He is risen !

N° 217 – January 2021

Director : Frère Bruno Bonnet-Eymard

They Assassinated Him! 
The documents published by Stephania Falasca,  vice-postulator of his cause, confirm this.

THE book Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte; Pope Luciani, Chronicle of a Death (ed. Piemme, 2017, 250 pages), by Stefania Falasca, lay vice-postulator of John Paul I’s cause of canonisation, is not the great work on “the first martyred Pope of the modern capitalist era,” (Georges de Nantes), which could be expected from the vice-postulator who has access to all the unpublished documents contained in the canonisation process.

There are the depositions of very numerous witnesses but also 3,600 pages of the Positio super virtutibus.

Failing to comply with the elementary laws of historical criticism, Stefania Falasca disregards the secret investigation conducted for three years by David Yallop, who published the results in his book In God’s Name, in 1984 (ed. Christian Bourgois, 434 pages).

In it, the English investigator denounced the conspiracy of Italian mafiosi and corrupt Vatican prelates, among them Bishop Marcinkus, whom John Paul I wanted to dismiss.

Seeing that they were jeopardised, they had to act more rapidly than him: the Holy Father died of this, murdered by poisoning, on the night of 28th to 29th September 1978, thirty-three days after his election. Our Father, Georges de Nantes, showed the decisive character of Yallop’s demonstration in two fascinating articles recounting the precise circumstances of the murder: “This experienced investigator denounces the six presumed instigators or perpetrators of this crime who, moreover, were also bound up in a tissue of other financial or sordid crimes both before and after. He determines their motives, and then minutely reconstitutes, in an amazing manner, the activity of Cardinal Jean Villot, Secretary of State, during the twelve hours following the crime to make it look like a natural death.”

Stefania Falasca does not examine Yallop’s published testimonies or his arguments, but describes his work as a bad noir novel, and claims to prove with hitherto unpublished documents that the Pope’s death was “natural.” This is the whole purpose of her book, for which Cardinal Parolin, Secretary of State, has written a glowing preface.

Its publication is part of an intoxication campaign now sponsored by the Cardinal, President of the John Paul I Vatican Foundation. Established last February, the Foundation’s existence is, in reality, only a façade for the media, the purpose of which is to mislead the public about the circumstances and the real reasons for the death of the martyred Pope. However, blinded by her preconceived ideas, the Vice-Postulator does not realise the significance of some of the documents that she has published.

We will show that they confirm what she claims to deny, namely that the holy Pope John Paul I was poisoned by a criminal hand. Thanks to her book, we will be able to complete David Yallop’s implacable demonstration.

In fact, Yallop had shown that the perpetrators of the assassination had organised everything to ensure that the murder would be “committed by stealth in such a manner that there was a reasonable chance that the death would appear natural.” As for the poison once administered, it had to leave “no tell-tale external signs.”

Nevertheless, “whoever decided to murder the Pope in such a manner would have to have an intimate and thorough knowledge of Vatican procedures.” There, however, was a difficulty that remained an enigma. Since the Holy Father’s entourage was very small, how could a criminal hand have poured or introduced a dose of deadly poison into his food? This seemed inconceivable. For no one could enter the papal apartments guarded day and night by soldiers of the Pontifical Swiss Guard! Who could have materially poisoned him? Or be the accomplice of the killer? One of his closest collaborators? No one dared to formulate such a suspicion.

Falasca’s book will put us on the trail of one of the criminals. We now know who, in the Pope’s close entourage, was directly involved in the crime.


Let us enter the Holy Father’s private apartments on the third floor of the Apostolic Palace, to discover his immediate surroundings. This will allow us to relive the dramatic days of September 28 and 29, 1978 and to understand the role that each one played.

During the first days of the pontificate, John Paul I was assisted by Paul VI’s private secretary, Msgr. Pasquale Macchi. He had become a close friend of Bishop Montini in Milan in 1955: he was part of that strange, not to say scandalous, milieu that the future Pope frequented when he was Archbishop of that city. “A circle of artists, writers and actors, with whom Paul VI always kept in touch. An ominous character hung around on the fringes of this circle, a Sicilian transplant, named Michele Sindona. The Italian police would one day discover that he had links with the real Mafia and would involve the Vatican in a disastrous financial adventure from which the Holy See would emerge tarnished before the whole world.”

Paul VI’s other secretary, Father John Magee, an Irishman, had also been in contact with this Milanese Mafia, since he had been the secretary of Cardinal Sergio Pignedoli. The latter had begun his career in Milan, where Archbishop Montini had bid him to come. Montini later fell under his blackmail because of certain documents dating back to that time, which Pignedoli had in his possession.

Bishop Magee related the circumstances in which John Paul I recruited him as secretary. Two days after his election to the See of Peter, on Monday 28, August, the Holy Father met him in the papal apartments and asked him to go fetch him a coffee; the same thing happened the next day, and it was then that John Paul I officially appointed him as his private secretary.

The Holy Father also kept with him Diego Lorenzi, a priest from Don Orione’s Order, who was already his secretary in Venice. Cardinal Luciani had recruited him in October 1976, at the request of his superior, who was unable to find an obedience for him because his character was so difficult! During the thirty-three days of his pontificate, many people noticed that Don Lorenzi was really out of place in this position, for all sorts of reasons. In fact, John Paul I had planned to replace him as soon as possible. Testimonies abound on this subject.

Already in Venice, Don Lorenzi was jealous of the nuns who were in the service of the Patriarch, complaining that he was limited to just “typing. The Cardinal does not confide in me. He talks more to the sisters who cook than to me!

As in the bishop’s palace of Vittorio Veneto, and later in Venice, John Paul I called the Sisters of Charity, known as Maria Bambina, to the Vatican for the service and assistance of the Papal Apartments.

Falasca publishes the long deposition of one of these nuns, Sister Margherita Marin, who was thirty-eight years old in 1978, and who was interrogated on May 12, 2009. We are going to quote some excerpts from it. On the one hand, you will admire the attachment and devotion of these nuns to the Holy Father and, on the other hand, the piety, simplicity and evangelical spirit of John Paul I.

“I looked after his wardrobe and the sacristy in particular, but I also provided other services when needed. Sister Cecilia was the cook, Sister Vincenza the nurse, while Sister Elena coordinated our work and led our group. Sister Vincenza was the oldest, she had known the Holy Father for many years and she was the only one of the nuns who assisted him in Venice to follow him to the Vatican.

“There he welcomed us with simplicity, telling us to pray, because the Lord had given him a heavy burden to carry, but with His help and the prayers of all, he would bear it. He sent us to close Paul VI’s private chapel, which he used to celebrate Mass with his secretaries, because he, John Paul I, wanted morning Holy Mass to be celebrated in the small private chapel inside the apartments, and that we sisters should attend with his secretaries: “We are a family and we will celebrate Mass together,” he told us.

“In addition to the two secretaries, who had their rooms on the upper floor in the papal apartments, there was Angelo Gogel, who lived with his family outside the Vatican, but who stayed all day in the apartments and waited at table. The Holy Father had known him for a very long time: when he was Bishop of Vittorio Veneto, he had helped him obtain the position of Vatican employee and, after his election, he immediately called him to his service.

“The day was very busy because everyone had their task to accomplish. There was so much to do to put the apartments left by Paul VI in order.

“The Holy Father got up early, around 5 o’clock. He began the day by devoting a lot of time to personal prayer. At about 5:30 a.m. he would enter the small chapel and stay there for more than an hour and a half. He remained absorbed in his prayer. We sisters would always stay there near the chapel and we could see him praying. He always prayed alone, the secretaries would come down later for Mass which was celebrated every morning at 7 o’clock. While the Holy Father was in the chapel, we, the sisters, at about 6:30 a.m., we recited Lauds in the small sitting room, next to the kitchen, and then we also went to the chapel for Mass. The Holy Father respected the Eucharistic fast and he only had breakfast after Mass. Sister Vincenza would attend if necessary.

