Chapter 11

HEN we examine how Sister Lucy fulfilled her mission over her life, we note that at a certain period, during the 40’s, she received from her superiors permission to answer interrogations and questionnaires from ecclesiastics or writers keen to know and make known the Fatima revelations. We recall her meetings, in February 1946, with Father Hubert Jongen, the young Dutch Montfortian, who carried out research in Portugal in order to refute the criticisms of Father Dhanis.

«At Tuy», Father Jongen related, «we had the pleasure of having four conversations with the seer. When we arrived, Lucy was away. She was giving a catechism lesson. For she speaks Spanish as fluently as she does Portuguese.

«What distinguishes her is a passionate dedication to the truth. Her truthfulness goes hand in hand with a profound disdain for human respect. Here’s a typical little example: she had been advised that the Montfort Father expected was now waiting for her in the parlour. It was suggested she make her way there when the other Sisters could not see her. “Why is that?” she asked. “His Grace has given his authorisation, the good Mother also. So why these roundabout methods?”

«We thought at first that we read an expression of timidity on the seer’s very pale face. When she sat down, we were especially struck by her extraordinary simplicity. I took out a pencil to take notes. Lucy saw that it was blunt. She grabbed it from me and went to sharpen it.

«When one listens to her speaking, it is impossible to doubt her sincerity. We asked the Sister, “When you revealed the Secret, did you confine yourself to giving the general meaning of what the Blessed Virgin told you, or did you quote Her words literally?

– When I talk about the apparitions in conversation, I stick to the general meaning. When I write, I try to render everything literally. Therefore I wanted to write down the Secret word for word.

– Were the words of the Secret revealed in the order in which they were communicated to you?

– According to the Secret, the Blessed Virgin said. “Therefore, I will come to ask”… Did She actually come and ask?

– Yes, on December 10, 1925 Our Lady appeared to me with the Child Jesus in my room. She said to me, “Behold, My daughter, My Heart surrounded by thorns which ungrateful men pierce at every moment by their blasphemies and ingratitude. You at least try to console me by the practice of the First Saturdays of the Month.”

– It has been remarked that Our Lord asked Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque for the devotion of the Sacred Heart in almost exactly the same terms. One might think this was a recollection of Paray-le-Monial.”

«Sister Lucy laughed, and her laugh expressed the innocence and candour of a child: “Is it for me to tell the Blessed Virgin how She should express Herself?”¹»

Despite Father Jongen’s refutation² of Father Dhanis’ objections, the latter nonetheless continued to propagate his suspicions against the seer of Fatima, and his emulators spread them into Portugal. These calumnies, as well as the orders of her superiors and the measures taken by the Holy See, were gradually stifling Sister Lucy’s voice.

It is noticeable that, from the 50’s, she no longer mentioned in her correspondence³ the reparatory devotion of the Five First Saturdays of the Month. We were surprised at this, so Sister Marie-Abigaïl of our Maison Sainte-Marie put the following question to her in a letter she handed to the extern sister at the Coimbra Carmel: “Why do you not recommend to your correspondents the practice of the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays?” Two weeks later, on March 11, 1995, our Sister received a reply from the seer, a short but authentic reply, typed on a small card, on which the first sentence was the standard printed formula sent to all her correspondents:

Even with regard to the Rosary, the holy Carmelite no longer had permission to repeat Our Lady’s message in public. In 1970, one of her friends, Dona Maria Teresa da Cunha, wanted to obtain her official approval for her campaign for the devotion of the Holy Rosary. Sister Lucy answered her on April 12, 1970: «Our Mother cannot grant the permission you desire. But neither is it necessary. I must not and cannot make myself conspicuous. I must remain in silence, in prayer and in penance […]. You may make use of what I tell you here [about the Rosary]. But only as something that comes from you, without mentioning my name.⁵»

Nevertheless, on certain providential occasions, Sister Lucy did recall Our Lady’s requests with precision. Father Umberto Pasquale provides the evidence:

«I wanted to clarify the question of the consecration of Russia by going back to the sources. On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel Coimbra, I had a long conversation with the seer of Fatima. At a certain moment, I said to her, “Sister, I would like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, so be it, all in good time! But if you can answer it, I should be very grateful to you. Did Our Lady speak to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?

– No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria, in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia… in order to prevent the spread of its errors throughout the world, wars between various nations and persecutions against the Church… In 1929, at Tuy, Our Lady returned, as She had promised, to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of Russia”…»

After this conversation, Father Pasquale, desiring to have a written declaration from Sister Lucy, sent her this request: «Did Our Lady ever speak to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?» He then received a handwritten reply dated April 13, 1980:

This request for the consecration of the world with an explicit mention of Russia was an extraneous request, in many ways alien to the Fatima message. It was not as Our Lady of Fatima’s messenger, but rather in obedience to an order from her confessor, that Sister Lucy addressed this request to Pius XII in her letter of December 2, 1940, a letter which was, in part, merely «a copy of the draft of Msgr. [da Silva]»⁷. The seer indicated this herself to one of her spiritual directors.

As we have related, it was chiefly during her conversations with the apostolic nuncio of Lisbon, between March 21, 1982 and March 19, 1983 that Our Lady’s messenger set forth Heaven’s exact demands regarding the consecration of Russia.

Even before Pope John Paul II had pronounced in Rome his act of offering of the world, Sister Lucy had said what she thought of it. For, on March 22, 1984, she had read the letter which the Pope had addressed to all the bishops of the world, as well as the text of the consecration. On that day she declared to Eugénia Pestana, «This consecration cannot have a decisive character.⁸»

Furthermore, there exists a video recording that clearly shows that the act of March 25, 1984 disappointed and frustrated Sister Lucy. The video film The shepherd children of Fatima and their mission, distributed by Father Kondor, contains several shots of the seer during a small ceremony that took place in the garden of the Coimbra Carmel in April 1984. Now, when Sister Lucy heard Father Kondor read and explain the act of offering of the world, the expression on her face suddenly changed. Quite evidently her private disappointment was very great. She was unable to hide it.

