+Sts. Peter and Paul+
Prayer Society Intention for July, Month of the Precious Blood of Jesus
“We therefore pray Thee, help Thy servants whom Thou hast redeemed with Thy Precious Blood.” — Raccolta
In our last blog, it was mentioned that only earlier reports regarding Sr. Lucy can likely be authentic, and that nothing after 1948 should be considered as trustworthy. This because it has been long suspected that an imposter took Sr. Lucy’s place and certain elements of the Fatima message may have been falsified. Even certain statements made by Sr. Lucy before 1948 (prior to the imposture) are suspect and indicate she may have been the victim of coercive persuasion. This is best illustrated by her nonsensical change of the prayer between the decades from “assist the poor souls in Purgatory,” to “lead all souls to heaven,” as if the Church considers this to be even a possibility. This change was conveyed by the seer to the Catholic author William Thomas Walsh during his July 1946 interview with Sr. Lucy. And judging by his description of her, it was most likely Sr. Lucy and not the imposter.
In 2017, Dr. Peter Chojnowski established a tax-exempt non-profit organization called Sister Lucy Truth to establish proof that the real Sr. Lucy was replaced by an imposter sometime during her existence as a Dorothean and/or Carmelite nun. The results of his investigation have been presented at https://www.sisterlucytruth.com/ since that time, and also have been covered at https://www.novusordowatch.org/. Recently, Novus Ordo Watch (NOW) reported that over 100 attendees at the Ohio State Coroners convention in Columbus have endorsed Chojnowski’s findings, stating in a letter later addressed to him: “The photographs of Sister Lucia, the Fatima visionary, showed a clear fraud. Pre-1960 Lucia, visionary, was replaced by an impostor in 1967. The evidence you presented was completely convincing as to this point.” But as pointed out previously, in 2020, and as NOW even mentioned in 2020 as well, some believe Chojnowski’s conclusions are misleading and incomplete. This author agrees.
This imposture was first brought to my attention in the early 1980s in an article written for the Francinta Messenger out of Boise, Idaho, edited by John Beauclair. So this suspicion has been around for decades now. The Francinta Messengerarticle showed John Paul 2 greeting a smiling fake Sr. Lucy and the caption noted that she looked nothing like photos of the real Fatima seer. A decade later, a Portuguese man also would question the imposter’s identity, as traditioninaction notes on its site. Some 40 years later, it is finally taken seriously. In 2019, Chojnowski issued a document entitled Fraud in Fatima presenting the rudiments of the case, but he did not limit his inquiry just to the Sr. Lucy imposture. One page reads:
Number 5 on this list is intriguing, for a truly OBJECTIVE evaluation of the actual validity of Angelo Roncalli’s election from a strictly legal standpoint — not the conclave events themselves — is what has been so desperately needed all along. But after six years, to the best of our knowledge, Chojnowski has not addressed these legal issues, at least not directly. Anything he has to say on the matter is through broadcasts available on the ISOC website (In the Spirit of Chartres) and of course this site is the home of ecumenical-minded LibTrads, as we have explained here before. ISOC also shamelessly promotes Gary Giuffre’s Siri fantasy, which Chojnowski seems to favor, in his presentation of a declassified document HERE. So somehow, they will probably try to link the Sr. Lucy truth business to some sort of revelation regarding Siri’s exclusion as papabile at the election and promote his purported election.
The Siri angle
This not only casts a shadow on the Sr. Lucy imposture investigation but makes it much easier to pinpoint why many of the correlations that explain Sr. Lucy’s fate have not been accepted by Chojnowski as relevant. Giuffre says he possesses declassified U.S. government documents proving conclusively that Siri was elected in 1958. But others have been unable to locate these same documents. It hardly needs saying that the reported collusion of various British and U.S. government agencies with the Novus Ordo church and especially with Giovanni Montini (Paul 6) — during and shortly after World War II as demonstrated in various modern historical works and biographies — place these declassified documents in serious doubt. This is especially true in this case since the Freedom of Information Act did not come into existence until after Vatican 2, (1966), so the true Catholic Church has never been able to determine if such documents were reliable or not, far less admissible as evidence.
While Can. 1814 states that civil documents are to be presumed genuine unless the contrary is proven by evident arguments, it would seem that the basis of such an argument can be found in the proofs of Montini’s covert operations, as described in The Phantom Church in Rome and other works; also his suspected collusion in poisoning Pius XII in 1952-53, (with such poisoning verified by his own physician at the time as “accidental”). Therefore it seems highly improbable that the true Church would willingly accept as solid evidence documents proceeding from espionage and intrigue, especially when such documents can easily be the product of falsehood, forgery and elicitation by force or sheer chicanery. (Read more on the Siri Fantasy HERE.) This, of course, is especially true considering Paul 6’s destruction of everything Catholic. So obviously such documents would be questionable at best and could not outweigh canonical proofs or those issuing from the pope or the Holy Office.