“Before dinner, he always recited Vespers with his secretaries, and often he recited it in English.

“After dinner, he would say Compline with them and while we were still clearing the refectory, he would come to give us his regards. That is what he did every evening. I remember that he would always recommend that we pray for all those in the world who need prayer, and he would always ask me something related to the preparation of the liturgy for the following day. Then he would wish us a good evening, taking leave of us each time with these same words: “I’ll see you tomorrow, Sisters, if the Lord wills it, we will celebrate Mass together.”

I always saw him calm, serene. In prayer you could see how united he was with the Lord. He knew how to treat his co-workers with great respect and humility, and he apologised, fearing that he was disturbing them. I never ever saw him show signs of impatience with anyone. He gave us courage. He was affable with everyone.

“As for his health, it was Sister Vincenza who attended to it. She paid attention to it. She knew and trusted his personal doctor, Doctor Da Ros, they used to speak on the phone. Doctor Buzzonetti, the Vatican doctor, also came to the apartments, but I don’t know if he visited her. Doctor Da Ros came three times for routine check-ups. After his last visit, on September 23, Sister Vincenza told us that the doctor found the Holy Father’s state of health to be good, and even very good, so much so that the doctor had even discontinued his medication. However, I cannot say what medicine he was taking or whether he was taking any others. Sister Vincenza told us nothing more.

« On the afternoon of September 28 he did not leave the apartments and received no one because, as he told us, he was preparing a document for the bishops. But I don’t know to which bishops it was addressed. I remember well because that afternoon I was busy ironing in the cloakroom, the door was open, and I could see him coming and going. He was walking around the apartments holding the pages that he was reading. Every now and then he would stop to make some corrections and then he resumed his walking. As he read and walked, he would pass by where I was.

“I remember him seeing me ironing and he said: ‘Sister, I give you too much work. Don’t bother ironing the shirt with so much effort, because it’s hot, I sweat and I have to change it often. Just iron the collar and cuffs, because the rest of the shirt doesn’t show through, you know.’ He said this to me in the Venetian dialect, as he used to do when he spoke to us.”

On September 28, after Compline, as every evening, the Holy Father came to say good night to the nuns.

Then, “Father Magee stayed to talk a little with us sisters. I remember that he had in his hands the volume of the Pontifical Yearbook, no doubt he wanted to check something in it, and he began to read the list of the Popes: who they were, how long they had lived, etc. I remember this detail.”

Thus, just a few hours before the death of John Paul I, at the end of only one month of his reign, his secretary asked about the length of the pontificates in the history of the Church.

One of our brothers, reading over my shoulder, insinuates to me: “It is amazing. For Magee, John Paul I was already dead. He was looking to see if there had ever been such a short pontificate.”


“On Friday 29, September,” related Sister Margherita Marin, “I got up as usual around 5 a.m., because at 5:30 the groceries and the flowers that we had ordered would be delivered and placed in front of the lift. So that morning I went to pick up everything and after putting the delivery away I went to pray with the other sisters. The apartments are so small that we could see everything that the others were doing, even though we had different jobs. To pray, there was enough room for the four of us in the small room next to the kitchen.

“Around 5:15 a.m., as every morning, Sister Vincenza prepared a small cup of coffee for the Holy Father in the sacristy, near the Pope’s apartments, in front of the chapel. The Holy Father, on leaving his room, used to have his coffee in the sacristy before entering the chapel to pray.

“That morning, however, the coffee remained there. After ten minutes, Sister Vincenza said: ‘He hasn’t come out yet? Why not?’ I was there, in the corridor. So I saw her knock [at his door] once, then she knocked again, he didn’t answer.... Still silence.

“So she opened the door.” She found him dead.

“Sister Vincenza went immediately to call Father Magee and I went to wake up Don Diego. We recited a prayer and then Father Magee went to call the Vatican doctor.

“Doctor Buzzonetti came almost immediately. I saw Cardinals Villot and Poletti arrive.

“We were not present when the doctor made his report because we left the room. We were not involved in preparing the body for burial, neither Sister Vincenza nor any of us.”

So the nuns did not hear what Father Magee said to Doctor Buzzonetti at the time. Yet what he said, we will give proof, was an enormous lie to make him believe that the death of John Paul I had been natural.

The secretary then had to leave the Vatican very quickly, as he himself recounts: Cardinal Villot gave him twelve hours, not a second more, to pack his bags and leave!

A few days later, he left Rome, fleeing by plane to take refuge in his sister’s home in England.

Stefania Falasca gives us the reason for this by repeating some snippets of his statement:

Things were starting to go wrong for me,” the secretary said. “I too [sic] was accused of having killed the Pope with a cup of coffee.

The morning after his funeral, I felt bad. The superior [of the nuns] came in and said to me: This morning someone from the Vatican identified you as the Pope’s assassin.’

Father Magee had seen this Vatican official who accused him:

There was a large primary school next door [to the convent where I had breakfast] and, among a group of parents, a father who worked in the Vatican. I noticed that he was pointing his finger at me.

The news had spread that I was the murderer of Pope Luciani.

I asked someone from the Secretariat of State to reserve a flight and I left Italy. I went to England to stay with my sister in Liverpool.

The day after I arrived she came into my room with a cup of tea on a tray and a local newspaper called Liverpool Echo. She looked me straight in the face and said: John, how could you have done that?

“ ‘Done what?’ I replied.

On the front page, one could read: Doubts about the death of Pope Luciani. Interpol is looking for his secretary.

I stayed there for ten days and then I went back to Rome.”

He returned there when the requests to obtain an autopsy of the deceased had been definitively rejected, an autopsy that would have revealed the toxic substance which had poisoned the Holy Father. By the time he arrived in Rome, John Paul I had already been forgotten; everyone’s mind was occupied with the election of his successor, as the conclave was opening.

From the first days of his pontificate, John Paul II protected those suspected of having murdered his predecessor. Thus Father Magee was recalled to the Vatican.

The new Pope said to me: Now you stay with me.’ This was his first appointment. ‘You have to stay with me, to show the world that this accusation of murdering Pope Luciani that has been brought against you is absolutely false. If you stand by my side, no one will be able to say anything.’

“The first time I went out to go to the third floor, I saw that man again who pointed to me as the murderer. I forgave him, even though it made me suffer a lot.” 

As John Paul II did not want to carry out any investigation to find out the whole truth about the circumstances of his predecessor’s death, Father Magee’s lie, uttered in front of the deceased’s bed to deceive Doctor Buzzonetti, remained unknown. Today we can bring it out of the darkness and into the full light, thanks to the documents published by Falasca.


Early in the morning of September 29, 1978, when Doctor Renato Buzzonetti arrived in the dead man’s room, the nuns having left it, John Magee told him that the day before, during Compline, the Pope had felt a sharp pain in his chest. And the doctor noted this in his Report on the Death Certificate, dated October 9, 1978, which remained secret until the publication of his facsimile by Falasca, in her book Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte.

This Report may make an impression on the uninformed reader. As a whole, it seems serious and well argued.

However, it does not give any decisive elements to presume a heart attack, except for the chest pain on September 28.

Stefania Falasca sees in this malaise a proof – the proof! – that John Paul I did indeed die of a myocardial infarction. There is no longer grounds for dispute! For, “an experienced doctor must base his diagnostic presupposition on the accounts of those who had contact with the patient during the last moments of his life.” It was Professor Mario Fontana, the other Vatican doctor, who noted this in his Report of October 10, 1978.

