenly the sun began trembling, shaking with sudden movements, finally turning over upon itself with dizzying quickness, spraying out rays of light of all the colours of the rainbow. Let the witnesses speak: «The sun trembled, the sun made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws – the sun “danced” according to the typical expression of the people.» 627 «It shook and trembled; it seemed like a wheel of fire.» (Maria da Capelinha). This expression is found in many accounts. «… It spun like a firewheel, taking on all the colours of the rainbow.» 628 It looked «like a ball of snow, revolving upon itself.» (Father Lourenço). «The sun’s disc did not remain immobile. This was not the sparkling of a heavenly body, for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.» (Dr. Almeida Garrett). «Suddenly», wrote Father Pereira da Silva in a letter sent the very evening of October 13, «the sun appeared with its circumference well-defined. It came down as if to the height of the clouds and began to whirl giddily upon itself like a captive ball of fire. With some interruptions, this lasted about eight minutes.» 629Many witnesses mention these interruptions. Ti Marto relates with precision: «At a certain moment the sun seemed to stop and then began to move and dance.» 630 «However, the sun stops, only to begin its strange dance all over again after a brief interruption, whirling upon itself, giving the impression of approaching or receding.» (Dr. Pereira Gens of Batalha. At the time he was a student at Coimbra.)631 Thus the “dance of the sun” that thousands of witnesses affirmed they saw, was actually repeated three times. V. «ALL THE COLOURS OF THE RAINBOW»
First let us listen to the description of Dr. Almeida Garrett: «During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described in detail, there were changes of colour in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything an amethyst colour. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same colour. An oak tree nearby threw a shadow of this colour on the ground. Soon I heard a peasant who was near me shout out in tones of stupefaction: “Look, that lady is all yellow!” And in fact everything both near and far had changed, taking on the colour of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same colour. 632 «The sun produced different colours: yellow, blue, white...», reports Maria da Capelinha. 633 Maria do Carmo recalls: «The sun took on all the colours of the rainbow. Everything took on the same colours: our faces, our clothes, the earth itself.»634 «A light whose colour varies from one moment to the next is reflected on persons and things», notes Dr. Pereira Gens. Ti Marto: The sun «shot rays in different directions and painted everything in different colours.» 635A witness from Alburitel, Father Inacio Lourenço, points out that objects took on different colours depending on their location: «Objects around us turned all the colours of the rainbow. We saw ourselves blue, yellow, red…» 636 VI. THE FALLING OF THE SUN: «THE SUN SEEMED TO FALL TO THE GROUND»
«Then, suddenly», relates Almeida Garrett, «one heard a clamour, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was terrible.» 637 «The sun... began to move and dance until it seemed that it was being detached from the sky and was falling on us. It was a terrible moment!» (Ti Marto). 638 «It seemed like a wheel of fire which was going to fall on the people.» (Maria da Capelinha). Alfredo da Silva Santos: «The sun began to move and at a certain moment appeared to be detached from the sky and about to hurtle upon us like a wheel of flame.» 639 «It suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth», recalls Father Lourenço. 640Seeing this unanimity, it is easy to see why Father da Fonseca had no great difficulty refuting the minimizing allegations of Father Dhanis. Among others, he cites the very interesting witness of Baron de Alvaiazere,641 whom Canon Barthas in turn went to interrogate: «The sun at its zenith whirled upon itself; it detached itself in descending towards the right, all the while whirling with sudden movements never seen before, to the right and the left; having almost arrived at the horizon line, it went back up to the zenith on the left, tracing a sort of winding ellipse as it went.» 642The spectators had the irresistible impression that the sun was going to fall on them: «It threatens to fall on us» (Dr. Pereira Gens); «Seeing the sun falling on us...» (Father John Gomes Menitra); «... giving us the impression that it was about to fall on us» (Mario Godinho). 643 It was such a terrible moment that several people fainted. «Finally, the sun stopped and everybody breathed a sigh of relief...» recalls Maria da Capelinha. 644
VII. «EVERYBODY’S CLOTHES WERE DRY»
A last astonishing fact: all these people, who were for the most part soaked to the bone, noticed with joy and stupefaction that they were dry. The fact is attested in the canonical process, and the academician Marques da Cruz made a personal inquiry on the subject. He writes: «This enormous multitude was drenched, for it had rained unceasingly since dawn. But – though this may appear incredible – after the great miracle everyone felt comfortable, and found his garments quite dry, a subject of general wonder... The truth of this fact has been guaranteed with the greatest sincerity by dozens and dozens of persons of absolute trustworthiness, whom I have known intimately from childhood, and who are still alive (1937), as well as by persons from various districts of the country who were present.» 645Sister Lucy herself, who was absorbed in her ecstasy, was not aware of any of this, and did not even think of pointing out this fact. She declared to Canon Barthas: «However, some nuns of my congregation, who were still in the world and were at Fatima that day, assured me of the reality of the phenomenon.» 646How can we explain this fact? The account of Dr. Pereira Gens gives us a glimpse into the answer: «… It continues to rain so strongly that in spite of our umbrellas, nobody has a stitch of dry clothing left... The rain suddenly stops, the clouds split open, and the sun is visible in all its splendour. Our clothes are wet and our bodies cold; I still remember the delicious sensation that this warm caress of the sun gave me...» And after mentioning the dance of the sun, he continues: «Although it is true that the luminosity of the sun was diminished, its warmth lost none of its power. I feel my clothes almost dry now, although they were all wet only a few moments ago.» 647In A Ordem, Pinto Coelho made an analogous remark: «The sun seemed... to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.» 648 «We felt the heat as though we had entered an overheated steam-room», remarked Maria de Vieira Campos. 649 VIII. THE VISION OF THE SOLAR PRODIGY AT A DISTANCE
A marvellous fact is that the phenomenon could be admired as far as two or three miles from Fatima. There are even perfectly credible witnesses who were much further away from the Cova da Iria, who related how they had seen the unheard of spectacle of the dance of the sun, exactly as did the thousands of pilgrims gathered around the holm oak of the apparition. AT SAO PEDRO DE MUEL. At a distance of about twenty-five miles from Fatima, while he was on the veranda of his summer home next to the ocean, at Sao Pedro de Muel, the poet Alfonso Lopes Vieira was suddenly surprised by a most unusual spectacle: «On that day, October 13, 1917, without remembering the predictions of the children, I was enchanted by a remarkable spectacle in the sky of a kind I had never seen before. I saw it from this veranda.» All his relatives witnessed it with him. 650THE VILLAGE OF ALBURITEL. In the village of Alburitel, the whole population enjoyed the vision of the solar prodigy. The testimony most often cited is that of Father Inacio Lourenço, because it is the most detailed. But all the good villagers, when questioned by the historians, confirmed that they saw the same things he saw, and in exactly the same manner. «I was only nine years old at this time, and I went to the local village school (about 12 miles from Fatima)… «At about midday we were surprised by the shouts and cries of some men and women who were passing in the street in front of the school. The teacher, a good, pious woman, though nervous and impressionable, was the first to run into the road, with the children after her. Outside, the people were shouting and weeping and pointing to the sun, ignoring the questions of the schoolmistress. «It was the great miracle, which one could see quite distinctly from the top of the hill where my village was situated... «I feel incapable of describing what I saw and felt. I looked fixedly at the sun, which seemed pale and did not hurt the eyes. Looking like a ball of snow revolving upon itself, it suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. «During those long moments of the solar prodigy, objects around us turned all the colours of the rainbow...» 651When interrogated by successive investigators, numerous other witnesses gave a similar version: the teacher herself, Delfina Pereira Lopes, her daughter Myriam, who became Sister Maria do Carmo, Father Joaquim Lourenço (the brother of Father Inacio), etc. Even more so than for the Cova da Iria, it was a simple matter for any historian to take down their witness on the pot, and verify with precision the accounts which had been published. UNQUESTIONABLE HISTORICAL FACTSThese are the facts, which were seen and felt by over fifty thousand witnesses, all of whom watched the same spectacle. To a rationalist friend, profoundly troubled by the stupefying phenomena he had observed at the Cova da Iria and trying to find out what his innermost convictions were, Avelino de Almeida replied frankly: «Assuredly, our eyes and our ears could not have seen and heard different things.» 652It is important to stress that, regardless of what interpretation is put on it, the solar prodigy of Fatima is an unquestionable fact, a solidly established historical event. It is more solidly established than the mass of facts firmly maintained by history, that it would never occur to anybody to suspect. For it must be said that the historical events equally well attested by such a host of witnesses are exceedingly rare! What remains now is to try to propose an adequate explanation for these phenomena, the like of which have never been found in all the annals of history. But this belongs to another order and other disciplines. Once history has established the reality of the facts, it is for science to propose solutions. «All the phenomena which I have described (writes Dr. Almeida Garrett), were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind and without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, either before or after October 13, have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena.» 653 Avelino de Almeida notes for his part, after pointing out the unanimity of the witnesses: «It is no less certain that rare are those who remain insensible to the greatness of such a spectacle, which is certainly unique, and in every respect worthy of meditation and study...» 654 II. SCIENCE: AN UNQUESTIONABLE MIRACLE
Since it is a question of cosmic or atmospheric phenomena, would the natural sciences have some explanations to propose? Can the disturbing events observed at the Cova da Iria be explained by the ordinary laws of astronomy or meteorology?
I. THE NATURAL SCIENCES: AN EXTRAORDINARY PHENOMENON
THE OPINION OF AN ASTRONOMER. «What should we think of the cosmic phenomena that thousands of people say they saw at Fatima?» Such is the question the paper O Seculo posed for the director of the Observatory of Lisbon, Mr. Frederick Oom. «The illustrious astronomer had the kindness to give us the following response», we read in O Seculo on October 18: «“Had it been a cosmic phenomenon, the observatories would not have failed to register it. And this is precisely what is lacking, this inevitable notation of all disturbance in the solar system, however small. Since then...”» 655Let us save for later the end of our quotation, which no longer falls within the scope of a competent opinion of a scientist. Moreover, there was hardly any need to consult the Faculty to realize that the sun had not really budged, and that nothing had been disturbed in its regular movement of rotation and revolution! If it had really approached the earth, as thousands of spectators had the terrifying impression it did, it would have been the end of the world and our planet would have disappeared instantly in the great conflagration announced by St. Peter for the day of the final Parousia: «In that day, the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.» (2 Pet. 3:10) In this sense, the verdict of the astronomer is incontestable: the solar prodigy of Fatima does not belong to his discipline. A METEOROLOGICAL EXPLANATION. Was it then a simple atmospheric phenomenon, in conformity with the natural interplay of meteorological laws? No again! For never has any phenomenon been observed even remotely comparable to what happened at the Cova da Iria. How can it be maintained that this «thin, subtle and bluish column of smoke», which went up three times in a row in front of the holm oak before completely disappearing, was a simple natural phenomenon? As for any hypothesis based on fraud, it is practically untenable, given the attentive presence of a crowd of witnesses, many of whom had been present on the spot of the apparitions since the night before. And then especially, how could we reduce to ordinary phenomena the simple fact that the crowd could stare at the sun for ten minutes without any protection while the sun itself, according to the unanimous word of the witnesses, appeared in a perfectly clear sky, where the clouds had disappeared and there was no fog? The photographs are the proof of it: we find hardly anybody protecting their eyes with their hands. They look at the sun, in an ecstasy. And finally, how can we explain by the laws of meteorology the incredible spectacle of the threefold dance of the sun in broad daylight, projecting streams of light of all the colours of the rainbow on everything, then whirling upon itself like a wheel of fire before descending in a zigzag towards the earth, threatening to crush it with its fiery mass? Has any plausible natural explanation been proposed for this unheard of spectacle? No, not ever. At least, not one that explains all the facts. For it is easy to explain a fact by totally distorting it, reconstructing events at will, without taking reality into account. The conclusion can be stated in a single sentence. And to contest it rationally, one would have to be able to contribute facts, arguments and solid hypotheses to the dossier: The solar prodigy of Fatima cannot be explained by the simple interplay of natural forces, and the laws regulating their natural course are ill-suited to account for it. Does this mean that the natural sciences cannot study this event and that the phenomenon necessarily and entirely eludes their grasp? This is not certain. And at the end of our investigation we will see how important a role remains for them in any event. But we must not get ahead of ourselves... II. PSYCHOLOGY: AN OBJECTIVE PHENOMENON
Let us go on with the “scientific” article from O Seculo. Our astronomer, observing that the solar phenomenon of Fatima was «completely foreign to the branch of science he practiced», could not content himself with stopping at this completely negative response: «So», the journalist replied, «was it a phenomenon of a psychological nature?» The astronomer answered, «Why not? No doubt it was the effect of a collective suggestion.» 656A PERSISTENT MYTH: “COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION”. From October 13, 1917 until our own day, “collective hallucination” has been the only solution continually repeated by intellectuals of all persuasions, atheists, agnostics, liberals or modernists. This allows them to reassure themselves, giving the phenomena of Fatima only a distracted or contemptuous attention. The cause has been judged, it is obviously some sort of “collective hallucination”! Hey presto! From André Lorulot to Gerard de Sede, not to mention Father Jacquemet, the learned editor of , the encyclopaedia Catholicism – and we could prolong the list almost indefinitely – they are all on the same wavelength, maintaining the same thesis imperturbably expressed by Henri Fesquet: «Undoubtedly it is some sort of optical illusion, resulting from the psychology of a crowd expecting a miracle.» 657The impressive unanimity in favour of this one hypothesis leads us to seriously pose the question: what is this “collective hallucination” that everybody speaks about... and nobody ever defines? WHAT IS A “COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION”? It is very difficult to get a good idea of what is meant by “collective hallucination”, because the psychology manuals are remarkably quiet on this point. A psychiatrist friend writes to us: «No manual of psychology treats this question in a serious manner.» As a matter of fact, in the monumental treatise on hallucinations by the great specialist, Henry Ey (1543 pages!), 658 not a single chapter deals with this question. On the contrary, the «four directing ideas» which are developed in the course of the work show that the notion of “collective hallucination”, as it is commonly employed (and notably to furnish a natural explanation of the phenomena of Fatima), does not correspond to any genuine scientific fact. To have a hallucination is «to take as objectively true something which does not exist as an object».659 In other words, it is to believe in the objective existence of purely imaginary beings. The author demonstrates that this disorder does not happen to just anybody, anywhere. Four «directing ideas» are the framework of his thesis: 1. The hallucination cannot be the effect merely «of a neuro-sensorial excitation». 2. «The hallucinatory apparition is not and cannot be merely the projection of an emotion, albeit unconscious... It requires another dimension, that of a defect or breach in the system of reality.» 3. «The hallucination can only appear where there is a “psychic disorganization”, or “disorganization of the psycho-sensorial systems”.» 4. In short, «hallucination is a pathological phenomenon». 660 «Hallucination is always the effect either of troubles in the perceptive functions, or of the destruction of the conscious being.» 661The conclusion is that the hallucinator is always a sick person. If the solar prodigy of Fatima were to be explained by hallucination, it would amount to saying that the fifty or sixty thousand witnesses were all, without exception, mentally ill! But, it will be said, here the “mental contagion” intervenes, by which only one hallucinator can transmit his error to a whole crowd... This is a new and completely gratuitous affirmation, without any scientific foundation. Apart from the case of drug addicts who together absorb the same hallucinogenic drugs, the common notion of “collective hallucination” does not correspond to any experimental reality. Those who use this notion to rid themselves of the disturbing problem posed by Fatima are incapable of citing a single authentic example where such a “collective hallucination” took place, even for a few dozen persons. And yet since Gustave Le Bon, who was the first to propound this nonsense (in 1896!), this thesis continues to be used shamelessly as if, since then, all the solid acquisitions of science had not shown the inanity of his thesis.662 Why such stubbornness in treating such a hoary myth so respectfully? Because it is the one thing that the rationalist in difficulty can always trot out... It is his final recourse, a real anti-miracle panacea! THE SOLAR PRODIGY: “AN ILLUSORY COLLECTIVE VISION”. Such is the solution proposed by Gerard de Sede in 1977. Here are his exact words: «We are familiar enough with the kind of subjective logic obeyed by what we can call the psychology of the witness: first one wishes he had seen, then one believes he has seen, and finally one says that he has seen. In this way, not having witnessed the promised apparition of the Holy Family, many people affirmed in compensation that they saw the sun change its colour and dance, in defiance of the inflexible laws of celestial motion.» 663And that is all! In this alone consists the rationalist explanation of the solar phenomenon of Fatima. It is clear, and simple, but worthless for two reasons. First of all because the psychological law that it formulates is a pure invention: no normal witness lets himself be prompted in this way! And also, because this law, although a complete fabrication, does not even apply to the phenomena it claims to explain. To do so the author is forced to distort the facts, or to miserably ignore them. LONG-DISTANCE WITNESSES. Why, for example, does he not say a word about the village of Alburitel, more than nine miles from Fatima, where the whole population, which was not expecting anything, witnessed at the same moment exactly the same unusual phenomena? THE TESTIMONY OF THE UNBELIEVERS. Moreover, even at Fatima, how can we maintain without a brazen lie that everyone was expecting a miracle or the apparition of the Holy Family? For it is a historical fact that numerous unbelievers were there, and numerous sectarians had come with the express purpose of shouting on the rooftops to everybody that they had seen nothing! Now, even the curious, such as the editor of O Seculo – for that matter, why does G. de Sede not cite his witness? – or the fanatics who passionately desired to see nothing, were obliged to confess that something had taken place. On the evening of the 13th, Avelino de Almeida concluded his article by stressing that «free thinkers and other persons not overly concerned with religious matters» were «naturally impressed» by what they had seen. The typical example of these unbelievers who were shaken in their convictions is the Mayor of Santarem, Antonio de Bastos, who was so troubled that he wrote to his friend Avelino de Almeida to learn his innermost thoughts on the matter. The journalist answered him by his article in the Illustraçao Portuguesa. We could easily quote the witness of Mario Godinho, this young engineer who was totally incredulous, and shaken up by the event; and for that matter, here is the testimony of the Baron of Alvaiazere, which is very indicative of the mentality of the majority of learned people at that time: «Having come to Fatima, purely for a diversion (he declared before the commission of inquiry), considering everything I had heard on the apparitions to be just a joke, I met several friends there. I began making comments on the events in an ironic tone to the point where I antagonized several of them who thought otherwise. «I was prepared to keep an open mind, regardless of what happened. I recalled this principle of Gustave Le Bon, which says that the individual influenced by a group cannot escape the hypnotic current that dominates it. And I took precautions not to let myself be influenced. In this state of mind, I witnessed the solar phenomenon.» He finishes his account by declaring: «I only know that I shouted: “I believe! I believe! I believe!” and that tears fell from my eyes. I was in a state of wonder, in ecstasy before this manifestation of the Divine Power.» 664As for the testimony of the national Education Minister, Antonio Sergio, quoted by G. de Sede, here it is: «When the sun appeared, there were light clouds that gathered around it and which, under the effect of the storm, were driven by gyratory movements that had nothing astonishing about them.» 665The storm? No other witness mentions it. But if the minister saw clouds “driven by gyratory movements”, that is hardly a banal phenomenon! As for explaining the whole phenomenon by the presence of “clouds gathered around the sun”, that would be affirming a phenomenon still more marvellous than the one related by the 70,000 normal witnesses! The sun would have had to descend very low indeed for the clouds to be able to be hooked around it in this way! In short, our witness, blinded by his passion, pathetically begins talking nonsense and his clumsy explanations betray him. He saw everything like the others, but his principles and his function do not allow him to admit it. THE BELIEVERS ARE CREDIBLE WITNESSES. There is more. If by preference we invoke the statements of the sceptics as ad hominem arguments, it is very doubtful that their testimony is more credible than that of the believers. The best proof that the immense capacity for autosuggestion attributed to them is a pure invention, is found in the fact that on September 13, Ti Marto himself or his spouse Olimpia, Maria Rosa or Carlos Mendes, Father Formigao or Father da Silva, etc, declared that they saw nothing, while the enthusiastic crowd around them described what it had seen! A MIRACLE THAT WAS WAITED FOR, BUT UNFORESEEN AND UNFORESEEABLE. Let us recall finally that, although the faithful knew in advance the moment of the miracle, none of them could have guessed what its nature would be. Instead they envisioned a sudden end to the war, or an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Herself.666 What is certain is that none of the 70,000 witnesses could have imagined in advance the stupefying dance of the sun that everybody witnessed. CONCLUSION: AN OBJECTIVE, LUMINOUS PHENOMENON. The conclusion is firm, unquestionable: the solar prodigy of Fatima cannot be accounted for by any psychological explanation without a total blindness or flagrant bad faith. In no case can it be a question of subjective phantasms, imagined simultaneously by 70,000 witnesses, all of whom were the victims of illusion, autosuggestion, or hallucination! To affirm that is senseless and simply absurd. It is reasonable to think that it was a concrete reality, a luminous atmospheric phenomenon which was perfectly objective, that was noticed by all 667 and came normally into the course of their ordinary perceptions. What then can the explanation be, what could have been the cause? Psychology cannot tell us any more than the natural sciences. They must give way to the highest rational science, which goes back to the creative First Cause...
III. METAPHYSICAL REASONING: THE WORK OF PROVIDENCE
If the extraordinary, supernatural character of the solar prodigy reasonably implies the intervention of the creative Cause, another very simple fact, which is independent of the first one, demonstrates it luminously and in all certitude: the solar prodigy was announced three months in advance by the three little shepherds of Aljustrel, while humanly speaking it could not have been foreseen. THE PROPHECY OF THE EVENT. Indeed since July 13, the seers had announced that Our Lady had promised: «In October, I will work a miracle so that all may see and believe.» She repeated it on August 19 and September 13. This prophecy is also a certain historical fact. Now, another indisputable fact is that all the atmospheric phenomena of October 13 unfolded in close connection with the apparition: it is above the holm oak that the mysterious cloud appeared. It is at an hour announced in advance that the rain suddenly stopped falling. «The rain stopped as if by magic», 668 a witness wrote. And finally, it was at the precise moment when Lucy, turning around, shouted to the crowd, «Look at the sun!» that the sun became abnormally visible, whirled upon itself, and danced, before appearing to be about to crush the earth by its frightening fall. This exact, perfect coincidence between the words of the little seer and the reality of the grandiose physical phenomena, observed by the whole crowd, demands an explanation. G. de Sede, not being able to supply one, preferred... to omit the prophecy in his account of the apparition of July 13! 669 What an admission! The only rational response, which common sense also spontaneously finds, and which the highest metaphysical wisdom affirms with certitude, is however easy: it is the same sovereign Intelligence, the same all-powerful Spirit that worked the marvellous prodigy and announced it three months in advance to the humble shepherds. To affirm it is no longer making an act of faith, it is giving the only explanation of the event that is fully rational, and really scientific. Never has anybody been able – or will be able! – to propose another. For regardless of whatever wonderful progress they may make in the future, the natural sciences will never be able to explain... a prophecy. “That belongs to another order”, as Pascal might have said. 670
IV. THEOLOGY: A STRIKING MIRACLE
As for the discernment of spirits – for God sometimes permits the evil Spirit to work prodigies – this is a task of theological science. Is it God or the Devil that is manifesting himself by extraordinary phenomena? Theology must decide the question. In the case of Fatima the conclusion is easy! For in all the circumstances surrounding the extraordinary events at the Cova da Iria, none appears contrary to the doctrine of the Church, or its morals, or is otherwise unfitting. On the contrary... The calm, the exemplary piety, the courage of this innumerable crowd, its perfect order, won the admiration of the journalists.671 A MIRACLE GUARANTEED BY THE CHURCH. Henri Fesquet, blindly repeating the article of Father Jacquemet, writes perfidiously: «The Church refused to decide in favour of the solar prodigy which is claimed to have taken place on October 13... (sic) Let us note that the Bishop of Leiria discreetly ignored this part of the events of Fatima.» 672This is false! But neither Henri Fesquet nor Father Jacquemet took the trouble to read the letter A Divina Providencia of October 13, 1930, which proclaimed the Church’s recognition of the authenticity of the Fatima apparitions. Although there is no mention of the solar prodigy in the few lines of the canonical formula where the Bishop of Leiria «declares the visions of the children worthy of belief» and «officially authorizes the cult of Our Lady of Fatima», in the same letter Bishop da Silva explicitly mentions the solar prodigy and affirms its miraculous character very clearly: «The solar phenomenon of October 13 was the most marvellous of all, and made the greatest impression on all those who had the good fortune to witness it... And this crowd witnessed all the manifestations of the sun which paid homage to the Queen of Heaven and earth. This solar phenomenon... which was not natural, etc.» 673By the voice of the Bishop of Leiria, the authority of the Church solemnly confirmed the unanimous sentiment of the Portuguese people, formulated by the multitude at the very moment of the prodigy: «Miracle! Miracle!... Marvel! Marvel!»
[V.] FAITH: «A SPECTACULAR SIGN»
«We have seen the Sign of God! We have seen the Sign of God!» exclaimed the enthusiastic pilgrims, spontaneously using the most exact biblical term, which also evokes the mysterious prophecy of the Apocalypse: « Signum magnum apparuit in coelo... A great sign appeared in Heaven!» 674 (Apoc. 12:1) What was the meaning of the prodigious miracle? All recognized it, even at that very moment, as a marvellous manifestation of God the Creator, a visible proof of His existence and greatness.
I. THE SIGN OF GOD: TRIUMPH OF THE FAITH
“THE HEAVENS PROCLAIM THE GLORY OF GOD”. The miracle was a dazzling spectacle of radiant beauty. The description given by Madalena de Martel Patricio, a journalist, witnesses to it eloquently: «A cry went up from every mouth. Thousands of God’s creatures, transported by faith to Heaven, fell on their knees on the sodden ground... «The light turned a beautiful blue as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands. The blue faded slowly and then the light seemed to pass through yellow glass. «People wept and prayed with uncovered heads in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they.»675 Another witness recalled simply: «I was very happy, because it was very beautiful.» 676“GOD IS GREAT!” «“What did you think at the moment of the miracle?” Ti Marto was asked. “What did I think? That it was the power of God!” “And now, what do you think?” “I think the same thing: how God is great!”» 677 The Sign expected and observed by all was before all else this striking manifestation of the Divine Omnipotence: God allowed a glimpse of His Glory to be seen, showing that He is the Creator of the cosmos and its Sovereign Lord. At that moment, there was nothing more to be done than to kneel in the mud, join one’s hands, and adore His Majesty. This is what almost all the pilgrims did spontaneously. But not all. And history relates to us the movements of just indignation and scandal of some zealous witnesses, confronted with the stupid or proud inertia of some rebellious souls: «Perched on the steps of the Torres Novas bus, an old man... with a gentle and energetic face, recites the Credo in a loud voice, turned towards the sun... Then I saw him address those around him who left their hats on. He vehemently requested that they take their hats off before such an extraordinary demonstration of the existence of God. «Identical scenes took place in other places. A lady cried out in tears, as if suffocated with emotion: “What a pity! There are still men who do not uncover themselves before such a stupefying spectacle!”» 678 Another witness reports: «An old man with a white beard began to attack the atheists aloud and challenged them to say whether or not something supernatural had occurred.» 679Here is a proof that even the most striking miracle cannot by itself compel a soul to have faith. There must be a movement of the heart responding to the gift of grace, and the will of man – what a terrible mystery! – remains always free to refuse it. However, at the sight of the miracle, many were converted, and left us moving accounts of it. In any case, the incredulous, even according to the editor of O Seculo, left the Cova da Iria very shaken in their unbelief. THE JOY “OF THE TRIUMPHANT”. As for the good faithful people, they left Fatima filled with joy, having received an immense strengthening of their faith from seeing the Sign of God. Scorned and persecuted by a minority of sectarians, atheists and fanatics, they saw the solar miracle as a wonderful response of God and the Madonna in their favour. Let us quote once more the report of O Seculo, which is very instructive. «The crowd dispersed rapidly and without any incidents, without any disorders or the need for the police patrol to intervene. The first pilgrims to leave are those who arrived first, with their shoes on top of their heads or hanging from their sticks. Their souls full of joy, they go to spread the good news in the villages where there are still some people left who did not come here. «And the priests? Some of them had shown up on site, mixing with the curious spectators rather than with the pilgrims avidly desirous of heavenly favours. Perhaps one or two of them could not conceal the satisfaction that appears so often on the faces of those who are triumphant...» 680Yes indeed! – why deny it? – the miracle of Fatima was a triumph for the faith! The triumph of God and the triumph of Mary Immaculate, His Mother! «After the miracle», says Professor Ferreira Borges, «the crowd retired chanting the Salve Regina, in profound recollection and perfect order. I recognized some fierce sectarians, looking silent and meditative...» 681 For them the event was the most pressing, the most convincing call to conversion. UNBELIEF CONFOUNDED. Parroting Voltaire, Renan wrote: «Miracles do not take place where they ought to... A miracle in Paris, before so many of the learned, would put an end to so many doubts! But alas, that never happens. No miracle ever took place before those who could discuss and make critical judgments on it.» 682Well, yes there has! At Fatima, God seems to have willed to give a striking response to the challenge of His deniers: three months in advance, He made known the place, day and hour of the miracle. All «the competent experts» could be there, and afterwards they could «discuss and make critical judgments on the miracle». Those who were present were quite careful to avoid this. As for those who were not present, we must read their articles in the Portuguese press of the time, to see the pathetic disarray they were in. In the Diario de Noticias of October 15, the facts are objectively recognized, but to prevent the reader from concluding in favour of the miracle, the author repeats the magic word «suggestion», without any other clarification or explanation! A Capital demanded a search for «the practical joker who fabricated this atrocious stunt.» Finally, all the heralds of “free thought” were reduced to a few variants on just one theme: the sun could not have infringed on the untouchable laws of astronomy! For lack of a better argument, they contented themselves with such satires as the following: «What really makes us swoon is that the sun, such a respectable star... also took part in the feast and began dancing.. . in spite of its considerable age of thousands of centuries...» 683 etc, etc. «In intellectual circles», writes Barthas, «the controversy was settled by an article by Antonio Sardinha, chief of the “integralist” movement who not long before had converted from impiety to faith, writing in the royalist journal A Monarquia.» In an article entitled “ O Milagre de Fatima” (November 8), he lambasts the mediocrity of the arguments against the supernatural, showing the intellectual poverty of the freethinkers, and the “fossilism” of their ideas. Nobody responded to this attack; «the frogs of the freethinking press stopped croaking», said Costa Brochado. 684 And since that time? Nothing! At least, nothing serious, nothing intelligent, nothing which might have added some serious argument to the stale old masonic refrains of 1917. A MIRACLE FOR OUR TIMES. Like the miracle of Lourdes, like the Holy Shroud of Turin, 685 the solar prodigy of Fatima marks an intervention of God in history, which is open to the investigation of science. It also remains to this day a striking proof in favour of the Catholic faith. To be sure, our faith had no need of such signs, being solidly founded on other grounds. But since innumerable minds, influenced by the Kantian critique which is as arbitrary as it is destructive, had become incapable of reading the creative action of God in the great book of nature, unable to recognize in each bit of progress by science a new proof of the sovereign intelligence which orders the universe, in His great mercy God decided to intervene in an extraordinary manner in our history, in such a way that His action, being directly visible and tangible, could be observed scientifically. The solar prodigy of Fatima is a miracle for our time. But it is also a message: it is for the sake of Mary, His Immaculate Mother, that God worked this unheard of, incomparable prodigy. « Fecit mihi magna qui potens est... He who is mighty has done great things for me!» (Lk. 1:49) Yes, at Fatima it is through Her and for Her that the Most High and Almighty Lord «showed the power of His arm», and manifested His Glory. Such is indeed the first purpose of the Miracle...
