Blessed Be God in the Highest

of Dr. Solideo Paolini

September 18, 2007

Some of the media (and here in Italy there were not many) have reported the news of an interview given by His Excellency, Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla, Personal Secretary of John XXIII, in which it is alleged he would deny the existence of “the Fourth Secret” of Fatima. Having spoken many times about this matter with Archbishop Capovilla, and publishing the information he gave me because at that time he gave me explicit permission to publish it, therefore I now make the following observations:

  1. 1. His retraction is extremely strange especially because it comes ten months after the very successful publishing of his original declaration. His denial also comes after the well-known journalist Antonio Socci had pointed out on May 12 in the daily paper Libero some four months ago that Cardinal Bertone’s book published on May 10 was particularly weak on refuting Archbishop Capovilla’s revelations (this was not the only weakness of Cardinal Bertone’s book — it was one of many). It should also be noted that Archbishop Capovilla’s denial came very shortly after a convention in Brazil in which I gave a speech on the 21st of August (last month) before several bishops and about 200 priests. At that convention I made the same observation — that is, I suggested that a denial given at the “25th hour” would by now be scarcely convincing. It is strange also the publication in which the alleged denial was first published. Frankly, it does not seem that the magazine called Diva e Donna is an appropriate place to publish such an important matter. I think all can agree this is self-evident.

  2. 2. In my speech mentioned above and in an essay of mine which will be published soon, I analyze how such retractions are actually more apparent than real. [This speech can be viewed and heard at this address:; and the text can be read in English at: and in Italian at: I point out the fabrications and the verbal tricks used in this matter. For example, in the recent interview of Archbishop Capovilla, we are assured that the text published by the Vatican on June 26, 2000 is what Archbishop Capovilla read (with John XXIII) in August 1959, and that the text of June 26, 2000 is not different from the text he read in August 1959. On this point, I am also in agreement with him because as the denial has been formulated, the contrary affirmation — that is to say, that the text of the year 2000 had been in some way manipulated or altered from the original one read by Pope John XXIII — is not my thesis nor that of Antonio Socci. (It should be noted that the date in which the Secret was given by Our Lady was on the 13th of July, not the 17th of July as this alleged denial would have you believe.)

  3. 3. At the events organized to present the book of Cardinal Bertone, the invited speakers chosen to review his book are selected in such a manner as to avoid any possible contradiction or a significantly different point of view. And this fact is well-known. This behavior speaks for itself. I can affirm and prove before any audience the following:
    • Archbishop Capovilla has contradicted the official publication The Message of Fatima, as well as the subsequent affirmations of Cardinal Bertone in which he stated that the Third Secret (or a part of it) would not have been kept in the private apartments of the Roman Pontiff. As proof [against Cardinal Bertone's position] Archbishop Capovilla sent to me the written document which will be published in the next issue of The Fatima Crusader. This document was written in 1967, shortly before he [Capovilla] was made bishop. This document has his seal on it and it is well beyond the reach of any last-minute denial.

    • Archbishop Capovilla has recently [June 21, 2007] spoken with me — even while protesting that he had been previously [July 2006] “speaking in a free-wheeling way” (“parlando a ruota libera”), which in Italian does not mean to say that what he said was not true but that he had said too much. It is exactly from what he revealed to me that has come to be called “the Fourth Secret”. Clearly, this name is inexact and ironic. It is a journalistic way of speaking and clearly does not treat of denying the authenticity of the text of 2000. Rather, it treats of the admission of the existence and presence in that summer of 1959 of another specific piece of paper called by Archbishop Capovilla “an attachment” to the Secret. That attachment contains those things which they give little value to because they think they are only the personal thoughts of Sister Lucy on the Secret. And also for them it is not the Third Secret or even a part of it, because according to their personal opinion, it lacks supernatural authenticity. (I must note here that I have taken precautions to show the evidence which proves the truth of what I am affirming.)1

    • That text (the “attachment” to the Secret), according to the Vatican exponents, would not be precisely identifiable as the Fourth Secret and not even as a part of the Third Secret. Because according to their judgment, it is only the words of Sister Lucy and not really those of the Madonna. But putting aside for the moment their unofficial, personal considerations [that it‘s a mere attachment, simply the unimportant opinions of Sister Lucy, it’s not “authentic”], I repeat: Publish it anyway; publish all! Thus, each person will be able to form his own evaluation of this document.

Dr. Solideo Paolini
Consultant and researcher of the “Fatima Center” in Rome


  1. Such precautions to keep my evidence in safekeeping are obviously necessary — for example, when I returned from a television interview with my documentary evidence, I was robbed of my briefcase. However, none of my documentation was lost because I had made copies of it.

Table of Contents