Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

Well, this had me searching for the article that Christopher Ferrara is criticizing. Here it is:

by Joanna Bogle
posted Thursday, 28 Jul 2016

Benedict XVI prays in front of a statue of Our Lady of Fatima during a candlelight vigil at the Marian shrine of Fatima

The Pope Emeritus stating there is no unpublished secret has only fuelled the Fatima rumour machine

When I was in Rome at the end of May, Benedict XVI issued an important statement in response to scurrilous material published on the internet. An online story had suggested that he had, some years ago, told a friend in conversation that there was an unpublished secret about Fatima. This would have meant that he was untruthful when he announced in 2000 that all the Fatima secrets had been revealed. And he was rather more than just a liar: he would have colluded with fellow “liar” Pope St John Paul to the extent of not only working with him on the Fatima project but also of hastening his beatification and holding him up to the world as an example of moral probity.

Benedict XVI said, rather emphatically, that he had never spoken to his friend about Fatima and that the comments attributed to him were “pure inventions, absolutely untrue”. He stated categorically: “The publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete.”

Immediately, the Fatima conspiracy-mongers got to work. They seemed intent on trying to make everyone believe that both St John Paul II and Benedict XVI were rather sinister characters caught up, initially willingly, in a bizarre series of plots.

Following the Pope Emeritus’s statement, the lobbyists started to announce that when he used the word “publication” he didn’t really mean “publication” and that “complete” meant, er, not complete. Another, more popular, theme suggested that Benedict XVI had not made the statement at all: Vatican spokesmen had simply invented it.

Perhaps because I was in Rome, in contact with a great range of people, I became aware of just how absurd and rather horrible all this conspiracy-mongering was. None of these lobbyists seemed to make any attempt to check things out. It is, after all, possible to contact Vatican Radio and the press office. Indeed, the whole system is astonishingly open compared to that of many institutions (such as the many-layered EU). Instead, operating chiefly but not exclusively from America, the diffuse Fatimist rumour machinery whirred and fizzed into action.

There is almost nothing that Fatimists won’t concoct to fuel their fever, and the concocting tends to whirl around the odder reaches of the internet, especially in group emails or comment boxes on blogs.

The main group was formerly run by Fr Nicholas Gruner. He died last year, but the campaigns continue with great energy. In general their message is that St John Paul and the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lied in 2000 when the Third Secret was published, and that a deep and ever-deepening conspiracy has been established to cover this up.

Part of the problem is a refusal to look at what was revealed in the famous Third Secret and to grasp its message. The vision showed a ruined city and a pope stumbling and being shot at with arrows and falling to the ground. As an image of the battered Church of the 20th century (and the battering continues) it was horribly vivid. From both within the Church and from outside, there have been savage attacks in recent history: we can think not only of Pope St John Paul (the assassination attempt in 1981 and a stabbing at Fatima a year later), but also of the passionate denunciation of Paul VI over Humanae Vitae, and the ongoing battles over things such as same-sex unions or what Pope Francis has correctly called “gender ideology”. Too often, the Church has seemed like a ruined city, and the arrows seem to have come from all directions.

The message of Fatima – affirmed from the very first revelations when the three children spoke of the visions and messages they had received – is about prayer and penance. The Church needs this: the 20th century saw ghastly persecutions and calamities, and the need for penitential prayer is real. If we pray humbly and trust in God, we can know that we are in his loving care. Mary came to assure us of this and call us to such prayer.

But of course this does seem rather dull. After all, prayer and penance are at the heart of the Christian life anyway, so what’s new? And that is just the point – the message of Fatima is, in one sense, hardly new at all. It is the message at the core of our faith: a loving God who yearns to reach our hearts.

Fatima isn’t about fortune telling or about deep dark mysteries that are suddenly blurted out years later in an interview. It is about prayer and penance – and anything that distracts us from that and urges us into internet gossip sessions, books detailing conspiracy theories, or speculation about cardinals hiding secret letters in Vatican wardrobes, is wrong.