II. THE SIGN OF MARY: PROOF OF HER APPARITIONS, GUARANTEE OF HER MESSAGE
«In October I will work a miracle», Our Lady had sovereignly declared on July 13. And on October 13, it was at Her efficacious gesture that the wonderful “dance of the sun” began: «Opening Her hands», the seer relates, «She made them reflect on the sun, and, as She went up, the reflection of Her own light continued to project itself on the sun.» Thus it was She who promised this striking miracle, which is incontestably the work of the Divine Omnipotence. She announced it three months in advance, and at Her gesture it took place. In other words, the spectacular sign is indissolubly linked with Her apparitions, Her words, and Her message. It is the response of the Queen of Heaven to the insistent request of the humble shepherdess: «I would like to ask You to tell us who You are, and to work a miracle so that all may believe that You are appearing.» The response surpasses all expectation, for it has such a magnitude and splendour that nobody would have dared to imagine the like. Since then, all doubt is excluded: Yes, it is indeed the Immaculate Virgin who on each month since May 13, came down from Heaven to speak with the three little shepherds, and pass on Her message to them. This miracle, the grand finale of the cycle of the six apparitions, is henceforth the indisputable proof of their authenticity. It is also the divine guarantee that Her words were faithfully passed on by the seers chosen by Her. For God is truthful in all His works, and He could not work a prodigy which would risk leading His faithful creatures into error. The great Solar Miracle thus appears to us as the visible, tangible, incontestable seal that God willed to place on the apparitions of Fatima, on the prophecies, promises and terrible warnings that His Immaculate Mother came to reveal at the Cova da Iria. The solar prodigy is the incontestable proof, and perhaps something more...
III. FROM THE GREAT MIRACLE TO THE GREAT SECRET
Is not the «dance of the sun» also the sensible sign, the symbol of the two great themes of the secret between which the whole drama of our century is unfolding? THE SIGN OF THE COMING CHASTISEMENT: A CALL TO CONVERSION. Even before the mysterious nocturnal aurora of January 25, 1938, is not the solar prodigy of October 13 already in a veiled manner «the great sign» given by God «that He is about to punish the world for its crimes», as Our Lady said in Her great secret? In any case, it certainly had the appearance of a terrible chastisement hurled by God on sinful humanity, to persuade it to be converted. A few moments earlier, Our Lady had demanded sorrowfully: «Men must amend their lives! They must ask pardon for their sins, they must not offend Our Lord God any more, for He is already too much offended!» Even before the pilgrims knew about these words, the “Sign of Heaven” made them understand its meaning, for it spoke to them in such a clear and expressive language. A SALUTARY FEAR. Indeed it was a terrible moment when the sun appeared to be about to fall upon the crowd: «They cried out: “Oh, Jesus, we shall all be killed! Oh, Jesus, we shall all be killed!” Others called on Our Lady to save them and recited acts of contrition.» 686 Father John Gomes Menitra told John Haffert: «When I saw the sun fall on us, I shouted: “We are going to die!”... I knelt on the pebbles, joined my hands, and asked pardon of the Lord for all my sins.» 687AN IMAGE OF THE END OF THE WORLD. At Alburitel, the terror of the crowd was none the lesser. Here is the testimony of Father Inacio Lourenço: «The sun suddenly seemed to come down in a zigzag, menacing the earth. Terrified, I ran and hid myself among the people, who were weeping and expecting the end of the world at any moment. «Near us was an unbeliever who had spent the morning mocking at the simpletons who had gone off to Fatima just to see an ordinary girl. He now seemed to be paralyzed, his eyes fixed on the sun. Afterwards he trembled from head to foot, and lifting up his arms fell on his knees in the mud, crying out to Our Lady. «Meanwhile the people continued to cry out and to weep, asking God to pardon their sins... We all ran to the two chapels in the village, which were soon filled to overflowing.» 688Many people at the Cova da Iria as well as Alburitel believed that it was the end of the world. «I was not afraid, but I thought that the world was going to end», declared José d’Assunçao. 689Is not the solar prodigy of October 13 one of the signs announcing the parousia (the Second Coming of Christ), prophesied by Our Lord in His great eschatological discourse? «There will be signs in the sun, the moon and the stars... The powers of Heaven will be shaken.» (Lk. 21:25.) The resemblance is striking. The events of Fatima, with their grandiose character, unprecedented in the whole history of humanity, undoubtedly have an eschatological dimension which little by little we will be able to see. Although the solar prodigy perhaps marked the dawn of the “last times”, the solar prodigy was not the sign of an imminent end of the world. For it also evokes the other major theme of the secret, the revelation of the great design of God for our times, by the mediation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. THE SIGN OF MERCY. «When the people realized that the danger was over», says Father Lourenço, «there was an explosion of joy and everyone joined in thanksgiving and praise to Our Lady...» 690 And Mario Godinho adds: «From these thousands of mouths I heard shouts of joy and love for the Most Holy Virgin. And then I believed. I was certain that I had not been the victim of an illusion. I had seen the sun as I will never see it again.» 691No, it was not the end of the world! The miracle graciously promised by the Mother of Mercy would not end in a frightful cataclysm. With a great supernatural wisdom, Ti Marto declared to Father Messias Dias Coelho: «No, I was not the slightest bit afraid. God was not going to destroy the world that way!»692 Instead of the dreaded chastisement, the pilgrims had the happy surprise of finding themselves perfectly dry, and during this last apparition of Our Lady there were even two miraculous healings. 693“BLESSED VISION OF PEACE”. Far from coming for judgment or chastisement, Our Lady had announced as early as August 19 and September 13 that in October «Saint Joseph will come with the Child Jesus to give peace to the world, and Our Lord will give His blessing to the people.» On this frightened crowd which asked for grace and begged for pardon, the Holy Family poured out its blessings from the heights of Heaven. Terrible chastisements threaten us, to be sure! But God has a great design of Mercy: «He wishes to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.»
IV. A SIGN OF HOPE: THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY, SALVATION OF THE WORLD
« Signum magnum apparuit in coelo, Mulier amicta sole... A great sign appeared in Heaven, a woman clothed with the sun...» (Apoc. 12:1) This sign of the Apocalypse is a great sign of hope. Was it not fulfilled at Fatima on October 13, 1917, when the Immaculate Virgin appeared in the sky, «more brilliant than the sun»? It is a vision of hope, and a pledge of imminent victory. Like the mustard seed in the Gospel, in 1917 the mystery of Fatima had only begun. For Our Lady had promised to return to take our history into Her hands, to remind us of the chastisements which threaten us, to renew Her requests, and announce with assurance Her final Victory. The unheard of prodigy of the “dance of the sun’’ is the pledge of Her all-powerful mediation. Yes, Her words will be fulfilled: «In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, it will be converted and a certain period of peace will be given to the world.» How can we hasten this Hour of the Universal Reign of the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary? By applying ourselves now to «making known and loved» these blessed and unique Hearts of Jesus and Mary, our final salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 7, 2020 11:56:36 GMT
APPENDIX I - THE MYTH OF COLLECTIVE HALLUCINATION
In reading the historical article on the question, presented by H.F. Ellenberger in an authoritative work, 694 we learn that the principal source of the myth of collective hallucination, which is still frequently admitted as though it were a scientific truth, is the work of Gustave Le Bon, The Psychology of the Crowd, published in 1896. It is interesting and even amusing to refer to it. This work, written in a lively style in which gratuitous assertions and gross sophisms follow each other almost uninterruptedly, enjoyed an immense success. On every page Le Bon affirms the erroneous thesis that as soon as people come together, they completely lose the use of their reason, become incapable of observation and their statements lose all credibility. If we are to believe him, collective hallucinations are habitual, quite common: «The observations made by crowds simply represent the illusion of an individual who, by way of contagion, has planted a suggestion in others.» 695 «The most questionable events are certainly those which have been observed by the greatest number of people.» etc. Now in these ten pages, which are the privileged source of the myth of collective hallucination, G. Le Bon has found only one example which has the appearance of being convincing. The example has become a classic... for good reason: that it is the only one that exists. Here it is: THE SAILORS OF THE “BELLE-POULE”«The frigate la Belle-Poule was cruising at sea, looking for the warship le Berceau, from which it had been separated by a violent storm. It was broad daylight, under a bright sun. Suddenly the lookout signals that a small craft is in distress. The crew looked over to the point spotted out and everybody, both officers and sailors, clearly perceives a raft full of people, towed by some small boats with distress signals on them. However it was only a collective hallucination. «Admiral Desfosses equipped a small boat to assist the castaways. As they approached, the sailors and officers saw “a crowd of men waving, extending their hands, and they heard the dull and confused noise of a great number of voices.” «When the small boat arrived, they found only some branches covered with leaves. Before such palpable evidence, the hallucination vanished. «In this example we see very clearly the mechanism of collective hallucination in action, just as we have described it.» 696 FROM MYTH TO AUTHENTIC HISTORY Analyzing this example, Ellenberger has no difficulty showing that in no way does it confirm Le Bon’s thesis. Indeed the latter was careful to cleverly isolate the fact reported from its whole context, which makes it perfectly understandable. 1. The crew, which was afflicted with malaria, was in a state of great physical exhaustion. 2. The sailors feared that the warship, which had disappeared after a hurricane, had sunk, leaving three hundred victims. 3. For a whole month while the search was going on, the crew was in a state of anxiety, and the thought of those who had disappeared had become a veritable obsession with them. 4. The warm air was stirring on the horizon, and the sea currents were carrying “a mass of large trees” (not “a few branches”!). 5. The sailor on the lookout, in the face of intense illumination, perceived objects whose nature he could not distinguish, and cried out: «Disabled craft in sight!» And this was the point of departure of the illusion, which was easily understandable, and gradually spread to the whole crew. We should speak rather of a “mirage”, or if the term “collective hallucination” must be retained, its nature should be specified more clearly, and the definite causes that provoked it must be pointed out: «physical exhaustion, mental depression, a dominant preoccupation which over the course of a month had become an obsession, and finally the sensorial factors which favoured the creation of an illusion.» 697We could even go further and ask if it was a true hallucination in the strict sense. Was it not merely an illusion placing an imaginary interpretation on a real perception? This occurs frequently but has nothing to do with “collective hallucination”, according to Le Bon. 698In a word, true hallucination always appears as a pathological factor, which takes place only in subjects afflicted in some way by a grave disturbance, be it physical, nervous or psychic. Thus, it is sheer fantasy and an absurdity to pretend to explain the solar prodigy of Fatima by any kind of “collective hallucination”. The only solution which adequately explains all the facts is to recognize the miracle.
APPENDIX II - HYPOTHESES ON THE NATURE OF THE SOLAR MIRACLE
«SCIENCE WILL EXPLAIN»
First of all let us mention a frequent objection: Granted, it is said, in the actual state of our knowledge, the atmospheric prodigies observed at Fatima are inexplicable, going only by the interplay of natural laws. But why not believe that in the future, new progress in our knowledge of nature will allow us to explain it? The answer is simple. In the discovery of natural causes and effects science continues to make progress. But a miracle is not just a mysterious, inexplicable phenomenon. It corresponds to the will of a man, and takes place at his word: science will never have any new contribution on the multiplication of the loaves or the resurrection of Lazarus, which took place at the words of Jesus. The same is true of the miracle of Fatima, which only took place at the precise moment when the seer shouted: «Look at the sun!» With this intervention of the messenger of God, who acts in His name and fortified with His power, we are outside the interplay of natural causes and effects. A MINIMIZING HYPOTHESISA Portuguese doctor, Diogo Pacheco de Amorim, once believed it was possible to maintain that perhaps the solar miracle consisted only in the fact that it had been announced three months in advance. All other aspects of the prodigy, he claimed, could be explained naturally. 699Without even discussing his arguments, we can say that his thesis is incoherent: indeed how can it be maintained that there was a true prophecy of an atmospheric event, and that the whole miracle consists precisely in the prophecy alone, while in the very words which announce it the Virgin is supposed to have been mistaken! For She did not say: «There will be a sign in the sky»; She said: «In October, I will work a miracle.» This alone is enough to prove that the hypothesis is untenable. A SUPERNATURAL PERCEPTION?Was the vision of the solar prodigy a sort of participation by the crowd in the supernatural vision of the three children? That is possible, and in this case the dance of the sun is of the same nature as all the atmospheric signs observed in previous months, 700 with this difference: on October 13, as Our Lady had promised, all the pilgrims received the privilege, the grace, of contemplating the prodigy. THE NATURAL PERCEPTION OF A LUMINOUS PHENOMENON OF MIRACULOUS ORIGIN?Another hypothesis seems equally plausible: that the luminous phenomena were produced miraculously by God, but were naturally visible to all according to the ordinary laws of perception, without any need for a special favour from God. In short, in this case it would be a perception as natural as that of a rainbow or an eclipse. The miracle then is spectacular, cosmic, atmospheric. What might its nature be? A scientific hypothesis has been proposed by G. Cordonnier, a specialist in optics 701. We submit it to the judgment of our reader: «Everyone knows the effect of a prism when placed in the path of a beam of white light. For one thing, the beam of light “bends”, and it breaks into various colours of the rainbow; the beams of the various wavelengths bend at a different angle. If one looks at a lamp through a prism, the lamp seems to suddenly move and take on colours. Instead of a simple prism, let us take two “half-prisms” placed in independently swivelling circular mounts, each operable by one hand. The whole thing will produce a bending of the light somewhere between zero and a certain maximum, and the direction of the bending will also continuously change. The lamp will “dance”, and give off rays of all different colours. «Let us perfect our experimental device still more. Let us mix in a test tube two transparent non-soluble liquids of the same density – like vinegar and oil in a salad dressing – both liquids having very different indices of refraction. Let us look through our test tube at a piece of dark cloth about a yard away, in which has been made a small circular hole about one-third of an inch in diameter, and through which will shine a bright white lamp. This will have the apparent diameter of the sun. When the liquids aren’t moving, we will see a normal “sun”. If we turn the whole thing, one of the liquids will take in the other the appearance of a rapidly spinning nebulous spiral. We must close one eye, because each eye will see a comparable but very different image. Our open eye will see a dancing “sun”, animated by jarring movements, cartwheeling upon itself, and hurling rays and spirals of coloured light, As the eye is moved sideways, it reaches a point where the whirlpool is centred and appears stationary. And so the bending of the “sun” varies suddenly according to whether the beam of light passes through the centre of the whirlpool or not. After some experiments a movie-maker could produce a very valuable film of the Miracle of Fatima on October 13, 1917... «We have said enough to conclude that the “Sign” was produced by the creation of a gigantic “cosmic whirlwind” on the trajectory going from the sun to Fatima. This whirlwind would profoundly change the normal refractional characteristics of space by a sort of “rotational polarization”.... «Seen through this extraordinary “optic instrument”, the sun seemed to “cartwheel upon itself”, to shoot off coloured rays, to tremble, to increase in size, to shine more brightly, to dance and suddenly leap, after two lulls during which the whirlwind was briefly delayed. Like all optical instruments, this whirlwind had a limited area in which its effects could be seen. And the prodigy was visible within a range of thirty miles, where there was no observatory to record it.» These excerpts, although taken from an article and a periodical which are often unreliable, are nevertheless suggestive. Their chief interest is to introduce a scientific rationality in the process of the miracle, and to give us an idea of how the miracle might have worked. However, we should be careful not to exaggerate the importance of a hypothesis which of course remains as disputable as it is incomplete. Let us distinguish the areas and degrees of certitude: the highly relative character of a hypothesis on the “how’’ of the prodigy does not negate the absolute certitude of the historical fact and the solid rational basis of the demonstration proving the miracle! The question of the “how” of the miracle is entirely secondary. Whichever hypothesis we adopt, it does not detract from the spectacular, divine character of the miracle.
DID EVERYBODY SEE IT?Did all the pilgrims present at the Cova da Iria, without exception, see the solar miracle? Such is the question we must now try to resolve. CONTRADICTING TESTIMONIES? «Others», writes Gerard de Sede, «saw nothing at all. This was the case with the parish priest of Penacova, who could not bring himself to believe in the miracle, even during the dance of the sun.» Where did that come from? Gerard de Sede is careful not to indicate the precise source of his information! But here it is: during the canonical process Manuel Antonio de Paula related that the parish priest of Penacova, even though he saw perfectly well «a little cloud, which was fairly dense» above the holm oak, could not be convinced that it was not of smoke. «Even during the dance of the sun, he could not bring himself to believe in the miracle. Seeing the colour red on the clothes of the people, he explained to Mr. de Paula: “They are all wearing red shawls.” The witness charitably corrected him, showing him it was impossible for so many people to be wearing the same colour clothing. Moreover, the ecclesiastical sceptic soon saw the same immense crowd clothed in a golden yellow.» 702So the parish priest of Penacova saw perfectly well the phenomena observed by everybody else! They seemed so objective, so “natural” to him, that he naively refused to believe that there was a miracle! There is another discordant testimony put forward by G. de Sede: that of the lawyer, Pinto Coelho. In the Catholic journal A Ordem, he plays the devil’s advocate and claimed that there was no miracle. Yet it is certain that our lawyer saw the same phenomena as all the other witnesses. He himself admits as much: «The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceedingly fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat.» 703Here is the important fact, which alone concerns us. The explanations advanced by our lawyer are so poor that we need not even examine them: «A collective psychology was established in the crowd, etc.» 704 We have heard that tune before! Finally G. de Sede quotes... the testimony of Lucy, who declared on several occasions: «I myself saw nothing!» Indeed, absorbed by the Vision that she contemplated during this time, contrary to all the other pilgrims, she did not see the solar miracle in all its successive phases. That is easily understandable. And that is all! It is astonishing that G. de Sede was unable to quote a single valid testimony of somebody who clearly affirmed that he saw nothing! “THE CASE” OF IZABEL BRANDAO DE MELO. Yet there is such a case – the only one, as far as we know. It is the case of Izabel Brandao de Melo. On October 31, 1917, in a letter to a Swiss priest, Father Gelase, after having described the prodigy she continued: «This is what was said by those around me, and what thousands of people affirm that they saw. As for myself, I saw nothing! I could indeed look at the sun and I was terribly agitated to hear everybody shouting that there were extraordinary signs in the sky. I believe that I was not found worthy by Our Lord to see these phenomena, but in my soul I had no need to see them to believe in the apparition of the Holy Virgin to the children.»705 In 1950, Father Martindale mentioned “two English ladies” who had not seen anything either. 706 What, exactly, was he referring to? In 1974, it seemed that they had metamorphosized... for the same author then wrote: «We know of two devout Portuguese women who saw nothing at all...» 707The information is vague. Undoubtedly it refers once again to the same Izabel Brandao de Melo, who had decidedly become the star witness! In his article against Fatima, the future Cardinal Journet did not fail to mention her: «I have heard of a very cultured Portuguese lady who, for her greater desolation, saw nothing.» 708Is this one witness enough to be able to say, with Dom Jean-Nesmy: «There are however some discordant voices. Some people saw nothing.» 709? For is it not already surprising that this devout lady affirms: «I was able to stare at the sun.»? Now it was a clear sky. Is not this fact by itself extraordinary and abnormal? She also confesses that she was «terribly agitated...» Father A. Richard writes, and with reason: «If a few persons in this huge crowd claim they saw nothing, that can be explained by the peculiarities and inattention of certain people, and still more by their fear when faced with these unusual phenomena on October 13, to the point where all their powers of sensation were hindered, so that they could not testify to anything – like the victim of an accident who no longer remembers anything. «A few years ago we questioned a Portuguese woman who later became a nun, and who was present at the Cova da Iria on October 13. At that time she was a young woman of nineteen. She could not remember at all “the beautiful colours of the rainbow” which were described by so many witnesses. She had realized only one thing: she was going to die, the world was going to end. Right near her two people had fainted. The terrible anguish that gripped her had kept her from discerning all the rich diversity of the phenomenon.» 710This case is not unique: «My wife – we had been married only a short time – fainted, and I was too upset to attend to her», recalls Alfredo da Silva Santos. «My brother-in-law, Joao Vassallo, supported her on his arm. I fell on my knees oblivious of everything and when I got up I don’t know what I said. I think I began to cry out like the others.» 711A few other discrepancies in details, have been found in various statements of the witnesses. This is completely normal when it is a question of such varied phenomena, whether simultaneous or successive, and moreover such unusual and impressive ones. 712Thus after examining the question we can affirm – at least until solid witnesses to the contrary appear – that everybody present at the Cova da Iria, as well as Alburitel, could see the prodigious solar phenomenon. At the end of his investigation Father de Marchi could write: «Up to the present we have not met a single person among the many we have questioned who has not confirmed the phenomenon.» 713In 1958, Father Richard noticed the same unanimity among all the witnesses he had encountered: «For them, there was no question. They could not even imagine anyone asking the question whether somebody had not seen anything.» The same goes for Alburitel. «Did everybody around you see it?» Canon Lourenço, who was nine years old in 1917, answered this question of Father Richard without hesitation: «I am absolutely sure that everybody saw it.» 714In 1960, John Haffert reached the same conclusion: all those who simply bothered to look saw the great solar sign. In conclusion, it would be astonishing if it had been otherwise. On July 13 Our Lady had promised: «In October, I will work a miracle so that all may see and believe.» The most faithful Virgin kept Her promise.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 8, 2020 22:59:34 GMT
PART TWO: THE CRITICAL STUDY
INTRODUCTION
THE ELEMENTS OF THE PROBLEM
The critical problem on the subject of Fatima is twofold. First of all, as with all other apparitions or extraordinary phenomena, there is the question of the supernatural character of the facts. From this point of view, the apparitions of Fatima in 1917 present quite the same problem as the apparitions of rue du Bac, Lourdes or Pontmain. But Fatima presents an additional difficulty. Father Alonso, the great expert who was officially entrusted with establishing its critical history, expresses it in a few words: «The greatest difficulty that Fatima presents from the historical, critical and literary point of view for whoever studies it seriously is the progressive augmentation of the facts and the message.» 715What a contrast with Lourdes, where the apparitions and the diffusion of the message are narrowly circumscribed in time! The parallel is most striking. The Virgin Mary appeared to Bernadette from February 11, 1858 until July 16 of the same year. The very evening of the first apparition, the seer told her sister Toinette everything, and then told her mother. Two days later, she spoke of it to her confessor, and on February 15 she mentioned it to Sister Damian, at school. She was immediately harassed with questions and interrogated innumerable times. Except for the three secrets which Our Lady had ordered her not to tell anybody, and the prayer Our Lady taught, to be used by Bernadette alone, Bernadette answered questions on everything, with no reservations. Already, in 1858, the message was perfectly well known. Only a few very secondary details were added later on in the six written accounts drawn up by Bernadette between 1861 and 1866. Thus at Lourdes, practically everything became known immediately, and eight years after the apparitions the seer had completely fulfilled her mission as witness. And at Fatima? Precisely the opposite happens! It seems that since 1917 the message has continually grown. There is no end to the accounts of new apparitions or divine communications which Lucy continued to enjoy: in 1925 and 1926, in 1927, 1929, 1939... in 1941, 1943... and here we must stop for lack of further information. However, there is more. From 1935 to 1941, in her Memoirs Sister Lucy reports, even for the apparitions of 1917, certain words of Our Lady and facts which she had kept secret until that time: the first two parts of the great Secret of July 13, 1917 were not revealed until 1942! As for the third part, written down in 1944, it has not yet been divulged. Fatima is far from being over with. It continues. Some, not without some disquiet, say: “There is no end to it!” THE GROWTH OF THE MESSAGE«This very fact, even if it is not proper to Fatima alone, very early on aroused first the interest, and then the reservations of a good many critics», Father Alonso writes. «In this progressive growth of the facts and the message, was there not perhaps introduced, albeit in good faith, some human element, mixing in with the work of God and obscuring it?» 716 There is the whole problem, which became especially acute during the 40’s, after the appearance of works which drew quite generously on the four Memoirs which Sister Lucy had just written. Suspiciously inclined critics certainly had reason to be astonished! THE TWO VERSIONS COMPARED. To understand how much the message grew, it is enough to compare, point by point, the accounts in works appearing before 1938 with works appearing later. For example, The Great Wonders of Fatima by Vicomte de Montelo (alias Canon Formigao), published in 1930, compared with the great work of Father da Fonseca and Canon Barthas, Fatima, Unprecedented Miracle, which appeared in January 1943. What an astonishing contrast! For brevity’s sake, let us compare the little pamphlet of Father Castelbranco, translated into French in 1939, The Unprecedented Miracle of Fatima, 717 with later editions of the same work. In the account of 1939, everything began with «the unexpected apparition» of May 13, 1917, to the three shepherds, Lucy, Jacinta, and Francisco. This is the first notable omission: the apparitions of the angel in 1916, which are now common knowledge, are not mentioned at all. Then comes the account of the six apparitions of Our Lady, from May 13 to October 13. Granted, the description of the apparition is given in detail. The same goes for all the exterior events, the persecutions and follies of all kinds that the children had to endure — nothing is lacking. But what is surprising for well informed readers is the content of the Message of Our Lady. What a contrast with the text published in the 40’s! Even the words of Our Lady are briefer, in two or three places! Here are some significant details: in June, there is no mention of the vision of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, or the prophetic announcement of the special vocation of the three seers. On July 13, it is astonishing not to find even the slightest allusion to the “great secret”! On the interior life, the prayers and heroic sacrifices of the three children, again nothing. In short, the message is reduced to this: Our Lady promises Heaven to Her three confidants, She insistently repeats Her request to recite the Rosary each day to obtain the end of the war, and She announces in July that She will work a great miracle on October 13. After a detailed account of the great miracle of the sun, the author mentions the prodigious development of the pilgrimages, the episcopal approval of 1930, and the marvellous religious and political renewal of Portugal brought on by Fatima. That is all... It seems that the event has no more than a purely national significance. Although accompanied by spectacular signs never witnessed before, the message appears to be no more than a reminder and an echo of Lourdes and Pontmain: “Prayer and penance...” and the war will end. Paradoxically, everything which, since 1942, has been presented as the most important part is not yet present: neither the vision of hell nor the announcement of a Second World War. There are no allusions either to the role of Russia as a veritable scourge of God, or the request for its consecration, or above all, to the revelation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so essential to the message. Such is the surprising fact, proper to Fatima, which poses such a serious problem for the critic. FROM THE FIRST INTERROGATIONS TO THE MEMOIRS OF SISTER LUCY. The origin of this astonishing growth of the message is not mysterious; it has never been hidden from anyone. The first works, from 1921 to 1938-40 (following the information more or less hastily obtained by the authors), were composed following the interrogations of the seers: those of Father Ferreira, parish priest of Fatima, beginning in 1917; those of Canon Formigao, beginning in the same year; in 1924, that of the canonical commission, and finally those of various historians who were able to meet with Lucy (Fischer, Figueiredo). On the other hand, from 1938 on, the Portuguese authors, and later on the foreigners, begin to draw from a new, more abundant source of information, the Memoirs of Sister Lucy, as they began to appear between 1935 and 1941. Only in 1942 was all the new information brought together as a whole, for the benefit of the general public. At the same time that Cardinal Schuster, Archbishop of Milan, published for the first time the principal themes of the secret of July 13, 1917, there appeared at Rome on April 13, 1942, with the imprimatur of Vatican City, the fourth edition of the great work of Father da Fonseca, 718 a Portuguese Jesuit of the Pontifical Biblical Institute of Rome, which reprinted long excerpts from the four Memoirs of Lucy. In May 1942, an Italian priest, Don Luigi Moresco, published a similar work, Madonna di Fatima, with a preface of Cardinal Schuster and Roman approval. Finally, on October of the same year, there appeared at Portugal the third edition of the work Jacinta of Canon Galamba, the only work at that time which dared to publish the exact and integral text of the Secret. The work bore a preface by Cardinal Cerejeira, Archbishop of Lisbon. 719These source books, so brilliantly supported by the highest levels of the hierarchy, enjoyed a prodigious success: there are no less than seven editions of the work of Father da Fonseca in 1942-43. The French public became aware of it in 1943 by the adaptation of the work of Canon Barthas, Fatima, Unprecedented Miracle, and by his magnificent work, It Was Three Small Children, which has since been reprinted many times, and has now been translated into fifteen languages. These works, intended for the general public, multiplied, arousing everywhere fervour and enthusiasm for Our Lady of Fatima. Let us give one reliable figure: in France, under the pontificate of Pius XII, almost one hundred works were written on Fatima! This great movement of faith and devotion launched by the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on October 31, 1942, encouraged and supported by Pius XII, would last... until 1960. OPPOSITION TO FATIMA
The “new message” of Fatima, however, did not gain unanimous support. Far from it! The “new themes” did not please everybody; they provoked a lively reaction on the part of a small minority of theologians. The message of 1917, being purely spiritual, did not disturb them. As one of these theologians, Father Dhanis, would later write: «Our Lady spoke of religious subjects, She recommended praying the Rosary and contrition for our sins...» There could be no objection to that! The message of 1942 had an entirely different tone. It would explode like a bomb: the Blessed Virgin is engaging in politics! It is true that, in 1942, Don Moresco and Father da Fonseca had altered the text of the Secret so as to avoid citing Russia by name. We shall closely study this most unfortunate falsification of the texts, astonishing on the part of men who were undeniably in good faith. Although the Germans thought that they were, in fact, meant by the «impious propaganda» that Our Lady denounced (according to the expression that our Roman authors had substituted for “Russia” in the text of the Secret), the excessively enthusiastic allies of Bolshevism could not be mistaken for long. 720 Since October 13, 1942, Cardinal Schuster had publicly interpreted the text in a clearly anti-communist sense: «When the promise of the Blessed Virgin is fulfilled», he said, «it will be the most beautiful and total victory of the Church over Bolshevism.» In Portugal, the integral text of the Secret had been published, and informed persons had acted quickly to make known its authentic meaning. The Message openly denounced Soviet Russia, and it alone, as the instrument of the chastisement of God for all humanity, because of the errors it would spread throughout the world, the wars and persecutions it would spread everywhere, as long as it was not converted. Here was something infuriating for our theologians who were partisans of the Christian Democrats, and the Resistance: had not the Soviet Union been the spearhead of the “Crusade of the Democracies” against the one and only danger, Nazi Germany and Fascism? The Blessed Virgin was surely mistaken about the enemy... Germany, you see, was not even mentioned in the famous secret... It was very disturbing! Thus, the Blessed Virgin could not have said that. Was not this message, which dangerously intertwined religion and politics, very much open to question? Had not Lucy, the only survivor of the three witnesses, invented all that almost twenty years after the initial events? It was easily insinuated, it was written with a question mark after it, and before long certain people dared to say it openly. In this context the critical problem of Fatima was posed with more violence and passion than ever.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 9, 2020 17:25:31 GMT
