“There is nothing better
to display the
truth in an excellent light,
than a clear and simple statement of the facts.”
—St. Benedict
by Marianna Bartold
Most Catholics around the world have heard about the new Fatima [1] movie, 13 years in the making “from the concept stage to the film’s completion” [2] and first slated for release in 2017, the Centennial of the apparitions of Our
Lady of the Rosary in Fatima, Portugal. Due to a series of delays, including
those due to the COVID-19 “pandemic” which induced upon the populace social
distancing regulations (including cinema closures), the movie was finally released
on August 28, 2020. As the author of Fatima:
The Signs and Secrets and an ardent promoter of the Fatima Message, I was frequently asked,
after the release of the film’s various trailers and press releases, what was
my opinion. My interest grew when I read that one of the producers touted the
film as receiving approval from the Fatima Shrine in Portugal, which considered
it “historically and theologically accurate.” [3] It is upon that premise on which my objective, Catholic review is based—because
if the premise is true, then so is the conclusion.
First, let’s begin by demonstrating the assertion of
historical and theological accuracy:
• According to a Catholic News Service press release distributed
to and published [4] by mainstream Catholic media, one of the producers, Dick Lyles, “said the
Shrine of Fatima had declared the film to be both historically and
theologically accurate and had praised its cinematic depiction of the
Marian apparitions reported in Fatima, Portugal, in 1917.” [5]
In fact, the first paragraph of the same press release
begins: “The producers of the movie ‘Fatima,’ which will be released in
theaters and premium video-on-demand Aug. 28, could not have asked for a
better endorsement than the standing ovation the film received earlier this
year at the Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fatima in Portugal.” [6]
Another producer, Natasha Howes “who has worked on several
Fatima-related projects, including the 2009 feature documentary ‘The 13th Day,’
said the makers of ‘Fatima’ wanted ‘to breathe new life into a very well-known
story’ and to share it with ‘mainstream audiences’—a goal that the Shrine of Fatima recognized and was willing
to assist by providing an advisory team and access to historical documents.”[7]
•In
another example of the premise that Fatima is “historically and
theologically accurate,” Jim Graves of Catholic World Report (CWR) inquired
of Dick Lyles, described as “a producer of the film and a practicing Catholic”:
“Is the movie true to the original events that
happened in Fatima?”
Lyles responded: “Yes, and the Shrine of Fatima
acknowledged as much. The shrine
declared, ‘Through his artistic choices, director Marco Pontecorvo conveys with
dignity and integrity the actions of those who experienced the Fatima event.
The film leads us to reflect that 100 years later, the light of God that the
Virgin Mary shined upon Francisco, Jacinta, and Lúcia still lights the way for
those who commit to a life of faith in the Gospel.’”
He further added, “When we screened the finished film for
them, they said it was the best movie about Fatima ever made.”
Earlier, Lyles was asked: “There are many books and a 1952
movie about the story of Fatima. Why did
you want to make this movie, and why at this time?”
Said Lyles: “The 1952 movie, The Miracle of Our Lady of
Fatima, was great, but was rather ‘Disney-esque.’ Its characters were
caricatures, and it makes light of the story and what happened at
Fatima in 1917. We wanted to tell a
more realistic story through the eyes of the shepherd children, particularly
Lúcia. We wanted to demonstrate how these children had courage, heroism, and
faith.”
Near the interview’s end, CWR put forth this question: “Who
should see this film?”
Lyles answered, “We made it as a ‘crossover’ film, so it
could be enjoyed by people of all backgrounds. It is a compelling story,
exciting, with courage and heroism. Anyone can enjoy the film, even those who
are not devotees of Fatima. During our test screenings, the film was enjoyed by
people of all ages and every faith background.” [8]
•In yet
another article, published nine days before the movie’s August 28th
release, it was stated: “Developing the script was an ‘intricate and sensitive’
process that involved working with an advisory committee from Portugal’s Shrine
of Fatima; consulting Sister Angela Coelho, postulator for the canonisation
(sic) cause of Francisco and Jacinta; and reading eyewitness accounts and Lucia’s memoirs.”
Yet, according to the same source in referring to another
producer, “Fatima is not meant to be a documentary, said [Natasha] Howes. Although
inspired by true events, it does not follow them exactly. For example, only
four of the six apparitions reported by the children are depicted.”
“Fictional elements were inserted to add historical context.
In the film, Lucia’s brother is sent off to fight in the war, when in reality
he was never conscripted. As a narrative device, it ‘heightens the emotional
dynamic’ within Lucia’s family and helps place them firmly in that era, said Ms.