Who would want to deflect us from prayer and penance, and why? There really is something horribly sulphurous about such deflection, and the often bullying tone in which it is done is worrying, too.

As Benedict XVI is a manifestly good and noble soul, people are loath to try to convince us that he is a liar. So recently they have switched from making the claim, and instead are now claiming that he is a virtual prisoner; a double is sometimes presented to the public in his place; he has been hypnotised; he is actually now talking in a sort of code; they are putting drugs in his tea … Only the last of those was invented by me; the others are a sample from things I’ve been sent.

Back in 2013, when there was an outbreak of lobbying by the Fatimists, I wrote to Cardinal Raymond Burke, then head of the Apostolic Signatura, expressing my concern. He wrote back: “You are correct that there is much confusion about the message of Our Lady of Fatima, caused especially by Fr Nicholas Gruner, a priest who is not in good standing in the Church, and that this confusion is harmful to many good people who are being led astray about the important message of Our Lady of Fatima.”

Just so. It is time to stop being led astray, and to get on with the prayer and penance.

 

Now, let me just say I don't accept Joanna Bogle's approach to this matter but nor do I accept Christopher Ferrara's which is too angry by half and that anger takes him into dangerous and erroneous areas.

But have you noticed this paragraph from Bogle's article, Mac, about a friend of yours?

Back in 2013, when there was an outbreak of lobbying by the Fatimists, I wrote to Cardinal Raymond Burke, then head of the Apostolic Signatura, expressing my concern. He wrote back: “You are correct that there is much confusion about the message of Our Lady of Fatima, caused especially by Fr Nicholas Gruner, a priest who is not in good standing in the Church, and that this confusion is harmful to many good people who are being led astray about the important message of Our Lady of Fatima.”​

 

No. I had not noticed that.... Thanks ?

I will focus on the next two articles out this week

 

Oh, and while we wait , perhaps this old article may interest some...


Enter Cardinal Oddi ...