CHAPTER I
THE MODERNIST SOLUTION OF FATHER DHANIS
THE SECRET CONTESTED
The cleverest, the most tenacious, and certainly the most effective offensive against Fatima was led, from 1944 on, by a Belgian Jesuit, Father Edouard Dhanis. Professor of theology at Louvain from 1933 to 1949, he then taught at the Gregorian University of Rome, where he was named Rector by Paul VI in 1963. With the passage of time, he appears today, on account of his apparent objectivity and prudent moderation, as the most unyielding and terrible adversary of Fatima. His role was decisive. THE STAGES OF THE CONTROVERSY. He Opened the debate in 1944, with two long articles in Flemish, 721 entitled: On the Apparitions and Predictions of Fatima. At the beginning of 1945, he published these two texts, with only slight alterations, in the form of a book: 722 On the Apparitions and Secret of Fatima: A Critical Contribution. Although expressed with a thousand precautions and apparent prudence, the principal thesis of the work comes out clearly: Yes, the apparitions of the Virgin to the three little shepherds of Aljustrel in 1917 are undoubtedly authentic. This must be conceded, because he does not see how one can conclude otherwise... But as for what was added later on, all that is open to question and more than doubtful! There is nothing to compel us to believe in it, and it is better to stay with the “original version” of the message. An initial response was made in 1946, by Father Jongen, a Dutch Montfort Father who, having had the favour of an audience with Sister Lucy, was already able to provide several interesting corrections. 723 But it was not until 1951 that the best specialist of that time, Father da Fonseca, himself also a Jesuit, refuted point by point the work of his colleague. 724Father Dhanis, promoted in 1949 to professor at the Gregorian University, claimed he had been misunderstood. In an article published this time in French, Concerning “ Fatima and Criticism” 725 he tried to justify himself while accusing his colleague of distorting his thought. The following year, the controversy revived. Father Veloso, S.J., in the same Portuguese review, opposed the too personal and superficial defence of Father Dhanis with the solid arguments of Father da Fonseca: 726 Still Some Confusion and Errors on Fatima. Invited finally by his superiors to put an end to the scandal of an increasingly bitter controversy between various members of the Society, Father Dhanis, to close the debate, published an embarrassed and confused article which sought, by a series of confused circumlocutions, to soothe the ire of his adversaries, while letting his friends know that he had renounced none of his criticisms against Fatima. 727 For we know from a reliable source, from the very mouth of one of his friends, a Jesuit in constant contact with him in Rome, that Father Dhanis never retracted any of his virulent criticisms against Fatima. We shall see later on what an uninterrupted series of promotions he received from the 1960’s onwards before dying in 1978, honoured by all as one of the men in whom Pope Paul VI had the greatest trust. 728 THE ONLY OPPONENTIn any case, Father Dhanis became the obligatory reference, the official cover for all the enemies of Fatima. What a windfall for them! Who would suspect the good faith and orthodoxy of the eminent professor at the Gregorian? While the brilliant refutations of the Fatima historians appeared in the Portuguese review Broteria, and remained in the most complete oblivion, the studies of Father Dhanis had a wide circulation in the intellectual climate of the post-war era. Numerous reviews praising his work were published far and wide. They graciously attributed to the Flemish original, which was not easily accessible, all the authority of a definitive and unanswerable criticism. An article of Cardinal Journet, in his review Nova et Vetera, 729 and repeated the same year in The Spiritual Life, 730 cannot pass unnoticed. Full of irony and violence against Fatima, it would gravely harm the cause of the apparitions. The future Cardinal, a great disciple and friend of Jacques Maritain, was also a friend of Msgr. Montini, who was then under-Secretary of State. Hence the importance of the debate for the future of the Church. AT THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL. From then on, the word was spread within “learned” and progressive circles that the study of Father Dhanis, the only one with any “scientific value”, cast a legitimate suspicion on a whole part of the message. Thus Father Laurentin in 1961: «For Fatima, the attempt at a critical work by Father Dhanis, S.J., has provoked violent reactions (to discourage whoever might be tempted by an effort of the same nature). The intentions of Father Dhanis were loyal, his conclusions were essentially reserved; and as for his method, it was simply the same one that governs historical criticism in every domain, including Holy Scripture. Yet he was still treated as though he had written in an impious spirit.» 731 And Father Laurentin, who like the majority of anti-Fatima progressives, had no doubt read nothing else on the subject besides the one article in the Nouvelle Revue Théologique, docilely parrots what he found there... Did not the negative conclusion of the learned Jesuit Dhanis dispense one from any serious and attentive examination of the documentation on Fatima? 732DURING THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF FATIMA. After working on preparations for the Council, the Belgian Jesuit was named in 1962 consultor of the Holy Office, in 1963 rector of the Gregorian University; in September 1966 he was put in charge of the congress on “the Theology of Vatican II”, and in 1967 the Pope chose him to be “special secretary” of the first Synod of Bishops. At the moment of the great offensive against Fatima caused by the announcement of the pilgrimage of Paul VI on May 13, 1967, the authority of Father Dhanis seems to have increased still more. There is hardly an article which does not cite him without unlimited respect and admiration: the I.C.I., 733 Father Laurentin, 734 Fesquet, 735 and Father Rouquette in the magazine Etudes, from which this excerpt gives a good example of the tone: «It is certainly regrettable that no serious study has been devoted to the events of Fatima, analogous to those of Louis Bassette on La Salette, or Father Laurentin on Lourdes... Only one critical essay has been attempted... it comes from a theologian whose orthodoxy is omni exceptione major (above all suspicion), Father Dhanis, an influential member of the Theological Commission of the Council, and consultor of the Roman Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith...» Apart from the work of Father Dhanis and some articles devoted to him, the abundant literature on Fatima supposedly designed for edification, is so poor that it drew these indignant lines, in 1948, from Cardinal Journet: «We are told there was a “dance” of the sun, a “rain of flowers”, and after that they tell us that “the greatest miracle”, the “miracle of miracles”, is the present flourishing condition of Portugal. For what do you take us, gentlemen? The imprimatur can protect you from heresies, but it cannot save you from foolishness. O great mysterious Virgin of the Gospel of Christmas and the Gospel of the Crucifixion! O great and blessed Theotokos, at once formidable and maternal! Shall Your faithful, in these days when they need You more than ever, have nothing more to breathe than these paper flowers?» 736 What hatred, and what scorn! But let us recall here only the relevant part: the decisive influence of Father Dhanis. Father Rouquette quotes Cardinal Journet, who himself quotes an edition by Otto Karrer of the work of Dhanis... These critics always return there as to a great arsenal, a unique source of all the criticisms directed against Fatima within the bosom of the Church for thirty-five years. In May 1982, in an article on The Secret of Fatima, Father Laurentin again cites Father Dhanis as an authority on the matter. 737 By everyone’s admission then, Father Dhanis is the only Catholic critic seriously opposed to Fatima, or at least to the message in all its integrity. Those who followed him did nothing more than slavishly repeat what he had said, dwelling on his arguments, while more or less adding their own anti-Fatima passion. I. THE THESIS OF FATHER DHANIS
We use the word “thesis” deliberately, in spite of all the disclaimers of the author. For if we read his articles on Fatima, in spite of all the interrogative turns of phrase, the hedged affirmations and the ever convenient shelter of a “simple hypothesis”, it appears that Father Dhanis maintains a thesis, although with great “prudence” (it was still under Pius XII, the “Pope of Fatima”!) but stubbornly and obstinately. Thus we will lay aside all the vain circumlocutions and concentrate only on the real content of this thought, which is perfectly clear in his first article, 738 more and more camouflaged in later studies, but perfectly identical from 1944 to 1953... and thus until his death in 1978, since he never published the least retraction on this point. THE APPARITIONS OF 1917 AND THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN. First of all, Father Dhanis professes to recognize as authentic the apparitions of 1917. He affirms it, without enthusiasm: «The visions of Our Lady which the three little shepherds claim to have had in 1917 indeed seem (sic) to have come from a supernatural intervention.» 739 Likewise, he sees a true miracle in the solar phenomenon of October 13: «This miracle rests on solid testimonies and it is reasonable to see in it a miraculous sign.» 740 This does not prevent him from quibbling over the grave discrepancies he claims to uncover between the various testimonies. The events must, he suggests, have been amplified and unduly enlarged later on. Thus, he takes exception to all statements of the following nature: «In a zigzag motion, the sun criss-crosses the skies, and everybody has the impression that it is about to throw itself down upon the crowd to destroy it.» (Father Jongen) Dhanis thinks that it is affirming too much. Our Jesuit is more subtle: «Be that as it may”, he writes, «we have distinguished on the one hand the phenomenon of the descent of the sun and its going back up in a zigzag, which we have not dared to accept, and on the other hand the phenomenon of the tremors and beginning of the fall, which we have admitted.» 741All this useless quibbling – in which, moreover, he is mistaken due to lack of information – allows him to greatly minimize the importance and consequences of the prodigious miracle: «If we accept as a probable opinion that the miracle of the sun happened almost exactly as we have described it, must it be considered a divine sign, a miracle?» 742 Father Dhanis leans to the affirmative. Yet he concludes in the most curious manner: «The most probable solution is to consider this miracle rather as a sign given to men by a supernatural power.... It is important that this miracle, promised as a confirmation of the divine origin of the apparitions, should really in fact guarantee them. Such a guarantee is useful because it is not clear how the visions of Fatima would of themselves indicate their divine origin. The signs favourable to the apparitions are not decisive (So then, the great miracle of the sun is not sufficient?); in opposition to them one can put forward unfavourable signs not found in recent authors.» (Galamba, Barthas, da Fonseca.) 743 Father Dhanis then presents an almost exhaustive catalogue of all the difficulties raised by the Message of Fatima. FATIMA I AND FATIMA IIHe bases all his objections on the very important fact that we stressed in the introduction: the growth of the message that took place later on. Why did Lucy wait until 1936 to begin speaking of the apparitions of the angel dating from 1916, he asks? 744 Above all, why did the essential theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary appear so late in the history of Fatima? Neither the great work of Formigao, The Wonders of Fatima, nor even the first editions of Father da Fonseca’s book make any allusion to it. «It seems», he concludes, «that this theme is part of what we can call “the new history of Fatima”, which uses recent accounts of Lucy.» 745The thesis of Dhanis is clear: there are in fact two different histories of Fatima, the “old” one which went up to the years 1938-40, and the “new” one, which was written from more recent accounts written by Sister Lucy from 1935 to 1941. We can call these two histories, so different in inspiration, Fatima I for the “old history”, and Fatima II for the “new history”. 746The stakes involved in the debate are obvious, since the new elements concern not only the apparitions of the angel, but above all the very text of the great secret, and all the themes which constitute it. The whole basis of the critical edifice of Father Dhanis, of «the general solution of the problem of Fatima» that he proposes, rests on this dichotomy, henceforth affirmed as certain, between Fatima I and Fatima II. THE MEMOIRS OF SISTER LUCY. To admit such a radical distinction almost necessarily casts a grave suspicion on Fatima II and on its unique source: the Memoirs of Sister Lucy. «These are moving accounts, and charm the reader with the innocence, piety and heroism of these little privileged ones of the Holy Virgin.» 747 He also notes: These accounts have made it possible to write «an intimate history of the little seers, full of freshness and piety». 748 One senses, however, that conviction is absent, or rather one quickly realizes that these are “poisoned” compliments, for Dhanis deliberately denies them any value as historical witnesses: «All things considered, it is not easy to say precisely how much credence can be given to the accounts of Lucy... one may judge it prudent to use her writings only with circumspection.» 749 In other words, they are pious imaginings. Why? THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST FATIMA IIAN IMPOSSIBLE SILENCE. The principal argument advanced by Dhanis, and repeated by his followers, is that so long a silence was impossible for such young children. Dhanis develops this argument in relation to the apparitions of the Angel in 1916, concerning which the children said nothing. The words of Lucy, explaining that the very strong impression of recollection and physical prostration which the apparitions provoked in them moved them very powerfully to silence, does not convince Dhanis. «Is this explanation valid for more than a passing silence? We cannot see how it would make really plausible a silence whose burden the children would carry through the years, which they did not break even when Francisco asked, in vain, to receive First Communion as viaticum, or when little Jacinta, so spontaneous in character, approached the time of her First Communion.» 750Psychologically this silence is inexplicable. The objection applies also to all the themes kept secret from 1917 to 1935 or 1941. Such an absolute silence of almost twenty years or more seems quite suspicious to Father Dhanis. CONTRADICTIONS AND ERRORS. Moreover, Father Dhanis claims to discover an additional proof that the elements of the “new history” were in fact invented much later on and do not correspond to the original events, in the contradictions between the two versions. According to Fatima I, the secret would have been revealed in June, but in Fatima II, in July. According to the interrogations of 1917, the Virgin did not give Her name until October 13. In the great secret, She already says on July 13: «My Immaculate Heart will triumph.» Dhanis concludes: «It must be admitted that the new history of Fatima does not harmonize well with the old one, which is rather disturbing.» 751 All the more so since there are other motives for suspicion. The new version of the Message, according to Dhanis, is riddled with grave theological errors. They concern first of all one of the prayers taught by the Angel to the three shepherds in 1916. The theology which it implies does not suit the taste of our author. We will respond carefully to the objection while commenting on the Message. Here the censor of Fatima highlights his condescending leniency: «One will note that our judgement on this formula was not severe. We called it neither heretical nor false, but inexact.» 752 In fact, the objection against this prayer is so inconsistent that we find quite similar expressions in many of the writings of the saints, Gertrude the Great for example. It is perfectly justified even in its literal sense. But no matter, for Dhanis’ judgement still falls immediately, and without appeal: «This however is enough to make it difficult to grant it the heavenly origin that Lucy attributes to it...» 753The vision of hell that Lucy reports she had with Jacinta and Francisco on July 13, 1917, also raises serious theological difficulties, Apart from the fact that it appears only in the “new history”, it is impossible for Dhanis to take it literally. Father da Fonseca sums up perfectly the conclusion that every sensible reader inevitably draws from the long development of Father Dhanis, which as always is a succession of rash hypotheses that undermine the authenticity of the apparitions, and soothing circumlocutions, which hypothetically are very favourable. Dhanis continues: «The other difficulties concern principally the exaggeratedly medieval representation of the pains of hell, and the critic asks how Our Lady could present it this way to the twentieth century.» 754 Father da Fonseca is content to give, in response, the reference to some texts... of the Gospel and the Apocalypse in perfect accord with the vision of Fatima. That alone is sufficient, but we will come back to this point. DOUBTFUL PROPHECIES? Along with miracles, true prophecies are always the most unquestionable mark of the supernatural. There are several prophecies in the famous secret of Fatima of July 13, 1917. Thus it announces the horrors of the Second World War if mankind did not convert in time. But Father Dhanis stresses, ironically, that the famous prophecy was not divulged until 1942! He makes the same incisive remark regarding the famous “night illumined by an unknown light”, presented as the herald of the divine chastisement. In short, our Jesuit insinuates, are not the prophecies of Sister Lucy simply a case of prophecies too easily made, post eventum? Or in any case the inventions of the seer? This explanation allows him to assume some very curious historical errors: did not Sister Lucy predict, remarks Dhanis, that the war would begin “during the reign of Pius XI”? Yet we know that the Pontiff died on February 10, 1939, several months before the declaration of war, which only took place under Pius XII! A GROSS HISTORICO-THEOLOGICAL ERROR? The gravest error, in the eyes of Dhanis, touches on one of the essential themes of the secret: The role which the Virgin attributes to Russia and the impossible remedy proposed. According to Lucy, the Holy Virgin requested in the Secret that the Pope consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart. Dhanis alleges that such a request could not be fulfilled, saying: «There is no need for long reflections to see that it was practically impossible for the Sovereign Pontiff to make such a consecration.» Our critic concludes that strictly speaking, it was not absolutely impossible. «But in the concrete, things appear more difficult. Schismatic as a religious unity, and Marxist as a political unity, Russia could not be consecrated by the Pope, without this act taking on the air of a challenge, both in regard to the separated hierarchy, as well as to the Union of Soviet Republics. This would make the consecration practically unrealizable.» Since such an impolitic and anti-ecumenical request was «morally impossible by reason of the reactions it would normally provoke», how could it come from Heaven, Dhanis asks, and his question, in spite of its attenuated form, leaves no doubt as to its answer: «But could the Most Holy Virgin have requested a consecration which, taken according to the rigour of the terms, would be practically unrealizable?... This question indeed seems to call for a negative response.» 755One can guess what conclusion Father Dhanis is able to draw from such a series of “unfavourable indicators”. LUCY IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESSONE WITNESS IS TOO FEW! First of all, Father Dhanis insists that on all the disputed facts Lucy is the only witness, and twenty years later at that. Francisco and Jacinta died in 1919 and 1920, without ever having said a single word about all that. Thus, all these accounts laden with the supernatural, all these disconcerting politico-religious revelations of “Fatima II” rest on just a single witness. Dhanis points this out in regard to the apparitions of the Angel: «Let us admit that, to hold with certitude to such extraordinary things, one would desire not to be dependent on only one witness, even an authoritative one.» 756 In short, testis unus, testis nullus: one witness is no witness at all – especially since according to Dhanis the testimony in question is very much open to doubt. “THE INSPIRATION OF LUCY”. Lucy writes in her Memoirs: «It seems to me, Your Excellency, that in similar cases, I do not say or write anything of myself. I must give thanks to God for the assistance of the Holy Spirit which, I sense, suggests to me what I should write or say.» Dhanis comments: «The validity of such an impression remains almost hopelessly subject to caution... in many cases, the feeling of writing under a supernatural inspiration is certainly illusory.» In a footnote he then cites the famous text where Nietzsche relates the extremely vivid impression he had that he too was writing “under inspiration”. So it was an illusion! An illusion which was to have regrettable consequences: «We have observed», notes Dhanis, «that if a writer feels himself inspired, that does not seem to cause him to exercise very strict control over his use of the memory...» 757 And he easily suggests that the remark applies to Sister Lucy, in whom he denounces the extreme assurance she had of herself, as well as the numerous inexactitudes, incoherent statements and flagrant errors he claims are found in her writings. CONCLUSION: LUCY DREAMED IT UP. «All things considered», concludes Dhanis, «it is not easy to state precisely what degree of credence is to be given to the accounts of Sister Lucy. Without questioning her sincerity, or the sound judgement she shows in daily life, one may judge it prudent to use her writings only with reservations.» Thus it is a question neither of a lie, nor an imposture, but an unconscious fabrication. «Let us observe also that a person can be sincere and prove to have good judgement in everyday life, but have a propensity for unconscious fabrication in a certain area, or in any case, a tendency to relate old memories of twenty years ago with embellishments and considerable modifications.» 758 There it is, Father Dhanis has written the two words which sum up his whole thesis: “unconscious fabrication”. It is equivalent to saying that she «modified, idealized, embellished her memories». What he had spoken about in general terms since the introduction, Dhanis attributes quite evidently to Sister Lucy: «Sometimes the deformation can be so strong that one will speak of a more or less pathological case...» He also cites long passages from the treatise on mystical theology by Poulain: «Certain minds invent stories and persuade themselves that these things really took place. In their imagination, they are in good faith..., etc.» 759In this way, Dhanis would have us believe, Lucy imagined the apparitions of the Angel: «One cannot dare to absolutely discard the hypothesis of an account due in large part to the imagination, and one feels obliged not to take a position.» 760 THE SECRET CONTESTEDIn this way Father Dhanis believes he has found a satisfactory solution to the only question really preoccupying him, the authenticity of the secret. If Lucy invented it, then this secret, so vexing and irritating to modern theologians, loses its whole value. That goes without saying. To undermine the secret’s impact entirely, Dhanis finds a simple explanation, apparently wise and moderate, exempt from all passion. «Nevertheless we will not suppose that Lucy invented in this way the whole text of the secret, in her written version.» No, Dhanis affirms unceasingly that he believes in the perfect sincerity of Lucy and her good sense in everyday life. Here is the elegant solution that reconciles everything: the good faith of the seer, even her sanctity if you insist, with an invention of the imagination: there was an enrichment, an amplification of an objective original kernel. «We are led to believe then, that in the course of years, certain exterior events and certain spiritual experiences of Lucy enriched the original content of the secret, but we shall maintain also that the later version of the secret is still really an echo of the mysterious words confided to the little shepherds of Fatima.» 761 «The text of the message (he is speaking of the secret) has conserved a kernel which corresponds to the words heard in 1917», but «a “shell” of later elements has formed around it.» Our critic now believes he has found his «general solution to the problem of Fatima». He will even go so far as to suggest, for each of the great themes of the secret, an explanation which accounts for their genesis in the mind of Lucy. Let us follow our critic in this audacious reconstruction. HOW LUCY ELABORATED THE TEXT OF THE SECRETTHE VISION OF HELL. After the uncritical exposition of the supposed objections against this vision, presumed too archaic and medieval, Dhanis formulates a question: «... Will we not have to conclude also that the vision of hell related by Sister Lucy cannot have a supernatural origin?» Our Jesuit is careful not to answer in the affirmative! «This would be too hasty a conclusion.» 762 Then, was the vision authentic and did it have a real, important significance? No again! Dhanis proposes two solutions: «The vision of hell corresponds to the idea that the children had.» In this case, did they invent it, purely and simply? No! Dhanis does not have the audacity to say that. The second solution completes the first: «The seers received a very intense knowledge of the horror of sin and damnation, and little by little this knowledge evoked a vision in their imagination.» 763 Dhanis says that it was an intimate, inexpressible experience, which the children clumsily described according to the medieval ideas received from the catechism. For our part, he concludes, we must use our intelligence and not take their words literally; a whole process of interpretation must be done. THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY. The theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was, according to Dhanis, also the fruit of a slow psychological elaboration, the later fruit of a long inner maturing of an initial perception that was much simpler and more mysterious. Here, the determining element was the influence of other “apparitions”. «If we consider once again some more or less recent additions introduced into the secret, one is led to consider attentively a vision that Lucy had when she was still a postulant with the Dorothean Sisters.» 764 Thus the Secret was “enriched” with the theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary through the «infiltration of certain elements coming from the visions of 1925-26», at Pontevedra... The trouble is that elsewhere Dhanis contests the supernatural character of these apparitions. «On the one hand, the moral and practical qualities that the witnesses of the life of Lucy attribute to her are a favourable sign, but not decisive. For on the other hand, we become rather suspicious when we see the striking resemblance between the “great promise” that Lucy has transmitted and the “great promise” made by St. Margaret Mary: the knowledge of the old promise could thus become the psychological origin of the new one.» Here we see Lucy accused quite simply... of common plagiarism! Undoubtedly it is unconscious because Dhanis, of course, never calls into question the sincerity of Lucy! The important part is the conclusion, which undermines the essence of the secret, and the whole message of Fatima: the revelation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, its requests, and its promises. «Our readers will undoubtedly be disappointed to see that, in the secret of Fatima, the theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not presented in such a way that all doubts on its celestial origin disappear. We dare to hope that in spite of their disappointment, which is ours as well (sic!), they will be grateful to us for not having deviated from the sincerity which we owe to them, and to the religious subject that we are treating.» 765Thus Dhanis has us witness the progressive elaboration of the secret in the mind of Lucy. The essential theme is due to the influence of later visions that she had – or believes she had, for no doubt she received strong suggestions from the writings of St. Margaret Mary. «The Secret of Fatima seems to have undergone considerable additions», Dhanis continues. This is still saying too little, for other factors entered in, he explains, which perfectly explain all the other “new themes”. THE PROPHECY OF THE WAR. After announcing that the First World War would end soon, the text of the secret goes on: «If men do not cease offending God, another worse one will break out in the reign of Pius XI.» Is it truly Our Lady who pronounced these words on July 13, 1917? Dhanis does not believe so: «The mention of Pius XI, because of its extreme precision... seems to us rather to be an exception in the prophetic literary genre, and it seems plausible that it replaced a primitive expression where the Pope was not designated by name... Indeed it seems that the expression, “under the next pontificate”, would fit better than the words, “under the pontificate of Pius XI”.» 766 It is Lucy herself who, while Pius XI was reigning, supposedly made «this shift from the first expression to the second». “THE NIGHT ILLUMINED BY AN UNKNOWN LIGHT.” Nor is Dhanis naive enough to believe that it was the Virgin Herself who foretold “the night illumined by an unknown light” as «the great sign» of the approaching war. He gives a much more rational hypothesis: It is after having seen the aurora borealis of January 25, 1938, that Lucy integrated it under the prophetic form into the text of the secret. Of course our Jesuit, who always tiptoes carefully about his conclusions, does not say it so crudely. We do not have enough room to cite in extenso the choice morsel by which he comes, little by little – and with what subtlety – to formulate his true hypothesis: «Before the rare and mysterious phenomena of nature, simple people often experience presentiments of great calamities.» It is “a natural impression”. «It could be passed over if there were no other indications of the influence of certain recent events on the writing down of the secret», but there are others. Thus, «would it then be bold to ask if perhaps (what circumlocutions!) the natural impressions of Lucy (who everybody knows is one pf these simple persons...) before the aurora borealis were not integrated into the secret, if they did not introduce the words on the unknown light, as the herald of the great chastisement?» What a sentence! Read it over! It is phrased so as not to state what he clearly wants to say, namely: Lucy attributed to the Blessed Virgin of 1917 her own impressions of 1938... Dhanis imputes without any proof the undue transfer to “natural impressions...” In any case Dhanis comes to this conclusion: «The announcement of the aurora borealis in the secret is grounds for suspicion.» 767RUSSIA, THE SCOURGE OF GOD. There remain the most shocking, and scandalous, words of the secret: those which concern Soviet Russia. Is it possible that the Blessed Virgin Herself uttered them, in 1917? Surely not! She could not have asked for a “practically unrealizable consecration”. Nor could she have accused Russia of being behind the Second World War, as the text of the secret written down in 1941 seems to affirm. 768 What then is the explanation? Once again it is exterior events which have impressed the seer and led her to integrate into the prophetic form, emotional shocks received recently, attributing them to Our Lady in 1917. In this case, Dhanis suggests, it was the Spanish Civil War and frantic fear of communism resulting from it, which explains this whole aspect of the secret. «The hardly objective fashion in which the provocation of the war is described in the secret is best explained by the influence the Spanish Civil War had on Lucy’s way of thinking.» 769 A disciple of Dhanis, Father Martindale, develops his thought explicitly, maintaining that Lucy undoubtedly «personalized the ideas of the primitive message, making “evil” in general a concrete incarnation in Soviet Russia, and converting the maternal love of the Virgin into the “Heart of Mary”.» 770 A TRIPLE CONCLUSIONThe thesis of Father Dhanis. which seeks above all to reject the authenticity of the secret, can be summed up in three points, which are indissolubly connected with each other. 1. THE OPPOSITION BETWEEN FATIMA I AND FATIMA II. «There exists a dichotomy, a real opposition between the primitive, or “old” history of Fatima, and the more recent, or “new” history» 771, beginning with the Memoirs of Lucy. 2. FATIMA II IS THE FRUIT OF A FABRICATION. From 1944 until May 16, 1953, when he published his last article on the question in the Civilta Cattolica, Father Dhanis did not cease to veil and camouflage more and more his attacks on Fatima, to the point where, if we read only his last article, so confused and muddled, one would be totally mistaken on his true thought. Nor does his study published in June, 1952, in the Nouvelle Revue Théologique, give any more exact an idea of his thought. Therefore, to understand him one must go back to his texts of 1944-45, fundamental texts, of which he never agreed to retract the least line. There, in spite of the evasive style that he never departed from, his judgement on Fatima II comes out clearly. Here is this text, which is little known, but of capital importance: 772 «The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgement or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts. The apparitions of the Angel and the miraculous communion he is supposed to have given the children remain uncertain. The secret, recently published, presents a rather complex situation (sic). Its existence is known since 1917, and what the children very vaguely hinted about its contents corresponds to the text now published. Yet several points present real difficulties. The description of hell may correspond to a symbolic vision given to the children. The messages of Our Lady, however, bear the traces of different additions. Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that She attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country. The announcement of the aurora borealis provokes a certain suspicion; and the new theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not presented in very reassuring circumstances, etc.» Apart from the two or three prudent concessions, and some attenuations which express doubts about the secret rather than outright negation (compensated by previous texts with affirmations of the contrary), there remains nothing, nothing at all, of the great message of Fatima. Reread the secret phrase by phrase, and not one has escaped from the corrosive criticism of Father Dhanis. Was then our Jesuit a relentless enemy of Fatima? He did not wish to be considered so, and he feared above all that the hierarchy would accuse him of being one. Thus he was careful to defend himself... Moreover he believed himself perfectly protected from such an accusation, for did he not profess to accept “all the essentials” of the message of Fatima? This is the third affirmation of his thesis. 3. FATIMA I REMAINS AUTHENTIC. Yes, explains Dhanis, one can very well dissociate in the events and message of Fatima, the primitive, authentic kernel from everything that the imagination of the seer added later on: «Let the reader beware then of an exaggerated suspicion. These strong doubts attached to the apparitions of the Angel (and the secret) should not lead them to call into question the essential elements of the miracle of Fatima. For what are we presented with? On the one hand, we find accounts not easily believable in writings based on memories twenty years old. On the other hand, we find ourselves faced with facts which are well known from the beginning, which appear to be confirmed as supernatural by a great divine sign, facts which enjoy an ecclesiastical approval, and which became the source of a large torrent of graces. There is not sufficient reason to place these facts in the same category as the above-mentioned accounts.»773 «All this”, writes Dhanis in his general conclusion, «has to do with what we call the old history of Fatima. This has its shadows too, but the light definitely prevails.»774 The final conclusion that imposes itself is that it is better to stick with Fatima I... and no longer speak of the rest!
