Fr. Diego Lorenzi, John Paul I's closest collaborator, on JPI's 25th Anniversary

While the media focuses on the upcoming anniversary of John Paul II’s election Oct. 16, it’s easy to forget that 2003 also marks 25 years from the election, brief pontificate, and death of his predecessor, John Paul I. “The Smiling Pope,” as he came to be known, reigned just 33 days, from Aug. 26 to Sept. 28, 1978.

To mark the occasion, I sat down over two days, Aug. 26 and 27, with the man who was the late pope’s closest collaborator, Fr. Diego Lorenzi. He had been Cardinal Albino Luciani’s private secretary in Venice for two years, and then spent the 33 days of his pontificate by his side.

A member of the Don Orione Fathers, Lorenzi today lives and works in Mestre, outside Venice. I met him in Rome, where he had come for John Paul II’s General Audience on Aug. 27, in which the pope recalled his predecessor as a man of “humility and optimism.”

I wrote a news story for NCR based on our interview, in which Lorenzi firmly rejects the conspiracy theories and amateur psychoanalysis that has long surrounded the death of the pope. John Paul I was not murdered, Lorenzi insisted, and he did not collapse under the weight of a burden that he could not bear.

Instead, he died of natural causes -- a heart attack. He did not desire death, Lorenzi said, but neither did he shrink from it. The burning desire of his life, like Moses, was to see God face to face, and he was ready to depart when the time came.

“He used to say sometimes, ‘Every now and then I ask the Lord to call me to himself,’” Lorenzi said.

My story appears in the Sept. 5 issue of NCR. In the meantime, I’ll offer here some of the other material from that interview.

I started out by asking Lorenzi if he remembered the address to journalists that Papa Luciani, as the Italians call him, made on Sept. 1, 1978. Lorenzi did, reciting exactly the lines I had in mind.

John Paul I referred to a famous Italian newspaper editor during the Franco-Prussian War. “He gave this directive to his reporters: ‘The public isn’t interested in what Napoleon III said to Wilhelm of Prussia. They want to know if he wore gray or red socks, and whether he smoked.’ Likewise, I have the impression that sometimes journalists get stuck on secondary matters when it comes to the Church.”

I told Lorenzi I wanted to begin with some “color of his socks”-type questions. I was easing him into things, since I know Lorenzi does not like to pick over his memories of those days. He smiled, and agreed to field whatever I had in mind.

In fact, when Cardinal Pericle Felici announced from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Square on the afternoon of Aug. 26 that his cardinal had been elected pope, Lorenzi was one of the few people in Rome not taken by surprise. At about 11 a.m. the day before, Lorenzi had predicted to Luciani, “By this time tomorrow, you will have a nice pile of votes.”

Luciani, as Lorenzi tells the story, replied, “It’s difficult to measure the holiness of a man.” But he said that if he were to be elected, he would refuse.

A few days later, Lorenzi asked the pope what had changed his mind. “It would have been a farce,” Luciani replied. He meant that the conclave would have had to start all over again, and the cardinals would have been demoralized and resentful. Also, Luciani was moved by what he interpreted as God’s will.

For Lorenzi, the result turned his life upside down. In an instant, he was now one of the most powerful men in the Catholic church, the pope’s most trusted aide. The evening of Aug. 26, for the first time, Lorenzi made his way into the Vatican in this new capacity.

He, like Luciani, was a stranger to this world and didn’t quite know what to do.

He entered at the gates by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and was stopped when he reached the zone that had been sealed off for the conclave. There he bumped into Marquis Giulio Sacchetti, an Italian layman and noble who at the time was the governor of Vatican City, and thus the man who held the keys to the conclave. Sacchetti let Lorenzi pass. He reached the Apostolic Palace and took the elevator up.

As soon as he stepped off, he bumped into Archbishop Ernesto Civardi, the secretary of the conclave. Civardi joked: “You realize you are excommunicated,” referring to the ancient ban on entering the precincts of the conclave. Lorenzi shot back: “If I am, the pope will restore me to the Communion of Saints.”

Lorenzi was ushered into a grand sala where the pope was meeting alone with the Secretary of State, French Cardinal Jean Villot. Luciani caught his eye, stood up, and said: “Your predictions have been proven accurate. Go now, and we’ll see each other tomorrow.”