Well, let us put it bluntly: this alleged chest pain was a monstrous lie that the secretary told right from the dawn of September 29, 1978. If he lied, it was because it was necessary for him to do so. He wanted to conceal something, namely the assassination of John Paul I by poisoning. It was he who had been instructed “to make it look like heart attack.”

The lie, however, was and remains so monstrous that for years Father Magee never spoke about it publicly. Well-informed people, the nuns in particular, would have immediately denied it, and in fact, there were denials when, later on, Bishop Magee spoke of it, insofar as the witnesses were still alive.

We affirm that this is a lie because the testimonies about this alleged malaise are very discordant. In each of his successive statements, Bishop Magee gave different versions. Furthermore, both secretaries were contradicted by Sister Margherita Marin and by the Pope’s personal physician, Doctor Antonio Da Ros, as well as indirectly by Sister Vincenza Taffarel who died in 1984.

The variance is so blatant that, at times, Falasca herself seems to doubt the fact, since she writes: “A possible [sic] malaise that occurred between 7:30 and 8 p.m. was reported the next day (September 29) by Secretary Magee to Doctor Buzzonetti, who mentioned it in the Report regarding the death certificate, which remained confidential because of professional secrecy.”

During his deposition at the canonisation process, “on February 28, 2013, Doctor Buzzonetti further specified: Father Magee, beside the bed of the deceased, reported to me that at about 7:30 p.m. the Holy Father

1 – placed his hand several times on his chest,

2 – he had a rather strong retrosternal pain,

3 – without being accompanied by shortness of breath,

4 – it lasted more than 5 minutes,

5 – it passed without therapy,

6 – while he was sitting, busy reciting Compline with Secretary Magee.

7 – The Pope refused the recourse to the Vatican’s on-call doctor, saying that these were quite frequent painful episodes for him and that he labelled them rheumatic in nature.’ ”

Quite frequent painful episodes... That is news to us! Falasca devotes a chapter to Albino Luciani’s medical history and not once is there any mention of those so-called ‘chest pains labelled by Luciani as rheumatic in nature.’

As an hour of discomfort, Father Magee gave in his first account “around 7.30 p.m., during Compline.” It should be noted that at 7:30 p.m. the Pope and his secretaries did not chant Compline, but Vespers.

Later, in 1988, when he spoke about it publicly for the first time, in an interview with Trente Jours, he gave a completely different time, as Falasca herself reports: “Father Magee then situates the malaise in the early afternoon:

I was in the private secretary’s office a few steps from the sitting room. At one point I heard the voice of the Holy Father calling me. I rushed over and found the Holy Father motionless near the desk, with one hand on his chest. He told me he had a pain in his chest and asked me to call Sister Vincenza, the nurse, because according to him she had miracle cures. Sister Vincenza arrived with the medicine and a glass of water. The Pope took it and I accompanied him to his room to rest a little.

Afterwards I spoke about it with Don Diego Lorenzi, who was just coming back from outside. I told him that I intended to call the doctor, but he told me that the Holy Father wouldn’t have wanted me to. It was then that he called me to tell me that the pain had passed and that he felt ready to receive Cardinal Villot.”

Bishop Magee’s variations on the time of the alleged pain are one of the many clues that he is inventing: in 1988, he could no longer remember precisely what he had told Doctor Buzzonetti ten years earlier, in front of the deceased!

Moreover, Bishop Magee is the only one who has ever spoken of this “miracle cure” medicine that Sister Vincenza purportedly had the habit of giving to him.

Later, in his conference on September 27, 2008, in Canale d’Agordo, the secretary presented a new, more developed version of the alleged medicine, which is no longer swallowed with a glass of water: “Sister Vincenza arrived immediately with a medicine that you put under your tongue. And before the interview with Cardinal Villot, I asked the Pope: “Holiness, how do you feel?” And he, with his two clenched fists, struck his chest three times and said: “I feel really well, Sister Vincenza’s medicine works miracles. Sister Vincenza has always done well.” Again, after Cardinal Villot’s visit, I asked the Pope how he felt. He replied: “Very well, this medicine of Sister Vincenza is really good.”

Furthermore, Don Lorenzi also spoke of this alleged pain: he, very late, ten years after the Pope’s death. He gave another version of the discomfort, at a different time from Magee’s! Speaking about this alleged pain for the first time on October 2, 1987, during a live television broadcast on Rai Due Giallo, he claimed that it had taken place during dinner. Lina Petri, the Pope’s niece commented that this pain is “a fine novelty. Her surprise and scepticism were all the greater because Lina Petri was a doctor and had studied and retraced all her uncle’s medical history.

Lorenzi took up his version again in the year 2000, in the Messaggi di don Orione: “At about 8 p.m., the Pope, Father Magee and I sat down to dinner. Suddenly the Pope put his hand to his chest and said: ‘I feel twinges, but they are passing.’ Our immediate reaction was to say: ‘There is a doctor who is easy to reach, we call him.’ He replied, however: ‘It’s passing, it’s not worth it.’ ” Contrary to what Magee related, nothing is said here about a medicine!


When asked about this alleged malaise, Sister Margherita Marin formally contradicted the two secretaries:

Did Sister Vincenza, who was a nurse, not show concern about the Pope’s state of health?

No. I never saw her preoccupied. If there had been something, we would have seen her concerned, but she wasn’t. On the contrary, she was very happy, because during his last visit the doctor had told her that the Holy Father was well, and for this reason she was serene. At the Vatican I didn’t see the Pope complain of any pain, not even a headache, nor did I notice any sign of particular weakness or tiredness.”

Do you remember if on the afternoon of September 28 the Holy Father suffered any illness and if Sister Vincenza was called by Father Magee to bring medicine to the Pope?

No. I saw nothing of the sort, and it seems to me that Sister Vincenza didn’t either.

Did you see or know if that evening, shortly before dinner, during or after, John Paul I felt any pain?

No. I didn’t see any particular agitation on the part of Sister Vincenza or on the part of the secretaries, which could have aroused any suspicion on my part. At dinner Angelo was present, serving at the table as usual.” Angelo did not see anything either.

The slightest concern on the part of Sister Vincenza would not have gone unnoticed in the eyes of the Sisters,” Sister Margherita Marin also pointed out.

Speaking to the close relatives of John Paul I on October 2, 1978, Sister Vincenza told them: “The Holy Father had no health problems either on the eve of his death or before.”

On September 29, while crying with Lina Petri, Sister Vincenza told her that her uncle during those thirty-three days “felt good. For his health, he was better off in Rome than in Venice, where the humidity did not suit him. The same testimony was given by Edoardo Luciani, who went to visit his brother in the Vatican several times.

Doctor Antonio Da Ros spoke with Pope John Paul I a few hours before his death on the evening of September 28. For fifteen years he evaded the harassment of journalists. It was finally in response to the lies of the two secretaries, precisely about this pain, that the doctor came out of his reserve in 1993, giving a first interview to the magazine Trente Jours. He gave a second one, ten years later; both were with the same journalist, Andrea Tornielli, and published in Il Giornale. We have combined them to form a single text.


Question: Doctor da Ros, when did you visit Pope Luciani?

Antonio Da Ros: I saw him on Sunday, September 3, the day of the solemn commencement of the papacy, after the audience granted to the pilgrims of Vittorio Veneto. I saw him, I took his blood pressure and gave him a routine check-up. Then I returned to the Vatican on Wednesday, September 13. After my visit I took part in the general audience and I believe I can be seen on the television pictures, as some of my patients recognised me and understood why I was away from my surgery. I visited him for the third and last time on Saturday, September 23, and the Pope made me stay for breakfast. I have some precise notes concerning this, but it should also be included in the Vatican’s own records, for a car had come to fetch me at Fiumicino airport to take me to the papal apartments.