II. AN INCOHERENT SOLUTION
In spite of its appearances of prudence and wise moderation, is the solution of Father Dhanis tenable? Can we, at the same time, profess to accept Fatima I, that is, recognize the authenticity of the apparitions and miracles of 1917, and reject all of Fatima II as an artificial and spurious message? The answer to this question calls for a twofold examination. The first would lead us to examine whether all the criticisms of Father Dhanis are solidly founded. To avoid tiresome repetitions, we will examine this question later on. 775Nevertheless it is interesting, even before going into the maze of his objections and the responses – for let us say at the outset that there is not one of his criticisms which does not have a satisfactory refutation 776 – it is very interesting to judge the thesis of Father Dhanis simply from the point of view of its coherence. Is his in-between position, which pretends to stop half-way between the radical unbelief of the rationalists and complete acceptance of the supernatural origin of the facts, sustainable? We shall see that it is not. This twofold judgement, positive for the first half of the facts (Fatima I), and negative for the second half (Fatima II), is unjustifiable both from the point of view of Catholic theology and historical criticism. This is what we shall demonstrate in this chapter: No, Fatima cannot lend itself to two evaluations so contrary to each other. It is impossible to say: “It is half true, half false!” 1. THE VIEWPOINT OF CATHOLIC THEOLOGY: A MODERNIST THESISIs it possible, solely by the light of Catholic faith, to accept Fatima I while rejecting Fatima II? The question is simple. It is a question of what is fitting on the supernatural level, and the answer depends above all on the conception we have of God and His Providence. THE TRUTH OF FATIMA I. On the apparitions of 1917, we are in accord: they are authentic. But what does that mean? God chose the three little shepherds, Lucy, Jacinta, and Francisco to make them witnesses of the apparitions of His Holy Mother at the Cova da Iria. Among all men, they were chosen by Him to see Her, to hear Her and faithfully transmit Her words. As a striking guarantee of the veracity of their witness, God multiplied the supernatural, physical, and even cosmic prodigies: there were stupefying conversions, sudden healings which were inexplicable by natural causes, and from June 13 to October 13, incomparable cosmic miracles, seen and verified by hundreds, and then thousands of persons... marvels culminating in the unheard of prodigy of the great miracle of the sun, contemplated by seventy thousand witnesses seized with fright, or transported with holy joy. For three months, the seers had foretold it, specifying the day and the hour, and making it clear that Our Lady would accomplish it so that all might believe in Her word. All this is quite clear, and Father Dhanis professes to accept it along with us. 777 For to write that one believes in the supernatural origin of the apparitions is to say all this, or to say nothing at all! BUT LATER ON... LUCY INVENTED THINGS. Right after these marvellous events, Dhanis continues, and this is the negative part of his «general solution of the problem of Fatima», Lucy, who had in her temperament a regrettable propensity for «unconsciously inventing things», set about embellishing the initial supernatural events, inventing things and adding to them, and through sheer imagination or under the pressure of exterior events made up a whole immense message, quite new and of capital importance... which, since she is acting in all sincerity and good faith, she will without any scruple present as the very words Our Lady pronounced on July 13, 1917! All this we have already set out in detail. In short, although Lucy was always sincere and possesses a real talent for writing «moving accounts full of charm, innocence and piety», she does not enjoy perfect mental equilibrium. 778 She invented things, and distorted the true apparitions of 1917. That is what Father Dhanis holds as a plausible thesis, fully satisfactory to the eyes of faith. A SOLUTION WHICH IS INJURIOUS TO GODIn the light of true theology, that is, the supernatural knowledge that we have of God through faith, we must say that the thesis of Dhanis is unthinkable, unjustifiable, and even scandalous. A God who would have willed or simply permitted all this is perhaps the God of the vilest among the casuists, or perhaps the bizarre God of the modernists. But this God who would guarantee, by such great miracles, the word of an unbalanced seer, prone to fantasies and unworthy of faith, has nothing in common with the veracious God of biblical revelation, with Jesus, “the faithful witness” who came to bear witness to the truth; and still less does He have anything in common with the God of Catholic dogma! For God would be lying if by these miracles he induced the crowd of witnesses, and the hierarchy right up to the Pope, to believe the word of unworthy witnesses. For the honour of God, it would be better to say with a Gerard de Sede that all of Fatima is simply a fraud, a vast exercise in deception, a scheme of the priests... For although men can be hypocrites, followers of their own interests, and liars, God Himself does not lie! This obvious truth seems to have escaped Father Dhanis and his followers. AN UNTHINKABLE CRIME. In the eyes of faith, the two contrary judgements on Fatima I and Fatima II are irreconcilable. We can say a priori that if all the miracles attested are true miracles, that is, as Dhanis himself explains, «divine signs, authenticating the apparitions», 779 it is impossible that Lucy, the principal witness, have so little credibility. God could not have permitted that she then spread within the Church, with impunity, a new history of Fatima which is radically false and entirely of her own invention. It is impossible that at the very moment when the Bishop of Fatima, on October 13, 1930, officially recognized the authenticity of the apparitions of Fatima, the seer had already lost her mind several years before and would bother her confessors, and soon the whole world, with fraudulent messages. It is impossible that a false secret, which was simply the fruit of her diseased imagination, deceive thousands of the faithful with the blessing of Pius XII, who published it in 1942, and made known his approval on many occasions... And all this because of the spectacular miracles which took place according to the words of the three seers in 1917. If Lucy deceived the world for half a century, it is God Himself who is first of all responsible. For how could He have tolerated such a dereliction on the part of the witness He chose for Himself, and let such a scandal happen? Without giving to His Church any clear sign of the lapse and betrayal of His messenger? After having backed up her words with miracles, He permitted her to deceive the Church – and to what a degree – without showing any sign, either natural or supernatural, in all clarity, that she had betrayed her function? This is impossible. HOW GOD GUARANTEES THE VERACITY OF HIS WITNESSES. When God has a great mission to be accomplished in history that involves special charisms, He is wise and powerful enough to choose and prepare for Himself adequate instruments, and without doing violence to their liberty, He gives them the gift of fulfilling by His grace the essential mission to which He has destined them from all eternity. This does not mean that He must render them infallible in all domains or impeccable in their whole life. In the very exercise of their mission, He sometimes allows them to show some secondary shortcomings: for the transmission of a Heavenly message, some passing forgetfulness, or a very minor error on some date or detail. In this He leaves them to their human powers, especially when it concerns statements that can be verified perfectly well by other witnesses. Thus Lucy erroneously thought that Our Lady appeared on August 15, after the return from Vila Nova de Ourem, when in reality it was on the 19th. But in similar questions of fact, clearly there is nothing which allows us to call into question the solidity and fidelity of the testimony of the seers. SOME QUESTIONABLE PRECEDENTS. Granted, Father Dhanis is relying on the authority of Poulain’s scholarly treatise on mystical theology in invoking some precedents: certain saints themselves, he says, have been mistaken in relating and commenting on some of their visions, «The authentic supernatural», writes Dhanis, «can very well be found with the counterfeit... It can happen that in a given case one may hold as supernatural certain revelations, while others related to it appear suspect or are clearly false. From this point of view, the saints themselves were not always exempt from all error...» 780 A fortiori Sister Lucy! This general affirmation does not impress us. In fact, if one goes back to the text, the long exposition of Poulain, which cites haphazardly St. Bridget and Catherine Emmerich, St. Catherine of Siena and Mary of Agreda, St. Vincent Ferrer and the Venerable Holzhauser... is not fully convincing. 781 Each case would have to be carefully examined, taking into consideration the degrees of authority of the persons invoked, which are so diverse, and the particular type of revelation under consideration. Although it is undoubtedly not absolutely impossible that such or such a saint distorted or related in an ambiguous manner some revelation or supernatural light that he received, not all apparitions are to be put on the same level and the possibility of error is not equal in every case. REVELATION, PRIVATE REVELATIONS AND PUBLIC REVELATIONS. There is a custom of confusing all revelations, and placing them in the category of “private revelations’’, to distinguish them from the primary, essential and sufficient Revelation: the total Revelation accomplished in Jesus Christ and closed on the death of the last of the Apostles, who passed it on to us infallibly. This being quite clear, we can add that not all subsequent revelations are identical among themselves: «What we must revise in the classical vocabulary», R. Laurentin justly notes in a study on The Status and Function of Apparitions, «is the designation of all subsequent revelations as “private revelations”. In fact, some of them are private, but some of them are public. The revelations of St. Bridget or the message of Lourdes were destined for a very large audience. One should therefore speak of particular revelations, some of them private (for example the three secrets St. Bernadette received for herself alone, and which did not concern anyone else); and others public, such as the twelve words which constitute the message of Lourdes.» 782 Although there are apparitions which are destined first of all and principally for the personal sanctification of the beneficiary, there are others whose primary end is directly apostolic or ecclesial, through the transmission of a public message, the foundation of a great pilgrimage or the accomplishment of an extraordinary mission such as that of Joan of Arc, always for the good of souls and the realization of a great providential design. AUTHENTIC “PUBLIC REVELATION” EXCLUDES INVENTIONS. This distinction is illuminating: Is it then possible that saints whose mission involved a special charism were deceived precisely on the very object of their providential vocation? Would Joan of Arc be a saint if she admitted that she completely invented the heavenly voices that told her to “boot the English out of France”, to deliver Orleans and have the Dauphin anointed at Rheims, she who murmured even to her executioner: “No, my voices have not deceived me!” Would St. Margaret Mary be an authentic saint if she had imagined, by unconscious autosuggestion, and after reading the works of St. Mechtilde or St. Gertrude, all her supposed apparitions of the Sacred Heart (the schema of Dhanis can easily apply to all known revelations!), thus deceiving the Catholic world who believed her and the Pope who canonized her? And St. Catherine Labouré? And St. Bernadette if she imagined the apparitions of Lourdes? And St. Therese of the Child Jesus if the Virgin Mary did not really smile to her? The question is absurd for a Catholic theologian! Of course we know that sanctity never consists, by its nature, in extraordinary gifts, miracles, visions or revelations, but resides entirely in the heroic practice of charity and the other virtues. But it is no less certain that true sanctity can never be found with illusion or fabrication, and still less with a deceitfulness which would be the cause of an immense and lasting scandal for the whole Church. In short, it is untenable to say that Lucy could, in all sincerity and good faith, totally distort through unconscious fabrication, an authentic message received from Heaven, to be transmitted to the whole Church. THE MISERABLE DEFENCE OF FATHER DHANISSo obvious is the incoherence of Father Dhanis’ thesis that he judged it necessary to answer the objection himself. Once again we must quote here the important conclusion of his study, while adding our comments: 783 «There might perhaps be a tendency to reproach our solution with being insufficiently coherent. The invention, however innocent it might be, that we attribute to Lucy cannot be presumed, it is said, in a confidante of Our Lady. The whole history of Fatima is therefore compromised by accepting such an invention.» Such is quite exactly the decisive objection that we propose when faced with the whole critique of Father Dhanis. Hence his answers have the highest significance for us. «We avow», he continues, «that the inventions in the accounts of Lucy are not precisely a recommendation for the apparitions of Fatima.» Note well: for once our critic, who is always dissimulating, does not camouflage his true thought. He will have his hands full defending himself later on: «I never said», «I did not mean to say», «It was a simple hypothesis»..., here, the accusation is clear, denuded of any oratorical precautions. The crafty equivocations of his second article 784 shall no longer fool us. «But let us repeat what we have already said: (the inventions of Lucy) are not a sufficient reason to reject the authenticity of the intervention of Mary.» It is this affirmation that we have denounced as untenable. By what arguments would our theologian justify it? Here they are: 1. THE UNFATHOMABLE DIVINE WISDOM. «Must we recall that the ways of God are not our ways, and that in governing God takes account of many things that escape us, and thus it is very risky to judge, according to our limited wisdom, what choice he should make?» God can very well choose as a witness a child of no great mental stability, prone to fabrications... For His designs are unfathomable, and His wisdom is not ours. That line of reasoning is bewildering, at the very least! In His divine wisdom, Christ seems to have acted quite otherwise in the choice of Peter and the Apostles. 2. THE FATAL REPERCUSSIONS OF THE APPARITIONS. «We can however add here other, more precise considerations.» How fortunate! «It must be remarked all the same that the visions of 1917, along with everything that preceded and followed them, were no small shock or insignificant trial for the psychology of a child. Would many children have been able to undergo what Lucy did, without suffering more or less fatal repercussions? If not, then the objection that Heaven could not have chosen Lucy loses most of its force.» Let us make sure we understand: if Lucy made things up after 1917, it is because of the shock of the apparitions and their aftermath. She could not bear the “trial”; the “repercussions” were fatal to her. But few children, adds Dhanis with condescending kindness, were capable of bearing the same “shock”. Thus, God could not have acted otherwise. Do we really have to point out the presumptuousness of this idea? Was not God, in this case, wise enough to understand that instead of choosing a child, unsuited by nature to the mission He wished to confer on her, He should have addressed Himself to a wise and level-headed adult? Why not to Father Dhanis? Dhanis’ answer to the objection is grotesque. If Our Lady at Lourdes, at Pontmain, at Fatima, chose children for witnesses, it was because of their greater purity, but also because of the unimpeachable, irrefutable character of their testimony. The “repercussions” of the apparitions were not “fatal” for any of the children, who were chosen precisely for their natural calm and equilibrium. Dhanis cannot give the slightest indication that there were any fatal repercussions for Lucy. 3. PIETY IS BETTER THAN GOOD SENSE. Dhanis continues: «On the other hand, we must admit in Lucy, from what we know of her, an elevated spiritual life and profound piety. Compared with that, certain psychological defects were no doubt of little importance in the eyes of God.» Let us consider once more the insult, the gratuitous calumny dealt out to Lucy: she is stupid and inclined to make up stories, but pious, and that is enough for God to have chosen her as His messenger. What an insult to God, as well! Was He then incapable of finding, of creating and preparing for Himself just one child who would be, at the same time, endowed with a profound piety and perfectly sound in mind? The arguments of our theologian, a future expert at the Council, lead us from one degree of stupefaction to another. Let us go on to the last one. 4. A PROVIDENTIAL FABRICATION. To quote Father Dhanis again: «Moreover, the obscure points in the history of Fatima can also result in good consequences, and precisely for that reason have found a place in the dispositions of God.» What does that mean? That God willed “the obscure points” of Fatima, in other words, the fabrication of Sister Lucy, to draw “good consequences” from this evil. Dhanis continues: «We must find the principal reasons for consecrating ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, on the one hand in the spiritual value of this consecration, and on the other in the appeal of the representative of Christ. The invitation made by a particular revelation should only influence us secondarily. But would not a good number of the faithful, drawn by extraordinary events, have a tendency to judge otherwise? There, however, one would depart from Catholic good sense.» In other words, the too extraordinary apparitions of 1917, with their spectacular miracles, presented in themselves... a grave peril for the faithful: the danger of tainting their purity of intention! Dear God! What a twisted mind our Jesuit manifests and what tortuous procedures he attributes to You! For here is his grand conclusion: «The obscure points that accompany the message of Fatima can help our weakness to avoid this deviation. If then we are careful to retain the exact sense of the order of motives that must guide our piety, the conclusions of our study will, for their part, perhaps render them purer, far from diminishing the fervour of our consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.» There it is, we have finally got it. The cat is out of the bag. God has willed the fabrications of Sister Lucy so that – no doubt thanks to the intelligent denunciations Father Dhanis would make of them – the whole Church would avoid falling into the trap of having too much confidence in a simple private revelation! This is how our author reconstitutes the great design of God... in which he usurps an honourable role. «Thus, our conclusions (according to which Lucy invented half the message!) open wide the door to devotion to Our Lady of Fatima. It is certain that the pilgrimage of Fatima has become a great source of grace for the Church of Portugal; it indeed seems (sic!) to have originated from a miraculous intervention of the Mother of God; ecclesiastical authority encourages it; what more do we need to venerate Our Lady of Fatima with all our heart?» In 1952 and again in 1953, Father Dhanis will continue to make similar declarations of intense devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, all the while continuing to accuse Lucy of having invented the Secret and the whole of Fatima II. Is our critic sincere?... In any case, to the extent he is sincere, in making such declarations without ever having retracted the least line of his harshest criticisms, his attitude can only be justified on one hypothesis... A MODERNIST THESISTo not be shocked by such incoherent affirmations, one must think and act as a modernist. Indeed from this perspective, the incoherence disappears and the thesis becomes once again plausible, sustainable. If the content of the faith is not an objective deposit of the intelligible order, but a vague, subjective, ineffable religious sentiment, its verbal expressions will never be anything more than pale, imperfect symbolical approximations, all dependent on the socio-cultural milieu and the more or less sound mental structure of the subject. For the modernist, it is in the very nature of the religious experience, of which apparitions are only an example, to be continually transfigured, reinvented and more or less distorted by the subject. It is this fundamentally subjectivist conception of Revelation that Father Dhanis transposes, applying it to the revelation of Fatima. In this way, we will recall, he explains the terrible vision of hell which constitutes the first part of the secret: «The seers received a very intense horror of sins and damnation, and little by little this knowledge evoked a vision in their imagination.» 785The interpretation is the same for the rest of the secret. To be sure, there is still an original event which constitutes the kernel of the message divulged later on. But the initial contents underwent such transformations and additions in the mind of the seer that it is practically impossible to find it again in its original purity. And yet, it continues to conserve a certain link with the «mysterious words» confided to the three shepherds in 1917. 786 Once again, here is an extract from the conclusion of Father Dhanis: «We admit that the text of the message retains a kernel which corresponds to the words heard in 1917; but a “shell” of later elements that formed around it appears considerable to us. It is probable that from the beginning great punishments were announced, and thus quite obviously it deals with a means of salvation against these evils. But an attempt at reconstructing the primitive text would give too uncertain a result. The written version of Lucy remains precious for us (sic!) because, however scrambled it is, it still conserves the echo of the blessed words of Mary.» 787There we have it! The secret presented by Sister Lucy as the authentic account of the precise and exact words pronounced by Our Lady, is for Dhanis only a faraway echo (and with what distortions) of the “mysterious words” that it is practically impossible to reconstruct, except in a vague and general way. Are we not reminded of some modernist dissecting the text of the Gospel, to explain that the words attributed later on to Our Lord by the Evangelists evidently do not come from Him, but are only the fruit of a symbolic elaboration of their religious experience? Let us remark only that the modernist explanation is no more acceptable for the message of Fatima than it is for the Gospel. The modernist critic can only distinguish between the authentically revealed initial message and its later expression, disfigured by errors and later additions, by implicitly appealing to the primitive revelation, known through the source itself... and which he alone understands! The presumption is obvious, and condemns this method, founded as it is on the most arbitrary assumptions. The conclusion cannot be avoided: However we look at it, the thesis of Father Dhanis cannot be sustained from the point of view of the Catholic faith.
2. THE VIEWPOINT OF SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM: AN ARBITRARY THESISTo be sure, it is very convenient to dissect at will the message of Fatima, willingly accepting as true whatever has nothing disturbing about it, and unscrupulously rejecting as spurious, or invented later on by the seer, anything upsetting, anything that contradicts the opinions of our own school of thought, ideological prejudices, or political passions... This severe selectivity in the themes of the message, this merciless “pruning” of the words of Our Lady by Father Dhanis, must rest on some solid, objective and incontestable criterion... This is not the case. We can show that his two part thesis is just as untenable from the viewpoint of historical criticism as from the theological point of view. The flaw is the same: a fundamental incoherence which makes his solution purely arbitrary. According to Dhanis, as we know, there are two histories of Fatima: the “old history”, which is authentic, and the “new history”, which is a pure invention. Yet, for both the one and the other the principal witness is Lucy. So we must affirm that although Lucy was perfectly reliable in 1917, she was no longer so in 1941, when she wrote down the text of the secret. A priori this is possible, but in this case one would have to say why. There lies the difficulty: this implies that one would be able to distinguish between these different testimonies during the course of time, to discern those which are credible from those which are not. Lucy is always sincere, Dhanis tells us, but unconsciously she made things up... The accusation is terrible. And the insoluble problem is in managing to limit the implications without at the same time ruining the authenticity of Fatima I, which he is supposedly safeguarding: thus we must know how long she had been inventing things, and demonstrate it in the name of objective criteria. A MAGNIFICENT VICIOUS CIRCLEIf her mental equilibrium had deteriorated, we would still need to have testimonies to prove it, a serious medical diagnostic. Of all this, Father Dhanis does not provide the slightest indication. On this point, all the accounts of those who met Sister Lucy agree: they all admit that she had great common sense and perfect psychological health, to which her letters and various writings also bear witness, as we shall have occasion to see several times. Dhanis himself does not «call into question the good judgement she shows in everyday life.» However, that is not enough for him. He adds: «A person can be sincere and show good judgement in everyday life, but have a propensity for unconscious fabrication in a certain sector, or in any case have a tendency to relate old memories from twenty years ago with embellishments and considerable modifications.» 788The formula that Dhanis applies to Lucy is a beautiful masterpiece of calculated ambiguity. Sister Lucy modified, and enriched her old memories from twenty years before. Very well! That should be easy to verify: her Memoirs are filled with descriptions, little facts, precise recollections of which she was not the only witness. On every page they involve her parents, her brother and sisters, and the inhabitants of Aljustrel. If Lucy were pathologically afflicted with this unfortunate tendency to make things up, the historians and journalists who made their own investigation at the village would have uncovered her flagrant errors long ago. But no, every witness agrees and all recognize that the memory of the seer was uncommon... and exact. Dhanis himself is well aware of it... he has foreseen the objection: no, Lucy did not make anything up in her ordinary memories, she only invented things «in a certain sector»; in other words: in what concerns the apparitions. And the ruse succeeds! This time the suspicion is irrefutable. After all, she is the only witness of the apparitions. TOO FACILE A METHOD. Who can fail to notice the enormity of the sophism? Dom Jean-Nesmy points it out very well: «First of all, nobody has ever noticed anything in Lucy’s temperament which would denote, in other areas, a penchant for mythomania, and still less lying. To pretend that what she says is precisely the proof of this mythomania would be admitting as a proof precisely what has to be proven: in other words, it is a textbook example of reasoning in a vicious circle, which consequently proves nothing.»789 Here Father Dhanis commits an enormous methodological blunder: since the question is whether or not we can trust an account of an apparition, we must establish in some other area the mental illness of the seer which would sufficiently explain her inventions. This rule, formulated by a specialist, Henri Ey, is as valid for inventions of the imagination as for hallucination: «To ask if St. Therese, John Tauler, or Bemadette Soubirous had hallucinations (one could just as well say: “if Sister Lucy fabricated things”) is to go back to the only problem, which difficult as it is, can be resolved: were these mystics mentally ill? Because of course, what the validity of the judgement of reality and illusion depends on in this case, is the diagnostic we can apply to the psychopathological nature of the consciousness and of the existence of the visionary.» 790In other words, was Sister Lucy mentally ill? This is the only question that matters. Dhanis does not supply the slightest beginning of a proof that would allow us to say so. This completely destroys the across the board accusation of fabricating that he brings to bear upon the secret in general, and against the Memoirs of Sister Lucy. FATIMA I... NO MORE CREDIBLE THAN FATIMA II!On the other hand, his thesis is incoherent because it cannot be confined only to the rejection of Fatima II... He is necessarily led, little by little, to contest the whole of the apparitions and message of Fatima I. In 1941, he says, Lucy was fabricating things to the point of inventing, under the influence of recent events, the principal themes of the secret which she dared to attribute to Our Lady in 1917: the aurora borealis as announcing the war, the role of Russia as the scourge of God, and the beginning of the war “in the reign of Pius XI”. But according to Dhanis, she had begun much earlier to distort the message by her imaginary additions. Since 1937 she had described in detail the whole scenario of the apparitions of the Angel, which Dhanis strongly suggests is «an account due, in great part, to the imagination». Nor is there any reason to stop so early... We have seen that since 1925-26 Lucy claimed to have visions of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which seem quite doubtful to our censor... The “apparitions” of Pontevedra would be simple plagiarism – always unconscious, of course! – of the revelations of Paray-le-Monial. When all is said and done, the whole of Fatima I rests only on that short period when the testimony of Lucy was still credible: from 1917 to 1925. If this is the case, we would find Father Dhanis quite imprudent to rely on such a seer... But there is a better refutation at hand: Lucy could not have entirely invented the apparitions of the Angel in 1936 because they already figure in the interrogation of the children by Canon Formigao, on October 19, 1917. Later on we will go into all the necessary details; here let us concern ourselves only with the hypothesis of Dhanis: «Did our three shepherds have a sort of hallucination, about seven months before the cycle of the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin?»791 And again: «Can one say that, at the moment when the angel gave the children the miraculous communion, they had a banal hallucination?» 792Possibly a hallucinator in 1916, and a fabricator from at least 1925, the witness of the great authentic apparitions (!) of 1917 would have enjoyed only a brief moment of lucidity! The very year of the apparitions of Our Lady is not exempt from all suspicion: Dhanis seriously brings up the hypothesis that the children were perhaps influenced by the history of La Salette, which Lucy’s mother had read to her children: «It is normal then to ask if the story of La Salette, with its famous secret, did not provoke the hallucinations.» 793 In the end he seems to discard the accusation, but as always with Dhanis. it is replaced only by other hypotheses which are not any more solidly founded, and thus allow the doubt to subsist. While he is at it, Dhanis equally also casts suspicion on the testimony of Jacinta: «As we can see», he writes, «the child is confused and she invents things.» Concerning one of her prophecies, he waxes ironic: «One might also ask if the imagination of the sick little child was not perhaps the only cause of this supposed revelation.» 794Once words like “hallucination”, and “unconscious fabrication” are introduced, how can their application be limited? Father Dhanis, in spite of his claims, shows himself incapable of doing so. Father Alonso remarks that using the most miniscule evidence, «Dhanis has forged a hypothesis as great as a cathedral, which can undermine not only the history of the apparitions of the Angel, but also – for why shouldn’t we take the hypothesis to its logical conclusion? – absolutely the whole history of Fatima.»795 In the final analysis, this dichotomy according to which Fatima I is credible and Fatima II is not, appears entirely artificial and a pure fantasy. If Fatima II is so unreliable, then neither can Fatima I be any more reliable. Thus, the whole structure of Father Dhanis’ critique falls like a house of cards. THE DISCIPLES OF DHANIS: FATIMA I DISPUTED. The ultimate proof that the in-between position of Dhanis is untenable is supplied by the imposing succession of disciples that it created. All of them understood quite well the obvious meaning of his study, and leaving aside without scruple the jesuitical circumlocutions of their mentor, they passed openly to the attack, wrongly transforming all their suspicions info solid conclusions, as if they were well established by historical criticism. Nor do they embarrass themselves any more with the prudent reserve of Dhanis on the subject of Fatima I... No, it is against Fatima as a whole that they direct their critiques, their abuse, their sarcasm. The stupefying review of the work of Dhanis by Cardinal Journet, in his periodical Nova et Vetera, 796 must be read. It is an indictment full of passion, ill-temper and scorn against everything even remotely touching on Fatima. Nothing is neglected; even the most fragile hypotheses of Father Dhanis are presented, through and through, as so many unimpeachable accusations. On reading it, nothing would remain of Fatima! Nor was Journet alone. Father Alonso, in Fatima y la critica, gives an impressive list of all «the copy cats» of Dhanis. 797 They are legion, and in almost every country of Europe: Otto Karrer, Schazler, Brennikmeter, de Letter, Martindale, Stahlin, Karl Rahner, Kloppenburg, Baumann, Bernardus. The list is not exhaustive; others will soon follow: Jacquemet, Fesquet, Rouquette, etc. CONCLUSION: THERE ARE ONLY TWO SOLUTIONSIn spite of the certain fact, surprising at first glance, of the progressive revelation of the message, Fatima forms an indissociable whole which the critique of Father Dhanis attempted in vain to separate. Neither historical criticism of the witnesses, nor Catholic theology allow us to establish such a rupture. It is all or nothing. The in-between thesis is untenable because it is fundamentally incoherent. It rejects too much for what it accepts, and accepts too much for what it contests. Thus, only two solutions remain. If Fatima II is false, then Fatima I is equally false, and the whole thing is false from beginning to end. This is the thesis of the rationalists: following in the footsteps of the original opposition, the freemasons and republicans who violently campaigned against Fatima, their successors add on, as a new proof of the fraud, the later development of the message. Compared to the thesis of the progresso-modernists, one must recognize for their thesis at least a certain frankness and a greater logic. For the authenticity of Fatima II depends entirely on that of Fatima I; they saw that and we must agree with them. In the end, there is one decisive question: Were there, in 1917, true apparitions and authentic miracles. or was it a huge fraud? We are confined to one or the other of these alternatives, and on this depends the message of Fatima in its totality.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Oct 15, 2020 15:50:56 GMT
CHAPTER II
THE RATIONALIST SOLUTION OF GERARD DE SEDE