Sister Lucy became sub-prioress of her community in 1986. At that time the Carmelites of Coimbra had sufficient daring to state that the consecration of Russia had not been carried out as per the conditions specified by Our Lady. The extern sisters would murmur this to pilgrims who questioned them on the subject. Let us quote the testimony of our friend Bernard Velut:

«It was on August 15, 1988, around 3 o’clock in the afternoon. I asked the extern sister whether she saw ever Sister Lucy. She smiled and answered yes. I then told her that we were from France, that we had of course come to pray for the intentions of our family but also that the Pope might fulfil Our Lady’s request, namely the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. I was insistent: “For this consecration has not been done has it, Sister?” Her face turned grave and sad, and she answered no, immediately adding, “We must pray, we must pray a great deal.”⁹»

Likewise, members of Lucy’s family living in Fatima knew and declared that the consecration of Russia had not yet been carried out¹⁰.

In September 1986, the Abbé Caillon continued his enquiry in Portugal the better to assure himself that he really knew and understood Sister Lucy’s thinking. On September 12, he visited Mrs. Pestana in Porto. When he questioned her about the consecration of Russia, this old friend of the seer’s stood up and, rapping out her words, declared, «If you want, I can swear it to you with my hand on the Gospel: The consecration of Russia has not been done…¹¹»

A few days afterwards, at a symposium on Fatima, the Abbé Laurentin and Father Fernandez were unable to ignore the Abbé Caillon’s investigations. During their presentations, they referred to the latter several times, thereby objectively reporting, at least in part, the holy Carmelite’s declarations. Father Fernandez conceded that «according to Sister Lucy, neither the Pope, nor the bishops and Christians in general [?], have done what the Virgin had asked to obtain the conversion of Russia and the peace of the world: to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and to spread the practice of the Communion of Reparation of the Five First Saturdays»¹².

On Thursday, September 18, in the middle of the symposium, the Abbé Laurentin dined with a niece of the seer’s, Maria do Fetal Neves Rosa. During the meal, she constantly repeated to him, «The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart has not yet been accomplished. I can confirm this to you because Sister Lucy says the same to everyone.» Maria do Fetal explained: «To respond to Our Lady’s request, one must not disguise under a jumble of diplomatic precautions the fact that it concerns the consecration of Russia and of Russia alone. When we baptise a child, we call him by his name. One day Russia will plainly have to appear as the unique object of the consecration.¹³»

On September 22, 1986, the day after the symposium, the Abbé Laurentin was received in Rome by John Paul II in a private audience which lasted an hour. He would soon be reporting in his writings that «dialogue has continued to be difficult between Lucy and the last six popes. The seer seems to think that the consecration has “still not been done” as the Virgin would like.» And he went on to admit that between her and John Paul II «there remains some tension»¹⁴.

That year, Cardinal Gagnon decided to go to Coimbra. He asked the Pope for permission to leave Rome for several days. John Paul II asked him, «What are your reasons for wanting to go to Portugal?

– Oh no! It’s not worth the trouble. The consecration is done, it’s completed.¹⁵»

John Paul II had decided that Sister Lucy’s voice should no longer be heard beyond the grilles of her Carmel.

In 1986, the directors of the Argentinian Secular Institute dedicated to “Our Lady of Fatima”, Maria del Pilar Banares and Mercedes Rivara, had still managed to obtain all the permissions necessary to meet Sister Lucy. But in October 1989, the Holy See refused to renew these permissions, and, as Mercedes Rivara stated, «without informing us of the reason, be it only to tell us that reasons are no longer given.¹⁶»

In 1987, to celebrate her eightieth birthday, the seer received her whole family in the parlour, not on March 22 which fell in the middle of Lent, but on Easter Saturday, April 25. «Among the many people there, several put questions, but Sister Lucy was careful not to reply. Then came the turn of a certain cousin living in Fatima, a married woman, the mother of a family, but above all a lady who knew what kind of questions to ask and in what terms to phrase them. This cousin wanted to hear from Sister Lucy’s own lips whether the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart had truly been done, in keeping with Our Lady’s instructions. The reply could not have been plainer; it came suddenly, like a cannon ball: “No!” The cousin added: “It seems, does it not, that the Holy Father believes that it has been done?” Whereupon Lucy replied neither yes nor no. She kept silent out of respect for the Holy Father.¹⁷» Sister Lucy held her peace, lowering her head.

Our Lady’s messenger had a further opportunity, in 1989, of confiding to a cardinal her thoughts about the act of March 25, 1984. For, in May 1989, Cardinal Law, Archbishop of Boston, who had come to Portugal to preside over the liturgical ceremonies of the international pilgrimage, visited the Coimbra Carmel. When he spoke to the seer about the consecration of Russia, she eventually declared to him, «The Holy Father considers that it was done as well as it could have been in the circumstances. Done in the strict manner of the collegial consecration that Our Lady requested and desired? No, that was not done», she concluded¹⁸.

In the late 80’s, Father Nicholas Gruner, editor of the Fatima Crusader magazine, continued to solicit the Pope, basing himself on Sister Lucy’s testimony. He sent him thousands of petitions to remind him of Heaven’s requests. Suddenly, however, the Bishop of Fatima repudiated his activity, declaring both in private and in public that «people should no longer importune (sic) the Holy Father with the request for the consecration of Russia»¹⁹.

It was in this context, in June 1989, that Father Messias Dias Coelho announced in his periodical Mensagem de Fatima: «Trustworthy people, who have recently seen Sister Lucy, have told me that she is currently saying that Our Lady’s request has been satisfied.²⁰» It was scarcely credible; it seemed highly improbable that the holy Carmelite could contradict what she had maintained unswervingly since March 1984. So improbable indeed that for several years we did not believe it ourselves, to the point that we saw nothing in it but a very cleverly orchestrated campaign based on forgeries²¹.

Nevertheless, after long and painful research, it now appears impossible for us to deny that Sister Lucy did in fact declare in her parlour conversations, from 1989 onwards, that «the consecration is done.» Her relations and close friends whom we questioned at length and on several occasions, namely Mrs. Olga do Cadaval († December 21, 1996), Mrs. Maria Eugénia Pestana († December 27, 2001) and her daughter Maria das Dores, Father José Valinho and the Abbé Messias Coelho, all assured us that Sister Lucy had stated this in front of them²².

Furthermore, as far as we know, no one has ever heard her say since 1990 and up to this year 2003 in which we write: «The consecration of Russia has still not been accomplished.»