Question: Three visits in the space of a month. And the last was mentioned by the Pope in person when, on September 28, he confided to Sister Vincenza: Doctor Da Ros was here on Saturday afternoon. He told me that my heart is fine.” Perhaps something about his state of health was of concern to you?

Antonio Da Ros: I did not visit him on three occasions because he was ill. It was simply routine. From his time at Vittorio Veneto, I used to examine him once a week.

Question: You claim that you communicated with the papal apartments by phone on the evening that Luciani died. And yet Don Diego Lorenzi, the Pope’s secretary, has ruled out the idea that on the evening of September 28 any doctors had been called, either from within or without the Vatican?

Antonio Da Ros: One can only deny having telephoned me. For no one did call me. It is I who phoned the Vatican. From time to time, I used to phone to see ask after his health. That evening also I asked how the Pope was, how he had spent the day, whether there were any problems.

Question: At what time did you call the Pope’s apartments?

Antonio Da Ros: I remember that on that evening I had to be at a meeting. It must have been at about 9 p.m. I chatted with the Pope, but I also spoke to Sister Vincenza Taffarel, who was the Holy Father’s nurse and looked after him.

Question: How did you find Pope Luciani? Was there anything to indicate that he would die two hours later?

Antonio Da Ros: No absolutely nothing. The Pope was calm. Everything was normal. Even Sister Vincenza did not speak to me of any particular problems. She told me that the Pope had passed the day as usual. We agreed that my next visit would be on the following Wednesday.

Question: Later, during a television programme, the Pope’s secretary revealed that John Paul I had felt a strong pain in the chest in the late afternoon, a symptom of a heart attack or, at least, of a serious pathology. Is it true that no one told you about it on the phone that evening?

Antonio Da Ros: I was truly surprised, not to say stunned, when I heard Don Diego’s statements. That evening no one spoke to me about such symptoms: neither the Pope nor Sister Vincenza who, I repeat, was a nurse. If the Pope had been ill, she would certainly have informed me. The Pope had had a busy day of work as usual, just like in Venice.

30 Days: What about the rumours from authorised sources in the Curia and spread by the Italian journalist and theologian Giovanni Gennari according to which the Pope was prescribed drugs, the Vatican pharmacy had to be opened up as a matter of urgency and Luciani died because of a dosage error?

Antonio Da Ros: It is one of those lies fabricated around the death of John Paul I. That evening I prescribed him absolutely nothing. I had seen him five days earlier and I considered him to be well. I gave him a phone call, but it was a routine call, and no one called me. I did not immediately think to ask the SIP (Italian telephone company, ed.) for an itemised list of calls which would have shown that the call to Rome originated in Vittorio Veneto and not the other way round.

30 Days: So, in your opinion, there was nothing to indicate the premature death of John Paul I?

Antonio Da Ros: He was in good health.

30 Days: In your opinion, what caused his death?

Antonio Da Ros: I am sorry, but for reasons of professional ethics I have no wish to enter into the details of the Pope’s health. I have simply stated the dates of my visits and spoken of my phone call that evening, for over these last few years too many lies have been written.”

Doctor Da Ros repeated his assertions on June 6, 2005 during the diocesan trial: on the evening of September 28, Sister Vincenza had told him “that the Pope was well despite a busy day and that there was nothing new. Once again to Ivan Marsura, historian, on May 30, 2010: “I am convinced that if Sister Vincenza had known something, she would not have hidden it from me.”

The Vice-Postulator was careful not to quote the two interviews with Doctor Da Ros. On the other hand, she fills pages and pages with the research and discussions of Doctors Buzzonetti, Fontana, Rama and Doctor Lina Petri to determine what kind of “natural death” John Paul I may have experienced: heart attack, pulmonary embolism, etc. Professor Giovanni Rama reproaches Yallop for having extrapolated from his medical remarks, because the professor does not dare to consider that there could have been an assassination in the papal apartments. This seems unimaginable to him.

If, however, Father Magee lied from the outset, at dawn on September 29, to mask the real reasons for the Holy Father’s death, as we have shown, then these discussions about any kind of natural death are totally irrelevant! Falasca only uses them to mislead and deceive her readers.


Don Diego Lorenzi also invented stories, but not immediately after the death of John Paul I. He lied later, from 1987 onwards. Under what pressure? Under what threats? Will this ever be known?

Let us concern ourselves here with the events of the evening of September 28, 1978.

Don Lorenzi claimed that he stayed in the Vatican after the Pope’s telephone call with Cardinal Colombo, even though he went out in Rome until after midnight. It is Falasca herself who noted this: “Don Lorenzi said in various speeches: ‘The next morning I should have gone to the Veneto to celebrate a wedding, and so I used that moment of calm [in the evening, after dinner] to prepare some notes for a sermon.”

“We know, however,” she comments, “that Don Lorenzi left the apartments immediately after having put Cardinal Colombo’s phone call through to the Pope.” We learn this from the testimony of Sister Margherita Marin: “After dinner Don Diego left the apartments. He had already left on other occasions.” Angelo Gugel, in the service of John Paul I in the papal apartments, confirmed this evening out to the recorder of the Cause of Canonisation on October 28, 2012. We also know this from Amalia, the Pope’s niece: “That evening he had gone out with friends.” Also by Lina Petri, who had learned from Bishop Giulio Nicolini that “everyone knew that on the evening of September 28, when the Pope died, Don Diego was not in the Vatican, but outside with friends


To give more weight to the alleged malaise, the two secretaries said that they had escorted the Pope back to his room that evening. Once again their accounts differed widely.

Falasca writes: “Archbishop Magee claims to have accompanied the Pope alone to his room: ‘I asked Sister Vincenza again how the Holy Father was and she told me that on other occasions he had felt bad, but that thanks to this medicine he was fine, so I said: But if he feels bad during the night we have the alarm, he only has to press a button. And I explained and showed the Pope where he should call me.’ ”

As for Don Lorenzi, who was actually outside the Vatican at the time, he stated in his deposition at the canonisation process: “After the Pope’s last conversation [with Cardinal Colombo], Father Magee and I accompanied him to his room and Father Magee showed him a small switch at the head of his bed so that he could call if necessary. The Pope accepted the indication and wished us a good night.”

Against the false accounts of the two secretaries, we put forward the testimony of Sister Margherita Marin who “denies all these divergent accounts and affirms that ‘the Pope went to sleep as usual.’

“ ‘As usual, without his secretaries?’

“ ‘He retired as usual, he didn’t need to be accompanied. I can still remember one detail about that moment: we sisters were all together in the small sitting room with the door open, the door was just opposite the door of his private study [adjoining his bedroom] and when, after greeting us, the Holy Father was at the door of his study, he turned around again and, smiling, with a wave of his hand he greeted us again... It seems to me that I can still see him there at the door. This is the last image I have of him.’ ”

Contrary to the depositions of the two secretaries, the testimony of the nuns exudes truth and shows a touching affection for the Holy Father.


Let us recapitulate the facts that we have established. John Paul I was in good health during the thirty-three days of his pontificate. This has been attested by his personal doctor. Moreover, it was obvious: those who met him noticed it and said so; we have published testimonies of this in John-Paul I, the Pope of the Secret.

Accused by a Vatican employee of poisoning him with a cup of coffee, Father Magee found himself caught out and fled to England. This in no way cleared him of the grave suspicions that weighed against him. On the contrary!