So what is it, then? What is the impediment that not only prevents our shepherds from complying with Our Lady’s requests but also drives them to
such preposterous lengths trying to justify their failure to obey? Cardinal Oddi of happy memory offered a hypothesis that is not only plausible but quite probable. His contention was that it’s the dismal failure of Vatican II itself that Our Lady was targeting at Fatima. In April of 1990, Lucio Brunelli of 30 Days magazine asked Silvio Cardinal Oddi if the Third Secret had something to do with the developments in the USSR at the time – that perhaps the Virgin Mary had prophesied and mysteriously guided Mikhail Gorbachev’s plan of perestroika: “Are you also of this opinion?,” Brunelli asked. Cardinal Silvio Oddi: No, on the contrary, I remain very skeptical. I believe I knew John XXIII quite well, since I spent a number of years at his side when he was at the nunciature in Paris. If the Secret had concerned realities consoling for the Church like the conversion of Russia or the religious rebirth of Eastern Europe, I believe that he would have brought pressure to bear to make the Secret public. But when I asked him during an audience why in 1960, when the obligation to keep the Secret secret had come to an end, he had not made public the last part of the message of Fatima, he responded with a weary sigh. He then said: “Don’t bring that subject up with me, please ...” What happened in 1960 that might have been seen in connection with the Secret of Fatima? The most important event is without a doubt the launching of the preparatory phase of the Second Vatican Council. Therefore I would not be surprised if the Secret had something to do with the convocation of Vatican II... Why do you say that? Cardinal Oddi: From the attitude Pope John showed during our conversation I deduced – but it is only a hypothesis – that the Secret might contain a part that could have a rather unpleasant ring to it. John XXIII had convened the Council with the precise intention of directing the forces of the Church toward the solution of the problems that concern all of humanity, beginning from within. But we all know that, despite the great merits of the Council, many sad things have also taken place in conjunction with the Council. I am thinking, for example, of the number of priests who have abandoned the priesthood: it is said that there have been 80,000. But one only has to recall the anguish with which Pope Paul VI, in 1968, cried out against the “autodemolition” taking place in the Church ... Or his dramatic homily on June 29, 1972: “We believed that after the Council would come a day of sunshine in the history of the Church. But instead there has come a day of clouds and storms, and of darkness ... And how did this come about? We will confide to you the thought that may be, we ourselves admit in free discussion, that may be unfounded, and that is that there has been a power, an adversary power. Let us call him by his name: the devil.” And again: “It is as if from some mysterious crack, no, it is not mysterious, from some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.” And what is your assessment of all this? Cardinal Oddi: “I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself ... If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking ...” Now, we’re getting to the heart of the problem. Prophetess of Doom The subtitle to my talk today is: “Why does Rome fiddle while the world burns?” Even as Nero’s famous fire in this very city was rumored to have been of his own setting, could it be that Cardinal Oddi is hinting that the reason Fatima is problematic for the modernist contingent in the Church today is that it speaks of arson – of an apostasy, as Cardinal Oddi put it – a fire set by their own hand? A fire that razed the old ramparts of Christendom. A fire whose smoke entered the sanctuary of the Catholic Church. A fire which represents the errors of Russia’s advancement by having attached themselves like smoldering barnacles to the barque of Peter itself, just above the waterline. Remember those famous “prophets of doom” targeted so specifically by Pope John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council on October 11, 1962? “We feel that we must disagree with these prophets of doom, who are always forecasting worse disasters, as though the end of the world were at hand.” “If people attend to My requests,” Our Lady of Fatima said, “Russia will be converted and the world will have peace. If not, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world fomenting wars and persecution of the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated.” Is Our Lady Herself one of Pope John’s “prophets of doom”? The Lady who showed the children of Fatima a vision of Hell (which far from empty, was very much filled with the souls of the damned), gave the world a message that flies directly in the face of the aggiornamento of the New Springtime crowd at Vatican II.http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr101/cr101pg12.pdf

 

Father Gruner Attacked - Chris Ferrara Responds - 2 of 3

A Reply to Joanna Bogle Respecting the Third Secret of Fatima

Part II: What Bogle Will Not See
by Christopher A. Ferrara
August 3, 2016
In the first part of this series I promised a brief review of the facts and circumstances, more fully summarized here and here, which put the lie to Joanna Bogle’s absurd caricature of the “Fatimist” position that the vision published by the Vatican in 2000, standing alone, cannot possibly be the Third Secret in its entirety.

First of all, the Vatican’s “official” commentary on the vision (written by then Cardinal Ratzinger) describes it as “difficult to decipher.” But why would the Mother of God leave us with a cipher to be “decoded” by a Vatican Secretary of State 83 years after the fact when the rest of the Message of Fatima is simple and pellucid in its predictions, warnings and promises?

Moreover, Sodano, a corrupt Vatican bureaucrat, is an inconceivable choice to speak for the Mother of God regarding the meaning of what She revealed to the three seers. It was Sodano who for decades covered up the crimes of Father Marcial Maciel Degollado, accepting money and gifts from Maciel’s Legionaries of Christ while blocking any investigation into his rape of boys, his out-of-wedlock children, his drug use and financial improprieties. Cardinal Ratzinger finally ordered an investigation and then, as Pope Benedict XVI, approved the findings that Maciel was guilty of “very serious and objectively immoral acts… confirmed by incontrovertible testimonies” and “true crimes” that manifested “a life without scruples or authentic religious sentiment.” Maciel died in disgrace after being stripped of his leadership of the Legionaries and his priestly faculties and ordered to spend the rest of his life in prayer and penance.

The mere fact of the Vatican’s absurd reliance on Sodano and his successor Cardinal Tarcisio (“penthouse”) Bertone to promulgate an “official version” of the Third Secret demonstrates that something must be missing: namely, the Blessed Virgin’s own explanation of its meaning. It is impossible to believe that God would have left the interpretation of His mother’s precious message-warning to the Church and all of humanity to a pair of scandal-plagued Vatican officials.