On Sunday, Aug. 27, Lorenzi stood in St. Peter’s Square and listened to Luciani give his first Angelus address.

Luciani explained why he took the names of his two predecessors, John and Paul. He said he didn’t have the wisdom of heart of “Good Pope John,” nor the preparation and culture of Pope Paul, but he now stood in their place. He asked the crowd to help him with their prayers.

At the end, Lorenzi said, a little girl who had been sitting on her father’s shoulders next to him said: “Papa, I understood everything!” Lorenzi gazed up at the pope and smiled, offering a thumbs-up.

“That was his gift, to put complex things in a way that a little girl could understand,” he said.

Lorenzi then returned to the Apostolic Palace, and was led to the papal apartments. Most doors were still sealed off, with a piece of cloth across the entrance held up on either side by wax seals. He began helping Luciani settle in.

That night, Lorenzi said, the entire papal household consisted of himself, Luciani, and two nuns from Venice. When the dinner hour rolled around, one of the nuns brought bad news: there was absolutely nothing in the papal kitchen. Paul VI had been at Castel Gandolfo when he died, so the refrigerator in the apartment had been emptied.

Obviously, ordering pizza or going to a nearby trattoria was out of the question. Hence one of the sisters scuttled across St. Peter’s Square to the nearby convent of the Sisters of the Child Mary, to scrounge some left-overs. She came back with minestrone, cheese, bread and a bit of wine.

The simplicity didn’t last long. Indeed, one of the most interesting elements of Lorenzi’s tale is how quickly the “machinery” of the Vatican took over, creating a momentum that was difficult for anybody, including the pope himself, to stop.

Immediately, Lorenzi said, two Italian laymen, brothers named Grossi, were called to work in the papal household. Paolo Grossi had been in service with John XXIII when he was in Venice, and both brothers could speak the Venetian dialect. Then Angelo Gugel was appointed the pope’s butler. (He still serves John Paul II in that capacity). Gugel had previously been an agent of the Vigilanza, the Vatican police.

Next, Irish Msgr. John Magee, who had been secretary to Paul VI, was called back to help Lorenzi learn the ropes. Since Lorenzi speaks fluent English, he and Magee spoke most often in that language.

In the world of the Vatican, the Secretariat of State has, since the days of Pope Paul VI, been the master department of the Roman Curia, keeping tabs on all the others and making sure the ecclesiastical trains run on time.

“I imagine so, but I’m sure he just said yes,” Lorenzi explained. “Look, we barely had time to look around. Our suitcases had arrived from Venice, but we hadn’t even had time to unpack them. None of us by that stage had any idea what we were in for.”

Once Magee arrived, Lorenzi said, someone from the Secretariat of State explained that one week Lorenzi would stand by the pope when he gave his public addresses, the next week Magee would do the honors, so they would rotate. Lorenzi was smart enough to see what was going on; “they” didn’t want him to grow too powerful, too fast, by being publicly flagged as the pope’s right-hand man. There’s always a natural rivalry between the Secretary of State and the man who has the pope’s ear, his private secretary. (One sees this dynamic today between Cardinal Angelo Sodano and Bishop Stanislaw Dziwisz). Early on with John Paul I, State was determined to keep the upper hand.

“What did it matter who handed him the pages of his talk?” he said. “I needed time to get my bearings.”

Magee and Lorenzi thus shared the most intimate access to Luciani. Magee lived in an apartment one floor above the pope, in the so-called soffittone. Lorenzi found this space too hot, however, and instead took a tiny room a few feet down the hall from the pope’s bedroom, with a window facing not St. Peter’s Square but the nearby Borgo Pio neighborhood.

Each morning, Lorenzi concelebrated Mass with the pope, then sat down to breakfast with John Paul and Magee. The pope would flip though a few Italian papers, and perhaps glance at a set of clippings from the world press prepared by the Secretariat of State.

During the mornings, Lorenzi passed time outside the papal apartments while appointments moved in and out. He was with the attendants of the ante-chamber, including a Polish priest named Juliusz Paetz. (Paetz subsequently became the archbishop of Poznan in Poland, then was forced to resign under the weight of accusations of sexual abuse of seminarians). He would lunch with the pope.

In the evenings, Lorenzi, Magee, and John Paul would eat a light supper served by Gugel and prepared by the Venetian nuns. Luciani would usually watch the headlines on the main Italian TV news, to see if anything caught his interest. If not, he’d switch it off.