Howes.” [9]
• On an
August 24 podcast from Catholic Review Radio, the listener hears from host
Christopher Gunty that his guest Dick Lyles is a partner of Origins
Entertainment, “which intends to make transformative and creative
entertainment” and that “he is one of the producers of the new movie, Fatima,
which remakes the 1952 film, Our Lady of Fatima (sic), and updates the
story as told by the eyes of 10 year-old Lucia, one of the three young shepherd
children who saw visions of Our Blessed Mother in Portugal in 1917.” [10]
When asked why he decided to present the movie through the
eyes of Lucia, Lyles answered: “Well, we thought it was important that the
world see what the shepherds really went through, in the context of what
really happened. So, not many stories of Fatima have ever put it in the
context that the world was at war. It was the tail-end of WWI; Portugal was
having a civil war and was really being torn apart with the civil war; so there
was tremendous tension going on in the world, and as a result of that, when the
children saw the apparitions and began to talk about them, it really put a
tremendous amount of pressure on them—more
pressure than they would have had otherwise. And we wanted to show their
heroism; we really didn't feel that any other prior movies that had ever
been produced showed the true heroism of the shepherds from their point of view.
So we told it from Lucia's point of view, so that people could
appreciate the courage, as well as the faith and love that these shepherds
experienced.” [11]
• There is
also the email I personally received from Picturehouse, dated August 28, which described
the movie in the following way:
<< In 1917, outside the parish of Fátima, Portugal, a
10-year-old girl and her two younger cousins witness multiple visitations of
the Virgin Mary, who tells them that only prayer and suffering will bring an
end to WWI. Word of the sighting spreads across the country, inspiring
religious pilgrims to flock to the site in hopes of witnessing a miracle. Inspired
by real-life events...>>
At this point, the objective person is inclined to ask
the obvious questions: Which is it? Although “not
meant to be a documentary,” is this movie “historically and theologically
accurate” because it is “true to the original events that happened in Fatima”—or
is it merely a “cross-over” film “inspired by real-life events”? Why did one
producer repeatedly emphasize that the movie is true to the original Fatima events,
while another said, “Although inspired by true events, it does not follow them exactly”
and admitted, “Fictional elements were inserted to add historical context”?
Examining the Film’s Portrayal of the Fatima Apparitions
For the purpose of an objective, Catholic critique, I twice viewed the movie, transcribing the entire script. Despite the “red flags” previously viewed in the film’s trailers (like the Virgin trodding on the ground instead of regally standing on a small holmoak tree), one could never fully anticipate how far this movie—at the expense of truth—would push the limits of “artistic license.”
(That said, since it would make too lengthy this review by pointing
out every modernist principle woven throughout the film—including but not limited to “vital immanence”—I will simply urge fellow
Catholics to read or review the Church’s great work on the doctrines of the
modernists, Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)
Although I could also write an objective examination on each
film segment’s plethora of fictions and inaccuracies, doing so would take a
substantial amount of time, resulting in a hefty booklet rather than an article.
Instead, this review will begin with the initial, entirely fictional and/or
falsely revised scenes (including the first Apparition of the Angel and the
first Apparition of the Virgin on May 13). It will then succinctly demonstrate via
a syllabus the film’s encompassing breadth of fabrications, omissions, and
revisionist history which permeates the portrayals of the 1917 apparitions of
the Virgin Mary—i.e., June
13, July 13, and October 13. (The film does not include the August and
September 1917 apparitions.)
The Angelic Apparitions
Fatima movie’s
depiction: A young girl
(Lucia) is seen alone, scribbling with a stick on a cave wall. A light wind
suddenly courses into the cave, and in flies a white bird, both which attract
her attention. She follows the swooping bird deeper into the cave. Suddenly she
hears a whispering voice: “Don’t be scared. Do not worry.” The child peers into
the dark and asks, “Who are you?” Lucia inevitably spies someone apparently
hiding within the cave—a somewhat disheveled, slightly grimy-looking peasant woman.
“I am the Angel of Peace. Look.” Suddenly Lucia sees a
vision of a battlefield with the noise of airplanes, bombs, and sirens. A young
soldier is seen. She twice calls out “Manuel!” The Angel half-whispers, “And
they don’t seem to want to stop!” The Angel then says, “We should pray.”
Then is heard a scandalously abbreviated, revised version
of the true prayer, as Lucia repeats each short sentence after the Angel: “I
believe. I have hope. And I love God.” The Angel’s last words? “Pray for
peace.”
Historically (What Really Happened): In 1916, all three children (Lucia dos Santos and her two younger cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto), thrice saw an angel. These apparitions always took place outside, never in a cave. The Angel did not appear as an earthly woman but rather, in her 1936-1941 Memoirs, Sr. Lucia described him as a bright figure, approaching them from the sky. As he grew closer, they could see “a young man, about fourteen or fifteen years old, whiter than snow, transparent as crystal when the sun shines through it, and of great beauty.” (Incidentally, my current and ongoing series, “Our Lady of Fatima: Mother and Teacher,” which began in February 2020 and is published in Catholic Family News, quoted Lucia’s descriptions of these apparitions. As in my own Fatima book, I also explained why we can believe with moral certainty that the Angel is St. Michael the Archangel, Prince of the heavenly host.)