At any rate, as The New York Times reported, Cardinal Ratzinger made clear during the June 2000 press conference at which the Third Secret vision was published that“It is not the intention of the Church to impose a single interpretation. But in light of history, we can decipher the vision.” No single interpretation is imposed. But we can “decipher” it. Then again, others are free to “decipher” it differently. So, Our Lady left us with a riddle to which there could be several different solutions, take your pick? Hardly.

Now, if the faithful are not obliged to accept Sodano’s ludicrous interpretation, that leaves us — and it leaves Bogle — with no authoritative explanation whatsoever of what the vision really means. Does it seem likely that Our Lady would have left us completely in the dark on a matter of such epochal significance?

But the curious role of the Vatican Secretary of State in this affair is only one element in a mountain of proof indicating that there must be a text in which the Virgin, not Cardinal Sodano, explains how the vision will come to pass and the who, what, why and when of the prophecy. This would only be in keeping with the specificity of the rest of the Fatima message, including the very name of the Pope (Pius XI) who would be in office at the commencement of World War II and the accurate prediction of “a night illumined by an unknown light” just before the war’s commencement.

The evidence for an explanatory text is so overwhelming that the decidedly non-traditionalist Socci, who set out to write a book demolishing the “Fatimist” position,completely reversed himself and concluded the text must exist and that it is “well hidden” in the Vatican. As he describes his own change of mind: “In the end, I had to surrender…. Here I recount my voyage into the greatest mystery of the 20th century and set forth the result I honestly reached. A result that sincerely contradicts my initial convictions.” From Bogle, however, we can expect no such openness to serious arguments and powerful evidence. Her ideological commitment to anti-traditionalism precludes it.

My own exhaustive study of the controversy, The Secret Still Hidden, was inspired by Socci’s groundbreaking work. Both Socci’s book and my own were written in a context of widespread skepticism about the completeness of the Vatican’s disclosure in 2000, extending far beyond “Fatimist” and “traditionalist” circles. Mother Angelica spoke for millions of Catholics when she declared before a worldwide audience on live television: “I happen to be one of those who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing.”

As Socci maintains, the explanatory text would be found in the envelope on which the late Archbishop Loris Capovilla, personal secretary to John XXIII, wrote the names of those who had read the text and the judgment of Pope John, dictated to Capovilla by the pontiff, that he would leave to his predecessors the decision whether to publish it (even though the entire Church was awaiting publication in 1960, the year the Virgin had specified). Before his death this year at the age of 100, Archbishop Capovilla repeatedly confirmed the existence of “the Capovilla envelope” and even its precise location (a writing desk in John XXIII’s bedroom from which Paul VI retrieved it). He did so even in an edited video interview Cardinal Bertone presented during a television show hastily staged to quell the controversy. The Vatican has never denied the envelope exists. Yet the envelope has never been produced.

Given even these few but very telling facts, reasonable, intelligent and open-minded Catholics want to know what is going on here. Consider, for example, Robert Moynihan, a Harvard graduate with a Ph.D. from Yale and editor of the mainstream journal Inside the Vatican. To his great credit, Moynihan ignored post-conciliar correctness and the risk to his own position (from ideologues like Bogle and others in much higher places) when he revealed in the August 2011 edition of his journal that his friend the late Archbishop Pietro Sambi, who was no less than Apostolic Nuncio to the United States, recommended that he read my book:"We were discussing the Third Secret of Fatima, the allegations that the Vatican has not published the entire text of the Third Secret as revealed to Sister Lucia, and the response of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, in a book where Bertone states that there is nothing more to be revealed. Archbishop Sambi said, “Excuse me.” He got up, went out of the room, and came back with a book....