What, I asked Lorenzi, caught the pope’s interest? “Italian politics,” Lorenzi said. “And Formula One racing.”

When Lorenzi wasn’t shadowing the pope, he spent most of his 33 days responding to the “special requests” that people direct to the pope’s secretary, hoping that he’ll act as a backdoor to papal favor.

For example, an Italian priest wrote to Lorenzi saying, “I have been a priest for many years, but now I would like to experience the ‘fullness of the priesthood.’ Could you help me become a bishop?”

Lorenzi said he spoke with the priest a couple of times, trying to help him see that there were other means of fulfillment. The man never did become a bishop.

A young priest wrote to say that he had been planning on leaving the priesthood, but he was so captivated by the new pope that he wanted to stay. The problem was that in the meantime he had gotten a girl “into trouble,” and wanted to know if Lorenzi could help him.

A sister in a convent in northern Italy wrote to beg for an exemption from the cloister to visit her dying mother. Lorenzi wrote back saying that she had to ask her superior.

A little girl in France wrote Lorenzi to ask for a picture of the new pope. He sent along two, explaining that if she lost one, she would have a spare. To his surprise, the girl wrote back immediately to thank him, then wrote again upon the death of the pope to say how much she would miss him.

“These are the beautiful things that happen sometimes with simple people,” Lorenzi said.

In addition to correspondence, Lorenzi said, some of his time was eaten up dealing with VIPs who would drop by to pay their respects. Often this meant a mid-level Italian politician looking to make connections, offering his “complete availability” for anything Lorenzi or the pope might need.

Luciani’s episcopal motto was Humiltas, or “humility.” Lorenzi described this as the “scarlet thread” running through his life.

Lorenzi emphasized, however, that Luciani did not just wake up one morning “feeling” humble. He worked daily at being Christ-like … controlling his temper, not taking offense, being kind, forgetting his pride.

“Christ told us very few things to do,” Lorenzi said. “But one came with the washing of the feet. ‘If I as your master do this for you, so must you do it for others.’

“When the Catholic truth was at stake, he stood firm,” Lorenzi said. He pointed out that during Italy’s bruising 1974 referendum on divorce, Luciani publicly rebuked a group of liberal Venetian priests who had come out in favor of legalization.

“Some of these priests broke contact with him because of it,” Lorenzi said. “He was full of understanding for them, but he felt the Catholic truth is the Catholic truth. It can’t be bargained away for something else.”

In the same spirit, when the Venetian chapter of FUCI, the Federazione Universitaria Cattolica Italiana, went too far in questioning his authority, Luciani ordered them to disband.

I asked Lorenzi what he thinks of the name with which Luciani has gone down in history: “The Smiling Pope.”

“Too facile,” he responded. “He wanted to convey a message, which is much stronger than this image. His was not the smile of a salesman on TV pushing toothpaste.”

At the same time, Lorenzi said, he understands why Luciani’s smile was so captivating, after Pope Paul’s final agonizing months. In May 1978, Italy’s Prime Minister Aldo Moro, a good friend of Paul, was murdered by the terrorist group the Red Brigades after having been held hostage for almost two months. Paul, in a memorable homily at St. John Lateran, actually rebuked God for not having heard his prayer that Moro be saved.

Finally, I asked Lorenzi the inevitable, and probably unanswerable, question: What kind of pope would Luciani have been?

For one thing, Lorenzi said, he would not have traveled as much as John Paul II. His only two overseas trips had been to Brazil in 1975, at the invitation of his friend Cardinal Aloisio Lorscheider, and to Rwanda and Burundi while he was still in Vittori Veneto to see the mission some of his priests had set up there.

During his month as pope, his lone decision on travel was a negative one. He said he would not attend the meeting of Latin American bishops scheduled for Puebla, Mexico, in 1979. Eventually, John Paul II did make the trip.

“I’m sure in the back of his mind was, ‘What the Hell am I going to say to those bishops over there in Latin America?’” Lorenzi said.

For another thing, John Paul I would have had fewer massive celebrations in St. Peter’s Square and elsewhere, and would have been less omnipresent in the media.

“He was always wary of applause,” Lorenzi said. “When people stopped clapping, he always wanted to know how it would change their lives.”