The alleged chest pain, the great argument for presuming a heart attack, was one of his lies, on the very morning of the death of the Holy Pontiff, to mask the real reason for his death.

Thus, the documentation published by Falasca strengthens our conviction that an assassination took place, even though she claims to deny this!

Yet if Father Magee was involved in the crime, it was certainly under pressure from those who were denounced by Yallop for having ordered the assassination. The secretary was only an unfortunate pawn in the conspiracy that the seasoned investigator perfectly revealed at the suggestion and even at the request of a Vatican official who deplored the fact that Pope John Paul II had done nothing to find the assassins, and investigate their trials. On the contrary, he protected them, reappointing Father Magee to his former position as secretary to the Pope to create a diversion, as we have seen!

During the reign of John Paul II, the wheeler-dealers and criminals continued their business in the Vatican, and with the Vatican, but we will deal with this further below.


Wanting to take the exact opposite position to Yallop’s, Falasca first of all completely disregards Albino Luciani’s moral integrity and his intransigence against any financial malpractice; secondly, the crimes of the swindlers to whom Pope Paul VI had handed over the Vatican bank: Monsignor Paul Marcinkus, Michele Sindona, Roberto Calvi, with the complicity of Cardinal Jean Villot.

As a result, there no longer exists any clash between John Paul I and these mafiosi! There is no longer a tragedy!


Father de Nantes wrote: “Having made a close study of the years of his episcopate, it must be recognise that Cardinal Luciani possessed heroic virtue, combining calm, placating wisdom, perfect self-control in filial obedience to the Pope, and firmness on all occasions when God’s rights were flouted and faith or morals shaken.”

Falasca is unaware of his firmness and his fortitude since she passes over in silence all the grave financial scandals that he was confronted with.

Yet they are related by his best biographers, such as Regina Kummer (Albino Luciani. Una vita per la Chiesa, ed. Messaggero Padova, 1988, 619 pages).

In 1962, Bishop Luciani suffered the most terrible ordeal of his episcopate in Vittorio Veneto, which foreshadowed those that he would face in Venice and, even more so, in the Vatican.

An unscrupulous businessman, Carlo Luigi Antoniutti, had used unsavoury methods to build up a financial empire in Treviso with its own “secret bank”: the funds he had borrowed were invested in shady deals and risky speculations. Now, two ecclesiastics from Vittorio Veneto, Don Cescou, the Vice-Director and Treasurer of the Diocesan Administrative Council, and Msgr. Stefani, a member of the same Administrative Council, had been taken in by his “lucrative” investment propositions and ended up being ensnared in his net. When they learned that Antoniutti had gone bankrupt, they attempted to bail his business out by drawing on the funds of the diocese. Just at this juncture, however, on June 17, 1962, Antoniutti died in mysterious circumstances: he had committed suicide in the home of one of his financial backers, Doctor Roberto Dacomo.

Informed of the compromising circumstances of his two priests, Bishop Luciani decided to act quickly: the diocese now had a deficit of 283 million lire and the anticlerical press was always on the lookout for scandal. The more one studies the young bishop’s reactions in these dramatic circumstances, the more one admires his integrity and steadfastness. He clearly saw where his duty lay and he was resolved to fulfil it. “He warned John XXIII twice,” reveals Father Saez, “that he would hand in his notice if he were not allowed to settle the matter as he intended. 

Bishop Luciani relieved the two ecclesiastics of their duties and dismissed them from Vittorio Veneto. He let them be prosecuted by the Italian legal system: Don Cescou was condemned to sixteen months in prison, on June 14, 1965. Nevertheless, Bishop Luciani sought to protect his two priests from public condemnation. He exhorted his diocese to practice Christian charity.

As for the material losses incurred by small savers through Antoniutti’s bankruptcy, Bishop Luciani wanted to compensate them: to this end he had to sell property belonging to the diocese, despite the murmurs of disapproval from certain members of his clergy. “He consulted canonical texts,” his brother Edoardo recounted, “and he saw that it was the Ordinary who had to take the decision, in other words the bishop. Then he called his priests together and told them, ‘It is for me to decide,’ and he made his decision.”

Thus, throughout this drama, Bishop Luciani revealed himself to be a real man of government. Clearly his predecessor on the episcopal see of Vittorio Veneto, Bishop Carraro, had not been mistaken when he declared to the members of his diocesan curia: “When necessary, Don Luciani knows how to be strong and resolute… You’ll see.” 


In those years, the young bishop of Vittorio Veneto took part in the Second Vatican Council. He only wanted to see in the aggiornamento of the Church, decided by John XXIII to adapt it to the modern world, a traditional reform, in capite et in membris, in her Head and in her members, first of all for the correction of morals. This is how he interpreted it, firstly for himself and for his diocesan people, wanting to lead and promote a more evangelical, supernatural life, nourished by the grace of the sacraments, and poorer. In accordance with certain ideas of the philosopher Antonio Rosmini, which he made his own.

In fact, Father de Nantes remarked: “Rosmini wanted to see the Church poorer, her senior clergy less absorbed in the administration of financial wealth and less greedy for riches, the total independence of ecclesiastical nominations from temporal power, and, thus liberated, the episcopate restoring the sacerdotal state and awakening the apostolic zeal of priests towards their poor people, instead of confining themselves to a ministry directed towards the traditional circles of the aristocracy and the middle classes.

“The Church did not condemn Rosmini the pastor, the founder of a religious order and the reformer; it was the bad philosopher, the rationalist and the pantheist, whom he was, moreover, that the Church condemned, and it is precisely this side of Rosmini that the young Doctor of Theology, Albino Luciani, was to criticise fifty years later in line with the Catholic Magisterium.

“John Paul I loved poverty for himself and, what is even rarer, practised it. He also loved the poor and did not desire riches for them nor did he talk to them of the means to become rich. He suffered for them, however, and wanted the Church to practise evangelical charity in their regard.”


Having become Patriarch of Venice, Archbishop Luciani discovered to his horror the financial embezzlement in which the Vatican was implicated.

In fact, to support their charitable works and finance church restoration, the Venetian clergy used to obtain loans at very low interest rates from the Banca cattolica del Veneto, the Catholic Bank of Venetia. Well administered and with good reason nicknamed the ‘priests’ bank,’ it was one of the richest in the country, for where the priests banked, the parishioners followed.

Since 1946, the Institute for the Works of Religion (Istituto per le Opere di Religione – IOR), usually referred to as the Vatican Bank, had held a majority share in the capital of the Catholic Bank of Venetia. “A clear understanding existed between Venice and the Vatican,” writes David Yallop, “that the I.O.R.’s high shareholding (by 1972 it was 51 per cent) was an insurance against any potential takeover by a third party.”

However, by mid-1972 the low interest loans had ceased. The Venetian clergy were advised that in future they would have to pay the full rate of interest however praiseworthy their works might be. “For us,” related one elderly prelate, “it came like a bolt from the blue.”

Cardinal Luciani made some enquiries and learned that the Catholic Bank of Venetia had been sold by Bishop Paul Marcinkus, the President of the Vatican Bank, to a certain Roberto Calvi, a freemason, of the Banco Ambrosiano in Milan. “Profoundly indignant,” Father de Nantes wrote, “our saint went to voice his indignation in Rome where he found only the Substitute of the Secretariat of State, Cardinal Benelli, to share his grievance and assuage his anger.”