Fatima. Enquête sur une Imposture (Fatima: Investigation into a Fraud). This is the title of a book by Gerard de Sede, published in 1977 by Alain Moreau publications. On the inset, the blurb gives the tone of the work: «Here is the documentation on the greatest politico-religious fraud of our times: Fatima. «After two years of investigation, Gerard de Sede exposes the working of this strange operation which began as a fraud with the alleged vision of three young shepherds, and has continued for sixty years. «In 1917 Our Lady is supposed to have appeared on a holm oak to three young shepherd children of a Portuguese village. Miracle? Hallucination? Fraud? Whatever the case may be, their declarations are behind a fantastic political, financial, and religious exploitation, the beneficiaries of which were a powerful local clergy, the Portuguese government, the Vatican and the international right wing... Who really knows what influence the “Fatima advocates” have throughout the world?... Who finances the Blue Army of Fatima?... Gerard de Sede answers all these questions as a journalist and historian.» The whole work is in this vein, animated from beginning to end with the same Voltairian spirit. Its goal is clear: to uproot, by any means, the belief of the faithful in Fatima. Well done for its genre, it will undoubtedly succeed and do immense harm to a number of uninformed readers... What are we to do, faced with such a work? Certainly it is out of the question to answer it in the same tone... But is not answering him already giving him too much honour? Why not simply let the book fall into a well deserved oblivion? Because, it seems to us, we can do better. Why not get a hold of this book and show that it can be one of the most striking, most convincing proofs of the Apparitions of Fatima? What better revenge, what better reparation than to turn the insult and blasphemy into a solid apologetical proof? May Our Lady of Fatima help us! Ave Maria! If we believe in Fatima, if we want to spread its message, it is not because it pleases us. No, it is because with the Church, we are sure that at Fatima there was an unquestionable supernatural manifestation, and a final grace offered to our endangered world. We are sure that Fatima is true, for objective reasons, because it has furnished ample proofs of its credibility. Therefore we cannot but rejoice to see finally the contrary thesis openly maintained with passion, with vigour. If Fatima is true, the confrontation with the most virulent, even the most malevolent criticism can only contribute to making its bright light shine even more brightly, as was the case with the Gospel, which emerged victorious after more than a century of rationalist and modernist criticism. A FLAGRANT IMBALANCE. Gerard de Sede’s book is a milestone. Until that time, at least in France, the thesis of fraud had hardly made an appearance. At the Bibliotheque Nationale, our author had to make a sorry discovery: «113 apologetic works on Fatima totalling 16,987 pages (sic!), but only two critical pamphlets scarcely totalling 100 pages... Thus the incense-bearers of Fatima have, so to speak, a monopoly on the floor.»798 This “flagrant imbalance” is universal: «in all the Spanish-speaking countries, in West Germany and the United States», everywhere. How curious!... It goes without saying that we have not taken the time to verify the total page-numbers of pro-Fatima and anti-Fatima works. That would be a waste of time. On the other hand we were quite astonished, after having gone through the same card catalogues of the Bibliotheque Nationale, not to have found in our author’s superabundant bibliography the names of his valiant forerunners, or any mention of the titles of their works... One can only understand the reasons for this silence after having read these works, which were the first in France to tell “the truth” about “the Fatima fraud”. The “flagrant imbalance” that Gerard de Sede speaks of is qualitative as well as quantitative... Why did he not cite La Vérité sur les Apparitions de Fatima (The Truth about the Apparitions of Fatima) by André Lorulot? Was Gerard de Sede ashamed of his predecessors? It is true that this publication of La Documentation antireligieuse does not get very far off the ground. There we find such juicy pearls as the following: after having assured us that private or collective hallucination explains everything, both the apparitions and the «supposed solar miracle», the thinker of «militant reason» continues triumphantly: «When Joan of Arc hears the voices of St. Michael (that’s right – St. Michael) or St. Catherine, we are convinced that these persons, long dead (sic!), cannot speak to anybody. There are hallucinations of the ear, just as there are hallucinations of the eye!»799 What retort can we make to such conviction?! Why also does not G. de Sede cite the articles of Prosper Alfaric in the Cahiers Ernest Renan: Fatima 1917-1954. How is a Holy Place Created? The same author’s study on The Origins of Marian Devotion could also have been quoted. Although he did not hesitate to use this book, G. de Sede surely judged that the above mentioned articles did not carry any weight... FINALLY... “THE WORK OF A HISTORIAN”. In this context we recognize unreservedly the obvious superiority of G. de Sede. His book is easy reading, and the style is clear. The mind-boggling erudition that he demonstrates will make a great impression on the readers: the author seems to have read everything on Fatima. What an enormous mass of facts and documents he has used! He has even taken the trouble to compose a list of “French Fatima advocates”, in which our own superior, the Abbé de Nantes, and his movement, have the honour of being high on the list: «... The Catholic Counter-Reform is conducting an intense propaganda in favour of Fatima.» 800 At the National Library of Lisbon he has noticed the same “imbalance” as at Paris: faced with 148 works in favour of Fatima one finds only one work against, that of Tomas da Fonseca, published in 1958 and prohibited. G. de Sede could have used the more recent work of Joao Ilharco, Fatima Unmasked, published in 1971, after the liberalization of censorship by Professor Caetano. Professor Oliveira Marques, an important figure in the Revolution of April 25, 1974, an illustrious historian of the left who also raised the accusation of fraud against Fatima, might have kindly assisted G. de Sede in his research at the National Library of Lisbon, of which he became the director. He is thanked for his kind assistance, along with the ambassador of Portugal in France We are sure that our author, so brilliantly patronized, had access in Portugal to all the best anti-Fatima sources. He also knows of the fundamental works of the Catholic historians: those of Canon Barthas, and even of some Portuguese authors. Moreover, it is a complete work in its own way; it examines all aspects of the question: the theology of the apparitions, the critical problem, the political implications of the event. He claims to have studied the documentation as a historian, clearly and objectively. 801THE WORK OF A JOURNALIST. He even took the trouble to conduct his investigation on the spot in Portugal, from April to July 1975: «This book is the work of a journalist, using interviews as well as library research.» 802 There, he interrogated everybody. Finally the adversaries of Fatima could speak out: The «revolution of April 25, 1974 put an end to forty years of dictatorship». «The books began to come out of the obscurity of the libraries, private archives began to open, tongues were untied.» 803 What promising affirmations: books, archives, testimonies previously unknown, which will surely reopen the question!... «After half a century of enforced silence, the old witnesses who had once seen the Fatima enterprise come into existence and develop, freely spoke of their memories.» 804Our journalist also went to find the “impresarios of Fatima”. No doubt introduced by his friends, the people behind the «Christians for socialism» movement, he was able to meet numerous ecclesiastical personalities: Bishop Alberto Cosme do Amaral, present Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Don Luciano Guerra, rector of the Sanctuary, Canon Galamba, historian of Fatima and director of the review Fatima 50, Bishop Venancio, former Bishop of Fatima; at Aljustrel he was able to meet Lucy’s sister and the cousins of Francisco and Jacinta; he even asked to see Sister Lucy in her Carmel at Coimbra. Of course, when he was refused this gave him a chance to wax ironic... ALL THE STRONGEST OBJECTIONS AGAINST FATIMA. Somehow G. de Sede is able to boast of presenting «a balanced documentation, as yet unpublished». 805 Finally, he has produced the critical work loudly requested by Laurentin and all the enemies of Fatima in 1967: «this desire expressed ten years ago has, until the present, remained without effect. It was to meet this desire that this book was written.» 806 We willingly concede to the author that he has written the finest example that can be given of the rationalist explanation of Fatima. With great cleverness he has maintained the radical thesis of politico-clerical fraud. As Dom Jean-Nesmy remarks, this work is «a sort of compilation of all the arguments accumulated against Fatima». 807 It is on these grounds that the book particularly interests us, since nobody else succeeded in doing a better job of this type of work. It allows us to judge, in all objectivity, how valid the rationalist thesis is. A DANGEROUS BOOK. An examination of this work is very interesting, and very useful as well. With such great claims, a large supply of information, and an apparently rational thesis which eliminates all recourse to any sort of supernatural intervention, this book can be very dangerous for any reader without a perfect knowledge of all sources of the history of Fatima. Who can by himself test all the criticisms, all the accusations, all the worst suspicions, formulated on each page against the seers and those responsible for promoting the Fatima Pilgrimage, unless one has made it the object of a special study? At every step the arguments seem to carry weight, and inevitably shake the faith of the pro-Fatima reader. That is why that which our superior, the Abbé de Nantes, wrote about a similar book to justify his critique of it, applies perfectly to the work of G. de Sede: «Is there, then, any use in refuting him? Yes. Any book which claims to reduce the Christian explanation to dust must be refuted. For he pretends to bring to a Christian event a scientific explanation that has the advantage, at first sight, of the appearance of rationality over faith.» 808
I. A CATALOGUE OF OBJECTIONS AGAINST FATIMA
Let us go right away to the strongest part of the objections, where G. de Sede makes a list of real difficulties, which have long been raised against Fatima. This is a list of well founded criticisms which must be answered. “THE CONTRADICTIONS OF LUCY”«Everybody recognizes that the principal source from which we learn about the apparitions of Fatima at 1917 is Lucy. Thus the first question to be raised is that of the value of her testimony.» 809 Now, G. de Sede undertakes to show that Lucy is in no way credible. 1. The accounts given by Lucy are «evasive and hesitant»: when questioned on October 19, 1917, on the apparition of the 13th, Lucy responds to so many questions with: «I don’t remember...», that it becomes disconcerting. However, Canon Formigao, who questions her, is very benevolent. These hesitations, this silence, are a fact that we easily notice. De Sede concludes right away: «Thus after six days, Lucy is unable to describe with precision a supposedly prodigious event, which ought to have been engraved on her memory. This reveals either a profound indifference to the event, an exceptional lack of memory, or an extreme fear of contradicting herself.» 8102. The contradictions between the three seers: «Lucy’s story is on many points in contradiction with the fragmentary accounts of Jacinta, as well as those which were, with great difficulty, squeezed out of Francisco.» 811 Lucy affirms that the Lady had little golden earrings. Francisco declares that her ears could not be seen because they were hidden by the veil. To the question: «Will Our Lady appear again?» Lucy answers: «I don’t think so, She said nothing to me about it.» Jacinta declares on the contrary: «She said that this would be the last time She would come, and She said again today that this would be the last time.» «Likewise, again on the subject of this last apparition of October 13, Lucy declared to Canon Formigao that she saw St. Joseph appear with the Child Jesus hanging around his neck, while Francisco and Jacinta said they saw the Child standing beside St. Joseph.» 812These are contradictions only in appearance and they have a simple solution, but they do not fail to plant suspicions in the mind of the reader. Some are still more serious: 3. «The accounts given by Lucy contradict each other.» 813 Lucy supposedly contradicted herself on the apparitions of the Angel, 814 and in her account of the apparitions of Our Lady: «To Father Ferreira de Lacerda, Lucy declared: “The Lady arrived, coming from the east”. To Canon Formigao, on the contrary, she declared on September 27, 1917: “I did not see Her coming from any direction; She appeared on the holm oak.”» 815Another example, from October 19, 1917: «She had white slippers.» (To Father Lacerda.) To Father McGlynn, in 1946, she answered the same question, «I don’t remember, because I never saw Her feet.»816 Finally, G. de Sede claims that she contradicted herself in her description of the apparition of the Holy Family, October 13, 1917.817 THE FATAL ERROR: “THE WAR WILL END TODAY”The devastating argument that G. de Sede prefers to dwell on during the whole length of his account of October 13, (we shall see why), is the famous «false prophecy» of Lucy: on that day she «committed an irreparable fault, in placing on the lips of the Virgin an absurd statement, which the incense-bearers of Fatima would labour for a third of a century to try to have us forget.»818 Indeed after the apparition, Lucy announced that the war would end that very day. To Canon Formigao she repeats: «The Virgin said... that the war would finish today, and that the soldiers would come home soon.» On October 19, the poor child stubbornly entangled herself: «Our Lady said it just like that: the war will end today, expect your soldiers to come home very soon.» Jacinta made similar declarations. «Over the years, the promoters of Fatima will strive to erase, by various retouches, this blunder of the child, who attributed an absurdity to the Virgin.» 819After such hesitations, such contradictions, how can one maintain as does Canon Galamba, that Lucy enjoyed an exceptional memory? «If this is true», de Sede concludes, «one of two things is true: either Lucy is deliberately lying when she invokes these gaps in her memory or contradicts herself, or the liars are those who transcribed her declarations. In the first case as well as the second, and also in the third and the last one, where Lucy is sincere but lacking memory and given to making things up, the whole structure of Fatima rests on testimonies that do not have the slightest value.» 820Along with these five pages devoted to a critique of the testimonies (p. 127-132), more or less seriously handled, and where G. de Sede has reproduced the catalogue of Joao Ilharco, he devotes five other pages to «the Catholic critique» of Father Dhanis and his disciples (p. 233-238). In these ten pages the author brings up the real difficulties posed by the testimonies of the seers... At the end of this examination he settles the question, triumphantly: All this proves that it is simply a question of lies or wild stories! but this is going too quickly into the work at hand... For although it is easy to make accusations of fraud, a number of facts remain for which it will be necessary to provide a plausible explanation. It is here precisely that the insurmountable obstacle lies. II. THE RATIONALIST «EXPLANATION» OR PROOF BY THE ABSURD
Lucy is a stupid child, manipulated by the clergy. Moreover she is a liar. She is even a mythomaniac! Convenient accusations... but they are not easily compatible with each other. It will be necessary to choose between them. Be that as it may, objectively, the apparitions at Fatima appear first of all as a series of unquestionable facts which all equally admit. On May 13, 1917, three little shepherds claimed that the Blessed Virgin had appeared to them and spoken to them; that is a first fact. Then five times in a row, on the thirteenth of each month, they maintained that they saw Her again; that is the second fact. From month to month, the crowds became more and more numerous. On October 13, there were 70,000 people at the Cova who all claimed to have seen an extraordinary cosmic phenomenon in the sky: “The dance of the sun.” Here is a series of testimonies which are, as such, so many facts that the historian must explain in a plausible manner. There is the most arduous task, to which G. de Sede dedicates the major part of his work. We will follow our author step by step in his purely natural explanation of all the facts. Then our own critique will necessarily be mingled in with the exposition of the rationalist thesis. 1. THE CLERICAL MACHINATIONSEverything began with murky clerical machinations. We even know the conversation which is behind the whole affair. In May, 1914, three priests met at Torres Novas, not far from Fatima: Abel Ventura do Ceu, Father de Sousa, and Manuel Marques Ferreira, the young parish priest of Fatima. «When the other two asked him how things were going in his parish, he answered with a sigh: “Nothing ever happens. The region is poor, the earth is not very productive. The people are wretched, without initiative.” Then Benvenuto de Sousa said to him: “There is one way of rapidly enriching your parish: an apparition like La Salette or Lourdes.” Manuel Marques Ferreira reflected a moment, and then agreed: “You are right, especially since the environment lends itself to this sort of thing.”» 821THE PARISH PRIEST OF FATIMA AND THE APPARITIONS. In fact, if there was trickery, there was no one other than the parish priest of Fatima who could choose the actors and direct the whole affair without raising suspicions. However, this hypothesis goes against the most obvious historical truth. It is well known that the apparitions of 1917, far from being a profitable enterprise for the parish priest, were on the contrary prejudicial for him. He never ceased complaining about the fact that the faithful left their offerings on the spot of the apparitions, while the work begun on the parish church had to be interrupted for lack of resources. For Father Ferreira will always steadfastly refuse to receive any offerings left at the Cova da Iria. Discouraged, he will request a transfer and will leave Fatima in the beginning of 1919. 822 Is fecit cui prodest... That is the profit he got out of the apparitions! A PURE INVENTION. Moreover, the anecdote in question was completely invented. G. de Sede is well aware of it because he puts forth reservations which alone suffice to ruin the foundation of such anecdotes: «Did everything begin in May of 1914? In any case, this is what we are led to believe by the anecdote related to us by several persons during our investigation in Portugal.» Who are these persons? G. de Sede does not tell us! At least he gives us his sources: Once again it is his mentor Tomas da Fonseca. Here is how the ecclesiastical plot was discovered: «The conversation was held before a witness, Father Fernando da Silva, a military chaplain at the time. Being somewhat scandalized, he reported it immediately to one of his friends, Dr. Luis Cebola, one of the most celebrated Portuguese psychiatrists, who saw to it that it became known. Thus the anecdote was known at Lisbon even before the apparitions of Fatima. After fifty years of enforced silence on a subject that was to remain taboo as long as the former regime was in place, the “old Republicans” take pleasure in telling the story.» «The anecdote was known at Lisbon even before the apparitions...» In that case, how is it possible that the republican and anti-Fatima press of that time made no allusion to it, contenting themselves with making Fatima an invention of the Jesuit and clerical reaction, without being any more specific? The dictatorship of Salazar had nothing to do with the affair: Why did the “old Republicans” neither speak nor write about it from 1917 to 1926, when they were still in power, and controlled all the media? They had nine years to denounce the “Fatima fraud”, with supporting documents. Why did they not do so then? Because the famous anecdote that explains everything too easily had not been invented yet... No doubt it was necessary to wait until the supposed witnesses had disappeared! De Sede concludes his decisive anecdote with words that are significant: «We give it here for what it is worth (sic), and with the reserves of usage (?!).» Very good! We understand. He continues: «Let us stress however (sic) that a historian as serious (da Fonseca evidently is not serious!) as Professor A. H. de Oliveira Marques, director of the National Library of Lisbon, in no way excludes the possibility that Fatima rests on a fraud: “In May 1917 (he writes), the Church, or certain of its local elements, perhaps organized and certainly exploited what are known as the apparitions of Fatima.”» The evidence? The proofs? The republican historian is too “serious” to go into details. Let us continue the explanation of our rationalist. Once the idea of «operation Fatima» was launched, to set it in motion it would be enough to copy La Salette and Lourdes. The priests had chosen their actors: three illiterate, stubborn and stupid children. 2. THE APPARITION OF MAY 13, 1917What happened, then? «It is very difficult to admit that the three children on May 13, 1917 were the victims of a simultaneous hallucination at such a well chosen place and time, as we have seen. Thus, at the basis of the first apparition, there was an objective reality.» 823 G. de Sede has seen that, in the case of Fatima, the hypothesis of hallucination is, for many reasons, decidedly untenable. What then? There was an «arrangement», an «operation planned from all angles». 824 But it is certain that the children saw something quite real, objective. 825 What does that mean? Here is the explanation given by the leaders of anti-Fatima rationalism. THE THESIS OF TOMAS DA FONSECA. «Here is what he discovered», docilely related by G. de Sede: 826 «In 1916, a colonel named Genipro had been sent to the area of Fatima to do some topographical surveys. Since he was working there for some time, he also brought his spouse, a beautiful, elegant young woman, always dressed in white during the summer. She was a fanatical Catholic, and as her husband confided later on, it was she who had tried to approach Lucy. The colonel added that his wife spoke several times not only with Lucy but also with Jacinta and Francisco.» Imagine... Colonel Genipro’s wife climbing up on a holm oak! We will not dwell on the grotesque character of the explanation. We will only admire the precision of the testimony: When did the colonel confide this? To whom? As always da Fonseca is very evasive about his sources! De Sede has to buttress the story, adding: «These facts were confirmed for us by a witness, Dr. Hernani Dias Amado... now eighty years old.» A witness of what, please? His respectable age leads us to believe that he took part in the fraud... In this case his testimony, which quite curiously comes very late, astonishes us by its laconicism. He must have known more about it: why did he not reveal the names of the priests who instigated the affair? G. de Sede assures us that «this explanation of the facts is not without probability». The only appearance of proof that he gives is the following little fact, related by Canon Barthas: «Two days after the apparition (of August 19), the parish priest of Fatima drove to Aljustrel a group of five ladies, one of which was a young girl of fifteen, dressed in white. He asks Jacinta which of these ladies resembled the vision. Having stared at all of them, she said: “None; the other Lady was much more beautiful.” – “And this young lady dressed in white?” – “She is very beautiful, but the Lady I saw at the Cova is much more beautiful!”» 827 Such is the only fact which is supposed to prove the fraud: «This at least proves that the parish priest did not exclude, and desired to avoid, a misadventure», 828 G. de Sede comments. You see, he suggests, the parish priest himself had suspected the fraud! Our “historian” who wants to use everything as a weapon, and draw on all possible arguments, is hardly embarrassed by the contradictions: did he not just explain to us twenty pages ago that it was precisely Father Ferreira who had launched the operation, chosen the actors and prepared everything in advance? The fact related proves on the contrary that our three shepherds were incapable of confusing a beautiful young woman with the Heavenly apparition, surrounded by light, which almost blinded them... It also confirms what has already been proven a thousand other ways: the parish priest of Fatima, who had so little sympathy for the three seers, was very hesitant and was always cold and harsh towards them. In any case it absolutely excludes the idea that he himself was involved in the supposed fraud in any way! Another problem: Tomas da Fonseca seems to be unaware of the chronology. The lady in question who supposedly played the role of the apparition... was not at Fatima in 1917... but in 1916! JOAO ILHARCO: THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE STATUE. Those who maintained that there had been fraud had to invent something else... Da Fonseca’s work had appeared in 1958... Joao IIharco, who writes in 1971, proposes another explanation: «Asking questions about this doll, 1.1 metres high (?), which spoke without budging or even moving its lips (?), he concluded that someone (?) had placed on the holm oak a statue of the Virgin whose appearance was familiar to the children (?) and that an operator (?) hidden in the bushes, after drawing attention to the statue by capturing the rays of the sun in a mirror, had conversed with Lucy.» 829 We will not waste time commenting on such foolishness: here he is swimming in a sea of impossibilities. By whom was the statue placed on the holm oak? When? How? If it was «familiar to the children», why didn’t they recognize it? The famous “doll” upon which Ilharco builds his whole edifice is a pure invention taken from a fantastic account of the apparitions, published on July 22, 1917... in O Seculo, a liberal and anticlerical daily of Lisbon, which at that time was very satirical on the apparitions of Fatima. 830 Using such sources, it is easy to write history as one pleases! Fortunately, to be taken in by the stories of Joao Ilharco, one would really have to want to be. His work, Fatima Unmasked, published in 1971, provoked a whole series of critiques in Portugal that left no part of it standing. 831 We have even learned that, «to avoid “the scandal that his book provoked”, Ilharco offered to retract his publication.» 832THE “EXPLANATION” OF GERARD DE SEDE. The rationalist critique goes on. In 1977, G. de Sede proposes a third solution, absolutely ingenious because it is synthetic: «The version of Joao Ilharco and that of Tomas da Fonseca do not, moreover, seem irreconcilable: Lucy could have seen the colonel’s wife at Estrumeiras, a statue at the Cova da Iria, and then mixed up the two recollections.» 833 Once we present in detail the testimonies on the apparitions of the Angel in 1915 and 1916, we will see that the ingenious synthetic theory only doubles the incoherent statements, incredible assumptions, and contradictions. THE UNQUESTIONABLE FACT. We find the perfect refutation of the rationalist fabrications in an unquestionable historical fact. Not the fact of the apparitions themselves, but first of all the fact of the witness given: the account given by little Jacinta to her mother on the evening of May 13, 1917. Confirmed by the agreement of Francisco and the accounts of Lucy the next day, this witness – although written down only a few months later in the interrogations and articles in the press – is a certain historical fact. A few days later, the whole village knew it and soon the whole country would know what the three children had related. Now it is this initial witness that all the theories are expected to explain. Ti Olympia, the mother of Francisco and Jacinta, tells the story: «The little child ran to greet me and threw herself at my legs, hugging me as I had never seen her do before. “Oh, mother!” she cried, full of emotion, “today I saw Our Lady at the Cova da Iria!” “That’s likely, isn’t it!... I suppose you’re a saint to be seeing Our Lady!” Jacinta seemed downcast at what I said, but she came into the house with me, saying again: “But I saw Her!” Then she told me what had happened, of the lightning and her fear because of it... of the light... and the beautiful Lady surrounded by light so dazzling you could hardly look at it... of the Rosary which they were to say every day... «But I didn’t believe anything she was saying and hardly listened to her. “Little fool!” I said to her. “Sure, sure Our Lady is going to appear to you.” After that I went to get some food for the pig. My husband had stayed in the corral to see if it was getting on with the other animals. When we had finished seeing to the animals, we went back to the house. My Manuel sat down by the hearth and began to eat his supper. His brother-in-law, Antonio da Silva, happened to be there too, and all my children – as far as I can remember, all eight of them. Then I said to Jacinta: “Tell us that story about Our Lady in the Cova da Iria.” «And she told us what happened with the greatest simplicity. There had been a most beautiful Lady... dressed in white with a gold cord hanging from Her neck to Her waist. Her head was covered with a mantle, whiter than milk, and fell to Her feet. It was edged with gold and was so beautiful... Her hands had been joined, so... And my little girl got up off the stool and stood with her hands folded on the level of her chest in imitation of the vision. She said: “The Lady held a Rosary in Her hand; a beautiful Rosary shining like the stars, and a crucifix that shone... She spoke with Lucy a great deal, but not with me, or Francisco. I heard all that She said. Oh, mother, we must say the Rosary every day; the Lady said this to Lucy. She said too that She would take us all to Heaven, and other things which I can’t remember, but which Lucy knows. When She went back into Heaven the doors seemed to shut so quickly that I thought Her feet would get caught... Oh, Heaven is so beautiful!... It’s like there were lots of wild roses there!...” «Francisco confirmed these declarations. The girls were much interested in the story, but the boys inclined to tease.» 834Let the reader judge for himself if the dreamings of the rationalists allow them to explain such an account! And our anti-Fatima critic is only at the beginning of his labours... 3. THE FIVE SUBSEQUENT APPARITIONSThe fact is clear and obvious: five times in a row the children said they saw the Blessed Virgin again, and later on there were hundreds, and then thousands of witnesses. For what is unbelievable – and still more incredible on the hypothesis of fraud! – is that the “inventors of the fraud” had the audacity to announce on May 13 the day and the hour of the five subsequent apparitions, on the thirteenth of each month... Each time the crowd heard Lucy speak with the Vision, and after each apparition the children described it and reported the responses of “the Lady”. Here, reduced to a bare minimum, are the facts nobody contests, not even G. de Sede! Here the rationalist “explanation” is even more incredible, incoherent and ridiculous than for the apparition of May. The presence of the crowd renders the difficulty greater: «The first vision of the little shepherds of Fatima was that of a real entity – either a person or statue. But quite obviously nothing similar can be assigned as the basis of the five subsequent “apparitions”, at least the four that took place in public.»835 Really! So no longer is it a question of an aerial promenade of the colonel’s wife, or an ordinary statue illuminated by the sunlight reflected in a mirror! No more actress hidden in the bushes to transmit the message! So then, what happened? Something else must be invented... Let us take time out to read the key page where G. de Sede presents the most skilful and elaborate of the rationalist explanations. Here is the text in extenso, a model of its genre. 836THE RATIONALIST “EXPLANATION”. «For these apparitions (the five subsequent ones), it is thus legitimate to ask if Lucy dos Santos – her two cousins were only stooges playing a minor role – was the prey of hallucinations “induced” by the first vision; if she conducted a simulation on her own initiative; or if the “secret” she claimed to have received was not simply an order not to reveal to anybody under any circumstances, under pain of going to hell, that the messages received from the Lady seen the first day would henceforth be transmitted by someone to whom she would owe both confidence and obedience. «It would be possible to choose between these three explanations, which are equally plausible, only if Lucy were subjected to clinical examinations of which we knew the conclusions. Since this was not the case, in the actual state of the case we are obliged to rely on interrogations. «Let us remark however that the last of these three hypotheses was that of Joao Ilharco, who thinks that the person who transmitted to Lucy the messages she presented to the public and her interrogators as coming from the Blessed Virgin, was Father Faustino José Facinto Ferreira, parish priest and dean of Olival. «Among other things, he bases his hypothesis on the following facts: «1. At the time of the Apparitions, Lucy – as she herself revealed twenty years later – stayed two or three days with Father Faustino on the pretext of spending some time with his sister (“He had the patience to spend long hours with me, teaching me the practice of virtue and guiding me with wise counsels.” – Memoirs of Lucy.) «2. Again according to Lucy, it is Father Faustino who ordered the three children to “keep the secret”. «3. Numerous witnesses noted that during the gatherings at the Cova da Iria the children seemed to be the prey of intense fear. «4. Certain prayers which Lucy affirms were taught to her by the Virgin bear the stamp of Father Faustino. (“The Father showed a special devotion for Our Lady of the Rosary and the souls in purgatory; now at Fatima the Lady presented Herself as Our Lady of the Rosary and taught the children a prayer for the souls in purgatory.”) «5. It was Father Faustino who led the Bishop of Leiria to believe in the apparitions of Fatima. «Joao Ilharco himself recognizes that this conclusion presents itself as the reconstruction of a puzzle, of which some pieces are still missing.» Such a text, by its apparent erudition, will no doubt leave the reader indecisive and embarrassed. We would have to be able to verify all his sources to show just how impossible it is to explain the apparitions of Fatima by a clerical fraud. G. de Sede proposes the three hypotheses as equally plausible, although he obviously leans to the third one, that of Joao Ilharco. THE FRAUD OF FATHER FAUSTINO, DEAN OF OLIVAL. This is absolutely untenable, for many reasons. If the hypothesis were true, how incredible it would be for Lucy herself, in her Memoirs, to reveal the name of the author of the messages! To say that Lucy made some visits to Father Faustino “at the time of the apparitions” is a pure lie. Although the dean of Olival wrote a favourable article after hearing an enthusiastic account from some of his parishioners who were present at the apparitions of July 13, he did not meet the seers for the first time until after the apparitions. Only then did he take charge of their souls and become their counsellor. No doubt in 1918, he invited Lucy and Jacinta to spend two or three days with him. After Jacinta became ill, Lucy returned there alone. 837As for the prayer for the souls in Purgatory, which supposedly bears the stamp of Father Faustino... it has been proven that this was not the original formula, but an inexact one which spread later on during the pilgrimages. The prayer given by the children immediately after the apparitions did not speak explicitly of the souls in Purgatory. Evidently, those who maintain that it was a fraud perpetrated by the clergy cannot succeed in giving the name of a single priest who was in the least capable of playing this role. The dean of Olival could not have been behind the affair any more than the parish priest of Fatima. Canon Barthas, in a sound study on the attitude of the clergy towards the apparitions in the first few years, 838 shows convincingly that no priest could have “coached” the children. In a village, everybody knows each other. But no priest was familiar with the seers. And when G. de Sede must give a reference taken from this study, why does he cite only the title, giving neither the chapter nor the page number? 