“He used to say, ‘Blessed is that bishop who has priests more brilliant than himself,’” Lorenzi said. “He was a believer in consensus.”

This does not mean, however, that he would have been confrontational with the Roman Curia.

“He knew that without the Curia, you could not have a full view of how the Catholic Church has been governed,” Lorenzi said. “You have to rely on this human organization.”

Luciani’s passion would have been largely outside the Church, in the dialogue with culture, Lorenzi said, but he would have worked in and through the institutional Church to advance it.

Interestingly, Lorenzi said, much of the difference in approach between John Paul I and II reflects their personal experience. Cardinal Karol Wojtyla’s background in Poland pivoted on the confrontation with Nazism and Communism. Thus John Paul II has proclaimed the rights and dignity of the human person.

Luciani, on the other hand, grew up in a free society, allowing him to see the misuse to which fallen human beings sometimes put that freedom. Hence his style, Lorenzi said, was less muscular, less bold, more humble and self-effacing. Where John Paul II is famous for challenging dictators face-to-face, the most enduring image of John Paul I is of calling a child forward during a general audience to gently chat with him about a catechetical point.

Luciani’s would likely have been, in other words, a kinder, gentler pontificate. (This is not to say that John Paul II’s has been unkind, merely that evangelical zeal, not humility, is his lead idea). A less noisy pontificate -- and, perhaps for that reason, less historic. Both styles are valid, both capture essential points of the gospel, but they are undeniably distinct.

In the end, Fr. Diego Lorenzi was probably the ideal secretary for a pope whose guiding light was humility. Lorenzi himself is about as meek a man as Italian clerical culture ever produced.

As we finished our conversation Aug. 27, I walked with Lorenzi down the hill from the Casa Tra Noi on via Monte del Gallo to the Bronze Door at the Apostolic Palace, where he picked up his VIP tickets for that morning’s audience. He had brought five friends from Venice, and Lorenzi had arranged with Dziwisz to have six tickets.

As we then walked toward the audience hall, Lorenzi opened the envelope and discovered that there were only five tickets inside.

“Oh well,” he said, “at least my friends can go in. I’ll wait outside.”

I was dumbstruck. This was the private secretary of a pope, and he was going to stand outside while the audience commemorated the 25th anniversary of his pope’s election?

“Absolutely not,” I said. “We’re going back to get another ticket.” After hemming and hawing, Lorenzi allowed me to drag him back to the ticket office.

When we arrived, Lorenzi apologized profusely and said he was sure the man handling tickets couldn’t do anything for us. When the man concurred, Lorenzi was prepared to move on.

“But this is the secretary of John Paul I,” I insisted. “Surely we can do something.”

Eventually the official handed Lorenzi a regular entrance ticket to the audience, advising him to present himself once inside the hall and to see what could be done. I was sure that once Lorenzi identified himself, Vatican protocol would take over and he would be ushered to the VIP section from which special guests are led up for the baciomano, or greeting, with the pope.

I returned to my office and switched on Telepace, the Catholic TV channel in Italy that broadcasts papal audiences. I was relieved to see Lorenzi seated in the front row.

On June 8, Bishop Vincenzo Savio of the Italian diocese of Belluno, where Albino Luciani was born, announced that the Congregation for the Causes of Saints had approved the collection of testimony on Luciani’s life, the first step towards possible canonization. Savio appointed a postulator to coordinate this work, Salesian Fr. Pasquale Liberatore. A petition with more than 300,000 signatures from all over the world in support of declaring Luciani a saint had been presented to Savio last year.

«JOHN PAUL I, MARTYR OF THE CHURCH'S PURIFICATION»

BY FATHER JESUS LOPEZ SAEZ

Father Jesus Lopez Saez, who has a licentiate in theology from the Gregorian University in Rome, has followed David Yallop’s enquiry and developed his own accusations. In the very first pages of his book Se pedira cuenta, he writes «You will be held to account.» (1990).

«WHEN Albino Luciani, having become Pope John Paul I in 1978, died in the same month as his enthronement, no answer was forthcoming to the most elementary questions: What did he die from? What was his real character?

«Usually these two questions went hand in hand. For example, people would say: “He was a poor man who died overwhelmed by the burden of the papacy”, or else, as Cornwell makes out today: “He let himself die because he did not feel capable of being Pope.”