“Benelli told the wide-eyed Luciani: 1°– that Calvi had paid 27 billion lire (approximately $ 45 million) to Marcinkus; 2°– that the sale of the Catholic Bank of Venetia was the result of a scheme hatched jointly by Calvi, Sindona and Marcinkus, involving a company called Pacchetti which had been purchased by Calvi from Sindona after its price on the Milan stock exchange had been greatly overvalued, moreover, through illegal practices; 3°– that Marcinkus had assisted Calvi in concealing the nature of this and other operations from Bank of Italy officials by putting the Vatican bank facilities at the disposal of Calvi and Sindona.

“Luciani was completely stunned.

“ ‘What does all this mean?

“ ‘Tax evasion, illegal movement of shares,’ Benelli replied to him. I also believe that Marcinkus sold the shares in your Venice bank at a deliberately low price and Calvi paid the balance, a separate 31 billion lire deal on Credito Varesino. I think the real value Marcinkus put on this was in the region of 47 million dollars.’ ”

The Patriarch immediately went to ask Bishop Marcinkus for an explanation. “He received a very unfriendly welcome,” indicated Father Francesco Farusi, the then editor of the Vatican Radio newspaper.

“‘Tend to your faithful and not to the banks,’ the bishop was purported to have told him in an insolent tone.”

The Patriarch informed the bishops of Venetia of the unhappy outcome of his enquiry: their ‘priests’ bank’ was lost forever.

Don Ennio Innocenti, a contributor to the newspaper Il Gazzettino of Venice, remarked that the Patriarch judged the Institute for the Works of Religion very severely. Don Innocenti advised him that Bishop Marcinkus could not have sold the ‘priests’ bank’ without the backing of the Secretariat of State. The Patriarch would not forget this.

All these facts are completely overlooked, obscured by Falasca.

For our part, we heard the testimony of Madam Olga, Marquesa de Cadaval, of Venetian stock, a friend of John Paul I. We questioned her for two hours on February 23, 1993, in Sintra, in the presence of two friends, both members of our Third Order, the Phalange. We then learned that in the spring of 1977 Cardinal Luciani telephoned her to entrust her with the organisation of his pilgrimage to Fatima. “Eminence,” she replied, “I’m not qualified to take on that responsibility. You should get in touch with the Patriarch of Lisbon, or else approach the Vatican.”

The Cardinal stopped her: “Oh, no! That’s impossible!” Then he made this very impressive response: “I don’t want to have anything to do with the Vatican. The Devil is in the Vatican.”

During this meeting, the Marquise, measuring her words very carefully, never departed for a moment from her deference and great devotion for the Pope, for the Roman authorities and for the bishops. These words, reported spontaneously on two occasions in the course of the conversation, contrasted starkly, therefore, with the rest of what she told us.

If Cardinal Luciani was convinced that the Devil ruled in the Vatican, this was probably owing to his knowledge of the financial skulduggery of the Milanese mafia that was operating there with the complicity of its highest ranking authorities. Even more light is thrown on these words from the fact that, in Italy, Vatican money is nicknamed ‘lo sterco del diavolo, the Devil’s faeces.’


Since Falasca wants to ignore the scandalous financial affairs of the Vatican, as we have said, she chooses to overlook them completely! She mentions them only once in her book, on page 58, and see in what terms: “Even if a few years before Luciani had had to intervene in the affairs of the Banca cattolica del Veneto [for what reasons?], we do not know [say you do not want to know!] whether and to what extent he would really have been interested in the secondary problem of finances [No, for Luciani, it was not a secondary problem!], which, it must be stressed, already existed under the previous Pontiff and continued under his successor.” This financial problem existed before and after John Paul I without any clash, because his predecessor and successor were not saints! He, however, was determined to carry out the traditional reform to correct morals in capite et in membris, i.e., in the Church’s head and members, whatever it might cost him!

In 1978, when the Holy Pontiff ascended to the papal throne, the mafiosi who had been siphoning off funds from “Vatican Enterprise,” to deposit them in their own bank accounts were being tracked down by the international police and prosecuted by the Italian and American justice systems for theft, forgery, illegalities, crime and even for murders already committed under the cover of “Vatican Incorporated”.

“In August,” Father de Nantes wrote, “Roberto Calvi found himself hard pressed on all sides, his empire was crumbling, suspected and threatened. It was then that he felt the need for a change of air in South America where Licio Gelli was also in search of a little peace and quiet whilst their friend Michele Sindona, in a New York prison, was trembling at the prospect of an imminent extradition to be handed over to Italian justice.

“They had one point in common: as long as Bishop Marcinkus stayed at Vatican Enterprise, Inc., they could breathe. If he were to leave, for each of them, one way or another, it would mean a harsh return to reality: either ruin, prison, suicide, or these three calamities together.”

Yallop wrote: “When the Cardinals elected Albino Luciani to the Papacy on that hot August day in 1978, they set an honest, holy, totally incorruptible Pope on a collision course with Vatican Enterprise Inc.” A Pope who had not forgotten all that he had learned from his friend, Cardinal Benelli. 

“A collision was inevitable. Albino Luciani’s steadfast integrity was about to confront the irresistible market forces of the Vatican Bank,” which was controlled by Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, and Bishop Marcinkus, their accomplices Michele Sindona and Roberto Calvi, all members or associates of the ‘P2 Lodge,’ and their protector Licio Gelli, its Grand Master.

So when John Paul I decided to dismiss Bishop Marcinkus, they were lost. It was then that the plot to assassinate him was hatched. In dire straits, the Mafia decided to apply the ‘Italian solution’ to the Pope, immediately if they wanted to escape prison, violent death or forced suicide.

“There would be no brutal collision. That had to be avoided at all costs. There would have to be a gentle impact, so insignificant that confidence would reign without so much as a ripple to disturb the surface so that business might continue without the least interruption. It would all be very simple, perfectly discreet and silent. It would be the perfect crime,” Father de Nantes wrote.

The murder, Yallop noted, was carried out covertly in order to minimise public questioning and concern. “The most effective way to kill the Pope was by poison – a poison that would leave no tell-tale external signs when administered. There are more than two hundred such substances.” We now know, thanks to Falasca (!) that one of the Holy Father’s two secretaries was directly involved in the crime, or at least immediately made it look like a heart attack.


Those who want to know more about the tragedy of the pontificate of John Paul I and the subsequent testimonies that confirmed Yallop’s demonstration, can read our book John Paul I, the Pope of the Secret (ed. CRC, 2003).

In addition, the English investigator reissued his book in 2007, adding to it and renewing his extremely serious accusations. This was not followed by any response from the Vatican! Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

In its French-language re-edition, published in 2011, under the title Le Pape doit mourir (The Pope Must Die. Nouveau Monde, 479 pages,) Yallop stated: “Since the first publication of my book in 1984, the Holy See has not yet been able to refute the proofs that it contains and the questions that it raises.

“Besides, the events that have taken place in the world beyond the Vatican walls have provided a striking confirmation of both the facts that are described in it and my numerous conclusions.”

In fact, Yallop proved that he was right in what he said since he announced in advance what actually happened afterwards! The heinous crimes and judicial proceedings, during the years 1985, 1990 and 2000, i.e. after the publication of his book, brought indisputable and horrible confirmations of the revelations and accusations of the courageous investigator. Yallop wrote about the Vatican bank’s directors:

“In my book, I accuse Bishop Marcinkus of being directly and criminally involved in the bankruptcy of the Banco Ambrosiano and in the disappearance of 1.3 billion dollars. Since the first publication of this book, the Vatican has repaid two hundred fifty million dollars to the creditors of Calvi’s ruined financial empire. This money was paid back as diplomatic compromise that enabled the Vatican to continue to deny all implication in the matter!

“I also accused Luigi Mennini, the Director General of the Vatican Bank, of criminal frauds. In July 1984, a month after the publication of my book, Mennini was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment by a Milanese tribunal after having been found guilty of fraud and other charges linked with the Sindona crash.