 

..."'Here,' he said. 'Do you know this book? You should read it.' It was Christopher Ferrara’s The Secret Still Hidden.'Wait,' I said. 'You are the Pope’s representative in the US, and you are urging me to read a book that questions what the Secretary of State wrote?' Archbishop Sambi replied, 'All I am saying is that there are interesting things worth reading in this book. And in the end, we are all after the truth, aren’t we? The truth is the important thing ...'”
Moynihan, who was also a personal friend of the late Monsignor Capovilla, very recently expressed the enduring skepticism of sensible Catholics around the globe in two of his e-letters to subscribers. On May 27 he wrote as followsconcerning the “Capovilla envelope”:“There was a second envelope.” — The late Cardinal Loris Capovilla, speaking to me in his residence in Sotto il Monte in early 2007, when I asked him why the letter of the Third Secret of Fatima held up on Italian television by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone did not contain any writing. Capovilla told me that he had written on the envelope in August, 1959, when Capovilla, together with Pope John XXIII, read the Third Secret at Castel Gandolfo. Pope John told Capovilla to write on the envelope that the two had read the text that day, and that he, Pope John, had decided not to publish it but to leave it to one of his successors to publish. Capovilla did write those words on the envelope, he told me. Capovilla passed away yesterday in Italy at the age of 100. May his soul rest in peace, and may eternal light shine upon him."

Then, only days ago, Moynihan followed up on his May 27 letter. He further revealed the following:"He [Capovilla] 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, 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."
Citing conversations he had had with Roman sources during the summer, Moynihan stated his conclusion:"Still, in Rome during June and July, 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."
As we will see in the concluding part of this series, this missing something was revealed by none other than Benedict XVI, who, to quote Socci, “reopened the dossier” on the Third Secret of Fatima.Click here for Part I

 

Game, set and match,Ferrara....http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/24dc99d13970937b00ed94d5754ef5f2-622.html

 

Yes, well I wouldn't view it that way, Mac. Mr Ferrara's writings are always worth reading but I view this angry 3 part article a bit of overkill. Bogle's one page article to which he is responding was a pretty poor effort to undermine those who question the Vatican's presentation of this matter but Ferrara could have dealt with its points in just a few paragraphs.

However, the original article and Ferrara's response have unearthed some interesting information involving Cardinal Burke. Ferrara does respond to the reporting by Bogle of Cardinal Burke's reference to Fr Gruner having been "a priest who is not in good standing in the Church". Ferrara makes a reasonable attempt to question Cardinal Burke's view but he undermines his position by failing to point out that Cardinal Burke was, at the time, the head of the Apostolic Signatura which was reported to have confirmed an a' divinis suspension' of Fr Gruner .

Now, let me add a little bit to all this because it involves no less than Vassula Ryden (sorry folks but truth should not be hidden!). Many, many years ago, soon after I had prepared the first website for the True Life in God messages, I was sent an email by Fr Gruner expressing his support for Vassula and sympathizing with Vassula's problems with the Vatican. And when Vassula tried to open a dialogue with Cardinal Levada soon after the latter's very harmful and misleading letter about her in 2007, the Cardinal's failure to respond led to Vassula making an appeal to Cardinal Burke as head of the Apostolic Signatura. Unlike his fellow Cardinal, Cardinal Burke did respond to Vassula's request to forward her appeal to the relevant parties but no one else from the Vatican responded thus breaking almost every rule in Cardinal Ratzinger's own “Ratzinger Report” from 1985 which recommended procedures to be used when judging the
orthodoxy of a particular spirituality.

From this and Cardinal Burke's honesty regarding Fr Gruner, I now rather view him as a 'Gamaliel' figure in the ranks of the traditionalists. That is, someone very steeped in 'rules' but an honest man who will never come out to speak against the Holy Father.

 

Robert Moynihan Keeps Fatima Questions Alive

After OnePeterFivecaused a controversy in Romeconcerning 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 regularLetters 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.....http://www.onepeterfive.com/robert-moynihan-keeps-fatima-questions-alive/

 

Thanks, I hadn't seen this yet. From the article (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."​

 

A Further Confirmation of Father Dollinger’s Claim about Cardinal Ratzinger and Fatima..