In the early 90’s, when people wrote to the seer regarding the consecration of Russia, they would receive this typed reply on the small card she customarily addressed to her correspondents: “The consecration has been done.²³”

The Abbé Caillon, who made enquiries not just in Portugal but also in Rome, uncovered the reason: «The Pope is saying that the consecration is done. He is forcing Lucy to say the same as he.²⁴»

It was in 1988 that the Vatican gave orders to the Fatima authorities, to Sister Lucy and several ecclesiastics²⁵ that they were no longer to “importune” the Holy Father with the consecration of Russia: «A directive arrived from Rome, obliging each and every one to say and think, “The consecration is done. Seeing that the Pope has done everything he could, Heaven has deigned to accept his gesture.”²⁶» Msgr. Martinez Somalo, Substitute of the Secretariat of State, personally sent this instruction to the Abbé Caillon through his bishop, Msgr. Dubigeon²⁷.

The order was transmitted to the seer by the bishop of Fatima, Msgr. do Amaral. In a private discussion with him, on March 2, 1995, I asked, «Have you spoken with Sister Lucy since your parlour conversation with her, in the presence of the nuncio, on March 21, 1982?

– Yes. I met her once, for a private talk, to convey to her an order from supreme authority.

– No, it was the Cardinal Secretary of State who wrote to ask me to carry out this task.»

In another conversation, on February 20, 2003, I asked him about the order he had communicated to the seer: «Did John Paul II want her to say “The consecration is done.” Was that the order from the Pope that you passed to Lucy?

After a moment’s silence, the bishop quizzed me and corrected himself, as though he wanted to undo his admission: he spoke to me about the satisfecit given by Sister Lucy to John Paul II. But it was too late! His answer to my question had been spontaneous, clear-cut and frank.

After having received this command in 1988 or 1989, Sister Lucy is said to have confided to her niece, Maria do Fetal, «We must obey authority and wait for better times.²⁸»

This falsification of the testimony of Heaven’s messenger was immediately exploited in a media campaign to which we have already referred: in the autumn of 1989, Fr. Fox announced in his magazine Fatima Family Messenger that Gorbachev’s perestroika and the fall of the Berlin wall were the fruits of the 1984 consecration.

To feed this press campaign, the Fatima authorities circulated several typewritten letters. There were at least four of these, addressed respectively to Maria de Belem, Walter M. Noelker, the Rev. Fr. Paul Kramer and Father Fox, all bearing Sister Lucy’s signature and stating that the act of offering on March 25, 1984 had responded to the request of the Virgin of Fatima. But these letters contained gross errors as well as a whole set of propositions cleverly constructed to falsify Our Lady’s revelations. That is why, from the winter of 1989-1990, we have demonstrated, in a manner uncontested to this day, through internal criticism of these documents, their apocryphal character.

Ten years later, at the time of the publication in Rome of the Third Secret, Msgr. Bertone, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, would quote one of these letters, the one addressed to Noelker, to make out that «Sister Lucy had personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration [of March 25, 1984] corresponded to what Our Lady wanted. That is why any discussion, any new petition is unfounded.²⁹» But it was too late, for it is now well established that Sister Lucy neither conceived nor wrote these texts herself. We reproduce the demonstration of this, without any fear of contradiction, in an appendix to this chapter. The seer had at most simply typed and signed³⁰ the drafts that her superiors communicated to her.

Nevertheless, she did not publicly disown their machinations. In 1989, immediately after the Abbé de Nantes had denounced the apocryphal character of these letters, Father Luciano Cristino, the chaplain and archivist of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima, sent the Carmelitess a page from the October 1989 edition of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, drawing her attention to the following lines:

«This signature [of Lucy’s] appears to us to have been extorted, or reproduced, or more simply added by some photocopyist at the bottom of a text typed by an alien hand and, what is more, written in a spirit even more alien still than its written form, quite unlike the soul and heart, so simple and devout, of Sister Lucy.³¹»

Here is the ambiguous reply that he received from the seer, dated December 23, 1989: «The letter of which your Reverence sent me a photocopy, written to Sister Maria de Belem and dated August 29, 1989, is authentic.³²» For sure!

Furthermore, around the same time, a Portuguese man, from Coimbra, asked the Prioress of the Carmel if this letter to Maria de Belem, of which he had seen a facsimile in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, was indeed from Sister Lucy. Mother Maria do Carmo replied to him on December 3, 1989:

«In answer to the question you have asked me, I must say that I was unaware of the contents of this letter, because I do not interfere in the Sisters’ correspondence. I did know of the matter, yes, but through another channel. I recognise Sister Lucy’s signature, however, as well as the addressee of this letter who is one of her nieces. To make doubly sure, though, I questioned the Sister herself as to the reply to be given in this case, and it is with her consent that I assure you that this letter is authentic.³³»

To discern the true reasons behind Lucy’s “consent”, we must analyse the Prioress’ reply with some finesse, as did the Abbé de Nantes:

«Astonishingly, three zigzag movements follow one another in the letter from this nun… rather ill at ease with herself.

«Her first inclination is to disassociate herself from the affair; like the parents of the man born blind… “I was not aware.” I do not generally get involved in the Sisters’ correspondence, and no more in Sister Lucy’s than that of the others.

«The second movement betrays a less neutral feeling: “I was aware of the matter, through another channel”, meaning that it was hatched behind my back, without reference to me, without my advice or my support. In other words: bishops or directors of conscience, or the apostolic nuncio, or letters from Rome came to Sister Lucy over my head; and this was to be no business of mine. The Carmel Prioress had no say in the matter, but was advised of it before it took place. Or else she knew nothing of the matter until news of it reached her via the grapevine, after the event. Her displeasure, and doubtless her disagreement, are palpable.

«The third movement confirms our interpretation. Clearly there is the intervention of a third party in this affair, an authority from outside the convent, since the Prioress does not go and ask Sister Lucy whether this letter is actually from her… but what reply should be given “in this case” so as to avoid making a false move, potentially antagonising the authority overseeing the affair. So Lucy did not answer her superior by saying that the letter was indeed from her, but that in her opinion this is what the person asking the question could be informed.³⁴»

Everything we have subsequently learned shows that the Abbé de Nantes’ intuitions were correct. There was indeed “an intervention by an outside authority”.

