By Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive:
After OnePeterFive caused a controversy in Rome concerning the question as to whether or not the full Third Secret of Fatima has already been revealed, this same issue has again been picked up, but now by Dr. Robert Moynihan, himself the editor of the monthly magazine Inside the Vatican. In two different editions of his own regular Letters from the Journal of Robert Moynihan, Moynihan speaks about his own early 2007 personal conversation with the recently deceased Cardinal Loris Capovilla, the private secretary to Pope John XXIII himself.
Moynihan first, in his 27 May 2016 Moynihan Letter #48, starts by mentioning the OnePeterFive Controversy and the Vatican Press Office’s response:
There are five stories that I am [concurrently] following at this time [May 2016], all inter-related:
(1) the mystery surrounding the 40-year-delayed publication of the “Third Secret” of Fatima in the year 2000, and the recent [May 2016] controversy over whether something concerning that secret still needs to be clarified, which has become a matter of polemics in recent days, and has involved an unprecedented May 21 Vatican Press Office denial [emphasis M.H.]attributed to Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI (link and link);
The other four stories mentioned are: the recent controversial Gänswein speech, raising questions once more about the background of Pope Benedict’s resignation; the history and background of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (as revealed by Sandro Magister); the question of the mass immigration into the Europe and the pope’s support of it; the Fatima prophecy concerning a future reign of peace after the consecration of Russia and its relation to the current crisis in the Middle East.
Dr. Moynihan proceeds to describe how he met with Antonio Socci and Solideo Paolino in 2006 – both of whom had publicly spoken about the existence of a still-missing part of the Third Secret of Fatima – and how he himself had then met Cardinal Capovilla in 2007.
In his subsequent 29 July 2016 Moynihan Letter #49 – which was delayed due to his travels and due to his somewhat serious and unexpected health problems – Dr. Moynihan continues, though briefly, to relate first what Cardinal Capovilla implicitly told him, and then what he himself was later able to hear from different sources in Rome concerning the topic of Fatima. In the following report, I shall therefore quote Dr. Moynihan himself extensively, so as to present his own careful and cautious testimony.
First, let us see what he says about Cardinal Capovilla:
Capovilla had received me years before [his 2007 visit]in the same place. We had spoken for an hour of the vision of John XXIII of a world at peace – not threatened by the use of nuclear weapons as in October 1962 (when Pope John helped to negotiate between John Kennedy and Nikita Kruschev) or by terrorism, like the knife slicing the throat of a martyr priest in Rouen, France, Father Jacques Hamel, 84, who died at 9:43 a.m. on July 26, three days ago. (A nun, who identified herself as Sister Danielle, said she was in the church at the time. “They forced (Father Hamel) to his knees. They did a sort of sermon around the altar, in Arabic. It’s a horror.” She said she managed to flee as they were preparing to kill Father Jacques.)
In May , I had in mind to narrate how Capovilla on my second visit [early in 2007]had spoken at length to me of the secret of Fatima: of how John XXIII, while at Castel Gandolfo in August of 1959, had asked to see the text of the secret, and read it; how an envelope had been brought to him from Rome; how a Portuguese monsignor was also summoned from Rome to help with the reading; and how John had then turned to Capovilla and had instructed him to put the secret back into its envelope and to write on the outside that the Pope had read the secret on that day in August, and had decided not to reveal the contents to the world, but to leave that decision to one of his successors, who might decide whether to reveal the secret at their own discretion, at some future time. And I had in mind to write how Capovilla, when I had asked him whether he had written those words on the envelope in pencil (which could have been erased) or in pen, had told me, “In pen” (so, not eraseable). And I had in mind to write how, when I had asked Capovilla why none of the envelopes containing the Third Secret of Fatima which had been shown on Italian television by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone had contained the words that he had written that day, Capovilla had told me, a bit enigmatically, “Perhaps there was a second envelope.” But I stopped there. For Capovilla on that day had not clarified for me the matter of the Third Secret of Fatima. He had left it open, mysterious. And he had clearly intended to leave it so. He had intentionally led me to believe that there was something not clear about the publication of the secret or secrets – that there might even have been two different letters, with two different envelopes, with two distinct texts. But, at the same time, he had left me in the dark about what that something might be. He had clearly had some hesitation about speaking definitively on the subject of the letter, as if he had been asked not to do so by some higher authority. As I had understood him, he was hinting to me that there did exist some other version of the Third Secret, a version different from the one that was revealed and published [in 2000], but he would not say so clearly and categorically. And so, as the days passed, I did not write what I had intended to write. It all seemed too uncertain. [my emphasis added]
It was during this recent summer of 2016 that Dr. Moynihan had the chance to speak with some well-informed sources in Rome about the whole matter of Fatima. These conversations seem to have encouraged him now to report further on this issue. Moynihan writes:
Still, in Rome during June and July [of 2016], I did have conversations which touched on the Third Secret of Fatima. Those conversations persuaded me that there is an ambiguity and a lack of transparency about the way the texts have been presented to the world. I do not know what the ambiguity or lack of transparency is, but it seems, from what Capovilla told me, and from what I heard in Rome, that something is imperfect, or incomplete, in the way the secret has been published. [my emphasis added]
This witness – though mostly bearing the open character of a confirmation, rather than the mark of new disclosure – has its own importance. For, Dr. Moynihan, as a conservative Catholic reporter and Vatican specialist has not been thus so far at the forefront of this Fatima debate, inasmuch as it would thereby imply, as it seems, some form of criticism of the recent popes. Thus, his recent reporting and words on the matter show how the fuller truth about the apparently missing part can now be less and less easily denied or ignored. This general and uneasy sense of incompleteness I can also confirm, in view of my own conversations with some prominent contacts in Rome who indicated to me – during and after the May 2016 controversy about Fatima – that there is, indeed, more than what has been published so far.