Fr. Dollinger became close to St. Padre Pio as a young priest

It is with much gratitude, therefore, that we can report today that Giuseppe Nardi, the editor of the German Catholic website, Katholisches.info, has found an additional personal source who now confirms our earlier story, namely that Cardinal Ratzinger had told Dr. Dollinger that there is still a part of the Third Secret of Fatima missing and not yet officially published....http://www.onepeterfive.com/confirmation-father-dollingers-claim-cardinal-ratzinger-fatima/

 

You might find this interesting. A bit of an endurance test, but interesting and relevant to the topic of the thread:

 

Malachi Martin, who read the third secret, wrote interesting things concerning masons and their plans for the papacy...

 

This all looks like smoke and mirrors. No one has been able to refute Joanna Bogle’s point that to insist that there is more to the third secret would involve making two great popes liars. This I cannot do. I admit the third secret is underwhelming and wish there were more but so far this is based on rumours about who said what if only we had a clear view of the context. I’ve occasionally let the swirling theories tickle my ears but I for one need more evidence than conjecture. Ferrara’s attack on Joanna is intemperate and doesn’t actually refute what she said. He goes all round the houses but nothing he says will stick until he says outright that JPII and B16 are/were liars.

If there were more to the secret and it did contain warnings about corruption, apostasy and lack of faith from the hierarchy then I believe that both popes would have wanted it published.

Pope Benedict outright contradicted having spoken about the secret to the supposed source of the rumour so does that make him a liar twice? That man would die for the faith so I don’t buy it that he’s being controlled.

We have the message of Fatima of prayer and penance, the rosary, first Saturdays and Akita which builds on it.

What does ‘a period of peace’ mean? Too many think only of the West, especially the USA. Do we think that there will be no wars anywhere? Didn’t Sr Lucia say that JPII’s consecration avoided WW3? Since then we have seen the fall of the Soviet state, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the resurgence of religion in Russia. No one need smuggle bibles there today.

I really wish all wars would end and that Russia would become Catholic but we live in a fallen world.

 

Fair enough Brian. As I said I’d like to believe there is more but I can’t. I do think thatJPII was the pope in the vision who is killed although one could also interpret it generally as a pope who suffers from attacks of various kinds. Benedict comes strongly to mind.

There are other prophesies about a ‘destroyer pope’ that are interesting at the present time. In the end I am just a lay person and member of the church militant who needs to get onto her knees and pull out what St Pio calls the weapon - the rosary. I may have to do it to the end of my life without ever seeing the fruits. My task is to obey the Field Marshall, Our Lady. I’m a sinner so the rest is above my pay grade really. It would be nice to see the triumph of the immaculate heart though!

 

I really like this post, Clare. Well said.

 

It is hard to figure out the what's what of Fatima. Everyone has what they claim to be reliable sources. Like Clare, I think that our best approach is to stick with the First Saturdays and praying the Rosary.

I admit to not having given that video my full attention because there's something about Lofton and Symonds that affects me like nails scratching a blackboard. They're probably the most devout Catholics in the world so that probably says more about me than about them. I need to try harder to pay more attention to what they say and ignore the way they say it. I just find it strange that having a go at people like Archbishop Vigano, Taylor Marshall and what they call rad trads is ok but more discernment, charity and allowance for nuance is required for everyone else. The brush seems to get broader every time Lofton gets out the tar.

Putting fake Lucy conspiracy theorists in the same category as people who have legitimate questions about what the Church has released to the public is the kind of tactic I would expect to see from low life political hacks. I was taken aback that someone could stoop so low and then go on to condemn people for getting involved in street fights rather than elevating the debate in charity. Pot meet kettle.

Despite that, I watch Lofton's videos because some of his guests are worth listening to. And Symonds has done a lot of research on Fatima so his opinion can't be easily dismissed.