At the Angel’s first appearance, his real words were as
follows: “Do not be afraid! I am the Angel of Peace. Pray with me.” [13] He then knelt and bowed down until his forehead touched the ground, having the
children repeat these words three times: ‘My God, I believe, I adore, I
hope and I love thee! I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore,
do not hope, and do not love Thee.’” He then arose and said, “Pray
thus. The Hearts of Jesus and Mary are attentive to the voice of your
supplications.” [14]
As I wrote in the February 2020 issue of CFN, “In
three visits, the Angel greatly advanced the children’s spiritual lives,
leading them to further prayer and sacrifice, assisting them to grow in charity
toward God and neighbor.” [15] He taught them how and why to make sacrifices to God in reparation for sins and
for the conversion of sinners. He also taught them what is known as “The Most
Holy Trinity Prayer” or “The Eucharistic Prayer,” which he instructed the
children to pray three times in succession: “O Most Holy Trinity, Father,
Son and Holy Spirit, I adore Thee profoundly, and I offer Thee the most
precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the
tabernacles throughout the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges
and indifference by which He Himself is offended. And by the infinite merits of
His most Sacred Heart, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of Thee the
conversion of all poor sinners.” [16]
At the last 1916 apparition, the Angel instructed the
children about Eucharistic Reparation when he gave all three Holy Communion,
with Lucia receiving only the Host and the two younger children receiving only the
Precious Blood. Before doing so, he said, “Take and drink the Body and Blood
of Jesus Christ, horribly outraged by ungrateful men! Make reparations for
their crimes and console your God.” [17]
The Scene Which Sets the Film’s True Theme
The film’s next fable sets the whole tone of the film’s
subtle, underlying and slowly developing theme: The child Lucia (and, as
implied by this scene’s conclusion, the elderly nun Lucia) has “issues” with
her mother, Maria Rosa, which psychologically resulted in the child’s Angelic
and Marian apparitions.
The segment begins with an elderly gentleman (the fictional,
agnostic Professor Nichols) arriving at a convent. Invited to sit and told that
an unnamed “she” will soon be with him, he peers into a convent grille, looking
inside the room beyond. He sees a statue of Our Lady of Fatima and, as the
movie progresses, the viewer discovers that the statue is the film’s one and
only accurate representation of the Virgin (as she was described by
the children and again in Sister Lucia’s Memoirs, written under
obedience to her bishop in the years 1936-1941 and in 1976 published). [18]
The Professor then takes a seat. An elderly nun wordlessly arrives,
sits behind the grille and looks straightforwardly and dispassionately at the
Professor.
Professor: “Good morning, Sister Lucia.” Without returning
the greeting, she simply corrects him about her full name in religion: “Of
Jesus and of the Immaculate Heart.”
Professor: “Yes. Thank you for taking the time to meet me
today. I really appreciate it. I couldn’t imagine my book completed without
you.”
Lucia: “I just read and very much appreciated your last
work…”
Professor: “Thank you.”
Lucia brashly continues: “… although I don’t share most of
your views.”
Professor, quietly: “No, I suppose you do not.”
Lucia: “In your last paper, you wrote, ‘All seers are de
facto unstable.’”
Professor quickly answers: “I didn’t mean to offend you.”
Lucia: “On the contrary, I’ve always been fascinated by
opinions opposed to my own.”
Professor: “Well, then, we do have something in common.”
Lucia remains silent, and the Professor decides to proceed
with the interview.
Professor: “I have so many questions, Sister Lucia. But let
me start with the most obvious one. If someone were to say to you now, why what
happened all those years ago had to have happened to you, of all people, how
would you respond?”
Lucia: “Because it was necessary.”
Professor: “Necessary?”
Lucia: “To spread her message. At the time, naturally, I
could not have imagined its importance nor the consequences.” (Silence for a
few seconds.) “I was a child.”
More seconds pass and then…
Professor: “And do you have any regrets?”
Lucia: “Does it look like the world has heard the message of
heavenly peace? (Pause) This is my only regret.” (Emotionally, Lucia then
speaks again). “I haven’t done enough to please my mother.”
Professor: “Which mother? (Pause.) The Holy
Mother?”
The startled Sister Lucia gives no answer.
After this fabricated scene, it abruptly switches to a third
one, set in the past, which picks up and fortifies the same untruthful thread to
erroneously show the source of the mother-daughter clash: The mother’s strong
concern for Manuel, who the viewer will later learn is Lucia’s elder brother, a
soldier in the war. This wholly unnecessary, concocted conflict over Manuel not
only escalates after the Virgin’s appearance, it becomes an impetus for
accusations made against Lucia: She “must” be feeling motherly neglect. Therefore,
to get her mother’s attention, she “must” be making up stories about the Angel
and the Virgin.
To continue that thread, a secularist “pop psychology” is by
the film another device employed, especially in Maria Rosa’s words and behavior
upon Lucia’s pre-teen psyche. For example, the third fictitious scene
demonstrates Lucia’s awareness of the anguish of neighbors who watch and listen
to a man (the Administrator) announcing the names of their male relatives, each
following with either “deceased” or “missing in battle.” The earthly-looking
“Angel” suddenly makes to Lucia a silent appearance, walking beside a weeping
woman. The “Angel” and Lucia stare at each other as the former passes by.
