Monday, May 30, 2016

The Third Secret of Fatima saga continues

Christopher A. Ferrara, "Dollingergate: That Curious Vatican Denial" (Fatima Network Perspectives, May 27, 2016). Excerpts:
... In response to the communiqué, 1P5’s reporter, a native German speaker, “telephoned Father Dollinger with the news of the Vatican statement, and at that time he again confirmed to her emphatically and clearly his previous remarks. In other words, he stood by his story.”

Given these facts, the anonymous communiqué leaks water from every part, to use an Italian saying. Consider:

First, there is no indication the Vatican contacted Fr. Dollinger to obtain a denial from him that he said the things the Press Office claims were falsely “attributed” to him. That omission speaks volumes: the Press Office made no such effort because it knows or at least suspects that Fr. Dollinger did indeed say what 1P5 reported and it did not wish to be confronted with his confirmation of the story, which the Press Office could not very well hide.

Second, the Vatican has gone very far out on a very thin limb when it declares flatly that Benedict claims “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima.” Really? Never? Not at any time? Not a single word ever passed between the former Cardinal Ratzinger and his close friend Fr. Dollinger on the subject of Fatima? That claim does not pass the smell test.

Third, the Press Office’s assertion that Benedict called Fr. Dollinger’s statements on the matter “pure inventions, absolutely untrue” necessarily involves the accusation that Fr. Dollinger is a bald-faced liar who concocted statements the former Cardinal Ratzinger never made, or that the reporter for 1P5 is a liar who concocted the statements. But, again, no effort was made to obtain a denial from Fr. Dollinger because, no doubt, a denial was not expected. Thus, the Press Office has published a libelous accusation against both Fr. Dollinger and the reporter who related his statements — statements the Press Office made no effort to confirm because it knows or suspects the statements were made.

Fourth, a lawyer could have drafted the Vatican’s carefully worded declaration that Benedict “confirms decisively that ‘the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete.’” Of course the Vatican claims publication is “complete” because it has no intention of publishing anything else respecting the Secret. That is, the text — which must exist — wherein the Virgin explains the meaning of the vision published in 2000, which the Vatican ludicrously insisted that a corrupt Vatican bureaucrat, Cardinal Sodano, would “interpret” for us. The real issue is whether the Vatican has published the complete Secret, not whether the act of publication is complete so far as the Vatican is concerned. And, to this day, the Vatican has refused squarely to answer the crucial question: Is there a text written by Sister Lucia, whether or not it is deemed “authentic” by certain Vatican personages, in which she recounts the Virgin’s explanation of the vision published in 2000?

Fifth, and finally, the anonymous author of an unsigned communiqué expects us to believe that the cropped phrases he (or she) “attributes” to Benedict are unquestionably true and accurate, whereas the statements 1P5 “attributes” to Fr. Dollinger are pure lies and inventions — including Fr. Dollinger’s confirmation, days ago, that he made the statements! Really? I don’t think so.

1 comment:

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

One thing to consider in this captious controversy are the roles played by Sister Lucy and Fr Gruener.

It is Sister Lucy who had the right to be the focal point of the Fatima message, not the vagus priest, Fr Gruener, and whereas Sister Lucy was obedient, Fr Gruener was disobedient and yet the Gruenerites routinely attacked the obedient Sister Lucy and , on an ad hoc basis, promoted the putative hagiography of Gruener.

Very weird in that one ought to think Mary is more inclined to work through the obedient who avoid the spotlight rather than through the disobedient who seek the attention of man.