“On the other hand, the arm of the law, was still unable to reach the President of the Vatican bank, Archbishop Marcinkus, who had powerful protectors, from Pope John Paul II to certain high-ranking civil servants of the American government of that time.

“In June 1984, John Paul II admonished Switzerland for its bank ethic: ‘The financial world is also a world of human beings, our world, subject to the conscience of every one of us.’

“Apparently the only conscience that was exempted from observing this doctrine was that of Pope John Paul II. When he delivered this speech, many alleged criminals were taking refuge in the Vatican City, such as Archbishop Paul Marcinkus, Pellegrino de Strobel and Luigi Mennini, who were all highly-placed directors of the papal bank.

“For many years the Vatican’s way of proceeding consisted in disguising and concealing things rather than in revealing them. Moreover, mystery and dissimulation had always been Wojtyla’s speciality from the time he was a young bishop at Cracow and until his death.”

In fact, John Paul II began the cover-up in Rome in the early days of his pontificate when he refused to shed full light on the death of his predecessor and protected those accused of being his assassins.

If David Yallop wanted to republish his book in 2007, it was so that the martyrdom of John Paul I would not be totally obscured:

“The first phase of Albino Luciani’s process of beatification was concluded at the end of 2006. Pope John Paul I will then be beatified and canonised. He will be praised for his undisputable goodness and holiness. His status as a modern martyr ought to be recognised as well. This man died for a worthy cause: the renovation and purification of the Roman Catholic Church.”


Among all the pontiffs of the 20th century, John Paul I distinguished himself by his true devotion to Our Lady of Fatima: he wanted to fulfil Her demands and he heeded Sister Lucy’s warnings.

Let us remember that that Pius XII and Paul VI had refused to grant her a one-to-one meeting. As Paul VI had seen her on May 13, 1967, Guitton asked him: “What impression did Lucy make on you?

Oh! She is a very simple girl, an uncomplicated peasant woman. The people wanted to see her, and I showed her to them.”

As for Pope John Paul II, he finally ordered the messenger of Our Lady to say the opposite of her thoughts on the consecration of Russia.

Cardinal Luciani’s attitude was quite different. His profound humility and extreme modesty had predisposed him to receive the very special grace of his conversation with Heaven’s messenger, on July 11, 1977. The following year, in his Easter homily, he said to his diocesan faithful:

The idea never even occurred to me that Sister Lucy dos Santos could be inferior to me, a bishop and a cardinal. On the contrary, I thought: What good fortune for me to be able to talk with this little Sister who saw Our Lady! The only true grandeur in the Church is not to occupy such and such a position but to be saints.

During the Passion and Resurrection of Jesus, the women play a more edifying role than that of the men. Jesus did not call on the women to preach, as He did the seventy disciples or the twelve Apostles. On the other hand, He wanted them to help and encourage the Apostles. All down the centuries, He followed the same method: He sent a Catherine of Sienna, a Teresa of Avila, a Bernadette, a Lucia dos Santos, an Armida Barelli to encourage bishops and Popes.”

The cardinal’s confidences to Sister Vincenza, who was attached to his service at the Patriarchate of Venice, show to what extent he was impressed by the personality of Our Lady’s messenger. After his meeting with her, he knew what to think of Father Dhanis’ theories against the revelations of Fatima: he could no longer doubt the absolute truth of Sister Lucia’s testimony. Listen to what he said:

Sister Lucy is an extraordinary woman, strong and trustworthy; she has the moral fibre of a country woman and an amazing memory. She speaks with short, broken phrases, which go straight to the heart of problems and events. She is seventy years old, and yet she retains the freshness of a young girl. Her eyes are clear. She is simple, spontaneous, calm and smiling. She lives as though she were the last of the Carmelites. She speaks with an open heart, without searching for her words; she is profoundly convinced of what she is saying, and she says it with passion. Sister Lucy of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is a cherished daughter of the Church.”


The Vice-Postulator disregards these laudatory words of the Patriarch: it would be vain to search for them in her book. She mentions Fatima and Sister Lucia only once, in a very contemptuous note:

“Some authors have fantasised about the predictions, turning them into an occasion for vaticinium ex eventu (delirium), following the meeting that took place in Coimbra in July 1977 between Luciani and the seer from Fatima, Sister Lucia dos Santos.

“According to these authors, the seer predicted the pontificate and its brevity.

“Don Mario Senigaglia, who worked assiduously and faithfully with Patriarch Luciani in Venice, after a detailed account of the Fatima meeting, clarifies definitively how it unfolded: ‘Never, not once, have I suspected mysterious prophetic revelations’ from Sister Lucia to Patriarch Luciani.”

Let us examine this closely. A detailed account of the Fatima meeting? Excuse me! The interview took place in Coimbra! A detailed report? In it, Don Senigaglia speaks more about the Marquise Olga do Cadaval than about Sister Maria Lucia! This is due to the fact that he had no original information to contribute concerning the content of the interview, with good reason! He did not accompany his patriarch on the pilgrimage to Fatima and he was no longer his secretary for almost a year.

Don Senigaglia falsely attributes his own unbelief to the Patriarch: “Cardinal Luciani wrote that revelations, even if they are approved, are not articles of faith, that one can think whatever he wants without harming his own faith.”

If the cardinal did mention the objection: revelations, even if they are approved, are not articles of faith, he, on the other hand, never stated what followed: one can think whatever he wants without harming his own faith.

On the contrary! He responded to the objection in his own account of the conversation that he had with Sister Lucy that he wrote at the request of the editor of the weekly Gente Veneta, who was none other than Senigaglia himself! Therefore, he was certainly not unaware of it.

Truly, our Roman friend, Don Ennio Innocenti, was right when he wrote to me on July 16, 1992: “Don Senigaglia is absolutely dubious: unreliable, disloyal, and even a concealed subversive.

Let us read what the Patriarch shrewdly opposed to the negative attitude of a part of his clergy:

I asked Sister Lucy a question about the famous dance of the sun.” For ten minutes on October 13, 1917, seventy thousand people saw the sun turn different colours, spin on itself three times and then plunge down towards the earth.

At this point, someone [e.g. Don Senigaglia!] might ask me: But should a cardinal be interested in private revelations? Don’t you know that everything is in the Gospel? That revelations, even though approved, are not articles of faith?

I know it only too well. In the Gospel, however, there is also an article of faith that says:Signs will accompany those who believe.’ (Mk 16:17) Today it is fashionable to examine thesesigns of the times,’ so much so that that we are now witnessing a proliferation, indeed an epidemic of these signs of the times. So I believe we are permitted to recall (with a human faith) thissignof October 13, 1917, which was even confirmed by anticlericals and unbelievers. Looking beyond this sign, it is opportune to reflect on the things it brings to mind.”

It is opportune to reflect… Therefore, one would harm one’s own faith by refusing to accept it, and by the same token rejecting the revelations of Fatima, which are certainly providential for preserving the dogma of faith.

Here is the lesson the Cardinal drew from this while deploring the progress of “apostasy:”

Hell exists and we could fall into it. At Fatima Our Lady taught us this prayer: O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell, and lead all souls to Heaven.There are important things in this world, but none more important than earning Paradise by living a good life. It is not only Fatima that says this, but the Gospel: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his own soul?(Mt 16:26)


Patriarch Luciani did not publicly reveal the mysterious prophecy of the Messenger of Heaven, but he made confidences to reliable witnesses.

Falasca dares to deny the visit of Don Germano Pattaro to the Vatican on the basis of a statement by Don Lorenzi, as if his words could be trusted!