«Against these views, and along with many others, we affirm: “He was a martyr of the purification and renovation of the Church.” The difference is obvious, radical, fundamental.

«After almost three years of research, David Yallop wrote, in his book In the name of God (1984), that the precise circumstances attending the discovery of the body of John Paul I “eloquently demonstrate that the Vatican practised a disinformation campaign”. The Vatican told one lie after another: “Lies about little things, lies about big things. All these lies had but one purpose: to disguise the fact that Albino Luciani, Pope John Paul I, had been assassinated.” Pope Luciani “received the palm of martyrdom because of his convictions”.

«The review that published my first article on the death of John Paul I was forced to publish a public denial of this same article. And at the National Secretariat of Catechetics where I was in charge of the adult catechetics, they came to tell me, “Not a word more.”

«Furthermore, we know from different sources that Sister Vincenza, the nun who discovered the body of John Paul I, was forced to keep silent by the Secretariat of State. “But the world must know the truth”, said Sister Vincenza to a trustworthy person who communicated this to me personally.

«According to a recent poll, 30% of Italians are convinced that John Paul I was assassinated... fifteen million people!

«Once the problem has been put, it can be resolved provided that silence is not imposed on this affair, that nothing is concealed and that we try to understand it with sincerity. By acting in this manner, it must be said, we do not attack the Church, but we defend her in accordance with what is written: “Zeal for your house has consumed me.” (cf. Jn 2.16-17; Mt 21.13; Mk 11.17 and Lk 19.45-46) The Gospel solution is the purification of the temple which is “a house of prayer” and must not become “a den of robbers”. It is obvious that the matter is very grave. Who has transacted more business affairs? Vatican enterprises or the ancient temple denounced by Jesus? Have not too many murders accompanied these affairs already? Is it not the case that the real cause of John Paul I’s death been concealed from the Church and the world? Has not his person been totally misrepresented?

«If we do not answer these questions correctly, the “new evangelisation” will be discredited. At the very least, it will nothing but a sinister comedy. What is at stake is the relationship of the Church with herself, with the world and above all with God.

«The data and the evidence that we already possess would justify a serious judicial enquiry in any law-respecting state. Now, not only does the Vatican refuse to conduct such an enquiry, but it does exactly the opposite: it thwarts and suppresses any research that tries to get to the bottom of the enigma surrounding John Paul I’s death. This state of affairs is manifest in the Vatican’s refusal to carry out an autopsy (if in fact one was not carried out) or in the clandestine nature of this operation (if it did actually take place). It also reveals itself in the obscurity surrounding the embalming, in the way that information regarding the circumstances of the death and the discovery of the body was manipulated, in the silence imposed on Sister Vincenza, in the pressure brought to bear on individuals and institutions, and in the widespread fear of speaking about this whole affair. This fear, whether conscious or not, runs particularly deep in ecclesiastical circles. It certainly does not present an image of a renewed Church capable of evangelising the world of today, and it is hardly calculated to protect the lives of Popes; on the contrary, history will view the Vatican as the ideal crime location.

«In short, there is a great deal of evidence (facts, clues, signs) for this conclusion: a death arranged at the opportune moment. If the death of John Paul I was the effect of natural causes, then many things remain inexplicable, but if it was arranged, then everything is explained.

«Facts, clues and signs abound everywhere. Today, if one wishes to know the truth, there exists such a wealth of evidence that no judge on earth could disregard it, and what is more this evidence is in the public domain. It reveals John Paul I to have been a martyr of the purification and renovation of the Church. Like John the Baptist, under whose patronage he was baptised, John Paul I met his death at the opportune moment, alone and defenceless, surrounded by a darkness deliberately maintained to protect covert interests.

«As Our Lord said, an account will be demanded (Lk 11.51). What is more, it has already been requested. God speaks in diverse ways in human history. When all the facts presented in this book are taken together, one gains a perfect understanding of Psalm 79, the psalm read out in all the churches on 4 October 1985, the anniversary of John Paul I’s burial and the day when my first work on his death and person was published. “They have left the corpses of your servants to the birds of the air for food”, and “let this be known among the nations”.

«The Church and the world have a right to know the truth. It is a question of rendering justice to John Paul I, of proclaiming his witness, a brilliant light for our times which should be placed on a lamp stand, be it only to illuminate a house that is dilapidated and full of cracks. The introduction of his cause for beatification could well be a good opportunity for this.»