Carefully observing everyone, Lucia cannot help but notice
her mother’s tearless anguish or her resulting prayer to the Holy Virgin for
Manuel (including the following sentences: “Our home will be an example for
the Church. We will do this for God.”). [19] In the fourth scene, that psychological thread is again brought to the surface
when—upon her mother’s insistence of publicly forcing Lucia into an act
of self-denial for Manuel’s safe return (i.e., pulling her out of a children’s folk
dance among a small circle of children, which included Jacinta)—even Lucia’s
father cannot convince his wife to let the child be.
Clear are the implications: Maria Rosa is a force
with which to be reckoned and her young daughter’s sensitive, impressionable
mind accepts the message: She must sacrifice for Manuel and she,
along with her family, “will be an example for the Church.” For the viewer, the
unconscious set-up is complete. The nuances of these segments inevitably provide
both the fictionalized reason of the mother-daughter struggle and the delicate insinuation
that Lucia’s upcoming visions of the Virgin and her future religious life are
her deep-seated responses to her mother’s earlier prayerful promise to the
“Holy Virgin Mary, Mother of mothers.” What also subtlety underscores the
implication that Lucia alone was compelled to submit to her mother’s demands? Curiously,
for the sake of Manuel’s safe return, there are never any scenes (before or
after) of anyone else in Lucia’s family making acts of mortification.
Of these first four fictional scenes alone, the
historical truths are as follows:
1) None of the three children ever told anyone,
including their parents, about the three 1916 Angelic apparitions. It was not
until 1937 that the adult Lucia (by then a Dorothean nun), did so, in writing,
under obedience to her bishop.
2) Manuel dos Santos was neither “drafted” into the
revolution (which took place in 1910, seven years before the Fatima
events) nor was he a soldier of World War I.
3) Between Lucia and her mother, the true and sole
conflict arose entirely due to the apparitions, because the strongly Catholic
Maria Rosa, who detested even the hint of a “fib,” believed that Lucia—her
loving, trustworthy, youngest child—had suddenly and inexplicably become a
liar.
4) Before the apparitions and only due to the
new parish priest’s admonitions from the pulpit, Maria Rosa forbade her
daughters to publicly engage in folk-dance. [20] As for Lucia’s sacrifices, it was the Angel who taught both her and her cousins
to do so in reparation for sins and for the conversions of sinners. With one
exception—Lucia alone, crying aloud to heaven, lifting up her blouse to expose
her naked waist with a rope tied around it, an atonement secretly offered by
the three cousins and which is never in the film explained—Fatima features
none of the other two children’s real sacrifices.
May 13 (the First Apparition of the Virgin)
Fatima movie’s depiction: Lucia is alone, in a field of long grass; she
looks up at the sun. Along come Jacinta and Francisco. Jacinta complains to
Lucia about Maria Rosa’s forcing Lucia to leave them as they began a folk-dance.
Lucia states, “Mama says I must atone to make him come home.” (That is another
subtle reference to the underlying theme.)
The children offer to Lucia some food, and she admits she is starving. Soon after, all three run to a higher place, calling out “Ave! Maria!” Thunder is heard and the children begin to gather the sheep. Lightning is seen and mentioned by the girls. Francisco declares, “I don’t see any lightning.” The girls giggle. “Come on, we have to go home.” Thunder is again heard and followed by a second lightning flash. “Another one!” cries one of the girls. The camera pans in on the invisible wind, moving through the grass and trees. The children laugh and run but the wind attracts their attention. They suddenly stop near a tall, thin tree and, for an unknown reason, Jacinta falls backwards to the ground. She quietly says, “Look.”
A barefoot woman, with dark hair and clad in a veil and robe
with pink patterns throughout both, walks up to them. (The impression of the
bare feet with a gown trailing behind is similar to that of The Lord of the
Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring movie in which Lady Galadriel walks over
the moss in Lothlorien.)
Lucia: “Who are you? Where do you come from?”
Francisco: “Who are you talking to?”
Jacinta: “Can’t you see her?”
Francisco (angrily): “No! Enough of this joke!”
The Lady: “I come from heaven.”
Lucia: “Are you seriously from heaven? Will I go to
heaven?”
The Lady smiles in the affirmative.
Francisco: “I can see her now.”
Lucia to the Lady: “What about Jacinta?”
The Lady: “Also.”
Lucia: “And Francisco?”
Francisco: “What?”
The Lady: “Same, but…”
Silence falls as the boy looks at the Lady, watching her
lips move.
Francisco (sounding a bit annoyed): “What did she say?”
Jacinta: “I’ll tell you later.”
Lucia to the Lady: “Our friend, Maria das Neves?”
The Lady: “She’s in heaven.”
Lucia: “Why did you come? What do you want from us?”