It must also have been on the instructions of this same authority, probably Msgr. do Amaral, that Sister Lucy sent the Rector of the Sanctuary of Fatima two of those letters that we call apocryphal. For on November 15, 1989, she wrote to him ostensibly to inform him about the clock in her parents’ home in Aljustrel. In her letter she made the following points:

«I attach a copy of the clarification I gave to Mr. Walter M. Noelker because it answers a question identical to that in your questionnaire, number 146, and I assume you’d want to know about it.» A post-scriptum, typed around ten days after the main body of the letter³⁵, added: «I also attach a copy of the reply I gave to Father Paul L. Kramer, so that if they pose this kind of problem to you [i.e., if people declare that the consecration is not done…], your Reverence will be informed and able to answer them.³⁶»

These documents show that, from 1989, Sister Lucy, secluded in the Coimbra Carmel, the prisoner of her superiors, was obedient to their orders. Does this mean that, by complying with their instructions, the seer failed in her mission as Our Lady’s messenger? We should at least be permitted to put the question.

Sister Lucy fulfilled her specific mission to Pope John Paul II by conveying Heaven’s requests to him at her first meeting with him, on May 13, 1982. On that day, as we have stated, she was able to hand him the letter she had specially written for him during her short retreat at the Fatima Carmel.

Then she met John Paul II again on May 13, 1991, after her testimony had been falsified. When she received the order, two days beforehand, to go to Fatima, «she did not this time display the same enthusiasm as formerly», to quote her Prioress. «She expressed misgivings at the thought of how she might react before the crowd and at the people’s expectations.³⁷» As she was in good health and not suffering from any sickness, this was surprising. Was she afraid of looking gloomy during the ceremonies, and was she apprehensive about a new confrontation with the Sovereign Pontiff? This is possible. Be that as it may, her private meeting with him lasted ten minutes. The content of their conversation – if there was a conversation! – has never been made public. Absolutely nothing of it has filtered through.

Sister Lucy, it seems, made no attempt, from 1989, to inform the faithful, either directly or indirectly, about her real thoughts concerning the act of March 25, 1984. The simple fact is, she did not rebel against her superiors who were forcing her to speak against her convictions. Observing her attitude, the Abbé de Nantes wrote: «Sister Lucy is a messenger of Heaven, she is not its advocate, a “prophetess”. To each their own profession or “charism”. Lucy keeps to hers with great spontaneity, except in the case of an order from her superiors. Like it or not, this is a fact.³⁸»

Sister Lucy never deviated from this line of conduct: she bore witness³⁹ to her revelations before the ecclesiastical hierarchy by conveying Heaven’s requests to them and, after that, she remained in religious obedience, submitting to the orders of her superiors.

It was through obedience that, in her letter to Pius XII of December 2, 1940, she modified certain elements of Our Lady’s requests. It was also through obedience that she ceased to propagate the reparatory devotion of the First Saturdays.

Let us recall what she wrote to her bishop in 1941, in her Fourth Memoir: «I have always been obedient, and obedience deserves neither penalty nor punishment. Firstly I obeyed the interior inspirations of the Holy Spirit, and next I obeyed the commands of those who spoke to me in His name.» Then, referring to an order that the bishop, «undoubtedly assisted by the Holy Spirit», had given her, she remarked: «Any other order would have been for me a source of endless perplexities and scruples. Had I received a contrary command, I would have asked myself times without number: Whom should I obey? God or His representative? And perhaps, unable to reach a decision, I would have remained in a state of real inner torment!⁴⁰»

In 1989, as soon as he was informed of the seer’s “new declarations” on the act of March 25, 1984, the Abbé de Nantes assumed she had been «forced to take on this murky ecclesiastical affair without help, without special illumination, in blind and painful isolation».

«We shall go so far as to admit», he specified, «that she may have been persuaded that only the material transmission of the message was strictly any concern of hers, whereas its interpretation by her bishop – and by the Pope! – was something that should find her submissive. So much so that it was her duty, as a matter of obedience, to speak and write in the sense that would be imposed upon her, even against her inner certitudes…⁴¹»

And he went on to specify the motive for her submission: «“Holy obedience” to the local bishop, to the nuncio! to the Pope! must in practice for a Portuguese Carmelite be, I will not say stronger than the faith, but, in virtue of the faith, stronger than any impression, any feeling, any reasoning and any wish or personal initiative: perinde ac cadaver, just like a corpse.⁴³»

Although her testimony had been falsified, Sister Lucy could still offer prayers and sacrifices for the fulfilment of Heaven’s requests. Already, in the 30’s, while her bishop was ignoring the request for the consecration of Russia, she had written to Father Gonçalves: «I leave everything in God’s hands and in the care of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and I strive to work in my field of action which is prayer and sacrifice.⁴³» The years passed and she remained faithful to her resolution: «Such is the part for which the Lord has chosen me. To pray and sacrifice myself for those who struggle and labour in the Lord’s vineyard and for the expansion of His kingdom.⁴⁴»

Given Sister Lucy’s submission to her ecclesiastical superiors, great discretion is needed to determine the origin of any statement attributed to her or any document bearing her signature. In some cases it may be a declaration from Lucy qua messenger of Heaven. In other cases, one will be obliged to see in it no more than a reply from Lucy qua “messenger of her superiors”. Finally, some statements are imputed to her fraudulently: she never pronounced them. We are talking of fabrications.

By way of an example, let us examine Sister Lucy’s letter, dated January 29, 1996 and addressed to Cardinal Koenig, who had put a number of questions to her at the request of some Austrian Catholics very devoted to Fatima.

Sister Lucy’s answers to the first four questions confirm and clarify the account she gave to her spiritual directors and subsequently recorded in her Memoirs.

On the other hand, her highly laconic answer to the fifth question must be received with prudence. We know that Msgr. do Amaral claimed that the liberalisation of the countries of the East in the late 80’s marked the fulfilment of the promises of Fatima. Consequently this “yes” of Lucy’s may well be tied to an order from her superiors.

In 1989, when her testimony was falsified, only cardinals and certain relatives, friends or longstanding benefactors were still able to meet the seer in the parlour room of the Carmel Coimbra. Every attempt I personally made to speak to her failed. On July 7, 1990, Father Kondor wrote to me: «Regarding permission to see Sister Lucy and to talk to her, it is strictly from Cardinal Ratzinger that this must be sought, for neither the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima nor the Bishop of Coimbra can grant it.⁴⁶»

As she remained secluded in her Carmel, several ecclesiastics and members of the laity were able to attribute untruthful statements to her without fear of contradiction.