839 No doubt because the demonstration is far too convincing, and would bring his thesis to naught. This explanation is also incredible from the psychological point of view; it assumes utterly contrary qualities in the seers: to be stupid enough to let themselves be fooled so grossly, and to be exceptionally gifted to act out their roles so ably... to repeat the message learned by heart (?), without however using exactly the same expressions. They would have to have a great religious spirit, and an extreme fear of hell, but not be afraid to lie in the most shameless fashion, pretending to have seen what they had not seen at all. The explanation of Joao Ilharco is a tissue of lies and incredible assumptions. LUCY A FAKER? «Lucy faked it of her own accord.» This explanation also is utterly fanciful. Moreover, it would have to be proven that Lucy was a liar. Then, even if we granted her an extraordinary cleverness, how could one attribute to a child of ten the invention of the words of the message, so profound that one could examine them indefinitely without discovering the least flaw: not the slightest childishness, the least vulgarity, the least theological error... Read, and reread the words of Our Lady, and you will conclude for yourselves: to say that a child of ten invented all that on her own is absurd. “INDUCED HALLUCINATIONS”. «Lucy was the victim of hallucinations “induced” by the first vision.» In this case, Lucy would be mentally ill. But after each apparition, Jacinta and Francisco also gave testimony. We would have to assume a collective, simultaneous hallucination announced in advance! In other words it is extremely improbable. De Sede himself writes elsewhere: «It is very difficult to admit that on May 13, 1917, the three children were the victims of a simultaneous hallucination, at so well chosen a place and time...» 840 It is just as difficult for the following months! From the point of view of psychiatry, such a simultaneous hallucination in these conditions is a pure chimera. We shall return to this point. THE THREEFOLD WITNESS. None of the three “explanations” has any credibility. None of the three permits us to explain an important fact, that of the triple witness which is an additional guarantee of authenticity, especially since it is a question of children who were seven, nine and ten years old, incapable of foreseeing the complex questions of adults. G. de Sede finds it convenient to neglect this fact: «Her two cousins were merely stooges in a secondary role», nor does he give them any further thought! That is too convenient. Granted, Lucy was the head of the trio, but that doesn’t prevent her cousins from being true witnesses, as we will see. Their statements do not agree on a few tiny details. Their expressions are not stereotyped, which proves that they did not learn a text by heart. These apparent or slight contradictions, which can be explained quite well by the greater or lesser extent that such or such a detail struck their attention, would be inexplicable in the case of a fraud or lesson learned by heart. But their statements always agree on all the essentials, which reduces the other two hypotheses to naught. For a triple and identical hallucination is a pure invention. As for faking it, it would assume not only a creative genius on Lucy’s part, but an equally faultless and ingenious complicity by the younger two, whom Lucy would have to instruct in their respective roles after each apparition. Yet they were only ten, nine and seven! Thus, to save at any price a bad cause dangerously compromised, all means are allowed: deceit, lying, and bad faith. THE MEDICAL EXAMINATION. «It w0uld be impossible to choose between these three explanations, equally probable in themselves, unless Lucy were submitted to clinical examinations, of which we knew the results. Since this is not the case, we are obliged in the present state of the question to rely on the interrogations.» 841The dishonesty here shows us how bankrupt the rationalist thesis is. What is the truth? The truth is that the three seers did undergo this medical examination. The ambiguous phrasing of the author does not deny it. He even makes a very rapid allusion to it a few pages before: «On the morning of August 13, the sub-prefect of Vila Nova de Ourem, Artur de Oliveira Santos, took the three children to the sub-prefecture to interrogate them and have them examined by a doctor.» We read in a footnote: «Dr. Antonio Rodrigues de Oliveira. The report of this doctor disappeared under the Salazar regime.» 842 Yet from 1917 to 1926, in the complete “liberty” of the masonic republic, our good apostles of science did not find the time to publish it. The argument is striking... against its own authors. Dom Jean-Nesmy asks: «Why did they hide a document which surely could not be expected to favour the seers, a document which would have been of the highest interest for the critique of Fatima? Given the manifest hostility of the administrator, one can only hold as reasonable the hypothesis that if he did not make use of this medical examination, it was because its conclusions were not favourable to him.» 843Of the three “equally plausible explanations” that supposedly explain the apparitions from June to October... nothing remains. 4. THE ENTHUSIASM OF THE CROWDSIn June sixty persons were present. In July there were four or five thousand, eighteen thousand in August, twenty-five thousand in September, and seventy thousand in October. Such an increase in the crowds from month to month is another fact which must be explained. Why did such great crowds travel there if absolutely nothing happened? The hypothesis of a gross deception is still more powerless, in this case, to explain the facts. When announcing an extraordinary event, although it is possible, because of the surprise factor, to draw a large crowd once, the people will be quickly disillusioned, and the fraud will not repeat itself. Fatima was quite different! G. de Sede is aware of it: «To attribute such episodes purely to the sleight of hand of the clergy, as does Tomas da Fonseca, a figure very much in view in the anticlerical republic of 1910, is however a rather curt explanation (what an admission!). «Not that trickery is rare, but it does not always result in a popular cult; far from it. Indeed the development of such a cult demands the concurrence of complex historical, social and emotional factors. In short, as its name indicates, every cult develops in a culture.» 844THE SOCIOLOGICAL EXPLANATION. We are curious to learn the profound sociological arguments that our “intelligent” rationalist will add to the “rather curt explanation” of his mentor da Fonseca. Here they are: «In a sense Fatima is the authentic reflection of modes of religious expression proper to a poorly developed country; if after the staging of the apparitions (sic) a popular cult developed there in a relatively spontaneous manner (sic!), it is because in this milieu faith was confused, and is still largely confused, with belief in the extraordinary, and religious conduct is confused with a type of magic.» 845 Let the reader assess the sonorous emptiness of these vague generalities... Or is perhaps the author alluding to the much more precise development of page 118 of his book? By an audacious sociological argument he imagines he can explain at once both the success of the apparitions of Our Lady and the Miracle of the Sun: «What must still be explained is why, in the Vulgate of Fatima, the Marian theme was linked with a solar theme. In our opinion, it is due to the resurgence of a local tradition which is expressed in the legend of the foundation of the village.» To make a long story short: according to legend, the village of Fatima owes its name to an episode of the “reconquista”. In 1188 a young Moslem woman, Fatima, was taken prisoner by a Christian knight. Since the latter wished to marry her, she was baptized under the name of Oureana, thus giving the town Ourem its name. She died young and her body was transported to a place which retained its Arab name: Fatima. But here is the important part, which sufficiently explains everything: Fatima was the daughter of the lord of Alcácer do Sal. That is enough! In case you have not understood: «Alcacer do Sol (sic) means “castle of the sun” and Ouranea (sic) is the translation of the Greek Ouranos, or heaven. Being the daughter of the master of the sun at its apogee, Fatima, alias Ouranea was then – already – the Lady of Heaven. Legends and tradition perpetuate themselves in a rather enigmatic manner (sic!), in the collective unconscious where they had already taken on existence; the existence of a very ancient cult of the “Lady From Heaven” at Fatima (?) unquestionably contributes (!) to explaining the credence that the apparitions and dance of the sun gained among the population of the region, for these themes were based on profound cultural residues.» 846 In other words, the promenade of Colonel Genipro’s wife, the statue balanced on the holm oak, and then above all “profound cultural residues” suffice to explain the increasing flow of the crowds of Portuguese people to the Cova da Iria... «NOTHING EXTRAORDINARY...» Did not this enthusiasm come instead from the witness of the pilgrims, who on their return told everyone how they had seen, if not the Virgin Mary, at least some extraordinary events? The simplicity of the seers, their piety, unquestionable and overwhelming cosmic phenomena... G. de Sede does not wish to hear about any of this. Let us quote once more his commentary on the apparition of September 13: «Today there are between 25 and 30,000 people. Many come to ask for the healing of a sick person, or the assurance that a departed one will go to Heaven. In a touching gesture, some people give Lucy two letters and a flask of perfume for the Virgin, but the little girl gives them this clever response: “These things are not needed in Heaven.”» (Remember that for G. de Sede Lucy is a deluded, stupid child who learned her text by heart. The question was unexpected. How, on her own, could she find a response that showed such presence of mind and delicate benevolence?) A collective psychosis develops around Fatima... «Since however nothing extraordinary happened, they had a rumour spread that day that a rain of flowers had fallen from Heaven.» «They had a rumour spread...» and thirty thousand people went back home, full of enthusiasm... without anybody having seen anything at all! It was merely a bit of «innocent deceit»! Of course: it is enough for anyone to say any old thing, and thousands of people from every background and culture will believe it, without themselves having seen or heard anything. This “explanation” is so grotesque that it needs no commentary. 5. AND THE MEMOIRS OF SISTER LUCY?This also is a fact to be explained. From 1938 on, the historians of Fatima claimed to cite writings where Sister Lucy, at the request of her bishop, related with more precision things she had never spoken about before – the events of her childhood, and the life and virtues of Jacinta and Francisco. These texts exist, and even the facsimile of the manuscript has been published. Where do they come from? CANON GALAMBA AUTHOR OF THE MEMOIRS? For de Sede, under no circumstances can Lucy be behind these texts, which she could have slavishly copied later on: «It is clear that the author of the second Vulgate of Fatima (the Memoirs) cannot be Lucy. When, in 1921, Lucy was ushered in to the convent boarding school of Vilar, Bishop Correia da Silva was reluctant to accept her because she was so silly... The slightest internal criticism shows conclusively that she could not have composed, even at thirty or thirty-five, these texts with theological pretensions and an elegant style that are attributed to her.» 847 Since it is Canon Galamba who published the first of these famous texts, «in all logic the author of the second Vulgate is none other than Canon Galamba de Oliveira». Moreover, he refuted the attacks of various authors against the Memoirs – a proof that he was in fact the author! A HYPOTHESIS TOO QUICKLY FORGOTTEN! A simple reading of the Memoirs is enough to show the absurdity of the rationalist thesis. The accounts are filled with descriptions, names and precise events that all assume a perfect knowledge of Aljustrel in 1917. The only possible author is certainly a woman who was intimately familiar with the life of the village between 1913 and 1921! Moreover, it is so evident that Lucy is the true author of the Memoirs that G. de Sede himself, forgetting his arbitrary hypothesis on several occasions, lets slip from his pen phrases such as these: «In her Memoirs written in 1937 (sic), Lucy herself unintentionally informs us on this subject... Lucy then describes for us the effects of these recommendations on Jacinta...» 848 Again: «As Lucy herself revealed a good twenty years later...», and he quotes a long passage from the Memoirs… 849 It is obvious that the Galamba hypothesis does not have the least consistency – a new fact that the rationalist thesis leaves unexplained! III. WHERE IS THE FRAUD? The work of our rationalist author is not only devoid of any historical value, and incapable of seriously explaining the most certain facts, it also reveals itself to be a tissue of lies and a work of exceptionally bad faith. The sentiments of the author do not interest us. What is important is to show that this bad faith, these lies, these calumnies are an integral part of the thesis of fraud, which without them cannot even be presented with the least appearance of seriousness. The most telling arguments, which will most surely shake the confidence of the readers in Fatima and engender suspicion, are precisely the enormous lies which ridicule and tarnish the reputations of all the witnesses of the facts, and undermine the credibility one would otherwise give them. THE OLD ANTICLERICAL PREJUDICES. Let us say nothing of the old anti-Christian prejudices faithfully preserved by our author in the first part of his work, Fatima before Fatima. For to destroy Fatima, de Sede understood that one must reject the whole Catholic doctrine on Mary. This he does using the scraps of a Protestant and rationalist exegesis almost a century old. For example: the four Gospels «were written between 98 and 145 A.D.... Luke wrote around 120 and Matthew around 145». 850 What contemporary exegete, even Protestant or atheist, would still dare to maintain such a fantastic chronology, since the most recent and reliable findings prove, on the contrary, that the whole New Testament was written within a generation, before the fall of Jerusalem? The Anglican John Robinson wrote in 1980: «My personal opinion is that we must speak of a period between 47 and 70.» 851 But the science of Gerard de Sede is still at the level of Guignebert ( A manual of the ancient history of Christianity, 1906!) Of course, Fatima forms one body with the great Marian apparitions of the nineteenth century, from rue du Bac to Pontmain, Lourdes and La Salette. De Sede pretends to demystify them under the provocative title: The French Forerunners of Fatima (Chapter III). Everywhere the scenario is the same: «the choice of illiterate children in a rural environment with strong magical traditions (sic), and immediate claustration of the seers.» 852 Inexactitudes, deception, systematic malevolence – such are the rules of his method. A whole book would be necessary to re-establish the truth on all the points touched on by the author 853 – but let us stick with Fatima. Here are some examples chosen from among a hundred possible ones, drawn from a superabundant dossier. THE THREE SEERS CALUMNIATED
LUCY? AN INCOMPETENT. According to de Sede, Lucy was not able to write her Memoirs herself, because she was so silly. The argument to prove it is drawn from Barthas, Fatima 1917-1968, p. 209. Here is de Sede’s version: «Later on, at the convent, they will give up on making her pass her exams and will content themselves with teaching her housework, embroidering and a little typing.» 854 The point is that Lucy was incapable of learning. Now here is the source text: the bishop, to try her humility, «asked her never to reveal her name until ordered to do so, and never to speak to anyone about Fatima... In fact, Lucy will succeed by a true miracle of humility, obedience, and... of spirit, in completely concealing her identity», and this for almost thirteen years. «She was successful enough in her studies: but she was not presented for exams, to avoid revealing her identity. In addition to the usual subjects, she learned the practical work of housekeeping, embroidery, typing, etc.» 855 This is how anti-Fatima history is written! “THREE STUBBORN AND STUPID FACES”. «The three children could neither read nor write, and a photograph of them, taken by an amateur the day after the apparitions, is eloquent: it shows us three stubborn and stupid faces. This is why they quickly substituted for this hastily done disaster a retouched photograph, for which the three children posed in their folk costumes: the little girls are covered in a shawl, and the boy has a little Portuguese cap. Later on they will transform this photo into a photomontage of the apparition, with little lambs and the Virgin appearing on the holm oak...» 856 In an appendix, the three photos are reproduced under the title: Contribution of Photography in the Elaboration of the Myth of Fatima. 857What is the truth? The only photo he declares authentic is that of an amateur, Mario Godinho, taken on July 13. The children, who had just had the vision of hell, appear sad and frightened. 858 As for the trick photo of the Virgin visible in the midst of the children, it is clearly only a pious image, and never did anyone claim it was a photograph of the apparitions! There is nothing there to deceive us... any more than in the hideous postcard that G. de Sede chose to reproduce on the cover of his book. That one has “doctored photo” written all over it! That leaves the admirable photo on page 265. De Sede adds the perfidious caption: «The three children became stars and their photo, posed for and retouched, appears in the press.» Here we have to denounce the most shameless calumny. Just as “they” fabricated the photomontage of the apparition, “they” retouched the photo, G. de Sede accuses, leading us to believe that “they” evidently refers to the same persons. Yet he is careful not to say what retouches were made. Above all he is careful not to name who “they” are that contributed so powerfully to the «elaboration of the myth». Here is the truth that he is careful to hide: the incomparable photo was taken by the journalist of O Seculo, and published in the issue of October 15, 1917. Why should we suspect that the liberal and masonic journal so generously came to the aid of the clerical fraud? The authenticity of the photo is unquestionable. Another stupefying example of a false accusation:
“HOW THE ACTORS LEFT THE SCENE”
This chapter is a choice example of bad faith, replete with lies and contradictions. 859 When Francisco and then Jacinta died, the freemasons and enemies of Fatima said: «It was necessary to cause the disappearance of these little children, who otherwise would have ended up exposing the fraud.» De Sede does not pass up this argument: it was the parish priest and dean of Olival (the author of the messages!) who knowingly imposed «inhuman privations» on the children, to lead them to their death more quickly and get rid of troublesome witnesses. He then describes at great length the sacrifices the children made at the instigation of the dean of Olival. «Our Lord wishes us to do everything that Father tells us.» Thus did Lucy encourage poor, exhausted Jacinta always to make more sacrifices. One can only conclude with the freemason Tomas da Fonseca «who in no way exaggerates», opines de Sede, when he writes concerning the parish priest of Olival: «By his actions and his counsels, he must have greatly contributed to sending these children to the grave, a safer solution than the convent where they would have had to be enclosed if they did not go to Heaven first. Jacinta preferred this solution, or was made to prefer it, as has often been said.» The audacity of the lie and bad faith surpass all bounds. While giving long quotations from the Memoirs, our “historian” has simply replaced with an ellipsis (that is three dots ...) the passage where Lucy explains that it was precisely the dean of Olival who moderated them in their penances, forbidding the ailing Jacinta to get up at night to pray! But of course he keeps the recommendation of Lucy to her cousin, the meaning of which is turned totally upside-down: «Our Lord wishes us to do everything Father told us.» We have to be aware of his own desperate thesis, which cannot be honestly sustained, to see why he must have recourse to such a dishonourable procedure! Note also the flagrant incoherence. G. de Sede affirms elsewhere that these famous penances that drove the seers to their deaths were pure inventions... made up much later «to fatten the dossier destined for their beatification».860 It was all made up by Canon Galamba. 861 Against Fatima, all arguments are good, even the most contradictory! “AN ILLEGAL SEQUESTRATION”. Another example of perfidious calumny, brazen lies and doctoring of references is in the same chapter, where he describes the departure of Lucy for Asilo de Vilar. After accusing the clergy of provoking the death of Jacinta and Francisco, he now accuses them of getting rid of Lucy by an illegal sequestration. «As for Lucy, she was not left free to manufacture prophecies for very long. In 1921, when she had reached the dangerous age of fourteen, it was judged prudent to enclose the unpredictable impulses of puberty within four walls. Bishop Correia da Silva had her enclosed, with a false identity, in a modest convent boarding school of Porto, at Vilar. It was wise to give her an assumed name, for it was an illegal sequestration: the child was a minor and had just lost her father and mother, and thus only the public authority was competent to provide for her education... At the age of eighteen, again in secret, and illegally, she was transferred to Spain.»862 This leads us to think that the lie is the first and unique principle of anti-Fatima history. Gerard de Sede is so sure of himself that he even has the gall to name his source: Fatima 1917-1968, pages 208-9. With such a reference, the calumny will take on the appearance of unquestionable truth! But what does Barthas say on the pages cited? «The decision for Lucy to leave had been made at the suggestion of the Bishop of Leiria, with the consent of her mother, the new parish priest of Fatima and the seer herself.» So Lucy was not completely an orphan! Where could de Sede have read that Lucy’s mother was already dead in 1921? Nowhere does Barthas say that. De Sede attributes this enormous blunder to Canon Formigao... with a reference to the book by Barthas! 863 Here is yet another example of the lengths he will go to dishonour an author and the cause he maintains. The truth is that Lucy’s mother died in 1942. Lucy left for Asilo de Vilar with her full consent. Maria Rosa even accompanied her daughter for part of the way. To a sectarian official who inquired where Lucy was going, her mother replied sharply: «She is going where I want her to be and that is all you will find out!» So much for “forced and illegal sequestration”! A SIGNIFICANT LIE. It must be added that this enormous lie is very significant. G. de Sede would be right... if there had never been any miracles at Fatima. For it was in fact Lucy’s prayer at the Cova da Iria which miraculously saved her mother when she was at the point of death, overwhelmed by increasingly frequent heart failures. The astonishing story is found in the Memoirs of Sister Lucy. «In any case, her mother had no more heart attacks until her death, in 1942.»864 These are historical facts concerning which G. de Sede could have interrogated numerous witnesses still living in Aljustrel. Our author did well to inform us that he wished his work to be «a scientific and critical history which gathers and analyses all the documentation, with a rigorously exact method...»865
MIRACLES DO NOT EXIST
There is another series of facts that our anti-Fatima author almost totally ignores. These are all the phenomena for which honest scientific criticism has determined that there is no adequate natural cause, and at once recognizes the miracle. However, in the name of Reason it has been decided once and for all: miracles do not exist! To deny them, the method is simple: it is enough to ignore the facts, or to mention them only with a mordant irony. THE MIRACULOUS HEALINGS. In twelve lines, everything is dismissed: «The miracle-working reputation of Fatima is much less solidly established than that of Lourdes. In spite of my insistence, I was not able to see Mrs. Maria Manuela Nunes Monteiro Teixeira Bastos, the wife of a retired naval commander, who was cured of a persistent lack of appetite at Fatima in 1942. Without neglecting such modest miracles, which are scrupulously noted down in the columns of the Voz de Fatima, the directors of the sanctuary are fond of claiming that at Fatima they attach less importance to relieving the body than to forming souls, which is much more noble.» 866 Granted, he can turn a phrase quite ably. But from the scientific point of view his statements are a joke. Gerard de Sede at least could have read the accounts furnished by Canon Barthas on this question: Fatima 1917-1968, (p. 297-301). In Fatima, Unprecedented Miracle, the same author devotes an entire chapter to “miraculous healings” (p. 211-230). If he had wished to handle the question seriously, he would have had to have refuted the work of Michel Agnellet, Miracles at Fatima, which uses the most solid historical method in the examination of witnesses and medical dossiers, retaining only the most obvious cases, where the proofs of extraordinary healing are unquestionable. 867“THE MIRACLE OF THE DOVES”. Here is another example of the clever but fanciful manner in which our anti-Fatima author eliminates miracles at any price. We will cite all the witnesses later on, but it must be noted that they are so abundant that Canon Barthas could devote a whole book to the subject: The Doves of the Virgin. 868 All the facts related are contemporary. The author indicates the names of witnesses who are often very visible personalities, whose words can be verified quite easily. 869 To deny these facts one would have to assert that a good fifty bishops and Cardinals are all liars. De Sede is careful not to give any references to this book. He handles the affair quite cleverly: he is the first to discover the deceit involved in this affair of the doves, who came spontaneously to place themselves at the feet of Our Lady during Her worldwide peregrinations; and he publishes a sensational photo which exposes the fraud. During Her world-wide tour by plane, «the statue of the Virgin of Fatima was accompanied by doves, trained to place themselves at her feet. These doves are seen here in the baggage-hold.» 870How did our investigator succeed in eluding the surveillance of the clergy to obtain this decisive photo? He does not indicate the source. We have discovered it anyway: it is simply taken from the work of Canon Barthas, The Doves of the Virgin, (p. 126)! Among dozens of photos and hundreds of witnesses, Barthas relates how the, faithful, having offered some doves in Italy (in no way trained to place themselves at the Virgin’s feet!), wanted them to follow the statue to Portugal, hence their presence in the plane. Two of these doves, chosen from among the most beautiful ones to follow Our Lady during Her tour of Italy, were put in a cage to be offered later on to the Holy Father. The cage is pictured in the photo. 871 If it had been a fraud, Barthas would not have published this photo himself. Our anti-Fatima writer, who is well aware of this, is careful to camouflage their origin. THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN. We Will have to close this refutation, which could be prolonged indefinitely, with a final example which demonstrates the total collapse of the adversaries of Fatima before the most certain facts. What does G. de Sede say about the famous Miracle of the Sun of October 13, 1917? Once again the procedure used is eloquent. The reader’s attention is drawn to another terrain, making the reader forget all the essential points. Thus Gerard de Sede uses four pages of appendices, as well as three pages of text, 872 along with photographs, to rigorously demonstrate that two photographs of the solar miracle presented as authentic by l’Osservatore Romano on November 18, 1951, were recognized as unquestionably false by the same organ of the Vatican on March 13, 1952. Gerard de Sede rambles on, insistent on this point, as if the reality of the solar miracle depended exclusively on these two photographs published in 1951! It is obvious that they have no importance, and the journalist of l’Osservatore Romano had no choice but to realize that he had been duped. But that proves nothing about the event of October 13, 1917, for which the testimonies of 70,000 people amply suffice! In his triumphant irony, 873 the author hopes to make the reader forget the three miserable pages (yes – only three pages as opposed to the seven dedicated to the business of the photos!) where he deals with the only events that are of any real importance: the solar phenomenon itself. «From this mistaken expectation, and the curious games played by the light, which one can sometimes observe in an atmosphere saturated with humidity when the clouds move rapidly, was born the collective vision of the “dance of the sun”. There is no need to go on at length about this incident (sic!), since on that day no observatory noted the slightest exceptional solar phenomenon (there is precisely the whole problem!)... In compensation for not being present at the promised apparition of the Holy Family, many people affirmed that they had seen the sun change its colour and dance, in defiance of the inflexible laws of the celestial movements.» 874The embarrassment of the author is obvious, and for anyone who has read the accounts given by numerous unimpeachable witnesses of the event, the explanations suggested are ludicrous: to say that seventy thousand people, disappointed at not having been present at the apparition, affirmed “in compensation” that they saw the unheard of spectacle is ludicrous! Did they merely “affirm” that they saw the sun dance, without having seen anything? In this case they are all liars! But that would be ignoring the most certain facts: in this immense crowd, there was a large proportion of curious people, sceptics, and fanatical unbelievers, who, far from being disappointed at not seeing anything, would have been delighted had the hour gone by without anything happening! The prodigious, unheard of and inexplicable fact is that even the unbelievers saw like everybody else the astonishing spectacle that we will describe at length. The ironically intended, reassuring considerations about “the inflexible laws of the celestial movements”, and the fact that no observatory noted the phenomenon ring false, for the miracle lies elsewhere: in the simple fact that seventy thousand perfectly credible witnesses saw, with their own eyes, on that day a grandiose spectacle, perfectly unimaginable until then. Our anti-Fatima writer is not capable of uttering the first word of a plausible natural explanation for this fact. CONCLUSION - «PROOF BY THE ABSURD»
Somehow, Gerard de Sede has the audacity to attribute to himself, in conclusion, this honourable satisfecit: «I do not believe I have been lacking either in this respect (due to Christians), or in the exactitude one may expect from a historian, in showing that the apparitions at Fatima, like all those that preceded and inspire them, admit of a natural explanation...» 875“THE RIGOROUS EXACTITUDE OF A HISTORIAN”? We have already seen “the exactitude” of the historical method used by our author! Father Alonso, in a brief article devoted to him, in spite of his usual benevolence, is constrained to judge this work severely: «The reader familiar with the historical method will see that, in spite of his pretensions to don the noble gown of a historian, the author never goes beyond the style of a bad, obnoxious and opportunistic journalist.» 876 He denounces the «many gross historical errors» in this work. He cites twenty, and adds: «If we were to cite all of them, we would never finish.» So true is this affirmation that, for the most part, the errors he cites are in addition to the ones we have already pointed out. A SYMPATHETIC INVESTIGATION? Gerard de Sede pats himself on the back for having conducted a serious investigation, inspired by benevolence and “respect for Christians”. The truth is that all the people well disposed towards Fatima who, in good faith, agreed to answer his questions were duped by an unscrupulous man. «Truly», Alonso deplores, «greater effrontery could hardly be imagined: first he provokes the interviewee, then he ridicules him...» The procedure is simple but dishonest, especially when de Sede adds the most infamous calumnies to quotations out of context. «Who», asks Father Alonso, «will defend before a jury the humble Maria of the Angels (the elder sister of Sister Lucy who at the time was still living at Aljustrel in the family house) from the injury done to her by Gerard de Sede in accusing her of “speaking only in exchange for remuneration”?» Alonso asks, «“Investigation of a fraud”, or “Fraud in a supposed investigation”?» “NATURAL EXPLANATIONS”? All the natural explanations our author has presented to us to attempt to explain the apparitions of Fatima are nothing more than a tissue of inconsistent and incoherent absurdities. To formulate them, he had to unscrupulously ignore the most certain facts, distort others, and finally, to shamelessly make use of the habitual weapons of bad faith: doctoring of sources, boldface lies, perfidious calumnies, up and down the book... from Voltaire to Gerard de Sede, the rule has not changed: To “wipe out the infamy” everything is allowed: “Lie! Lie! Some of it will always stick!” THE SYNTHESIS OF ANTI-FATIMA CRITICISM. This procedure is terribly effective on uninformed readers, but once the fraud is denounced, it rebounds against the thesis the author professes to uphold. The remark is all the more applicable to this work by Gerard de Sede, since in spite of its enormous defects it is currently by far the most clever and complete statement of the radical opposition to Fatima. Father Alonso, who composed a whole work tracing «the history of the literature on Fatima», assures us: «We believe we are well acquainted with the bibliographical information on Fatima. We can affirm that this author has gathered in his book all the difficulties which for him contribute to making Fatima a fraud. We can even say that he has exhausted the theme. If we made a critical edition of it, we would be certain of having collected the principal themes of this school of authors, which derives its source from the anticlerical demagogy...» 877 In short, it is «the synthesis», «the summary», «the summit» of everything rationalism could dig up, in seventy years, against the authenticity of the apparitions of Fatima. FRAUD? AN OUTDATED HYPOTHESIS! Apart from this work, there is nothing. And if there is nothing, it is not for lack of interest or research of all kinds. It is simply because nothing else can be there, for all the impassioned a priori arguments in the world cannot replace the facts and documents. Today it is impossible for any honest historian familiar with the sources to continue to uphold the hypothesis that Fatima was a fraud. And we can be sure that this will be increasingly the case, especially since we have the critical works of Father Alonso, which eventually will be published in their totality. The change of tone in the articles of Father Laurentin from 1967 to 1982, going from scornful suspicion to an almost unhesitating recognition of authenticity, is very significant. 878 This progressive rallying to a positive judgement on Fatima is proportional to a real knowledge of the facts. “PROOF BY THE ABSURD”. Meanwhile, we see that Gerard de Sede has contributed his part (indeed in spite of himself!) to the apologetic of Fatima. The patent absurdity of all the “natural explanations” proposed leaves the field free... for the supernatural explanation. «Here then is everything our good “critics” have been able to find», writes Dom Jean-Nesmy. «Such inconceivable theories at least have the merit of making a true apparition of the Virgin almost natural and plausible by comparison!» 879 Especially, we might add, since this hypothesis of a supernatural explanation does not demand that we avoid any fact, and needs neither deceit, nor lies, nor calumny, but only the great light of historical truth. In short, we can say that, following his masters da Fonseca, Alfaric and Ilharco, Gerard de Sede has made an indirect but important contribution to proving the supernatural origin of the events of Fatima – as Dom Jean-Nesmy put it so well, it is the «proof by the absurd».