The Lady: “You must come back here every month at this time
for the next six months. (N.B. Script Error: Not only is this another sentence
not as the Blessed Mother said it, the script should have stated five
months.) After a pause, the Lady says: “Pray the Rosary every day to bring
peace to the world and to end the war.” Another pause. “The world needs peace.”
The camera pans backward into the sky, indicating the
Virgin’s departure.
Francisco demands, “I want to know what she said about me.”
As all three walk with the sheep, neither girl answers him.
Lucia: “Did you tell him about the Rosary?”
Jacinta: “No.”
Francisco: “So she said I need to pray the Rosary more. She
knows everything, even our most personal things.” He asks if the Lady is angry
with him.
Jacinta sternly turns toward him: “I told you not to throw
stones at the boys from Boleiros!”
Francisco, with an undertone of anger: “Do you think that’s
the reason why I couldn’t hear her?”
Jacinta, loftily: “Sure, it is.”
Francisco, loudly objecting: “But they beat me up! I tried
to run away!”
Lucia, yelling: “Stop it!”
Francisco, quietly: “So what do we do now?”
Jacinta, morosely: “She says we have to suffer.”
Francisco: “Why?”
Jacinta: “I didn’t quite understand.”
Francisco: “What are we doing wrong?”
The two girls don’t answer.
Jacinta, as if a thought just occurred to her: “I can’t wait
to tell Mama and Papa!”
Both Lucia and Francisco turn on her and simultaneously shout:
“We can’t tell anyone!”
Jacinta: “But she said that we’re her messengers.”
Francisco: “She came to us. It’s our secret!”
For many reasons, the entire scene is inaccurate and
confusing. The Virgin’s mode of dress was wholly altered. Her hair, seen in the
movie, was covered by her long white veil. Furthermore, she always appeared
standing atop a small holmoak tree; not once did she appear on the ground. Most
of Our Lady’s true words are greatly changed. The Virgin never smiled, as the
movie depicted; she was always serious. It is a falsehood that Francisco did
not hear the thunder or see the lightning. It is also untrue that he could not
at first see the Virgin. [21] He could from the start see her, but never could he hear her.
Due to the artistic device of making the movie-goers’ also experience
Francisco’s inability to hear the Virgin, the children’s after-exchange leaves
the viewer to discern what they can. The sequence also falsely portrays the
children as expressing modern-day lexicon and attitudes (i.e., Lucia saying to
the Virgin: “Are you seriously from heaven?”), characterizing Jacinta as
a bossy know-it-all and Francisco, by turns, as a bewildered, angry, and
curious child. Finally, the exchange between the Virgin and Lucia completely
omits the reference to Purgatory, Our Lady’s question to Lucia on behalf of all
three children, and a vision of themselves in the light of God. To further
illustrate these omissions and truncations, the next section provides what
truly, historically happened—according to Lucia herself.
Historically (from Lucia’s original Memoirs): High up on the slope in the Cova da Iria, I was playing with Jacinta and Francisco at building a little stone wall around a clump of furze. Suddenly we saw what seemed to be a flash of lightning. “We’d better go home,” I said to my cousins, “that’s lightning; we may have a thunderstorm.” “Yes, indeed!” they answered. We began to go down the slope, hurrying the sheep along towards the road. We were, more or less, halfway down the slope, and almost level with a large holmoak tree that stood there, when we saw another flash of lightning.
We had only gone a few steps further when, there before us
on a small holmoak, we beheld a Lady all dressed in white. She was more
brilliant than the sun and radiated a light more clear and intense than a
crystal glass filled with sparkling water, when the rays of the burning sun
shine through it. We stopped, astounded, before the Apparition. We were so
close, just a few feet from her, that we were bathed in the light which
surrounded her, or rather, which radiated from her. Then Our Lady spoke to us:
“Do not be afraid. I
will do you no harm.”
“Where are you from?”
“I am from heaven.”
“What do you want from me?”
“I have come to ask
you to come here for six months in succession, on the 13th day, at this same
hour. Later on, I will tell you who I am and what I want. Afterwards, I will
return here yet a seventh time.”
“Shall I go to heaven too?”
“Yes, you will.”
“And Jacinta?”
“She will go also.”
“And Francisco?”
“He will go there,
too, but he must say many Rosaries.”
Then I remembered to ask about two girls who had died
recently. They were friends of mine and used to come to my home to learn
weaving with my eldest sister.
“Is Maria das Neves in heaven?”
“Yes, she is.” (I
think she was about 16 years old).
“And Amelia?”
“She will be in
Purgatory until the end of the world.” (It seems to me that she was between
18 and 20 years of age).
“Are you willing to
offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an
act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and in supplication for
the conversion of sinners?”
“Yes, we are willing.”
“Then you are going
to have much to suffer, but the grace of God will be your comfort.”