It is thus that Father Fox made out that she had declared to the Lisbon apostolic nuncio, back in 1984, that the consecration of Russia was done. This was a shameless lie.

Msgr. Portalupi could not have visited Sister Lucy after the act of offering of 1984, because, after he had celebrated his last Mass that day in Fatima, he took to his bed and died six days later, on March 31, 1984⁴⁷. As for his successor, Msgr. Salvatore Asta, appointed nuncio to Portugal on October 17, 1984, he refused to meet Sister Lucy. We know that every attempt undertaken by the Abbé Caillon and Dr. Lacerda to get the nuncio to question Sister Lucy failed.

For his part, Father Kondor claimed that he had informed John Paul II in person, from the day after the ceremony of March 25, 1984, of Lucy’s complete approval. That is incorrect. For it was not until the autumn of 1994 that he mentioned for the first time this alleged approval of the seer’s⁴⁸. Furthermore, four years earlier, in August 1990, he had shown himself incapable of answering the pertinent question of our friend David Boyce: «When had Sister Lucy first stated that “the Consecration has been carried out”?⁴⁹» In short, in 1990 Father Kondor had not yet invented this alleged declaration of Lucy’s… of 1984!

The falsification of Sister Lucy’s testimony was scandalously renewed and exacerbated in October 1992 in order to win over to the official theories the hundred bishops taking part at Fatima in the congress organised by Fr. Nicholas Gruner on Peace and the Immaculate Heart. On Sunday, October 11, at the instigation of Msgr. do Amaral, a layman, Carlos Evaristo, escorted Antony Padiyara, Archbishop of Ernakulam (India) to the Coimbra Carmel.

We were personally involved in the bizarre preparation for this parlour conversation, and we can still hear the young Evaristo relating it to us the very next day, October 12, in Fatima. He had taken no notes, nor recorded on audio cassette the conversation with Lucy, because, he said, «it was not permitted»⁵⁰. But he sought to put on a persuasive show, affirming that the seer had declared, «Our Lady still appears to me and says that God has accepted the consecration of 1984. The conversion of Russia does not mean conversion to the Catholic faith, it signifies world peace… Our Lady only spoke of two wars, that of 1914-1918 and the Second World War, which was a very bad war against God, against religion and against the Jews who are also God’s chosen people. Our Lady never mentioned civil wars or political wars.⁵¹» Such affirmations contradicted the prophecies in the Secret: «Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, provoking wars…»

It was all too evident that Evaristo was making things up, whilst Cardinal Padiyara, having retired to his hotel room, was nowhere to be seen, quite inaccessible.

Two weeks later, on October 28, 1992, the young intriguer faxed us the first version of his typed report, a report already altered from his first oral account of October 12. Immediately published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation, along with a literal commentary refuting each of the lying allegations ascribed to Lucy, this account attributed to her some unlikely statements, such as this: «When Gorbachev visited the Holy Father in Rome, he knelt at his feet and begged pardon for all the crimes he had committed in his life.» But above all it contained «an accumulation of fabrications perfectly calculated to disorientate those who remained attentive and faithful to Our Lady’s message and to the conditions She has set for the salvation of souls and the peace of the world»⁵².

The following year, Cardinal Vidal was implicated in a further intrigue. The parlour conversation with Lucy on October 11, 1993 (from 22.30 to 23.30!) allowed Evaristo to publish other lying reports⁵³ which marked a new stage in «the diabolical struggle against the message», to repeat a phrase of Sister Lucy’s in her Sixth Memoir.

Let us retain one of the unhappy young man’s admissions: «There are still many people who say that the consecration has not been done. They declare that I am a liar, that you, Lucy, affirmed nothing and that I invented it all.⁵⁴» One could not put it better!

These controversies led to a derogatory statement from Vatican spokesman, Navarro-Valls, who insinuated that Sister Lucy had lost her mind⁵⁵. This was pure defamation.

For Sister Lucy, despite her great age, still possessed vigour, lucidity and health. In May 1991, her Mother Prioress told the journalist Vilas-Boas, «She is in very good health and is not suffering from any illness. Her cataract operation went well. We hardly need to take into account the fact that she is eighty-four. She does all the domestic chores: a little less now owing to her age.⁵⁶» At that time she was very busy with the voluminous mail she received, about four hundred letters every month. She only replied to certain of her correspondents.

Let us also cite the testimony of Dr. Francisco de Lacerda who, along with the apostolic nuncio, met Sister Lucy at the Carmel on March 21, 1992. He told me, «Sister Lucy has great intelligence, a fantastic memory and an extraordinary religious culture. She comes from a very vigorous and hardy family. Her sister Caroline recently died at eighty-nine. Mary of the Angels died at ninety-five. In ten years Sister Lucy has not changed. She is still in very good health and, physically, she is the same as ever, without wrinkles.⁵⁷»

In those years, Sister Lucy wrote under obedience some long documents. The Father Provincial of the Carmelites had handed her, on October 31, 1986, a questionnaire from Msgr. Guerra, the Sanctuary Rector, which contained more than 145 questions. Despite the Provincial’s recommendation «not to drag this task out» and Msgr. Guerra’s repeated requests, she advised the latter on February 12, 1989, that she was going to commence by writing a memoir about her father: «The answers to your questionnaire will have to wait until later. But even now, I should warn you that there are certain questions I cannot answer as they refer to the apparitions, and I am not allowed to speak about these without the Holy See’s authorization. Unless you request and obtain a dispensation from this restriction, I shall have to leave these questions blank.⁵⁸»

Ten days later, on February 23, 1989, she had completed the writing of her Fifth Memoir in which she relates, with candour and freshness, numerous unpublished facts serving to rehabilitate her father. When, on the following March 16, the Rector pressed her to add some supplementary information to her new Memoir, she rejected his request: «I always try, as far as possible, not to repeat what I have said elsewhere: it would be a waste of time and pointless. What I have written in this recent manuscript seems to me sufficient.⁵⁹»

Her Sixth Memoir, comprising 140 pages, was completed on March 25, 1993 and brings out, in some touching narratives, the exceptional virtues of her mother. Its author is definitely the “real Lucy” with her prodigious memory, her extreme humility, her ardent filial devotion, her highly vivacious style, and her very varied vocabulary. But let us listen to her asking herself why she has spent her time drawing such a thorough sketch of the ardours of life in Aljustrel at the beginning of the twentieth century:

«As I write these details of the bygone life of a poor humble family, my description seems so poor that I ask myself what good this work can really serve. And I answer that I know of none. I do it out of love for Our Lord, under obedience, because my superiors tell me to do it; I do it to satisfy the Rector of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima who has asked me to relate everything I remember of our family’s life without omitting any detail. Family life, from one day to the next, is made up of so many little things, so many details, that it becomes impossible, when all is said and done, to describe every one of them! So I am simply going to imitate the butterflies one sees fluttering in the air, from time to time resting on some humble little flowers in the fields. How many times in my childhood did I run after them trying to catch them, attracted by the beauty of the varied colours of their wings! So I am going to glean, from here and there, whatever best seems suited to offer Our Lord the most beautiful hymn of praise, one that will please Him and render Him glory upon earth and in Heaven for evermore.