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 12, 2020 15:38:30 GMT
CHAPTER III
THE SOLUTION OF THE HISTORICAL CRITIQUE
THE TRUTH OF ALL OF FATIMA The evidence on the apparitions and miracles of Fatima pose a fascinating problem for the critic. Whether the historians consider them credible or not, they are facts which must be explained. Yet, neither one of the two solutions we have just proposed is acceptable. The modernist explanation? It is fundamentally incoherent! The rationalist explanation of a fraud perpetrated by the clergy? It is unfounded, ridiculous and grotesque! Only one solution remains: that of the most serious historical criticism, concluding in favour of the perfect credibility of the witnesses, and thus the supernatural origin of the events of Fatima. I. THE TRUTH OF FATIMA I
The truth of Fatima I is demonstrated by a threefold collection of mutually supporting proofs. The negative proof shows the impossibility of another solution, the inconsistency of all «natural explanations». The positive proof directly establishes the credibility of the witnesses. The reader will discover it for himself in all its persuasive force during the detailed account of the apparitions that we shall give. Here there are innumerable arguments which can be developed at will. THE STRIKING POSITIVE PROOF. Let us recall just one fact, which alone is enough to decisively establish the authenticity of Fatima. Costa Brochado, one of the better historians of Fatima, explains very clearly: «Considered in the light of history, the events of Fatima do not depend on the three seers. It is not they who gave the events their historical character, but the unimpeachable witness of thousands of people. The astonishing solar phenomena of October 13, 1917, which we shall study, are historical realities which even the seers themselves could not contradict today, if by chance they could rise from the tomb to claim that they saw nothing.» 880 This extraordinary historical event has only one explanation: the divine miracle confirming the authenticity of the apparitions, the day and hour of which had been announced three months in advance. Even Father Dhanis himself, in spite of all his prejudices, is obliged to agree with the pro-Fatima historians on this point. The great solar phenomenon of October 13, 1917, whose undeniably miraculous character we shall establish, following in the footsteps of a plethora of authors, appears as the founding miracle, the major event on which rests our faith in the supernatural origins of the apparitions of 1917. It is to the events of Fatima what the miracle of the Resurrection of Christ is to the Gospel: the solid foundation of the whole edifice, the objective and certain historical fact that guarantees by its necessarily divine origin the authenticity of the Revelation indissolubly connected with it. THE PROOF FROM COMPARISON. To these two proofs, G. de Sede’s work suggests that we add a third, which is also quite conclusive and susceptible to ample developments – the proof from comparison. In his desperate research on everything that might contribute to discrediting Fatima, he devotes a chapter of his book to an account of false apparitions, which are presented as plagiarizing Fatima: Fatima plagiarized, Ghiaie di Bonate et Vilar Chao. 881 But these pages, even for the most ill-informed reader, will not produce the result hoped for by G. de Sede; quite the contrary. Thanks to the contrast, it can only cause the events of Fatima to shine forth all the more in their divine limpidity! Using the most superficial similarities, G. de Sede tries to draw a parallel between the false apparitions and Fatima. Yet, in spite of all his efforts, he cannot cover up the fact that the false apparitions are obvious frauds – or even diabolical imitations of Fatima. In the two cases cited, as in many others, one discovers the pretence of trying to “improve on Fatima”, along with incongruous declarations that let us perceive the psychological derangement of the so-called seer. 882 At Bonate there was a «symbolic vision of the Church with some animals: the horse, the ass, the sheep and the dog. Suddenly the horse leaves the Church and goes off to pasture in a green meadow; St. Joseph leads it back to the Church, and, prostrating itself with the other animals, it prays.» (“A new Fatima: Bonate”, cited by de Sede.) That tells us quite enough! At Vilar Chao, in Portugal, the same fantastic episodes: the “stigmatist” «nourished herself exclusively on water and flower petals!» What a notion! When taken to the hospital of Coimbra and closely observed, the pretender could not stand up to forty-eight hours of a real fast, and the material she used to form her false stigmata was quickly discovered! Although the credulity of the people at times allows itself to be deceived, the Church knows how to blow the whistle, denounce the imposture, and put an end to the fraud. All the recent examples of spurious apparitions, perfidiously cooked up or exploited to distract us from the real ones and particularly Fatima, force us on the contrary to recognize its incomparable clarity! No, Fatima has nothing to fear from a comparative study with the false apparitions not recognized by the Church, quite the contrary! The long history of Marian apparitions for over a century only illustrates the prudent wisdom of the Church, which can discern with certitude the authentic divine manifestations that she recognizes and supports, from all their pathological counterfeits or diabolical imitations, which she untiringly unmasks and denounces. THE CHURCH DECLARES FOR AUTHENTICITY. Relying on the facts of the most certain historical criticism, the Church firmly and authoritatively made her judgement on Fatima. Since the Bishop of Leiria gave his official recognition in 1930, Fatima has enjoyed a constant and unanimous approval of the world episcopate and the Popes, even when they procrastinated in fulfilling its requests. Here is what Cardinal Cerejeira declared at Rome on February 11, 1967, perfectly expressing the judgement of the Catholic hierarchy on the events of Fatima: «No, Fatima is not ecclesiastical exploitation or superstitious ignorance; Fatima is a source of light and grace that the Immaculate Virgin wished to pour into the heart of Portugal... «It is not the Church that imposed Fatima on the faithful, it is Fatima that imposed itself on the Church... In spite of the reservations of the Church and the obstinate, ridiculous opposition of those in power, Fatima continued to move the religious conscience of the country. Without the help of the Church and against the power of the State, the light of the miracle shone more and more brilliantly in the sky of Portugal, and the fire of the crowd’s enthusiasm communicated itself to the entire country. «... Fatima imposes itself by the evidence of a supernatural action which, I do not fear to affirm, cannot easily be equalled in the history of Marian interventions... In our times of materialist atheism, Fatima demonstrates to us in a striking manner that the supernatural world exists. Fatima proves it to us in a visible, tangible, unassailable and even crying fashion. Fatima annihilates the absurd and arbitrary negation of the supernatural, formulated in the name of reason and science...» 883This brilliant, radiant light of the apparitions of 1917 guarantees the authenticity of the whole message of Fatima II. Pope Pius XII, clearly alluding to the campaign of criticisms directed against Fatima, declared on May 8, 1950 to the directors of the Blue Army: «... The time for doubting Fatima has passed. Now is the time for action...» 884 II. FATIMA II VICTORIOUS OVER CRITICISM
The thesis of Father Dhanis, which tries to cast suspicion and doubt on Fatima II, is untenable because it is incoherent, both from the theological and critical point of view, as we have shown at length. But it is also untenable because it is false in its very principle, resting entirely on an erroneous affirmation, and propped up by utterly worthless objections. This is what we will demonstrate now. THE INITIAL ERROR: AN ILLUSORY DICHOTOMY The whole structure of Father Dhanis’ critique, as we have seen, rests on the totally unfounded and false distinction between the “old history” of Fatima, disseminated until the years 1938-1940, and the “new history”, augmented from this time on by the addition of the Memoirs of Sister Lucy. From this undeniable and progressive growth in the diffusion of the message, Dhanis tried to conclude that there was a real, objective dichotomy. We must say at the outset that in doing this, he committed a grave error in methodology and demonstrated a flagrant ignorance of the sources of the history of Fatima. A GRAVE ERROR IN METHODOLOGY. In his studies, Father Dhanis, flouting the elementary laws of historical criticism, practically ignores a distinction of great importance. In the transmission of the message of Fatima (as with any historical fact) one can distinguish four successive stages: 1. First of all there is the event and the first oral witnesses which relate what happened. In this case it would be the responses of the children to the interrogations in 1917. 2. Then there are the later oral testimonies which are not to be neglected. Dhanis almost systematically ignores them. 3. Then comes the stage of writing it down. The writings of Sister Lucy, especially her versions of the events and letters to her confessors, are much more numerous than Dhanis imagined. Although they have long remained unpublished, for dating the appearance of a “new theme” in the message, they are completely reliable historical documents. Dhanis is oblivious to them. 4. Finally comes the moment of publication. In the case of Fatima, it was often quite late, due to the ecclesiastical authorities alone and against the will of the seer. We know that the publication of the secret and several essential themes of the message did not take place until 1940. The last part of the secret has still not been revealed. Dhanis has constructed his whole system taking into consideration only the first and last stages! He opposes at will the testimonies of 1917... to the popularizing works of the 1940’s, and concludes quite simply that there was a hiatus, a break in continuity which can only be explained by a later invention of all the new themes! A FLAGRANT IGNORANCE OF THE SOURCES. If the apparent break in continuity, which appears real between the interrogations of 1917 and the disclosure of 1942, disappears when we consider the succession of intermediate testimony, the hypothesis of Father Dhanis loses its whole reason for existence. Now this is precisely the case. The studies of Father Alonso,885 even as we await the appearance of his monumental critical work, already establish an uninterrupted chain of oral or written statements indicating that Lucy already knew and partially disclosed everything she is accused of having invented later on! The most demanding historical criticism can thus establish that the children received a secret in 1917, that they kept it carefully, and then revealed it little by little – according to the designs of Providence, as the theologian will say. In any case, the secret revealed in 1942 does indeed originate in 1917. 1. FROM THE PROMULGATION TO 1926 WITHOUT DISCONTINUITY. Here are some guideposts which will suffice to show how we can go back, without any interruption, from the themes published in 1942 to the first events and testimonies of 1915 and 1917, which are slim but real. 1942. It was only at this date that the authority of the hierarchy permitted the publication of the Secret. The new themes were thus set out for the first time as a whole, in the works of Fathers Galamba, da Fonseca, and Moresco. But Sister Lucy, who already in 1927 had received the permission of Heaven to reveal the Secret, had not failed to develop one or another of its themes for the intention of her confessors, her bishop, or the Pope. 1941. Lucy writes down the third and fourth Memoirs, which constitute the whole of Fatima II. 1940. Sister Lucy writes to Pope Pius XII. In her letter she communicates to him the secret, and relates what happened in the complementary apparitions at Tuy and Pontevedra in 1925 and 1929.886 1938-1939. Sister Lucy writes several letters to her bishop, announcing that the war predicted in the secret is imminent, and already predicting that Portugal would be spared.887 1937. Letter of the Bishop of Leiria to Pope Pius XI, requesting on Lucy’s behalf the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Sister Lucy writes down her second Memoir, where she relates the apparitions of the Angel and speaks of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 1935. In her first Memoir, Lucy already alludes to passages of the Secret concerning the Immaculate Heart of Mary. From 1929 to 1936. Numerous documents relate the apparitions of Tuy and Pontevedra, which constitute the whole essence of Fatima II in close connection with the Secret. 1927. Lucy receives the permission of Heaven to reveal the first two parts of the Secret. She writes them down twice at the direction of her confessors. Here is a fact of capital importance: the Secret was already written down in 1927! Although Lucy had to burn the text almost immediately by order of her confessors, the fact is no less certain. Regarding Father Dhanis, Lucy declared in 1946: «this Jesuit Father can write to my confessors, to ask them what I communicated to them in 1927; they are Fathers José da Silva Aparicio and José Bernardo Gonçalves.» When asked: «To whom else did you reveal the secret before the war?» she answered: «To the Provincial Superior, to the Bishop of Leiria, and to Canon Galamba.» 888Father Dhanis was careful not to verify this testimony with his colleagues, who were Jesuits like him and still living at the time! But we must go back even further. 1925-1926. Several letters of Lucy to her confessors relate the apparition of the Immaculate Heart of Mary at Pontevedra, with the request for the communion of reparation on First Saturdays, which is already an essential part of the Secret. The first conclusion: Numerous documents prove that at least from the years 1925-1929, Lucy is already in full possession of the whole of “Fatima II”. Thus the supposed hiatus is sharply reduced. If the message was not divulged earlier, the responsibility rests entirely on the authorities to whom Lucy was submitted by religious obedience, and not with herself. 2. DEFINITE EVIDENCE OF A WELL KEPT SECRET (1917-1926). For the preceding period on the other hand, from 1917 to 1926, since Heaven had not yet permitted disclosure of the message in all its fullness, it is certain that the seers were bound to a more rigorous silence. The documents are more scarce. However, although we discover no explicit revelation of the themes that remained secret, we still find precious indications which, once the entire message was revealed, necessarily imply that the seers were aware of them at this time. 1924. The interrogation of Lucy for the canonical process clearly affirms the existence of a secret not yet revealed. There is evidence of the apparitions of the Angel, which were still a secret at that time. We know that Lucy was tormented with a crisis of scruples because she had vowed to tell everything, except the secret, and yet of her own accord she kept «certain things» to herself. How could she have experienced such scruples if she had imagined all that in 1937! 8891921-1922. A serious investigation by Canon S. dos Reis established that Lucy had already taught the prayers of the Angel to one of her companions of Asilo de Vilar. 890 Father Alonso, having interrogated Lucy’s friend anew, «took down the same testimony in the most critical manner» 891. These prayers already contain a reference to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Undoubtedly, it was also about this time that Lucy told Bishop da Silva about the apparitions of the Angel. 8921920. During her sickness, Jacinta confided many things, especially to Mother Godinho, which already call to mind several themes of the Secret: a prophecy of wars and chastisements, the haunting thought of hell, and the necessity of reparation. «We have documents written shortly after the death of Jacinta.» 8931917. In September or October, Lucy had mentioned the apparitions of the Angel to Canon Formigao, who told Canon Barthas about them. Moreover, «since the time of the apparitions, the parents of the little seers knew that they recited a certain formula that they called “Prayer of the Angel”, without knowing who had taught it to them.» 894Let us add finally, in response to the unjustified suspicions of Father Dhanis, that the first appearances of the Angel in 1915 were known immediately. The little companions of Lucy had mentioned them to people in the village. In 1917, Canon Formigao knew about them. Teresa and Maria Rosa Matias, and Maria Justina, when interrogated by Father Kondor, confirmed Lucy’s testimony. 8953. THE SECRET ANNOUNCED ALREADY IN 1917. While Dhanis is scandalized over the substantial augmentation of the message, there is one fact he is aware of, but which he practically overlooks: it is that the existence of the secret was revealed immediately, in July 1917. Thus Lucy could not have invented everything later on! There was at least this much, which the three seers did not cease to bear witness to later on, showing that it was always in their minds. This was moreover one cause of the rapid success of Fatima. Everybody wanted to question the seers to make them reveal the famous secret, trying to persuade them with caresses, fantastic promises, or terrifying threats. On this principal secret the three children, who we must not forget were only ten, nine and seven, kept the most complete silence, preferring even to die rather than disobey Our Lady when they were imprisoned by “the Tinsmith”, administrator of Vila Nova de Ourem. There is serious evidence that even apart from the secret itself, which was imposed by the Virgin, the seers had not said everything about their apparitions. The parents of Jacinta and Francisco were well aware of it. Their mother Ti Olimpia observed, not without regret: «I don’t know what’s the matter with these children. When they are alone, they chatter like magpies, but when somebody comes near them they become so quiet you can’t get a word out of them.» 896Already Fatima I was announcing Fatima II in a veiled way. We are thus far from a total silence, from 1917 to 1942, imagined by Dhanis to support his thesis which aims, a priori, to reject the authenticity of the secret! «Faced with this chronological table», writes Father Alonso, «all the hypotheses imagined by the negative critic of Fatima crumble. The unfavourable judgements that rely on excessively late dates, are seen to lose their critical foundation. The chronological difficulty itself disappears. No longer is it a question of themes completely ignored until the writing of Sister Lucy’s Memoirs. It is a question of themes pertaining to the Message of Fatima, which little by little are providentially uncovered.» 897If the principal objection, the one underlying all the others, finally proves to be without a foundation, what happens to all the others that form the indictment of the anti-Fatima critic? WORTHLESS OBJECTIONS When we examine in retrospect the list of objections constructed in detail by Father Dhanis against the authenticity of the message of Fatima, it makes us see clearly the emptiness of all the objections drawn from internal criticism. Let us review them very briefly. The more Father Dhanis’ formulation of his criticisms is waffling and awkward, the more our response will be frank, clear and concise. ILLUSORY CONTRADICTIONS.898 Regarding the month when the secret was revealed to the children (June or July), the contradiction is only so in appearance and not in fact, as we will see clearly: on June 13, the Virgin Mary again promised Heaven to the three little seers, and She announced that Jacinta and Francisco would die soon, while Lucy would remain on earth to «make the Immaculate Heart of Mary known and loved». Although Our Lady did not command them, the three children felt an impulse to keep this strictly personal prophecy secret. On July 13, when Our Lady revealed to them the great secret properly speaking, ordering them to say nothing to anybody, they found in this message, the essence of which is the revelation of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, an additional formal reason to keep silence on the vision of June 13 and the announcement of Lucy’s mission, since they touch on the same theme of the Immaculate Heart. By revealing one they would have risked uncovering the other. This sufficiently explains why, before everything was published, there was hesitation regarding the date the secret was revealed. Another inconsistent contradiction: Yes, the Virgin did not reveal Her name, that is the title by which She desired to be invoked at Fatima until the apparition of October 13: «I am Our Lady of the Rosary.» This did not prevent the children from recognizing already in May who the Heavenly vision was: the Blessed Virgin! Nor did it prevent Our Lady from revealing, on June 13 and July 13, Her most intimate secret, Her Immaculate Heart. Must one be constantly on the lookout for supposed objections to find a “disturbing” contradiction in this fact? ALLEGED “ERRORS” WHICH ARE NOT SO. Let us move on to more serious criticisms: Dhanis’ accusation that the message contains theological inaccuracies. In short, this is the issue: Is the prayer to the Holy Trinity taught by the Angel faulty? 899 Dhanis claims that it is, because, he says, «there can be no question of offering the Divinity Itself of Christ in reparation», and moreover, «it is debatable that we can offer the Divinity of Jesus Christ to the Most Holy Trinity» 900. The objection disappears when we take the trouble to read attentively this marvellous prayer, which is remarkably profound. It is the whole prayer in its two parts, of offering and petition, which is addressed to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is no question of offering God only the divinity of Jesus Christ. The doctrinal reminder of all the realities presented in the Holy Eucharist, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, indicates rather that it is the very Person of Jesus Christ, taken in His divine-human unity, that is offered in reparation: just as at Calvary and in the Mass, with which the faithful join themselves spiritually by this prayer. It has been said that this prayer is a formula of a “spiritual mass”, just as we speak of “spiritual communion”. The most we can concede to Father Dhanis is that, with a good dose of acrimonious bad will, one could in fact give this very profound text some inexact interpretation. But for that matter the Gospel itself, the epistles, and the writings of the saints are full of analogous expressions, which our censors of Fatima would also have to denounce as «not entirely satisfying the demands of a precise theology»! Their impudence leads us to think that they will eventually do just that, measuring the divine words by their own supposedly precise theology! Common sense is on the side of Lucy, who, when told about the objection answered with a smile: «Perhaps the Angel was mistaken!» 901. The “Prayer of the Angel” is also supposed to attribute “infinite merits” to Mary. Our good apostles of ecumenism exclaim: that is unacceptable and scandalous! If they had only reread the words of the Angel!... They would have realized that the infinite merits are those of the «Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary». As negligible as the merits of the Blessed . Virgin Mary are in the eyes of our reformers, when added to the infinite merits of Jesus, how could they make the latter lose... their infinity? But let us pass over these grievances, which can only be explained by haste and a priori jealousies. The objections some have attempted to formulate against the vision of hell related by Lucy are no more solid. But the question is so important that we will return to it at length in our commentary on the secret. DOUBTFUL PROPHECIES? Has anybody drawn attention to the fact that the two accusations made by Dhanis against the prophecies of the secret are mutually contradictory? We are told with a sneer: these are not true prophecies since they were not formulated until 1942, after the event. But on the other hand they denounce a gross error, which Father Dhanis by a tortuous argument tries to attribute to Lucy’s propensity for inventing things: she announced that the war would break out «in the reign of Pius XI». So! The secret, whose perfectly balanced structure manifests its unquestionable unity of composition was thus written under Pius XI and not in 1942, “ post eventum”! Moreover the documents prove it. We shall cite them, and it will be obvious that Lucy indeed sounded the alarm, cried out with all her might concerning the imminent danger of the «horrible, horrible war», already in 1938. As for the apparent inaccuracy, «in the reign of Pius XI», we shall see what its double meaning is – one historical and the other hidden. THE ERROR ON RUSSIA. There remains the most serious error, the only unforgivable one in the eyes of those who despise Fatima. This whole account of errors being spread by Russia, the principal cause of the Second World War, this bizarre request for the consecration of Russia alone... For the moment let us examine only the pertinence and impartiality of theological judgement shown by our detractor of Fatima. On this point he is formal and speaks with authority, in the name of his science: «There is no need for long reflections to see that it is practically impossible for the Sovereign Pontiff to make such a consecration... This would render the consecration (of Russia alone) practically unrealizable... a moral impossibility», implying that the Most Holy Virgin could not have formulated such a request Herself. Our critic is so sure of this that he will repeat his judgement three times: in 1944, in 1945, and for the last time in the Nouvelle Revue Théologique, in 1952. On July 7 of the same year, a month after the article by Dhanis, Pope Pius XII in his apostolic letter Sacro Vergente Anno, accomplished this consecration of Russia and it alone, by name – so much for Dhanis declaring it impossible! 902Thus the flagrant, enormous error on the consecration of Russia was not the work of Sister Lucy but rather her censor, too opinionated and too inclined to confuse his political prejudices with the objective norms of theology. Although the act of Pius XII was incomplete, at least it proved in a striking manner that the request of the Secret contained nothing unsuitable, nothing utopian, nothing impossible... and therefore that the Blessed Virgin Mary could well have been the author. These then are the imaginary difficulties and worthless objections constantly repeated by an impressive number of critics parroting Father Dhanis, against all of whom Fatima II is triumphantly resistant. The error lies with the opponents: they are mistaken in imagining that there is a real dichotomy between Fatima I and Fatima II. It does not exist. They are mistaken in raising against Fatima II objections of pure form, none of which will stand up to examination. But something else is involved, of which the history of the controversy furnishes innumerable proofs – for such a series of errors cannot be attributed to ignorance alone. BAD FAITH UNMASKEDFrom 1944 to 1982, through charity, weakness, or a secret connivance, the majority of authors that referred to the works of Father Dhanis, either to use them as a source or to firmly criticize them, thought themselves bound to pay tribute at least to his perfect good faith. And this, from Father da Fonseca to Father Alonso and to Father Laurentin, who could still write in May of 1982: «Dhanis wrote nothing out of hostility to Fatima, he assured me before his death, but out of concern to dispel the inextricable doubts and confusion that he saw but could not resolve.» 903 A rapid survey of the controversy obliges us to say that this statement does not correspond to reality. The facts are the facts, and for the honour of Fatima they should not be covered up. Dhanis combated the message for reasons other than the pure love of truth and with weapons other than those of an objective scientific criticism. If we insist on this point, it is because of the flagrant bad faith of the first, and in the final analysis, the only adversary of Fatima. “TO ERR IS HUMAN”. We willingly recognize that his first studies, which appeared in 1944 and 1945, at least had the merit of presenting with all frankness and clarity, the specific critical problem raised by Fatima – the progressive growth of the message. With good reason he could be surprised and even scandalized by the important modifications made to the text of the great Secret by those authors who published it first. This mutilated text, presented by various writers in versions which notably differed among themselves, by that very fact lost a good part of its credibility. The Belgian Jesuit also had another excuse, which he would not fail to invoke later on: «The war which was raging at the time we wrote, although it raised certain difficulties, nevertheless stimulated us to do a careful job, moved only by the desire of honouring the Most Holy Virgin in bringing out the truth on the subject of these apparitions. Unfortunately, however, we were not able to consult personally the archives of the diocese of Leiria, but we were able to use all the important works that had then appeared on Fatima...» 904Dhanis was perfectly aware of the inadequacy of his sources, for by his own admission he had to base his study on popularly oriented works, which were much more concerned with devotion than scientific criticism. Is it not astonishing that our professor at the Louvain dared, all the same, to uphold a thesis so contrary to his colleagues, especially Father da Fonseca? For Father da Fonseca was a Jesuit like himself, an eminent professor at the Biblical Institute, and also possessed the source texts to which he, Dhanis, did not have access. “TO PERSEVERE IS DIABOLICAL”. It was especially in following years that Dhanis behaved in a curious manner for a man who, if we are to believe him, was motivated in this affair only by the love of the Most Holy Virgin and the desire to bring out the truth on the subject of the apparitions. In 1946, Father Jongen, a Dutch Montfort Father, informed Sister Lucy of the objections of Father Dhanis. All the responses of the seer were perfectly precise and clear. Above all, she provided the Fatima critic with a simple means of verifying everything she said, indicating by name all the persons to whom she had revealed the contents of the great secret in 1927 and 1941. «This Jesuit Father», she said, «can write to my confessors, to ask them what I told them in 1927; they are Fathers José da Silva Aparicio and José Bernardo Gonçalves.» She then took the trouble to indicate their address in 1946. She also indicated the names of the superiors to whom she had made the same disclosures. Father Jongen then published in several Belgian reviews the account of this interview. Dhanis was surely aware of it... but he was careful not to ask for additional information from anybody! In any case, he never made any allusion to it in the future. This proves that he either never bothered to write to either of these witnesses, who alone could shed light on the “fabrication” of Sister Lucy, or that whatever they told him went completely contrary to his thesis. In either case, this casts a serious suspicion on his perfect good faith... There is something even more serious. We know that the Bishop of Leiria invited him to «come to Fatima to study the facts and documents conserved in the archives, in the very context of the events». 905 Yet he always refused! «Father Dhanis», writes Dom Jean-Nesmy, «never wished to come and study the documents on the spot, or to go to Coimbra to interrogate Sister Lucy himself. Thus he would not have to retract his own hypothesis, which a deeper historical investigation would have showed him was unjustified.»906 A strange attitude! The truth? He does not seem to have wanted to learn it. His mind was made up in advance, and he preferred not to inform himself so that he would never have to retract his position. And when the defenders of Fatima showed him his error with compelling arguments, he evaded the discussion… THE REFUSAL TO ENTER INTO CONTROVERSY. Before giving the example of Father Dhanis himself, let us look at the remarkable case of one of his disciples, Cardinal Journet. In 1948 he published in his periodical entitled Nova et Vetera, and then in another magazine called La Vie Spirituelle, the nasty article we have already mentioned, filled with gross errors and injurious calumnies against the seer and the historians of Fatima, especially Canon Barthas. This article, a few pages long, was moreover devoid of all critical value.907 But when Canon Barthas demanded a chance to reply, it was refused him.908 Let us return to Father Dhanis. When in June 1952 he wanted to respond to the authoritative refutation of this thesis by Father da Fonseca, a response at once benevolent, conclusive and rich in new documents, he used the same dishonourable procedure, adding to his text this note which says a great deal. It is attributed to the review itself: «Our collaborator shows that his thought was distorted in the study devoted to him. The Nouvelle Revue Théologique believes it is performing an equitable gesture and that it is serving the truth in welcoming this response; it considers the debate closed.» Father da Fonseca was not allowed to respond! We could go on at length about the style of Father Dhanis’ defence: smooth, evasive, underhanded and perfidious. Let us remark first that, when faced with the arguments, the unpublished documents cited by the Fatima specialist, our critic evades the issue and refuses all discussion on the important questions. He declares at the outset: «We have no intention of discussing this question here, which in our opinion is rather difficult.» 909 But what is he talking about? Precisely the incoherence of his thesis, brought out by his colleague, and which we have exposed at length. In 1952, our Jesuit no longer had the courage to give a second helping of the stupid or frankly modernist responses he had dared to present in 1944! 910 He notes elsewhere, in passing: «The new evidence supplied by Father da Fonseca on the subject of the solar miracle is interesting, but its examination does not fall within the scope of this article.» 911 Dhanis uses the same evasive remark on several occasions. In short, everything that would oblige him to admit his errors in black and white is conveniently thrown out on the pretext that it does not fall within the scope of his article! What then does he speak about in his twenty-seven page response? Something entirely different... A MODERNIST HYPOCRISY. Dhanis responds to the criticisms of Father da Fonseca’s article by avoiding the issue, as usual. He begins by saying, «We will present a clarification on the subject of our thought and our text.» From the beginning to the end of his response, he conveniently confines himself to this vein: he was misunderstood, misinterpreted and unjustly calumniated by his colleague. Coming to the end of his exercise in self-defence, he claims victory: «Almost no discussion, properly speaking, was necessary. It was enough for us to oppose the texts of our article to his attacks (sic): they defend us quite well.» 912 No longer is it a question of the truth concerning Fatima, or even what his real thoughts are, which he could have tried to express more clearly... No, at issue is one thing: his texts. «They defend us quite well», he adds triumphantly... thus revealing something of his character... For he had foreseen the critique and prepared the response in his text itself. Does Father da Fonseca stigmatize his gross errors or unjustified calumnies with supporting proofs? Dhanis is content to retort maliciously: «But I didn’t say that! Read over my text!» In fact, all his affirmations, even the most obvious ones, are always prudently matched in his study with some discreet doubt, some carefully crafted formula which allows him – whether his assertions are founded or not – never to have to retract a single word of a text which is always faultless. Are examples needed? In his first text of 1944, Dhanis favourably proposes the hypothesis that the seers imagined the apparitions of the Angel. In this context, he asked: «May we say that, at the moment the Angel gave the miraculous communion to the children, they had a banal hallucination?» Since Dhanis is careful not to respond clearly, this is what the reader is led to understand. Thus Otto Karrer, and Journet who writes: «Here Father Dhanis pronounces the words, “banal hallucination”.» And when Father da Fonseca refers in the same way to the thesis of Dhanis, but this time to refute it, the adversary of Fatima exclaims: «In reality, nowhere did we say that the little seers had a hallucination... We have posed a question on the subject of hallucination, we have not yet answered it... Nowhere did we affirm the “banal hallucination” of the children...»913 As in his second study, Father Dhanis is careful never to quote from his most explicit texts, and the reader is led to believe that Father da Fonseca lied... or, as the Belgian Jesuit suggests, that his Portuguese colleague misunderstood him because of «the difficulty he experienced understanding the language our first study was written in». The Flemish language of the first little work «partly accounts for the errors» of Father da Fonseca. 