As she pronounced these last words “…the grace of God will
be your comfort,” Our Lady opened her hands for the first time, communicating
to us a light so intense that, as it streamed from her hands, its rays
penetrated our hearts and the innermost depths of our souls, making us see
ourselves in God, Who was that light, more clearly than we see ourselves in the
best of mirrors. Then, moved by an interior impulse that was also communicated
to us, we fell on our knees, repeating in our hearts: “O most Holy Trinity, I
adore Thee! My God, my God, I love Thee in the most Blessed Sacrament!”
After a few moments, Our Lady spoke again: “Pray the Rosary every day, in order to
obtain peace for the world, and the end of the war.” Then she began to rise
serenely, going upwards towards the east, until she disappeared in the
immensity of space. The light that surrounded her seemed to open up a path for her
in the firmament, and for this reason we sometimes said that we saw Heaven
opening. [22]
A Syllabus of Historical and Theological Revisionism
Finally, in addition to restating a few of the previously
examined “inaccuracies,” the following list (mainly regarding that which
transpired during the Virgin’s 1917 apparitions) highlights the main points of the
film’s legion of “historical and theological” errors:
• May 13: In this and successive apparitions, the
Virgin never walked on the ground. She always stood lightly atop a young
holmoak tree. Sometimes the children could, by a bright light, see her
approach; other times she suddenly on the tree appeared.
• The Virgin did not appear as an earthly woman.
Neither was she clad in a woven, pink-patterned robe nor a matching veil that
crossed her chest. She did not hold an
ordinary-looking Rosary. Rather, she shone brighter than the sun, veiled and
gowned in pure white, adorned with a yellow Star of Esther (between knee and
hem). Hanging from her right hand was a brilliantly-shining Rosary “with white
beads, brilliant as pearls, ending in a little cross of silver, which also
sparkles.” [23] From neck to waist, she wore a long, luminous yellow cord, from which hung a
little ball of light. Lucia affirmed, “The light of Our Lady was white…The
light had various tones, yellow and white and various other colors. It was more
intense and less intense. It was by the different tones and by the differences
of intensity that one saw what was hand and what was mantle and what was face
and what was tunic.” [24]
• In each of the four of six apparitions depicted, the film
either deletes, severely truncates, or in an odd manner replaces that which either
the Virgin or Lucia said.
• June
13: For example, at the second apparition, the Virgin did not say,
“Thank you for praying for me.” (The Mother of God does not need us to
prayer “for her.” Neither can we defend this badly-phrased sentence to mean the
Virgin thanked the children for praying the Rosary.) Nor did she tell Lucia:
“Jesus has chosen you. You are going to be the messenger of faith in Mary’s
Immaculate Heart.”
—Regarding
the latter, her true words (after saying, “I will take Jacinta and Francisco
soon”) were as follows: “But you are to stay here some time longer. Jesus
wishes to make use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in
the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. I promise salvation to those who
embrace it, and those souls will be loved by God like flowers placed by me to
adorn His throne.” [25]
—Lucia did
not petulantly cry out, “Why does it have to be them and not me?”
Rather, Lucia sadly asked, “Am I to stay here all alone?” The Virgin answered,
“No, my daughter. Are you suffering a great deal? Don’t lose heart. I will
never forsake you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the path that
will lead you to God.” [26]
• The Virgin did not show her Immaculate Heart as
four nails embedded in her chest, with blood dripping into the dirt. Rather, when
Lucia described the Virgin’s June 1917 appearance, she wrote: “In front of the
palm of Our Lady’s right hand was a heart encircled by thorns which pierced it.
We understood that this was the Immaculate Heart of Mary, outraged by the sins
of humanity, and seeking reparation.” [27]
• During the apparitions, Jacinta never conveyed to
the crowd the Virgin’s words. In fact, neither she nor her brother spoke.
• None of the many signs witnessed by onlookers are
demonstrated. Examples: the delicate white cloud on the holmoak tree, the luminous
globe of light, the stars seen at high noon on a clear summer day, the mystical
flowers of different shapes (after flowering time), the atmospheric changes of
light, temperature, and color (from the rainbow spectrum to pure gold), the
shower of small white objects (described as petals, snowflakes, tiny doves,
stars, or roses) which gently fell from the sky and disappeared before touching
the ground. [28]
• Unlike the film’s portrayal, the Virgin never physically touched
Lucia or, for that matter, either of her cousins.
• The prayers given by both the Angel and Virgin are not
as those recorded by Lucia in her Memoirs. In the film, they are
either omitted or rewritten.
• July 13: The Virgin’s prophetic words, contained in
the Great Secret of Fatima—including the introductory sentence of the Third Secret—is
almost wholly deleted. The scanty bit remaining is, again, reshaped. Yet this
day remains “the central apparition, which the two previous ones
prepared for and the three subsequent ones were to confirm in a striking manner
by their great miracles" [29] (including the other signs, already mentioned, which are not by this film featured).
—Therefore,
the viewer will not hear of 1)
the necessary worldwide devotion to the
—One of
the film’s worst revisions places these blasphemous words into the Virgin’s
mouth, “If we do not stop insulting God, there will be a war worse than
this one.” The Immaculate Virgin, Queen of All Saints, never sinned. Further,
the saints in heaven in no way insult God.