Canon 1813 §1 lists as principal ecclesiastical documents those acts of the Supreme Pontiffs, Roman Curia and Ordinaries. While reliable public documents may be admitted into evidence as Can. 1813, #2 states, documents of this nature are admissible only in the proper forum, i.e., in ecclesiastical courts over which the Roman Pontiff ultimately presides. “Proof to the contrary is not admitted against Letters of the Roman Pontiff bearing his signature,” (Abp. Amleto Cicognani, Canon Law, p. 626, ft. note). While we have no ecclesiastical courts today, we still are bound by Canon Law per the current interregnum. This is clear from Pope Pius XII’s papal election law, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (VAS), an unquestionably infallible document entered into the AAS and binding on all Catholics. Only papal documents entered into the AAS are excluded from scrutiny by ecclesiastical courts (Can. 1819). So why would any educated Catholic pretend that other circumstantial evidence is equally compelling?
What constitutes proofs
Chojnowski states on his site: “Sister Lucy Truth, as an investigative enterprise, makes no attempt to draw theological conclusions from our findings. We simply wish to present the truth as it is uncovered.” This is all well and good and in the absence of an ecclesiastical court, where the forensic evidence only is considered as pertains to the actual case, there is little else that can be done. But we know that this is not a simple matter of determining the true identity of an individual; the implications of such an imposture are far reaching and definitely theological in nature. Chojnowski is already extending his investigation into the 1958 conclave by his own admission. And whether he presents his findings himself or under the auspices of Giuffre, Judith Sharpe or ISOC, makes little difference. He is entering matters definitely theological that deal with dogmas of faith.
As pointed out many times before, no man can become pope unless he is elected according to the papal laws and canons prevailing at the time of election. This has been the constant teaching of the Church, as testified to by Pope Clement VI (Super quibusdam, 1351), Pope Martin V (Inter Cunctas, Errors of Wycliffe and Huss, Council of Constance, 1418), Pope Paul IV, (Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, 1559), Pope St. Pius V (confirming and strengthening Cum ex…, 1566), Pope St. Pius X (Vacante Sede Apostolica, 1904) and Pope Pius XII (Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, 1945). Martin V’s Const. Inter Cunctos decrees that those who return from heresy to the faith shall be asked, among other points, “Whether they believe that the Pope canonically elected, for the time being, his name being expressly mentioned, is the successor of St. Peter, having supreme authority in the Church of God.” Canon 109 states that only those “…legitimately elected and freely accepting the election receives jurisdiction by divine law.” Likewise Can. 219 declares: “The Roman Pontiff legitimately elected obtains from the moment he accepts the election the full power of supreme jurisdiction by divine right.”
Dr. Chojnowski’s recent victory in confirming his investigation of Sr. Lucy’s imposture may serve as a way for him to establish greater credibility in the scientific and secular realm so that any later investigation into the 1958 conclave or other Church matters is more readily accepted. He already possesses a bachelor’s degree in political science and a Ph.D. in philosophy, having served in a teaching capacity at several Novus Ordo institutions. But that would count as nothing in the eyes of the Church if She yet existed on this earth today, because these degrees were received in the1980s. In fact, a re-education program would need to be undertaken to make certain that all previously taught errors were addressed then renounced. Were the Sr. Lucy findings to be presented today before an ecclesiastical court — which the Church requires because this is not a civil matter but definitely a Church matter — then there would need to be a determination made about the nature of the complaint or the investigation.
Because Fatima is an approved apparition and is so popular among the laity, it must be considered as a matter affecting the public welfare. What needs to be taken into consideration is that in the case of expert witnesses, the Church demands they be employed “…whenever a judge requires it, and the choice or designation of the experts pertains to the judge… In cases, however, in which the public welfare is concerned, the appointment of the experts must be done in consultation with the prosecutor or the defensor vinculi. It is left to the discretion of the judge to appoint one or more experts according to the nature of the case and difficulty of the affair may demand unless the law itself fixes the number of experts (Can. 1793). Other things being equal, those persons should be chosen as experts who have been declared capable by the authority of a competent board” (Can. 1795.)
All of this comes under the chapter in the 1917 Code regarding proofs; and what we need to know about proofs is: “No proof is required for the following:
- notorious facts, Can. 2197 numbers 2 and 3
- facts which are presumed by law and
- facts asserted by one of the contending parties and admitted by the other unless either the law or the judge nevertheless demands proof (Can. 1747).