«And I sing and pray Psalm 70: “Let my mouth be full of Thy praises that I may sing! My lips will rejoice for as long as my song shall endure…”⁶⁰»

Sister Lucy always seeks to draw the lesson from the events she recounts. What wisdom! One can only be edified by the flame of her supernatural spirit. That which she writes, as she recalls the trials that befell her family after the apparitions of 1917, reveals her invincible hope in the midst of the most terrible contradictions:

«I believe our mother was right. For whenever the hand of God is found somewhere, the Devil comes running up with his demons to try and stop the work of God from being carried out and to pluck it up at the roots if possible. Today I thank God for the way things have turned out. We have yet another sign that the work [of Fatima] was indeed from Him. For if it had not been the work of God, the demon and his minions would not have opposed it so fiercely and combated it to this extent.

«But it is in God I trust, because God alone is great, God alone is strong, wise and powerful. He overturns all obstacles and carries off the victory!⁶¹»

HERE exist four typewritten letters bearing the seer’s signature wherein it is stated that the act of offering of March 25, 1984 corresponded to the request of Our Lady of Fatima¹. Now, these texts, disseminated in 1989 and 1990 by the authorities of the Sanctuary of Fatima, contain erroneous statements which effectively falsify the authentic message of the Most Blessed Virgin. In them Heaven’s requests concerning Russia are obscured. In the letter addressed to Maria de Belem, dated August 29, 1989, we read of «the consecration of the world, as requested by Our Lady». However, Our Lady’s request is a demand for the consecration, not of the world, but of Russia and of Russia alone! Over the years, and right up to 1989, Sister Lucy frequently reaffirmed emphatically that only the consecration of Russia would be decisive for the realisation of God’s designs. How many times has she not said: «No, no! Not the world! Russia! Russia!²»

Following the dissemination of these letters, from the autumn of 1989, we published them in the monthly bulletin of The Catholic Counter-Reformation, demonstrating that Sister Lucy could not have written these long texts herself. Here are the key passages from our article entitled “As for the letters from Sister Lucy, they are fakes”, published in May 1990³:

The journalist Stefano Paci declares that Sister Lucy sent the magazine 30 Days three letters dealing with the consecration of Russia, and he quotes in full the letter addressed to Fr. Paul Kramer which we reproduced in January’s Catholic Counter-Reformation. This letter is a fake; we have already demonstrated this⁴. So what are the other two letters? One, of course, is the notorious letter to Maria de Belem, still the same⁵. And the other is addressed to Walter Noelker. To this day, the latter has never been published, but we possess a photocopy of it. It is written in Portuguese, typed, dated November 8, 1989, and bears the signature of Sister Lucy. Here it is:

The opening lines of this letter are similar to those of the letter addressed to Maria de Belem on August 29, 1989. Once again we come across this consecration supposedly made by Pope Paul VI at Fatima in 1967: a pure invention!

Then comes some additional information. It seems that between the months of August and November 1989 the author of these letters had learned that, at the end of the third session of Vatican Council II, Paul VI had recalled the act of consecration of the world made by Pius XII in 1942. Whence this addition to show that it was not Paul VI in 1964, but rather John Paul II in 1984 who had responded to Our Lady’s request. Only John Paul II, it was argued, had performed the consecration in union with all the bishops as Our Lady wishes. Let us see by what reasoning the author of this letter attempts to establish this.

«The same Sovereign Pontiff Paul VI», he writes, «made the consecration during the Sacred Council with the participation of numerous bishops. I was then asked whether it had been done as Our Lady had requested. I answered no, for it should not be done with all the bishops gathered in one room…¸

Such an affirmation is nonsensical and leaves us dumbfounded. The leaders of the Blue Army, like the Fatima experts, have always considered that the consecration of Russia could have been performed, and indeed should have been performed, while Vatican Council II was meeting. This was the opinion of John Haffert⁶, the Abbé Richard⁷, Fr. Simonin⁸, etc. Let us quote the Rev Fr. Antonio Maria Martins, who, over the course of the last twenty years, has published a great many previously unpublished Fatima documents as well as various historical and theological commentaries on the message of Fatima. «With the meeting of the Council, Divine Providence offered Pope Paul VI an excellent opportunity to perform the requested consecration together with all the bishops gathered in Rome for the occasion.⁹»

If the Abbé Laurentin plans to mention in his articles this letter said to be written by Sister Lucy, we would keenly advise him first to open his own work – still unpublished! – on “The Hearts of Jesus and Mary according to the Magisterium” (Fatima Symposium, 1986) at page 27. There he will read: «On November 21, 1964, Paul VI renewed the consecration as Pope, presiding over the Council itself, in solemn session. A more satisfying collegial situation could not be found.»

Until that month of November 1989, Sister Lucy had never explained the message of Tuy by declaring that it was essential for the act of consecration to be carried out by each bishop in his own diocese and not at the meeting of a Council; she had always made it clear that the Pope could choose either solution. Fr. Alonso knew all the Fatima documents. Yet he states that Sister Lucy had simply indicated that, to fulfil the Tuy request, the bishops should perform the consecration «at the same time»¹⁰, and he very plainly envisages that it could be carried out by the Pope and all the bishops met in Council¹¹.

Moreover, during the parlour of March 21, 1982, Sister Lucy told the apostolic nuncio, Msgr. Portalupi, that in order to fulfil Our Lady’s request, the Pope could, if he desired, gather all the bishops together in one location on earth¹²!

