.
This is incorrect. There was no press release published. A press release, by definition, has a source and/or an author. The tiny article, which was the only thing ever published saying this as some kind of announcement, had neither.
.
There was a tiny article that looked like an advertisement it was so small, in an obscure Italian newspaper, saying that the unpublished words spoken by Our Lady in the Fatima Secret would not be made public. The short article had no source, no signature, no author mentioned, no reporter's name and no reference. It was very odd. But observers noticed it and the rumor of its existence spread far and wide practically overnight, and this was before the Internet or even cell phones.
.
For many Catholics, years went by before they ever saw a copy of the tiny article, and most never saw one at all.
.
But one thing has so far been correct:  The Third Secret has not yet been revealed, even when the Vatican's spokesmen have said that it has been. They are lying, but that's no surprise, since if it had been released then the tiny article in January of 1960 would have been a lie. Either way there is a big lie.
.
There are many proofs that the text released in A.D. 2000 was not the text of the authentic Third Secret. The most obvious proof is that this thing they published has no words at all of Our Lady in it. It is merely a narration describing what the children had seen WHILE Our Lady spoke the words of the Third Secret.
.
But what we have of Sister Lucia's testimony that leads up to the real Third Secret is direct quotes of Our Lady's words which she spoke to the three shepherd children that day, July 13th, 1917. The words of Our Lady ended with these: "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved," etc.
.
It was Sister Lucia who inserted the "etc." there which she explained stood in the place of the words Our Lady spoke which Lucia was not including in that testimony for public consumption.
.

If it was meant to be a secret then let it be. 

Quote from: poche
During the papacy of St. John Paul II, the questions regarding the third Fatima secret intensified. In an interview with German magazine Stimme des Glaubens, published in October 1981, John Paul II was pressed explicitly about the third secret.

He said: “Because of the seriousness of its contents, in order not to encourage the world wide power of Communism to carry out certain coups, my predecessors in the chair of Peter have diplomatically preferred to withhold its publication.”

He added that it would be unhelpful to publish the secret if it led Christians to believe that there were a predicted catastrophe against which they were helpless.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-fatima-part-2-85769/

.
More contradictions.
.
JPII was afraid of political consequences from the release of the Third Secret, so he must have figured he knew better than the Mother of God about politics, otherwise he would have done what she had requested of him.
.
She gave him the solution to these political fears: Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary together with all the bishops of the world.  But he didn't do that.  He even SAID that Our Lady was "still awaiting" the Consecration of Russia exactly when the MSM was reporting that he had just made it. They said JPII had made a consecration of the world "with special mention of Russia." But JPII never spoke the word "Russia." How do you consecrate a country without mentioning the name of the country?
.
Do you write a check on your checking account using a check that does not have your account number on it?
.
Then they say he added "it would be unhelpful to publish the secret if it led Christians to believe that there were a predicted catastrophe against which they were helpless." Okay, so what? Does that mean the Third Secret contains a predicted catastrophe against which Christians are helpless? Where in the published so-called Third Secret is there a catastrophe against which Christians are helpless? A half-ruined city? We have had hundreds of half-ruined cities in the past 100 years. Ever heard of Dresden? How about Fukushima or Heroshima or Nagasaki? Pearl Harbor? London was half ruined by the nαzιs. Were Christians believing they were helpless against the ruin of those cities when JPII was talking about this in 1981?
.
It's really hard to swallow this. If the "half-ruined city" in the so-called Secret is what JPII was so afraid of, why was it released in 2000 without anyone being concerned?
.
It doesn't add up, sorry.
.
What DOES add up is this: the Vatican doesn't want to publish the Third Secret because it incriminates the Vatican.
.