The Saints and masters of spiritual life give us clear rules for the “discernment of the spirits” by which we can detect in our spiritual life what comes from God and what comes from the devil, even if he hides himself in the shape of an “angel of light”. The principle is the famous word of Saint John: “God is light, and in him is no darkness whatsoever” (1 John 1:5). Light is the love of truth, darkness avoids objectivity.

The means used by Fr. Dhanis and all his followers (including the theological commentary of the 2000 Fatima document) are the following:

a) Ignoring the objective facts

A typical way of manipulating events and history is to use the tactics of selection. Only those facts fitting one’s preconceived idea are taken into consideration, sometimes with exaggeration. Fr. Dhanis insists on the low level of education and the total ignorance of the children, as well as the fact that little children often have the tendency to exaggerate things which impress them very much (e.g. they must have heard in the catechism a strong and colourful description of Hell, which in their imagination they easily take as a real vision). On the other hand obvious and proved facts are ignored and neglected, e.g. the many witnesses of the Miracle of the sun and all the miracles of Our Lady’s Mission tours during 50 years. This way of proceeding alone would be sufficient to declare Fr. Dhanis’ thesis as not serious, lacking objectivity and love of truth.

b) Ignoring the sources of knowledge

Fr. Dhanis was often invited to speak personally with Sr. Lucia herself, with the most outstanding and renowned specialists of Fatima, or at least to consult the archives in Fatima, which he never did. Equally Popes Paul VI and John-Paul II didn’t want to speak with Sr. Lucia. They had much time for ecumenical meetings in Fatima, but didn’t accept the request of Sr. Lucia to speak personally with them. This way of proceeding again shows lack of interest in the truth. In historical research there is nothing so important and valuable as to reach the sources of the events (eye witnesses, archives containing first-hand documents of the history of the apparitions).

c) Ignoring the Supernatural

The guiding principle in the hostile attitude of Rome against Fatima is naturalism. Naturalism cannot accept a heavenly intervention which can influence the children and assist them with special graces, making them perfect and truthful witnesses and instruments of the message of Heaven. These graces are: to remember exactly the apparitions, the truthfulness of their accounts, the suspending of the wounds of original sin (lack of memory, influence of own fantasy, false judgements), the elevation of the little ones to a much higher level than they are by pure nature (little children).

Furthermore, naturalism considers all miraculous interventions (miracles, visions, revelations) from Heaven as suspect and tries to find, at any price, a natural explanation: the visions are products of imaginations, strong emotions and other subconscious reasons; the miracles are effects of hallucinations and other psychological effects produced by big gatherings of people etc. The same naturalism questions the objective reality of the miracles of Our Lord interpreting them as the expression of the strong emotions and feelings of the apostles.

Finally, naturalism refuses to accept any spiritual and deeper interpretation of events and words, but reduces everything to mere natural and psychological reasons. For example, Jacinta’s reaction to the vision of Hell was the great desire to save the poor sinners. The naturalist interpretation states that little girls have a natural inclination to have pity on sick or suffering beings, be it human beings or animals (cats, dogs, horses, birds etc.). The ‘love for sinners’ is only a transposition of such natural feelings to Jacinta's imagination of poor sinners suffering the pains of hell.

d) Repeating arguments without verification (because from an illustrious theologian)

Many books, articles and documents have been written about Fatima in the spirit of Fr. Dhanis. More or less they repeat his theses almost as a revealed truth. Nobody takes the time to go and verify. Before the death of Sr. Lucia nobody even made the effort to get in contact with her to hear her opinion. However, if 50 theologians and employees in the Holy See repeat the same theses, inevitably they create an atmosphere of a common opinion, as if all these different people after thorough research would have come to the same conclusion. The theses of one single person create a new mentality hostile to the authentic message of Fatima, first in Rome, afterwards in wide parts of the Church. In a similar way the modernist ideas of a handful of representatives of the “nouvelle théologie”, with the help of the anti-catholic mass-media succeeded in creating a new atmosphere during the Second Vatican Council which had a decisive influence on the great majority of the fathers of the Council and provoked the victory of the modernist ideology within the Church.

e) Ambiguity and manipulation

Once convinced about the arguments of Fr. Dhanis, honesty would require that the hierarchs would inform the world about their opinion concerning Fatima. But visibly such an admission would discredit them in the eyes of many faithful and scandalize them. Therefore, they chose unclear and imprecise language. All sermons and documents of Popes Paul VI, John-Paul II and Benedict XVI relating to Fatima are full of such ambiguity. This ambiguity turns into blunt manipulation, when in 1967 Paul VI orders Sr. Lucia to come to Fatima and again John-Paul II in 1982. They know about her immense moral authority and the love of many Catholics for her. By ordering her presence in Fatima at their side, everybody will believe that there is a profound union between Rome and Sr. Lucia. However, they do not allow her to speak a single word and use her presence to promote the modernist interpretation of Fatima.

This is a double abuse and lack of sincerity:

1. not believing in the veracity of Sr. Lucia’s words and writings about the apparitions, they fake, before the people the contrary;

2. refusing to allow Sr. Lucia to speak, they use her presence to give the impression that she agrees with their modernist interpretations. In the next chapter we will see that this way of abusing will go even further.

Applying the ‘rules of discernment of spirits’, anybody can conclude without any doubt that such a way of treating Fatima cannot be the work of the Holy Ghost.

---