It is clear that the condition laid out in this letter to Noelker, namely that «it was essential that the bishops carry out the consecration in their own dioceses», is absolutely foreign to the message of Tuy. Such a text cannot, therefore, be attributed to Sister Lucy. This detail alone proves the document to be false.

It is true that in 1942 God «understood» (!) the veiled mention of Russia. The author of this letter is correct. This consecration of the world performed by Pius XII was accepted by God and the «days of tribulation» of the world war were shortened. In 1940, Our Lord condescended as it were to temporarily limit His demands to the good will of His hierarchical representatives, but this consecration of the world with a mention of Russia had no direct connection with the message of Fatima, and the conversion of Russia has never been tied to it.

If the act of November 21, 1964 failed to respond to Our Lady’s request, it was primarily because Pope Paul VI did not carry out the act asked of him, namely an act of reparation and of consecration of Russia and of Russia alone. Fr. Alonso wrote: «In the final analysis, on November 21, 1964, in the closing speech of the Council’s third session, something essential was missing from that consecration: the consecration of Russia.¹³» But that is something the author of this letter could not point out because it was also cruelly missing from the act of March 25, 1984!

The scribe who drafted this text had, it seems, only one concern: to preach submission and blind obedience to the Holy Father¹⁴. Consequently, under his pen, the consecration made by the bishops «with the people of God» becomes «a call for the unity of the whole people of God». The Blessed Virgin supposedly came to Fatima to exhort the faithful to enter into John Paul II’s murky projects¹⁵.

Such is the demonstration that we published in May 1990. What is more, we suspected and accused Msgr. Luciano Guerra, the Rector of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima¹⁶, and Msgr. Alberto do Amaral, the Bishop of Fatima until 1993, of being the authors of these four letters allegedly written by Lucy. They have never answered us, apart from Msgr. Guerra on October 12, 1992 in the hall of the “Paul VI Centre”, at the end of the International Congress on the Pastoral Teaching of Fatima. He told me, «You have no heart.¹⁷» Which was hardly an answer to the question I put to him!

Sister Lucy and Pope John Paul II coming out from their private conversation on May 13, 1991. On the right, in the foreground, Msgr. Alberto do Amaral, then Bishop of Fatima; in the background, Msgr. Luciano Guerra, Rector of the Sanctuary. These two ecclesiastics, in the autumn of 1989, disseminated apocryphal letters of the seer in order that John Paul II might no longer be «importuned» (sic) by requests for the consecration of Russia and of Russia alone.

Although he has been the Rector of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima since 1973, Msgr. Guerra has never studied the Fatima documents in a thorough manner. His article “Fatima e o romano pontifice”, of 1983, contains a serious error: the request for the “consecration of the world with a special mention of Russia” is «Sister Lucy’s most recent version (versao)», he writes, as if there existed several versions of Lucy’s!

Father Alonso had, however, demonstrated that «this consecration of the world had no direct connection with the message of Fatima». The official expert concluded: «One would have to be a very inattentive reader to believe that, in 1940, Lucy abandoned the request for the consecration of Russia alone.» (Fatima ante la Esfinge, p. 111)

As we had criticised Msgr. Guerra’s statements with some severity, the latter declared in 1992 to the Abbé Laurentin: «It is not good to involve Lucy in all these controversies. It will be possible to say many things more clearly after her death.» (CRC no. 284, August 1992, p. 4) How should we interpret such a statement otherwise than that Msgr. Guerra was afraid of being contradicted by Heaven’s messenger!