“The burden of proof rests on the plaintiff with regard to the claims made in his bill of complaint. It rests on the defendant with regard to the exceptions and counter charges which he makes” (Can. 1748).
Papal election and the experts
Chojnowski’s self-appointed role as both plaintiff and prosecutor would need to be approved by the Church. The selection of experts to determine the facts at hand would also need to be approved both by an ecclesiastical judge and a competent board, all impossible today. So we should all be aware of the limitations of this investigation from the Church’s standpoint. It is reasonable to assume there was definitely a false Sr. Lucy. Many had already been able to determine this without the testimony of experts, just through photo examination. Confirmation by those skilled in forensics is a plus, but it does not tell the whole story. Nor does it admit evidence or observations made by others to the contrary; or consider that there may have been more than just one imposter, points brought to the attention of Chojnowski several years ago. Once a prosecutor and “experts” are endorsed by those running the show, any Catholics who may have valid points — even if they have degrees of their own — are edged out by the degreed “Catholic” elite. Is this what Christ would have wanted for the remnant Church?!
Before delving into some of the Sr. Lucy observations that have not been considered, the matter of the conclave investigation needs to be discussed regarding proofs. The case we have presented on this site and elsewhere regarding Roncalli’s invalid election is based almost entirely on notoriety of fact, public statements made in biographies and news publications, also Roncalli’s own public statements and actions both before and after his “election.” Simply producing these indicts him, and these statements have been available for decades. No further proof is necessary according to Can. 2197 (3): A notorious act must be known as criminal or morally imputable, impossible to conceal and “not to be excused by any excuse admitted in law”. The testimony of true experts — popes, doctors of the Church and approved theologians writing theses on these topics (to earn doctorates in Canon Law, prior to Pope Pius XII’s death) — confirm the indictment. You don’t top papal decrees with declassified documents. Any attempt to violate Canon Law regarding a papal election nullifies the attempt immediately under Pope Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis.
Roncalli’s election was invalid. No verifiable proof can ever be produced at this late date that Siri or anyone else accepted the election. It is not simply a matter of “historical plausibility;” it is all about ascertaining a dogmatic fact. Under Canon 2391 §1, those responsible for electing an unworthy candidate are automatically disqualified from proceeding to a new election. The canonists, Revs. Woywod-Smith, define unworthy as “an excommunicated, suspended or interdicted person or one who has been punished with deprivation of a passive vote; a person branded with infamy of law or fact, a notorious apostate, heretic, schismatic or public sinner.” Roncalli fits this description perfectly, and any other “contender” such as Siri would be doubtfully elected, at best. For a bona fide expert long ago assured us that “A doubtful pope is no pope” (St. Robert Bellarmine).
Filling in holes in the Sr. Lucy investigation
An overview of the entire period during which all this took place will help put things into proper perspective and should provide stimulus for further research. There is evidence to suggest that Sr. Lucy actually passed away in 1949. A reader reported to Tradition in Action several years ago that official Carmelite records show Sr. Lucy listed as deceased. This evidence is strengthened by the fact that once the imposter Sr. Lucy died, and the Carmelite convent in Coimbra realized someone had reported this first listing, it was then changed to reflect the death of the imposter (see HERE).
What was transpiring during the critical period when Sr. Lucy was asked to write down the first two secrets in 1941? The great unknown light had already been seen across Europe in 1938, warning that WWII was about to begin. Pope Pius XI passed away in January 1939 without ever asking for the consecration of Russia, when it was most necessary. Pacelli was chosen to become Pope Pius XII, but the time for consecrating Russia had passed: it was “too late.” The world was at war, and the chaos was used as a cover to further the agenda of the Church’s enemies. In The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, written by Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, we learn that one Fatima opponent, the Jesuit Fr. Edouard Dhanis, (said to lean towards Modernism), wrote in the mid-1950s: “The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgment or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts… Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that she attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country.”
We must be careful here because the fictitious elements to which Dhanis refers may have come from the person impersonating Sr. Lucy and not Sr. Lucy herself. Dhanis also played a major role in Vatican 2, another red flag. But as further explained in the article HERE, there is good reason to believe that the reframing of the Fatima Message and coercion of Sr. Lucy began in 1941-42, if not before. And in the link just provided, information from various sources show that:
- Montini’s involvement with the OSS and CIA during and following WWII contributed to the Fatima message interpolations
- Montini, who arranged for Sr. Lucy’s transfer to the Carmelite Convent in Coimbra, Portugal, in 1948, also played a role in approving works containing the new format for the prayer between the decades (see the leaflet excerpts HERE).