914As a matter of fact, Dhanis was unable to demonstrate a single error in translation on the part of his colleague. But what we must point out, because it is extremely significant, is that the adversary of Fatima had originally written his article... in French (!) and then deliberately translated it into Flemish, precisely to avoid too lively a reaction from readers familiar with the romance languages, which he feared, and undoubtedly also to provide himself with a convenient excuse: «You have misunderstood», «You have mistranslated»,915 etc. Here is another example of his long-winded style, designed so that his anti-Fatima friends would understand his meaning, while keeping the appearance of the critic’s benevolent moderation for the suspicious authorities. At issue is the essential point: the theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the message of Fatima. We know that Dhanis claims that Sister Lucy added it later on. Here his writing is a masterpiece of consummate ambiguity, the perfidious duplicity of which borders on the grotesque: «The new theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not presented in very reassuring circumstances.» This is the firm conclusion of the exposé of Dhanis. But now, to reassure the pro-Fatima reader: «It is not impossible (sic) that the celestial apparition suggested recourse to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and even that it suggested (sic) the consecration (of what?) to this venerated Heart.» Does Dhanis accept as possible the authenticity of the theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary? No, because the counterpart comes immediately: «But judging from the old history of Fatima, it seems completely unlikely that the visitor (sic) identified herself by speaking of this Heart as her own.» 916 As an example of the hypocritical camouflaging of his thought, we admit that we have never seen the like. Dhanis brings this up to show the total absence of this theme in the old history of Fatima. The reader will conclude, with him, that this theme, i.e. the Immaculate Heart of Mary, is inauthentic. But he does not dare to say it so crudely, attenuating his thought in a pro-Fatima sense... by an absurdity: “the visitor” spoke of the Immaculate Heart of Mary... but not as if it were her own! That is grotesque. This subterfuge, however, permits our Jesuit to make his glib conclusion where he shows his devotion (?) to Our Lady of Fatima. And if you can believe it, he even greatly rejoiced in the decision of Pius XII to close the solemnities of the Holy Year in Fatima. He «shared in the holy joy of the pilgrims...» These last phrases, ambiguous to excess, fooled even good Canon Barthas, surely incapable of imagining such duplicity...917 In fact, Dhanis does not retract anything he had said, and maintains his whole thesis intact: «The pilgrimage of Fatima presents itself with serious guarantees of originating from a merciful invention of the sweet Mother of God (this is only accepting Fatima I); it greatly contributes to spreading devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to which it seems (sic) bound for ever (Of course Dhanis omits specifying in just what respect! It is not in the history of the events but only in the pilgrimages, which endorsed the imaginary elaborations of Lucy); the Vicar of Our Lord Jesus Christ encourages it; it seems to us that one would be showing a strange self-sufficiency in spurning such a grace. We have already said so in our first article, and we are happy to conclude this article by repeating it.» 918 One last wink at his friends: Understand, he tells them, I am obliged to take precautions because of the Pope... but I am saying no more than in my first virulent study against Fatima. Does it not remind us of «the insidious tactic» of the modernists, their «refined cleverness» that St. Pius X unmasked in Pascendi? 919A COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT. Constrained by his superiors, no doubt at the instigation of Pius XII, to put an end to the discussion by a reassuring article, Father Dhanis, crafty and sanctimonious as ever, remains faithful to his original thought. In fifteen pages of bland and colourless prose, we scarcely find any phrases that obstinately maintain the initial critiques. But they are there all the same, and those who can read between the lines will find them. He declares at the very beginning of his “evaluation of a discussion”: «This controversy, although it demonstrated the existence of some difficulties on secondary points, nevertheless showed that the essentials of Fatima, and not only the essentials, can triumphantly sustain the ordeal of criticism.» 920 Was Father Dhanis convinced by the vigorous refutation of his thesis by Father Veloso? This beginning would lead us to believe so... But let us entertain no illusions, for that would be underestimating the duplicity of our man. In 1952, he proclaimed that his disagreement with the historians of Fatima «did not concern the essential». 921This is the ultimate sleight of hand, for he still has to specify where this essential or non-essential lies... For Dhanis, all of Fatima II which is summed up in the text of the secret, is precisely part of this accidental element, which is uncertain and of no importance. And in this final response, in vain shall we look for the slightest honest and clear retraction. On the contrary, he always claims imperturbably that his «preceding clarifications (sic) remain substantially intact». 922 He even defends his French translations, which weaken the meaning of his Flemish text, on the pretext that «they are not literal». He insinuates that the recent consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope – which in fact had just provided the most stinging rebuttal of his whole thesis! – in no way weakens his suspicions against the secret. One has to read this serpentine paragraph, which contains the perfidious insinuation: «The fact of the consecrations does not prove that in the eyes of the Holy Father the secret of Fatima, in all its parts, reproduces the words of the Most Holy Virgin...» 923And his final conclusion which, by its ironic tone, might lead us to believe that he had abandoned all his unjustified criticisms, formulates them once more, and more arbitrarily than ever: «On the supernatural origin of the apparitions, we are in accord with Father da Fonseca, just as we both recognize in the “Secret” written by Lucy in 1941 an echo (!) of what was supernaturally communicated in 1917.» At the very moment that he proclaims his agreement, by a single clever word Dhanis reintroduces his whole thesis! For he adds in a benign tone that the only little disagreement remaining is the following: while Father da Fonseca maintains that the secret was «very faithfully conserved», Dhanis still thinks, just as in 1945 and for the same reasons, that the secret received «precisions added in all good faith in a degree difficult to determine». 924 The text divulged is only a distant and deformed «echo». In other words, its content remains completely uncertain! Let us quote this particularly ambiguous phrase, as a model of its genre: «... a consensus on this “secret”, which in some way existed from the beginning, is today in progress.» Go over the many meanings this phrase can have, and you will not find one which is fully satisfying... except this one, which corresponds to the most obvious interpretation of his whole article: the accord is purely an appearance, purely for form’s sake. At bottom the disagreement is and remains total and absolute, for although Dhanis is a clever and hypocritical adversary of Fatima, he is also a fierce and tenacious one. “LARVATUS PRODEO”. As we have said, without ever retracting his first attacks of 1944, this wretched man continued to pontificate, always with his hand over his heart to swear his perfect sincerity – as though his sentiments could compensate for the total absence of proofs! – and his great devotion to Our Lady of Fatima (?). But what is even more serious is that all this time he allowed all those who quoted him as an authority to heap scorn, insults and perfidious calumnies on the seers, the apparitions, and the message of Fatima, without ever publishing the slightest correction to repudiate his extremist disciples. The latter, who after all were only expressing clearly what he had cleverly insinuated, claimed that they had totally destroyed the testimony of Sister Lucy, lining up specious objections against the message of Fatima. But never did their leader, who had launched the offensive and provided them with all their weapons, think for a moment of making any sort of restitution to those whom he and his disciples had harmed so gravely... Instead he confined himself to defending his own compromised reputation – and with such jealous care! – waiting until the time would come when he could express his theories openly and with impunity, influencing the decisions of the highest princes of the Church. This time did come... after 1960. But that is another story to which we shall return later. “THERE MUST COME HERESIES”. Dom Jean-Nesmy is right in saying: «Father Dhanis did a great deal of harm to Fatima.» And he adds this remark, which is no less opportune: «But indirectly, he provoked the historical research, which on the contrary confirmed the veracity of Lucy. So the misfortune served some purpose!»925 In fact, without the underhanded attacks of Dhanis, would the Bishop of Fatima have thought of entrusting Father Alonso with the task of preparing a great critical study which would publish, along with all the necessary scientific apparatus, all the documents on Fatima? Although the final result of this monumental work has not been published, all the partial publications that have been made and which surely give us the essential, already permit us to establish with greater certitude than ever, the full and entire truth of all of Fatima and particularly of Fatima II, concentrated and summed up in the secret of July 13, 1917. After showing the emptiness of the criticism, we shall still have to say a few words about it.
III. THE TRUTH OF FATIMA II
PERFECT HARMONY BETWEEN FATIMA I AND FATIMA IIThe more the facts are studied in detail, the more surprising it is to see just how well the elements of Fatima II fit harmoniously into those of Fatima I. Just one example: the great secret reveals to us that on July 13 the children had a vision of hell. This text would not be written down until 1941, but how perfectly it fits in with the known events of 1917! The children related that day how Our Lady taught them a prayer concerning precisely the danger of hell: «O my Jesus, forgive us, deliver us from the fire of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need.» This prayer, the meaning of which was undoubtedly not grasped very well, was quickly corrected in a more traditional sense, and from then on, during the pilgrimages, they prayed for the souls in Purgatory. It was the disclosure of the vision of hell that gave the authentic formula, communicated at the very beginning, its whole significance. On this same July 13, several witnesses remarked on the sudden fear and horror that took hold of Lucy, who suddenly cried out, her face livid with fear: «Aie! Our Lady! Aie Our Lady!» 926 But nobody knew the reason for this terror, which only the secret would reveal later on. Such correlations cannot be invented! This perfect concordance between the elements of a message, divulged at such different points in time – and for which several examples could be provided – cannot be explained except by a harmony pre-established... since 1917. This implies the unity of a message very rich in diverse elements, which were only gradually revealed. Fatima II reminds us of the missing pieces of a puzzle which, when found later on, fit quite naturally in their proper place in the whole, which until then was incomplete. But there is more. FATIMA II SHEDS LIGHT ON FATIMA I. Many of the difficulties raised by the interrogations of the children in 1917 vanish entirely in the light of the new perspective of Fatima II. Now that we know the essential themes of the secret that the children were ordered to keep rigorously hidden, we can see that most of their hesitating or embarrassed replies touched on themes of the secret they were not allowed to reveal. Thus the knowledge of the apparitions of the Angel resolved a contradiction that Lucy was accused of: «In all the interrogations she underwent, if she was asked: “Did you see the Blessed Virgin any other times before May 13?” she answered no. But if she was asked: “Did you have other apparitions before May 13?” she answered yes.» 927 Lucy was accused of contradiction and bad faith. The knowledge of the apparitions of the Angel entirely resolves the difficulty, and underlines, on the contrary, her absolute honesty. EVIDENCE ABOVE SUSPICION“A TRIPLE CORD IS NOT QUICKLY BROKEN...” 928 Once we reject as arbitrary the supposed opposition between the old and the more recent evidence, the credibility of the three seers becomes undeniable. The fact that they jealously kept their secret in no way permits us to suspect their sincerity or psychological equilibrium, quite the contrary. «The apologists for Fatima, and already Father Formigao, proved by the facts that the little seers of Fatima enjoyed perfect mental and psychological health, removing any suspicion of mental illness or psychological trouble.» 929 And to quote from a letter of Bishop da Silva recognizing the authenticity of the apparitions, the judgement of the bishop sums up a multitude of testimonies which all agree: «The little seers are humble country children, modestly clothed, unschooled, not even able to read, and having a rudimentary religious instruction. They are not nervous, but affable and affectionate in their rude simplicity. They love their family, obey their parents, and have a cheerful disposition...» (Letter A Divina Providencia, declaring the authenticity of the apparitions.) Such a collection of positive criteria cannot be mistaken. IS ONE WITNESS NO BETTER THAN NONE AT ALL? After the death of Francisco in 1919, and then of Jacinta in 1920, Lucy remained alone. From this fact alone, Dhanis tries to draw an argument against the validity of her testimony. «But the fact of there being only one witness», as Father Alonso justly points out, «is only suspect in history when deceit on his part can be proven, or when it can be proven that other witnesses were intentionally excluded. Many historical facts, even in Holy Scripture, have only one witness.» 930 The rationalist criticism was quite stupid to reject all the events related only by St. John as the result of a fabrication on his part. We know now, by numerous archaeological proofs or cross-checks, that his Gospel gives us the most detailed and exact accounts of events. Shall we deny the authenticity of the apparitions of Paray-le-Monial or rue du Bac or Lourdes on the pretext that they all had only one witness? Of the three initial witnesses at Fatima, the premature death of her two cousins resulted in Lucy being the only one able to explain a good many things. «But one of two things must happen», Father Alonso rightly continues. «Either we believe what she says, or we absolutely give up on understanding Fatima.» 931 In effect, accepting her witness allows us to understand the history of all the events, taking into account all the facts, even down to the tiniest evidence, while refusing to believe her, and moreover without any serious reason, inevitably results in the construction of a mass of incoherent hypotheses, which neglect several of the most certain facts. THE HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE “MEMOIRS” OF SISTER LUCY. The internal criticism of all the writings of Sister Lucy leaves no doubt about the fidelity of her memory, which is really extraordinary. On reading her, might we feel that she relives intensely all the events that she relates? In the enormous mass of descriptions, conversations, and concrete details of all kinds that constitute the Memoirs, «an enlightened criticism will find only a few accidental errors of dates, facts, and circumstances.» 932 It should also be added that these texts were written under obedience, in all haste and in record time, without the seer having had the leisure to consult any previous document. And yet, her accounts often textually repeat expressions that she had already employed from the years 1917 -1922. A synoptic presentation of the first account of the apparitions drawn up in January 1922 with the three later accounts of the Memoirs would show this in a striking manner. 933Sister Lucy herself writes, with charming simplicity, at the end of her second Memoir: «Maybe someone will want to ask: How can you remember all this? How? I don’t know. Our Dear Lord, who distributes His gifts as He thinks fit, has allotted to me this little portion – my memory. He alone knows why.» Here is the answer, not without some irony, to those who would want to limit a priori the possibilities of her memory and presume to censor her on points they are ignorant of! Endowed with a certain naturally good memory, Sister Lucy explains that there is another, supernatural reason for the firm, precise memory she has retained of Fatima: «And besides, as far as I can see, there is this difference between natural and supernatural things: When we are talking to a mere creature, even while we are speaking, we tend to forget what is being said; whereas these supernatural things are even more deeply engraved on the soul, even as we are seeing and hearing them, so that it is not easy to forget them.» 934 Elsewhere she writes, and how easy she is to understand! «... (supernatural things) are imprinted on the mind in such a way that it is almost impossible to forget them. At least, the meaning of what is made known is never forgotten, unless it be that God also wills that this too be forgotten.» 935THE TRUE MEANING OF HER “INSPIRATION”. In addition to her great natural ability and this indelible mark that such intense supernatural experiences leave on the soul, Lucy has often spoken of a sort of “inspiration” that assisted her very palpably whenever she had to write or say anything about the apparitions. Dhanis derides this claim, which he finds exorbitant. He even draws from it an argument against the perfect psychological equilibrium of the seer and the veracity of her words. Is it not Dhanis instead who did not understand? For of course, Sister Lucy never said or thought that she was infallible! The few cases where she recognized that she made an error, expressed a doubt, or confessed her ignorance are enough to prove it. But that she was aware of a very special help that God granted her, when she had to relate her apparitions or the messages that the Blessed Virgin had communicated to her, precisely for her to transmit them, is nothing to be astonished about! The perfidious allusion to the analogous and illusory pretensions of Nietzsche, is a gross incongruity coming from the pen of our Jesuit! For never did Sister Lucy pretend to base the reality of her revelations on her intimate experience of being inspired from on high in order to express them in a faithful and adequate manner. But once the authentic origin of the messages received is proven, is it not fully normal that, in order to pass them on, the seer should have benefited from an “inspiration” analogous, in its own order and keeping all due proportion, to that granted to the Apostles and Evangelists to pass on the unique and full Revelation, that of Jesus Christ the Word of God? There is nothing in this affirmation that is not in complete harmony with the soundest theology. Father Alonso expresses it very well: «It is important to assume», he writes, «that if God used evident signs to make known His presence in the events of Fatima, He also intervened in a special manner so that “His” message... was faithfully passed on by the seers chosen for this end. It is something similar to what we say about the Church: if God entrusted her with a message of salvation, we must at least admit that he gave her a charism of truth for transmitting this message in an infallible manner.» 936 In short, if the striking miracles of Fatima prove sufficiently that it is indeed the Queen of Heaven who spoke to us, we can be sure that She is powerful enough to also guarantee the exact transmission of Her great message of love and mercy. CONCLUSION: THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SECRET. Once we recognize with certainty the reality of the divine intervention, it is reasonable to think that the three seers benefited from a particular assistance of the Holy Spirit, inciting them to keep secret whatever was to remain so, inspiring them to speak at the hour willed by God, and finally enlightening their memory and intelligence to faithfully express the message received. Here the highest theological reflections square with the conclusions of the most detailed criticism of the documents: it is unjustifiable in the eyes of both the one and the other to maintain that Fatima II was the fruit of a later invention. No, the only plausible hypothesis, the only one perfectly verified, is indeed that there was a secret received in 1917 and exactly retained by the seer. On this point Lucy has spoken formally. When Father Jongen interviewed her in 1946, echoing the objections of Dhanis, she answered firmly: «When I speak about the apparitions, I limit myself to giving the meaning of the words that I heard. On the other hand, when I write, I take pains to cite the words literally. Thus I intended to write down the secret word for word. – Are you certain of having kept it in your memory? – I believe so. – Then the words of the secret were quoted in the order they were communicated to you? – Yes.» 937This serene and firm response, which there is no serious reason for doubting, bears witness to the absolute authenticity of Fatima II and especially the great secret of July 13, 1917. THE “DIVINE ECONOMY OF THE SECRET”Before retracing the marvellous history of this incomparable message, before commenting on each of its words without any more doubts or misgivings, we must dispose of one last objection which we have not yet answered. A COMMAND OF HEAVEN. The little seers, Dhanis claims, could not bear the burden of such a secret in future years... How could Lucy have kept the secret without alteration until 1941? It is inconceivable! To which we retort that Lucy wrote the secret for the first time in 1927, which notably diminishes the time of strict silence. This did not prevent Jacinta and Francisco from keeping a rigorous silence from 1917 to 1919 and 1920. After that Lucy kept silence until 1927. How was this possible? The answer is quite simple. But since Dhanis had doubts about everything a priori, and for reasons having more to do with prejudice than criticism, it did not even enter into his mind. This is because this silence was an integral part of the great design of God. The Virgin Mary firmly imposed it on the children, and grace helped them to keep it faithfully. Yes, it must be said openly: if the essential message was kept secret for so long, it is because it was expressly willed by the Most Holy Virgin: «Tell this to no one. Francisco, yes, you may tell him.» (July 13, 1917) It is due to this formal order that the children were led to keep silence on the other elements of the message, without having received the command of Heaven, but only because they touched very closely on some themes of the secret, and would have provoked their disclosure before the proper time. A SUPERNATURAL SILENCE. The long silence kept by the seers, which thus corresponded with a divine command of providence, had nothing stupefying or impossible about it. Sister Lucy herself explained many times how they could keep it for so long. First there was a natural help: the three children, and especially Lucy, were reserved by temperament. The first visions of the Angel in 1915 were for Lucy the occasion of insults and mockeries of all sorts on the part of those around her. This already moved her to keep silence wherever possible; she knew that it would cost her to speak. But it was the supernatural reasons which were decisive: the very nature of the apparitions moved them irresistibly to keep silence. For the apparitions of the Angel above all, Sister Lucy writes: «The presence of God made itself felt so intimately and intensely that we did not even venture to speak to one another... (This atmosphere) only gradually began to disappear. It did not occur to us to speak about this apparition, nor did we think of recommending that it be kept secret. The very apparition itself imposed secrecy. It was so intimate that it was not easy to speak of it at all.» 938Even for the apparitions of Our Lady, which on the contrary filled them with a «communicative enthusiasm», «I felt an inspiration to keep quiet, especially on certain things», Sister Lucy writes. 939 One would have to be in bad faith, or completely ignorant in these matters, to maintain with Father Dhanis that these reasons are not valid. 940AN EXACT OBEDIENCE. In addition to this supernatural impulse she felt inside her, Sister Lucy indicates to us the other reason for her silence, also supernatural but exterior: obedience. For the secret of July 13 there was the formal order of Our Lady; for the apparitions of the Angel and all the related themes, Lucy could only obey the orders and counsels of the priests to whom she confided herself, and who all recommended that she keep silence. «I have always obeyed», she could write to her bishop. «Firstly, I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and secondly, I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name. This very thing (silence) was the first order and counsel which God deigned to give me through Your Excellency.» 941A HEROIC SILENCE. A silence of this kind, from which Dhanis strives in vain to draw an argument against Sister Lucy’s credibility, testifies instead in her favour, in a striking manner. For to keep inviolate such an important and coveted secret, resisting for years the perpetual nuisance of insidious questions, shows an exceptional calm, self-mastery, and psychological equilibrium. Such a reserve, always measured by obedience, supposes a life completely absorbed in God, unceasingly following His movements; it demands heroic virtues, absolutely contrary to the defects which our critics would like to attribute to the seer: Did they ever see a mythomaniac, a “yarn-spinner”, capable of keeping the fruit of her diseased imagination to herself for so many years? Certainly not! The false mystics give themselves away by their loquaciousness. They importune the world with their interminable “revelations” which they make known at any price and by all means, always finding someone credulous enough to give them a favourable hearing. It is prolixity and not silence that characterizes them. On the contrary, the silence of Sister Lucy can only be explained by the aid of a supernatural force inclining her to it, a force more powerful than all external pressures. And God knows how strong they were! In effect, such a secret places the seer – even in the midst of a religious community – in an extreme loneliness of heart, unbearable for nature alone. Poor St. Bernadette, who could not reveal her three secrets to anybody, even to her Mistress of Novices, underwent this cruel experience in her convent at Nevers. 942 Sister Lucy undoubtedly did not escape this hard trial, and overcame it for sixty-five years, waiting patiently for the goodwill of men to finally reveal the message of Our Lady. Yes, at Fatima the secret was indeed something willed by providence, and then permitted by God, to which the heroic and supernatural silence of the seers corresponds. THE REASON FOR THE SECRET. One last question remains, which we must take a moment to answer: why this secrecy? What is the meaning of it? Why did God require it up to 1927, and permit it since... right up to today? We shall be able to provide the answer at the end of our long historical commentary on the very text of the great secret, for the passing of time now permits us to read, with amazement, the brilliant wisdom of the divine plan in the realization of events. Our task is to bring out this wisdom to dispel the natural surprise caused by this astonishing fact, wholly peculiar to Fatima: the most important part, the essential part of the message was not known until twenty-five years after it was revealed to the seers, and the most decisive secret still remains hidden from us, seventy years after the event. To guess at why the divine plan arranged for its gradual unveiling, it is enough to imagine what would have happened if the little seers had immediately revealed the whole of the great secret immediately, on July 13, 1917. What would have happened? Its bewildering prophecies on the subject of a second world war, when the first one was not even over yet, its announcement of the deadly and worldwide role of Russia, which would have seemed extravagant, would surely have discredited the whole of the message and the apparitions, making their recognition impossible. Thus God willed that Fatima impose itself on the Church the way that Lourdes did, by its miracles and by its message of prayer and penance, independently of its prophetic secret, only the existence of which was revealed at first. The cosmic miracles, the radiant sanctity of the seers, and the extraordinary fruitfulness of the pilgrimage, first had to shine forth and obtain the official recognition of the hierarchy. At the moment when some of the events predicted began to be fulfilled, drawing the attention of the whole world, the secret could then be revealed with fruit. This is what happened around the years 1927-1930, when the whole West finally discovered, to its stupor, the horrors of Stalin’s Gulag. Already partly fulfilled, the secret could then be understood, and it kept the divine seal on the prophecy first of all by its origin – it had been revealed in 1917 – and then by the numerous events predicted that still concerned the future. Far from being absurd or baffling, it is then a marvel of divine wisdom that the secret was gradually revealed! Thanks to it, the great prophecies of Our Lady pronounced in 1917 were destined to illumine the whole history of our epoch, bringing a message of light and hope for each of the great stages of our century. The secret of Fatima and the drama of its publication appear then under a twofold light, at the convergence of a twofold mystery: first the mystery of grace, by which God had foreseen and ordained the most opportune times for his revelation to effect the great work of salvation willed by him, and then the mystery of iniquity by which the Adversary succeeded in delaying its benefits, even for a time depriving the Church and humanity of it, leaving them endangered. By its prophetic secret, the publication and implementation of which were confided to the highest authority of the Church, Fatima dominates our whole century. This will be shown in our second volume, devoted to the great Secret, its fulfilment since 1917 and its integral content. This will be the most original and important part of our work. BEYOND CRITICISM: THE GREAT LIGHT OF FATIMAFirst of all we must draw all the lessons from our patient critical study necessary to reap all the fruits from it. Yes, it cannot be denied: Fatima as a whole triumphantly sustains the twofold scrutiny of criticism; the violent and unscrupulous one of rationalism, and the insidious, perfidious one of modernism. None of their objections can stand up against an attentive examination of the sources; neither one or the other of their theories explaining the events is seriously tenable. They are absurd and grotesque, or fundamentally incoherent. Far from being founded on a scientific study of the documents, the obstinate opposition to the facts and the message in reality rests on a flagrant bad faith that we have had to denounce, both in Gerard de Sede and in Father Dhanis. Confronted with these vain attacks, the only solid solution remaining is the positive one which recognizes, after mature examination, the full and entire authenticity of the apparitions, and accepts the divine origin of the message in its integrity. THE LIGHT OF TRUTH. After this preliminary study which at the beginning establishes our full confidence in the apparitions, our task becomes easy and supremely attractive: it is enough for us to step aside wherever possible to give as much attention as possible to the events of the apparitions, and to let the witnesses speak for themselves. But although we shall lay aside all unjustified or undue suspicions, we shall not therefore abandon all critical spirit. Here and there, we shall respond in detail to such and such an objection, left in abeyance. But above all it will be a simple matter for us to demonstrate the superabundance of solid proofs, which cause the luminous truth of the apparitions and the message to shine forth. THE RADIANCE OF HEAVENLY BEAUTY. In a domain so vast and so often recounted as the history of the apparitions, a second perspective will guide us in the choice of episodes and witnesses: that of the beauty of Fatima, which shines brightly everywhere: the unspeakable beauty of the Apparitions of the Angel and the Queen of Heaven, the striking beauty of the cosmic miracles culminating in the marvellous spectacle of the dance of the sun, the hidden and secret beauty (but therefore all the more moving) of the pure and spontaneous, serious and heroic souls of the three seers, the beauty of their family, the beauty of their village and dear homeland, a country with a long and faithful record in Christendom. A shining light, a resplendent Beauty which makes us feel, as it were, a foretaste of Heaven. THE FIRE OF CHARITY. To apologetics and mystical aesthetics, we do not fear to join devotion as well. Yes, for how could we relate them in a cold and indifferent manner without totally distorting these marvellous events, these burning words, by which the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary willed, in our century when the charity of the many has grown so cold, to revive the ardent flame of the love of God and salvation of souls? The fire which they came to light upon the earth, must it not give warmth to us also? A HISTORY WHICH IS A MESSAGE AS WELL. The message of Fatima, as we have already said and as we will show, has nothing a-temporal about it. Ascetical and mystical, it is also prophetic, and as it sheds light on our history, it dominates and governs it. More than anything else, we shall come to see it as an apocalypse for our twentieth century. That being said, we must add on the other hand, that with Fatima as well as with the Gospel, the story is also a message. The events themselves and the life of the seers are radiant with the same divine brilliance as the words of Our Lady, they are the most vivid illustration of Our Lady’s words, and their happiest complement. In the history of the events at Fatima, everything speaks of and reveals to us the essence of the mystery: the secret of the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and Their divine predilections. However, even before the choice of the little seers and their life, it is the choice of their homeland from among all nations, to accomplish in our century the great design of Our Lady, that occupies our attention. Clearly this choice was not the result of an absurd or capricious chance. Had not the Event of Fatima, foreseen in the plan of Providence, been prepared for many centuries? We shall discover with wondrous astonishment – for it has not been said enough – that the special and age-old benevolence of Heaven in favour of its “faithful nation”, already reveals to us, in the course of its eventful history, the good pleasure, the desires and the will of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, such as they will be revealed for the whole world at the Cova da Iria, on July 13, 1917. May Our Lady deign to open our minds and our hearts to the light of Her mysterious Secret so rich in meaning, that it may enlighten us, and fill us with wonder and warmth! Ave Maria! Veni Sancte Spiritus!
|
|