(1) We have quoted brief extracts from Fr. Jongen’s three articles, “En visite chez Lucia”, published in the journal Médiatrice et Reine, May 1946, p. 7-12; July 1946, p. 32-35; October 1946, p. 110-112.
(2) “Brouillard sur Fatima”, Standaard van Maria, 1946, p. 177-191; 234-241; 253-261.
(3) At least in the set of her letters which were published up to this year 2003 in which we write.
(4) Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(5) Martins dos Reis, Uma vida ao serviço de Fatima, Porto, 1973, p. 371 sq. We note that the publication of various extracts from one of Lucy’s letters on the Rosary, in the Jesuit journal Magnificat of October 1971, a letter dated September 16, 1970 and addressed to Mother Maria José Martins, a former companion of hers in the Dorothean novitiate, alarmed the Lisbon nunciature, whose reaction provoked a great disturbance in the Dorothean Congregation and in the Coimbra Carmel (ibid., p. 147 sq.). So where was the crime?
(6) Quoted by Father Pasquale in the booklet Mensageira de Jesus para o consagraçao do mundo ao Imaculado Coraçao de Maria, Cavaleiro da Imaculado, 1980.
(7) Toute la vérité sur Fatima, vol. 2, p. 467.
(8) Supra, p. 425.
(9) Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(10) Cf. “Les demandes de Notre-Dame de Fatima occultées”, CRC no. 261, February 1990, p. 7.
(11) Letter from the Abbé Caillon to John Paul II dated February 13, 1987. Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart.
(12) “La Consagracion de Rusia al Inmaculado Corazon de Maria”, Estudios marianos, vol. LI, 1986, p. 285.
(13) The Abbé Caillon, who was present at this conversation, reported Maria do Fetal’s statements in a letter to Brother Michel de la Sainte Trinité on September 29, 1986. Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(14) Laurentin, Multiplication des apparitions de la Vierge aujourd’hui, Fayard, 1988, p. 45.
(15) This reply of John Paul II’s to Cardinal Gagnon was reported by the Abbé Caillon in person to Brother Michel on September 5, 1986.
(16) Letter of Mercedes Rivara to Sister Mary Angelica of the Cross, August 2, 1990. Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(17) Caillon, “La pensée de soeur Lucie sur la consécration de la Russie”, L’Appel de Notre-Dame, no. 128, October 1987.
(18) Fr. Philip Bourret SJ, who accompanied Cardinal Law to the Coimbra Carmel, reported the seer’s words to one of our correspondents in the course of a telephone conversation on December 4, 1990, the transcript of which was published in the CRC no. 269, December 1990, p. 1-3.
(19) Message to the pilgrims of Fatima, May 13, 1990. Voz da Fatima, June 13, 1990, p. 7.
(20) No. 177, June 1989.
(21) Cf. Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, Fatima, joie intime, événement mondial, 2^nd edition, CRC, 1993, chapter 16.
(22) We questioned Mrs. Olga do Cadaval on February 22, 1993 in Coimbra and, three days later, in Sintra; Mrs. Eugenia Pestana and her daughter, Maria das Dores on June 15 and 19, 1999 in Porto, and Maria das Dores again on February 19, 2003; Father José dos Santos Valinho on June 16 and 19, 1999 in Porto and on February 20, 2003 in Gomores; and Father Messias Coelho on June 17 and 19, 1999 in Guarda.
(23) Postcard addressed to M.-F. Fouré in December 1992. Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection. According to the multilingual Mrs. Olga do Cadaval, who helped Sister Lucy in her correspondence for more than twenty years, it was the seer herself who typed this reply. On February 25, 1993 Mrs. do Cadaval informed us: «In the file of letters addressed to Lucy, which I translated yesterday, no one asked her about the consecration of Russia. But in the previous file, two correspondents questioned her on this subject. Sometimes it is bishops and often it is Americans who are concerned about the consecration. As for me, I translate Lucy’s reply on a sheet of paper, namely that “the consecration is done”. Lucy takes my sheet and slips it in the envelope with her card.»
(24) Letter from the Abbé Caillon to Maurice Odin, March 8, 1990. Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(25) At Fatima, during the summer of 1988, in the presence of several witnesses, Father Messias Coelho informed Mr. Arai Daniele of these Vatican instructions, and he in turn informed me of them in a letter dated November 7, 1990, ibid.
(26) Circular letter from the Abbé Caillon dated the second fortnight in March 1990, ibid.
(27) We learned this through a private correspondent on October 27, 1900, ibid.
(28) Letter from Arai Daniele of November 7, 1990. Ibid.
(29) D. C., 2000, p. 673.
(30) The originals of these letters, kept in the archives of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima, bear the signature of Sister Lucy, written in blue ballpoint pen.
(31) CRC no. 257, October-November 1989, p. 3.
(32) Archives of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima.
(33) Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(34) CRC no. 260, January 1990, p. 4.
(35) Although this letter to the Rector is dated November 15, 1989, its post-scriptum announces the mailing, in the same post, of a copy of a letter to Father Kramer dated November 21, 1989!
(36) Archives of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima.
(37) Quoted in CRC no. 274, June 1991, p. 9.
(38) CRC no. 260, January 1990, p. 3.
(39) To better understand her mission, let us recall Sister Lucy’s words to Father Jongen: Our Lady does not ask me to «propagate the devotion of reparation, but rather to reveal it», i.e. to make it known to the hierarchy (Médiatrice et Reine, May 1946, p. 12).
(40) Mémoires de soeur Lucie, p. 156.
(41) CRC no. 269, p. 2 and 4.
(42) Ibid., p. 3.
(43) Toute la vérité sur Fatima, vol. 2, p. 400.
(44) Letter to Maria Teresa da Cunha of April 12, 1970, Martins dos Reis, op. cit., p. 371.
(45) Archives of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima.
(46) Archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection.
(47) Cf. Voz da Fatima, May 13, 1984, p. 2.
(48) Les voyants de Fatima, 1994, no. 5-6, p. 7.
(49) CRC no. 268, October 1990, p. 8.
(50) “Vraie Lucie, faux témoins”, CRC no. 286, November 1992, p. 3.
(51) “Une fausse Lucie substituée à la vraie?”, CRC no. 285, October 1992, p. 1-2; 27-28.
(52) CRC no. 286, p. 5.
(53) The first conversation, of October 11, 1992, was not recorded either in audio or video. As for the video recording of the second conversation, that of October 11, 1993, Carlos Evaristo has always refused to communicate it to people, like Father Luciano Cristino, the archivist of the Fatima Sanctuary, who wished to check whether the alleged accounts reported Sister Lucy’s exact answers.
(54) CRC no. 363, January 2000, p. 14.
(55) “Menace sur Fatima”, CRC no. 344, March 1998, p. 3-8.
(56) Conversation with the Mother Prioress, O Jornal of May 10, 1991.
(57) CRC no. 286, p. 9.
(58) Mémoires de soeur Lucie, p. 199.
(59) Letter of April 16, 1989. Ibid., p. 227.
(60) Memorias da Irma Lucia, vol. 2, p. 89.
(61) Ibid., p. 125.

(1) The first of these letters was addressed to Maria de Belem, dated August 29, 1989 (cf. CRC no. 257, October 1989, p. 2); the second to Walter M. Noelker, dated November 8, 1989 (cf. CRC no. 264, May 1990, p. 8); the third to Reverend Father Paul Kramer, dated November 21, 1989 (cf. CRC no. 262, March 1990, p. 1-2); the fourth to Father Fox, dated July 3, 1990 (cf. CRC no. 268, October 1990, p. 13).
(2) Toute la vérité sur Fatima, vol. 3, p. 159.
(3) CRC no. 264, May 1990, p. 7-9.
(4) CRC no. 262, March 1990, p. 1-5.
(5) Cf. CRC no. 257. p. 2 and no. 260, p. 3.
(6) Haffert, Fatima, apostolat mondial, Téqui, 1982, p. 111-112.
(7) Richard, “Question cruciale”, L’Homme nouveau, June 18, 1978.
(8) Father Simonin, “Fatima à la lumière de l’histoire de la France et du Portugal”, Fatima 50, no. 37, May 13, 1970.
(9) Martins, Fatima et le Coeur de Marie, Téqui, 1984, p. 115.
(10) Alonso, Fatima ante la Esfinge, Sol de Fatima, 1979, p. 107.
(11) Ibid., p. 115.
(12) Supra, chapter 10.
(13) Supra, chapter 3.
(14) This was his only concern, so much so that he forgot to assure his correspondent of his prayers; this letter ends abruptly on this “yes”, which is not even followed by a courtesy formula!
(15) Here end the quotations from our article entitled “Quant aux lettres de soeur Lucie, ce sont des faux”, published in the CRC of May 1990 (no. 264, p. 8-9).
(16) We suspected this for several reasons. It is notable that one finds in “Lucy’s” letter to the Rev Fr. Paul Kramer, dated November 21, 1989, the same fallacious reasoning that Msgr. Guerra had personally developed in one of his articles. Cf. “La réponse du recteur à nos accusations”, CRC no. 288, January 1993, p. 20-23.
(17) CRC no. 285, October 1992, p. 27; no. 286, November 1992, p. 10.