—The three
children did not find themselves surrounded by hell, and Lucia did not
ask the Lady, “What was that?” The children knew what they had seen. The Third
Secret Vision completely passes over the “angel with a flaming sword as if to
set the world on fire.” [30] What is shown not only provides no true context, but the film—continuing with
its dishonesty of totally eradicating the Virgin’s prophecies and commands—instead
has Our Lady stating, “This is what will happen if sinners do not convert.”
—Only one
of two prayers which on this day the Virgin gave the children are featured but,
merely by changing a few words, it turns the prayer into a “bartering deal”
with the Lord, rather than offering a sacrifice for the love of God and
neighbor (in other words, charity): “O Jesus, I’m offering you this in exchange
for your love, for the conversion of sinners, and to amend for sins committed
against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” Instead, this is the true Prayer of
Reparatory Offering, as Our Lady gave it: “O Jesus, it is for love of Thee,
for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against
the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”
—The other
prayer (again, not included in the film) is now known as the Fatima Decade
Prayer, which the Virgin instructed to be said after each Rosary Mystery.
• August 13: The movie failed to demonstrate the
Administrator’s kidnapping of the three children or the signs seen by the
people, waiting at the Cova da Iria. Nor does it feature the three-day time
frame in which all of the children were interrogated, threatened with death (by
being boiled in hot oil), and imprisoned with adult malefactors. Rather, the
film merely shows the cousins sitting in front of the Administrator’s desk, as
he focuses solely on Lucia. Later, the Administrator silently escorts Lucia to
a stone-walled pantry with a window. The door shuts and she is kept there until
night. There is no reference to the whereabouts of Francisco and Jacinta.
• August 19: The film does not include the
Virgin’s unexpected appearance, four days after the children were released from
prison. It was on this day that the Virgin said, “If you had not been taken
away to the City (sic), the Miracle would be even greater.” [31] That sentence alone is a stark reminder that every sin wounds the Mystical Body
of Christ.
• September 13: This apparition, wherein were
witnessed many stunning signs, is also wholly omitted.
• October 13: The Virgin did not say, “Hello,
my children. Thank you for coming to see me.” After May, when the Virgin initially
spoke to allay the children’s surprise, thereafter Lucia would be the first to greet
Our Lady, “What do you want of me?”
—Although
the Virgin did say, “I am the Lady of the Rosary,” she neither said of the
people, “I am going to lead them to my Son through peace and love” nor did she
say, “Some people are never going to believe, even when standing before the
face of God. Look!” (She points to the Miracle’s commencement). Rather, it was
Our Lady’s own ray of light, cast upon the sun, which began the Miracle.
—After the
Miracle of the Sun, the people were not still drenched from the hours of
rainfall. They were “suddenly and completely dry—their shoes and stockings,
their skin and clothing.” [32]
—The three
children did not run to their parents for protection. Rather, during the
Miracle, they saw three visions: St. Joseph with the Child Jesus blessing the
world; Our Lord and Our Lady (the Virgin dressed in black, as the Sorrowful Mother)
standing side-by-side as Our Lord again blessed the world; and finally, the
Virgin alone, attired as Our Lady of Mt. Carmel. [33]
—The Virgin’s
words, as in other scenes, are either deleted or mutilated. For example, her final
on-screen word (“Go”) is fiction. Lucia wrote that the Virgin’s last words on
October 13, 1917 were as follows: “Do not offend the Lord our God any longer.
He is already deeply offended.” [34]
In conclusion, then, and objectively speaking—what with both the great amount of
Fatima resources now available and the many special effects possible in today’s
movies, this film could have been a spectacular, “theologically and
historically accurate” triumph. While reactions among Catholics on the internet
range from wildly enthusiastic to those who had anticipated a more precise
production, it should be hoped that no faithful Catholic will deny that the
time for wholly living the true Fatima Message is already most late.
That said, “with God, all things are possible.” [35] Some claim that this highly fictitious movie has led them to praying the
Rosary. May we hope that they daily continue this holy practice, thus drawing
them into both learning the true and beautiful Fatima Message and a deeper
devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary—the
path that leads us to God.
Copyright Marianna Bartold 2020. All Rights Reserved
Worldwide. For permission to reprint, contact the author at
keepitcatholic@usa.net
About the Author
Marianna Bartold is the author of Fatima: The Signs and Secrets and Guadalupe: Secrets of the Image.
The founding publisher of The Catholic Family’s Magnificat and editor of
Sursum Corda (now Latin Mass) magazines, she also digitally
publishes traditional Catholic classics on Kindle. Join Marianna on Facebook (Devotion
to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Lady of Fatima group, or her main
page, Keeping It Catholic). Follow her on Twitter @KICtheBlog.