J. L. SAEZ, SE PEDIRA CUENTA, 143 pages, published by Origenes, Plaza del Tuy, 4. 28029 Madrid.

No.

Sister Lucy vs. "Sister Lucy"

by Peter W. Miller, as published in the Seattle Catholic on 12/28/2001

Which one are we to believe?

COIMBRA, PORTUGAL - This past week, the Vatican Information Service (VIS) released details from an interview between Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone and Sister Lucy, the sole remaining Fatima seer. The meeting was held in order to "obtain clarification and information directly from the surviving visionary". She is reported as saying no further revelations have been received:

To those who speak and write of new revelations she said: "There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations I would have told no-one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father." 1

Further revelations have been the subject of much rumor and speculation and their authenticity is hard to establish with any certainty. Had the report stopped there, it would be of little interest. But the conversation then turned to Fr. Gruner and his positions. "Sister Lucy" claims not only that the Third Secret was fully revealed:

To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden, she replied: "Everything has been published; no secret remains." 2 (emphasis mine here and throughout)

but also that the Consecration of Russia has already been accomplished:

"I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984 and was accepted in heaven." 3

Given the inconsistencies between these new claims and what Sister Lucy has publicly said on these subjects, one is faced to accept one of two conclusions: either Sister Lucy has changed her position or the report is fraudulent. The evidence seems to point to the latter for at least three primary reasons:

1. In the officially released version of Third Secret, there were no words of Our Lady. This means the message from heaven ended with "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc."

2. The promised conversion of Russia has not taken place and the 1984 "Consecration of the World" did not even fulfill the requirements Sister Lucy herself put forth in 1983.

3. Sister Lucy is still unexplainably barred from talking publicly on these matters and only "says" such things as these in secret, unverifiable meetings.

There also remain a number of other inconsistencies which do not go away simply by claiming Sister Lucy's agreement. It is important to remember that behind these issues lie objective truths. Either the Third Secret was fully revealed by the Vatican or it was not. Either Russia has been consecrated to Mary's Immaculate Heart or it has not. While Sister Lucy's consistent restatement of the requirement of mentioning Russia by name provides support to those who make the same claim, it is not the cause of such a belief. The inherent nature of a consecration provides enough rationale for one to come to this conclusion on his own. So even if Sister Lucy had never been asked on the matter, it would still be evident that Russia's mention is necessary.

While it is questionable whether Sister Lucy has changed her mind, the demonstration of such is not, in itself, proof that the consecration was done. The heart of the debate is the objective occurrences, not necessarily Sister Lucy's position. Certain inconsistencies and unanswered questions would still need addressing. The Vatican party line that "it's consistent with the past because we say it is," which seems to be extending to many aspects of Church governance and policy, is just as unacceptable in this case.

Truth on trial

Considering for a moment solely the issue of Russia's consecration, pretend the whole of this debate to be in the context of a courtroom trial.4 An attorney who is making the case that Russia has not yet been consecrated to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart calls on Sister Lucy as a witness. She proceeds to testify that the mentioning of Russia by name is a requirement of Russia's consecration (obviously), and any consecration attempt that fails to do so does not fulfill heaven's request. Sister Lucy said as much in 1983 with regards to the 1982 "almost consecration".

In response to this testimony, the defense attorneys use their influence to bring about the silencing of that witness. Sister Lucy is no longer able to appear in the courtroom and legally prevented from so much as speaking on the subject. The trial must go on without her.

Next, the defense calls up an "expert witness" who says he recently spoke to the silenced Sister Lucy and she told him that the 1984 consecration met heaven's demands, even though no mention of Russia was made. Since the first lawyer certainly knows that heaven's requirements have not been relaxed and just heard a man contradict direct testimony with hearsay, he requests Sister Lucy be called to verify the claim and explain such an alleged reversal of her position. But the defense has made her unavailable for such a clarification, so all we have to go on is the unverifiable claim of a nonobjective man who is affiliated with an organization which zealously believes the consecration of Russia has been done and has taken extreme and illegal attempts to silence anyone who disagrees.

