Nevertheless, in the Vatican document on Fatima of 2000, Cardinal Bertone says on the subject of the act of consecration of the 25^th of March 1984: “Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to that wished for by Our Lady”, quoting from a letter dated the 8^th of November 1989.

We have just shown that this consecration did not satisfy all the Holy Virgin’s requests and that Sister Lucia had clearly affirmed this until 1989, notably because there was only a consecration of the world, without mentioning Russia and without an act of reparation.

The letter quoted by Cardinal Bertone presents several serious problems:

1. If the act of consecration performed in 1984 corresponded to what Our Lady wanted, why why would Sister Lucia have waited 5 years to give a positive response?
2. Why until 1988 she always stated the contrary, i.e. that the consecration had not yet been done?
3. We find in her letters written until 1982 Sr. Lucia the arguments which prove the insufficiency of the consecrations accomplished: Russia is not mentioned; consecration by the Pope alone and not with all bishops, “consecration of Russia”; the Immaculate Heart is not mentioned. How can Sr. Lucia now confirm that the act of consecration was henceforth sufficient, while the same arguments apply to the act of consecration of 1984?
4. Why was Sister Lucia not allowed to comment on this personally? It is strange to prefer a letter to a spoken confirmation from Sister Lucia herself.
5. As for the letter itself, the Vatican document produced a facsimile, but only of a single sentence, without mentioning to whom the letter was addressed. With regard to such an important question of radical change on the part of Sister Lucia regarding the consecration of Russia, how is that the Vatican only communicated a very small extract of such an important document?
6. The Cardinal could provide only one letter for the period from 1989 until 2000. But after 1989, weren’t there any other letters from Sr. Lucia confirming the fact (of the consecration accomplished according to the requests of Our Lady) to one of her relatives? If she had changed her mind after 1988, she would have surely tried to inform every one of those whom she had previously told that the consecration had not been done.
7. On the 13^th of May 1991 Pope Jean-Paul II met with Sister Lucia. Why did she not confirm her so-called agreement for the consecration?
8. Between 1989 and 1990 five letters were written on a computer and supposedly signed by Sister Lucia, in which it is said that the consecration had been made. One of these is precisely that quoted by Cardinal Bertone. However, Sister Lucia did not know how to use a computer. All the documents from her are manuscript. Why, at the age of 82, should she suddenly begin to use a computer to write her correspondence? And only five times?
9. The letter quoted by the Cardinal contains serious mistakes: it mentions a consecration of Russia by Paul VI during his pilgrimage to Fatima whereas on that day, Paul VI made no consecration. It gives as the reason why the consecrations before 1984 were insufficient the fact that the union of all the bishops was lacking. However, Sister Lucia specified that for the consecrations of 1982, what was also missing was the mention of Russia, which also is missing from the act of 1984.
10. Why did Cardinal Bertone not have the letter authentified by Sister Lucia during the course of his visit in April 2000?
11. Why has the Vatican never spoken before about “Sister Lucia’s proof” and then suddenly present it as the definitive argument as Cardinal Bertone concludes: “This is why all discussion and any new petition is groundless”.

In next month (the 13^th of March) we are publishing commentary by Fr. Karl Stehlin about the letter of Cardinal Bertone.