[1] Fatima. Producers are James T. Volk (The Code), Dick Lyles (Little One),
Stefano Buono, Maribel Lopera Sierra, Marco Pontecorvo, Rose Ganguzza (Kill
Your Darlings) and Natasha Howes (The 13th Day). Director of photography is
Vincenzo Carpineta (Letters to Juliet). Editor is Alessio Doglione (20
Cigarettes). Production design is by Cristina Onori (All the Money in the
World). Costume design is by Daniela Ciancio (The Great Beauty). Original music
is by Paolo Buonvino (Fathers & Daughters, Quiet Chaos). Original song
performed by Andrea Bocelli.
Source: Anthony D'Alessandro. “Picturehouse’s
‘Fatima’ Going Into Theaters & PVOD At End Of August.” Deadline.
July 23, 2020.
[2] Grasska, Denis. Press release from Catholic News Service. “Forsome viewers, ‘Fatima’ film has sparked devotion, faith.” Aug 25, 2020. Detroit
Catholic.
[3] Ibid.
[4] For example, one will find the press release (“For some viewers, ‘Fatima’ film
has sparked devotion, faith”) published by Catholic Standard, Aug 26, 2020;
Catholic Philly, August 27, 2020;
NewOutlook Diocese of Tuscon (AZ) Online News, Aug. 26, 2020.
Also see “ThePilot.” The Boston Pilot. Aug 25, 2020.
[5] Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
[6] Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
[7] Ibid. (Emphasis added.)
[8] Graves, Jim. “Delayed because of pandemic, new Fatima movie to open on August 28th.” The
Catholic World Report. August 18, 2020.
[9] “Fatima story led filmmaker to Christ.” Catholic Weekly. Aug 19, 2020. [Emphasis added.]
[10] “Aug 23, 2020/Fatima Movie” by Catholic
Review radio podcast for the
“Guadalupe Radio Network.” Archdiocese of Baltimore, MD. Time marker (00:49-00:54—1:13).
[11] Ibid. Time marker (1:38—2:41).
[Emphasis added.]
[12] Pope St. Pius X. Pascendi
Dominici Gregis (Feeding the Lord’s Flock). September 8, 1907.
[13] Sister Maria Lucia. Fatima in Lucia’s Own
Words: The Memoirs of Sister Lucia, the Last Fatima Visionary. Lapeer, MI: 2015 Kindle version of the 1976 edition. Second Memoir; Loc.
1342.
[14] Ibid. Loc. 1343.
[15] Bartold, Marianna. “Our Lady of Fatima, Mother and Teacher: Angelic Lessons
(Part I).” Catholic Family News, Niagara Falls, NY. Volume 27, Issue 2
(February 2020).
[16] Sister Mary Lucia, op. cit. Loc. 2877.
[17] Ibid. Loc. 1372.
[18] My digital publishing company, KIC (Keeping It Catholic) has republished the four
original Memoirs as a Kindle
edition.
[19] Maria’s Rosa’s fabricated prayer, in full, was rendered: “Holy Virgin Mary,
Mother of mothers, please don’t let him says his name. I promise I will work
much harder for the Church and to spread the faith. As a family, we are to
carry out many penances. Our home will be an example for the Church. We will do
this for God. But please, let Manuel come home safe.”
[20] Sister Maria Lucia, op. cit. Loc. 1392.
[21] De Marchi, I.M.C., John. The True Story of Fatima. Lapeer,
MI: KIC, 2015. Kindle format of the original 1947 edition, with appendix
through 1952. “A Popular but Erroneous
Version of the First Apparition (Regarding Francisco),” Loc. 4858-4868.
[22] Ibid. Loc. 2842-2880.
[23] Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité. The
Whole Truth about Fatima (TWTF), Science and the Facts, Vol. I. Buffalo,
NY: Immaculate Heart Publications, 1989: p. 143.
[24] McGlynn, O.P., Thomas. Vision of Fatima.
Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1949: p. 64.
[25] Sister Mary Lucia, op. cit. Loc. 2900.
[26] Ibid., Loc. 1450-1451.
[27] Ibid. Loc. 2906.
[28] Bartold, op. cit. A great portion of the book is dedicated to explaining the
symbolism of these signs, based on Tradition and Scripture.
[29] Frère Michel, op. cit., pp. 185-186.
[30] The Message of Fatima. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. June 26,
2001. See also: The Message of Fatima.
(English edition). Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Vatican City:
Liberia Editrice Vaticana, 2000.
[31] De Marchi, op. cit. Loc. 1769.
[32] Ibid., Loc. 2616.
[33] Ibid. Loc. 2999-3000.
[34] Sister Mary Lucia, op. cit. Loc. 1679. Also see Loc. 2998.
[35] Matt. 19:26. Holy Bible, Douay-Rheims translation, with revisions and footnotes
(in the text in italics) by Bishop Richard Challoner, 1749-52. Taken from a
hardcopy of the 1899 Edition by the John Murphy Company. IMPRIMATUR: James
Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, September 1, 1899.
What an excellent, thorough review ! Thank you for the time and effort it so obviously required to put it together.
ReplyDelete