Could this case possibly be closed? Does the recent hearsay refute the earlier direct testimony? What if you were a judge hearing this case? Would it be enough that a man of uncertain reliability claimed Sister Lucy's position to be reversed, or would such a claim need some sort of collaboration? Such a new and contradictory claim would either be dismissed out of hand or the cause of a certain degree of uncertainty. It would not be simply taken on its face and the previous direct testimony ignored. This is the situation in which we currently find ourselves with regards to the Mysteries of Fatima.

Still silenced?

If this revised version of Fatima is so clearly Sister Lucy's position, as a number of Vatican diplomats so desperately want us to believe, why can't she announce it to the world, or at least to an unbiased group of people? If the goal is to completely debunk Fr. Gruner and his claims, would not the most effective and permanent way be to put him in front of Sister Lucy and have her tell him directly that he is wrong on all counts.5

Why is Sister Lucy still bound to silence on the subject of Fatima? Why would the Vatican not address the many swirling and mysterious questions rather than disseminate contradictory information and persecute those searching for the answers? Does it not further fuel the fire that such tactics continue to this day? Does it not allow people like me to write about all this in a skeptical manner without looking completely insane? Why not shut all of us up once and for all? I say they cannot. If they could have, they would have done so long ago and not be so fearful of the traditional Fatima message.

The fact is that Sister Lucy was silenced because her claims did not correspond to the revisionist version of Fatima. Most likely, it is for the same reason that she is still silenced to this day and will probably remain so to her death. Unfortunately, this most recent article has the unsettling tone of a last will and testament for the 94-year-old Carmelite nun. It would seem the Vatican wanted to have "her" on record as verifying their claims before she is physically unable to answer any further questions. Instead of describing her as of "sound mind, memory and understanding," the Vatican release claims her to be "in good health, lucid and vivacious." 6 Disturbing as it seems, this may be regarded as her final word on the subject before her death.

Secret meetings and other such tactics

This sort of "secret communication" has been a favorite tactic of the Fatima revisionists for years. The first attempt was a typed letter dated November 8, 1989 and sent by "Sister Lucy" to one Mr. Noelcker, telling him the consecration of Russia had been accomplished. This "letter" was so clearly exposed as a fraud, that no one since has been able to use it as a source, except in vague or indirect terms (as Cardinal Ratzinger did during the "release" of the Third Secret). Another attempt was a pair of secret interviews with Sister Lucy conducted on October 11, 1992 and October 11, 1993 by Carlos Evaristo.

Both the "letter" and the "interviews" suffer from numerous factual mistakes and details that, at very least, bring their authenticity into doubt. It appears that the Fatima revisionists have learned from such mistakes and are aware of the pitfalls of revealing too much information. As such, the most recent release was kept as short as possible, but still contained some items that raise more unanswered questions to accompany the already daunting list:

Sister Lucy makes the claim "I have already said that the consecration that Our Lady desired was accomplished in 1984..." 7 When did she say that? To whom? Is she verifying the typed letter and the inaccuracies it contains (which include an alleged consecration of Pope Paul VI that never took place)? Is "she" using the same vague allusion that was made when the Third Secret was "released" to avoid the inevitable refutation?

Sister Lucy follows up the previous statement with the claim that the 1984 consecration "...was accepted in heaven." 8 How was she made aware of this acceptance if there have been no further revelations?

The release goes on to say that "Sister Lucy" had "...attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and confirmed everything that was written there." 9 What about the booklet was it necessary to "meditate upon" in order to confirm its accuracy? Does confirming "everything" written in the booklet mean that she verifies the Vatican's interpretation which they said no one was bound to accept? How fortunate and convenient for Archbishop Bertone.

Finally, "Sister Lucy" says that "...Everything has been published; no secret remains " 10 What are the words that come after "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc." and why don't they count as a remaining secret? Have they ever been published? Why not?

Unanswered questions

There are still a number of answered questions which are not addressed by the most recent claim and should not be ignored by the "Fatima finita" crowd. The questions address the authenticity of the Vatican's (and now "Sister Lucy's") two main claims: the Consecration of Russia was done in 1984 and the Third Secret was fully revealed. These questions have been (and should continue to be) repeated ad nauseam, since no one has been willing to address them. I challenge any Vatican official, the new "Sister Lucy", a representative of any Fatima revisionist group, or any Catholic in general to account for the following questions. To do so would put the nails in the coffin of such "errant" interpretations that are running rampant among traditionalists. Why wouldn't people making a career out of resigning Fatima to the past jump at such an opportunity?