- Montini was a supporter of the Dominican Felix Morlion, another suspected CIA operative. In 1939-1940, at the invitation of Goncalves Cardinal Cerejeira of Fatima fame, Morlion established his Center of Information Pro Deo press service in Lisbon, Portugal, later relocating to the U.S. in 1941. Morlion’s goal was to successfully influence and shape the opinions of the Catholic laity, and Fatima’s popularity provided an excellent vehicle for this endeavor. Cardinal Cerejeira went on to participate in the 1958 election and vote for the Vatican 2 reforms.
- Montini, also his great friend Jacques Maritain, were avid Pro Deo supporters according to author David A. Wemhoff (John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition, 2015). In Part XIV, Chapter 59 of his work,Wemhoff cites declassified documents in which a C.I.A. correspondent names Montini as co-founder of Pro Deo and Cardinal Giuseppe Siri as being appointed in some way to participate in Pro Deo operations.
- Shortly before Pope Pius XII became ill in 1952, following the consecration of Russia, the pope reportedly commissioned the Austrian Jesuit Schweigl to present 31 questions regarding the conversion of Russia to Sr. Lucia, who possibly by that time was deceased. Schweigl later revealed his previously undisclosed mission to the Vatican 2 council fathers (according to Frere Michele, The Whole Truth About Fatima). He also told them that “…in 1952, the Archbishop of Coimbra demanded that the replies given by Sister Lucy not be published without authorization of the Holy Office.”And that authorization was never given.
- Following a series of grave revelations regarding Msgr. Montini’s misconduct and disobedience, Pius XII relieved him of his Vatican pro-secretary post and sent Montini to Milan as an Archbishop. After a near-death experience as the result of his initial poisoning, and a vison of Christ, Pope Pius XII practically shut down the operations of the Holy Office. He rarely mentioned Fatima publicly again. Did Pius suspect that Sr. Lucy had passed away? He obviously was suspicious of the Russia part of the Fatima message. And the mystery of the entire affair died with him.
The implications of the above revelations, in retrospect, confirm what we already know. And sadly it places much about Fatima in grave doubt. The earlier components, the earlier reports can be trusted with caution but anything after 1941 may be subject to interpolation. Many will remember that the La Salette seers Melanie Calvat and Maximin Giraud were subject to the same type of manipulation, and their messages compromised. Melanie’s own confessor added apocalyptic language to the message from Our Lady, causing that and other unauthorized versions of the La Salette secret to be proscribed by the Holy Office. This is why we do not accept private revelations with the firm assent we owe to truths of faith, and indeed we are not required to accept them at all. This being said, however, and the Sr. Lucy hoax being exposed, it is only fair to consider ALL the findings in the case and evaluate them.
Additional findings on false Sister Lucy
Because of the uncertainty regarding the authenticity of Sr. Lucy’s memoirs and interviews by various clergy and authors, the author quoted below,whose links are provided here wishes to include the following disclaimer:
“I came to understand the history of Fatima and its characters as a house of mirrors. Finding no sure guide myself and fearing lest I become a blind guide who leads others into a pit, I removed my articles and personal website diesilli.com from the Internet. However snapshots of these articles remain online at the Internet Archives so they remain part of the public domain. Let it be known that my opinion about the Sister Lucy truth investigation, the Coimbra convent and all other matters related to the history of the Fatima apparitions and the fake sister Lucy situation has changed since publishing the original articles in 2020. I prefer to keep my opinions to myself at this point and I offer my fervent prayers for everyone interested in these matters, rather than my own two cents. — Gratefully, Lauri Brown”
Following are the Internet links to Lauri’s articles:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/some-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034400/https://diesilli.com/more-questions/
https://web.archive.org/web/20201212002825/https://diesilli.com/timeline-srlucy/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034356/https://diesilli.com/the-1957-interview/
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518034349/https://diesilli.com/blog/
May the Holy Ghost grant us the light to know the truth and the grace to understand it.
ADDENDA
Fourth Sunday after Pentecost
I was unable to find the actual copy of the information on Sr. Lucy from an early 1980s edition of Francinta Messenger when this blog was first posted but have recently discovered it. This is a photo of Sr. Lucy that seems to be missing from the photo galleries available on the Internet, but one that once again raises questions. The archives of Vers Demain and LaPresse, such as they are, do not reveal any photos of Sr. Lucy. Was this photo provided by mistake? Was it yet another indication of an imposter? Why would Canadian papers print it without verifying it? These are additional questions which should be investigated and answered. Below are the photos and copy from Francinta Messenger; I apologize for the lack of readability of the last photo. Anyone wishing actual photocopies/prints of the article may contact me at answers@betrayedcatholics.com.