The first set of questions concern the Consecration of Russia. These concern an issue that should be pretty clear. Sister Lucy repeatedly said two things needed to happen: the participation of the world's bishops and specific mention of Russia. The nature of the first requirement is debatable but at very least, the second criteria was never met.

Why are Sister Lucy's reasons for why the consecration didn't happen in 1982 (which include the mention of Russia) no longer relevant for the success of the 1984 consecration?

How can Russia be consecrated when it is purposely not mentioned for political reasons, as reported in Inside the Vatican on November 30, 2000?

What signs of Russia's conversion exist in a country plagued with abortion, prostitution and child pornography, and is much worse socially, morally and spiritually than in both 1917 and 1984? How can Russia convert when proselytizing is outlawed?

What harm would come to performing the consecration "again" according to Sister Lucy's two basic criteria? Is all this effort worth the avoidance of mentioning one single word?

With regard to the Third Secret, the issues are a little less clear (since we're dealing with a secret) but there still exist a number of reasons to believe we haven't heard it all:

Why was the Third Secret not revealed in 1960 as was requested by Our Lady? What became "more clear" about the Third Secret in 1960?

Why have "the words" of Our Lady been mentioned by those who have read the Third Secret but were not contained in the "release" by the Vatican?

What are the words that come after "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc."? Did Mary say the words "et cetera"? Were the other words forgotten? If she had nothing more to say, why was "etc." placed at the end? Do not these words not qualify as a secret yet to be revealed?

Why do several commentaries about the Third Secret (Sister Lucy, Cardinal Ratzinger) mention dangers to the Faith and apostasy, but the vision and commentary refer to an assassination attempt?

Why do these same commentaries by Sister Lucy and Cardinal Ratzinger after the shooting refer to serious and tragic future events rather than a minor single event that has already happened?

If the Third Secret referred to the assassination attempt on Our Holy Father, why was it kept secret for the next 19 years?

And finally, there are questions relating to the actions of certain Vatican officials concerning Fatima.

Why is there so much urgency to consign the message of Fatima to the past? How does a firm belief in the words and prophesies of Fatima harm the Church?

Why has Fr. Nicholas Gruner been the subject of over a decade of persecution rather than be convinced of his supposed errors through reason or due process — a right even enjoyed by liberals and heretics?

Why wasn't Sister Lucy publicly asked during the Vatican "release" on the Third Secret whether the consecration of Russia had been accomplished? Why instead was an unnamed letter cited as evidence of her support? Can she only be counted on to say the "right thing" when no one else is around?

Why does "Sister Lucy" say things privately to certain individuals which are completely contrary to what Sister Lucy has said publicly? Why is no explanation given as to what made "her" reverse her position? Why is no acknowledgement even made of the discrepancy that exists?

Why was Sister Lucy silenced on the subject of Fatima and only allowed to speak with the explicit permission of Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger? Why does that restriction exist to this day??? If Fatima really contains "no more mysteries," why can't she say so publicly? If Sister Lucy is so clearly of one mind on this issue, what is there risk of her saying?

Who are we to believe?

Are we to believe the same men who have tried to conceal the Third Secret, revise the requirements of Russia's consecration, silence Sister Lucy on the subject, ignore or suppress all legitimate questions (like the above) and persecute those priests and individuals asking them? Or are we to believe the words of Sister Lucy repeatedly spoken to unbiased journalists, which are in complete accordance with our own common sense?

Is the silence placed on Sister Lucy going to remain until she dies or is will she have an opportunity to contradict (or verify and explain) the claims that have been attributed to her? Is a claim that Sister Lucy has completely reversed her position deserving of any sort of belief when the same men making the claim prevent her from saying so herself? To ask the question is to answer it.

Fittingly, the Vatican concludes their release with the following words of "Sister Lucy":

How many things are attributed to me! How many things I am supposed to have done! 11

How many things indeed.

FOOTNOTES: 1 Vatican Information Service, "Sister Lucy: Secret of Fatima Contains No More Secrets" (12/20/2001) [VIS] 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. 4 With apologies to my lawyer friends for this amateur attempt at a legal allegory 5 Yes, I know a translator would be needed 6 [VIS] 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.