Don Pattaro’s arrival is attested to by Giancarlo Zizola, Marco Roncalli and Camillo Bassotto; the latter, a very well-informed Venetian, was so close to John Paul I that, in September 1978, the Pope asked him to help transport his personal belongings, which he needed immediately in Rome.

Cardinal Parolin, in his dithyrambic preface, presents Falasca’s book as a masterpiece of historical-critical science. Excuse me! It is rather a masterpiece of distorting historical truth!

Indeed, on the one hand, the vice-postulator relies on the tricks and falsifications of dubious witnesses, as we have just seen, and on the other hand, she conceals or rejects without valid reason all the depositions that are contrary to what she believes.


The Vice-Postulator contests the mysterious prophecy of Sister Lucy, but in the end she leaves intact our demonstration developed in John Paul I, the Pope of the Secret, based on testimonies that we have carefully examined to be certain of their veracity. Having no solid argument to oppose us, Falasca confirms, in spite of herself, paradoxically, the existence and truth of this prophecy!

In the account below, you will find the testimonies that we have collected, collated, published, and you will see that they fit together perfectly, just like when you put together a puzzle. Judge for yourself.

The day after his pilgrimage to the Cova da Iria, on the morning of Monday July 11, 1977, Cardinal Luciani travelled to Coimbra with the small group of Venetian pilgrims. They met there Madam Olga do Cadaval, a polyglot and Sister Lucy’s regular interpreter since 1970: she used to visit her twice a month through a special permission of the Holy See, to help her with her correspondence.

After he had concelebrated Mass in the Carmelite chapel, the Patriarch first met the whole community in the cloister. The Prioress, however, confided to him that Sister Mary Lucy desired to speak to him in private.

As the Patriarch of Venice understood Portuguese, his interpreter, Madame do Cadaval, slipped away “as soon as the conversation became too intimate,” she told me personally, when I questioned her at length in February 1993. So the Cardinal remained alone with the messenger of Our Lady for a conversation which lasted nearly two hours.

When he came out of the Carmel, the Venetian pilgrims had already gone to their restaurant, and the cardinal arrived very late for lunch.

Don Ugo Padoan, who had concelebrated Mass at the Carmel with the cardinal and the Venetian priests, recounts: “As the pilgrims pressed him with questions, he said in a loud voice:Sister Lucy continually called me your Holiness; and the more I told her that I was only a simple cardinal, the more she addressed me with a great respect, bowing before me and calling me His Holiness!

Miss Luisa Vannini, who was having lunch at the same table as the cardinal, observed him attentively: “I could read on his face, which was very pale, his heightened emotion. I had the impression that Cardinal Luciani was still in emotional shock.

At Fatima, he had promised that he would grant me a little time to talk. I wanted to talk to him about my life. He excused himself saying:I can’t now; it will have to be in Venice. I must go back to Fatima; I want to speak to Our Lady.’ He really did say:speak.’ ‘Sister Lucy has left a great concern weighing heavily on my mind. After this, I shall never be able to forget Fatima.’

That is what he said to me; I remember the words very well, as he was leaving the restaurant to take the car that the Marquise do Cadaval had made available to take him to Lisbon.”

The cardinal found it difficult to open up to his nearest and dearest about this great concern that the holy Carmelite had left weighing on his mind.

In February 1978, at the beginning of Lent, he came to preach in his home town, the village of Canale d’Agordo. His brother Edoardo and his sister-in-law, with whom he was staying, noticed, from the first evening, during dinner, that he was very pale and seemed worried and distressed. He excused himself, picked up his breviary and, without any explanation, retired to his room. The following evening he displayed the same indisposition. Mrs. Luciani asked him whether the food she was serving him was the cause. The Cardinal answered: “I was thinking about what Sister Lucy told me at Coimbra.” Twice he repeated: ‘Sister Lucy told me…,” without completing his sentence, Don Valentino Saviane stated.

Edoardo often repeated his testimony, for example in his handwritten letter of March 1, 1996, addressed to Sister Catherine of the Immaculate Conception, of our Maison Sainte-Marie: “My wife and I asked him if he were unwell, and he answered: I continually think about what Sister Lucy told me at Coimbra.’”

A photograph, taken during these same days, in February 1978, at Canale, reveals his anguish. He can be seen alongside Bishop Augusto Bramezza and several priests. However, unlike the latter, he is not smiling. The gravity of his countenance and his bearing are striking. “He looks,” comments Regina Kummer, “like someone who knows he is going to die.”

His relatives and friends in Canale were struck by the way he said goodbye to them. They saw in this his testament. “We too are pilgrims on the road to Heaven.”

Following his meeting with Sister Lucy, Cardinal Luciani preached and wrote on several occasions about death, which had not previously been a habitual theme of his preaching.

Edoardo Luciani treasured in his heart the words and gestures of his beloved brother at their last meetings together: “When we put together all the allusions made by my brother over the course of our various conversations, everything became clear; the seer had told him something that concerned not only the Church, but his own personal life as well, the destiny that God was preparing for him.”

The journalist who recorded these confidences added: “A very dear niece of Pope John Paul I’s, Lina Petri, tells us: ‘You know, Uncle Edoardo is someone who has his feet firmly on the ground, the complete opposite of a gullible person. Everything he confided to you belongs to a domain that cannot be entirely verified, but which corresponds to events and impressions deeply rooted in our family.’”

Let us bear in mind the conclusion of the journalist: “Is this a case of a mysterious prediction concerning the papal election, followed by a tragic and sudden death? That certainly seems to be the thinking and even the conviction of John Paul I’s brother.”

“IF I LIVE...”

Several of the Holy Father’s replies or private remarks clearly seem to be reminiscences of the mysterious prophecy. Cardinal Sin, one of his neighbours in the conclave, had declared to him at the opening of the third ballot: “I am sure it is you who will be the new Pope.” Once he had been elected, John Paul I said to him, “You were a prophet, but my papacy will be short. »

The thought of Fatima and Sister Lucy never left him. He spoke about this to a Venetian theologian, Don Germano Pattaro: “Ever since that pilgrimage, I have never forgotten Fatima. What Sister Lucy told me has become a weight on my heart. I sought to convince myself that it was all an illusion. I prayed to forget about it. I would have liked to confide all this to someone close to me, to my brother Edoardo, but I did not manage to do so. The thought was just too important, too uncomfortable, too contrary to my whole being. It was not credible, and yet Sister Lucy’s prediction has turned out to be true. Here I am. I am the Pope.” 

If I live, I shall return to Fatima to consecrate the world and particularly the peoples of Russia to the Blessed Virgin, in accordance with the instructions She gave to Sister Lucy.”

If I live…”, he said, as though he had been forewarned that he would not live.

Subsequently the holy Carmelite became aware of the tragic circumstances of his demise. The Salesian Father José Valinho, her nephew, revealed this to me in veiled terms a year before the publication of the Third Secret. In fact, on June 19, 1999, he confided to me: “Sister Lucy told me that the death of Pope John Paul I was mysterious.” And to enlighten me further about his aunt’s thinking, he added: “The fact is, they refused to carry out an autopsy.”

Furthermore, Mrs. Maria das Dores Pestana, who used to accompany her mother during her parlour conversations with the holy Carmelite, declared to me on February 19, 2003: “Sister Lucy is convinced that John Paul I was murdered.”

Thus, before the publication of the Third Secret, the messenger of Our Lady spoke of a “mysterious death.” Bound by secrecy, she could not say more.

Three years later, when the visions of the Third Secret had been published, she could say the truth that she had first contemplated in the vision of July 13, 1917 and then announced during the parlour conversation with Cardinal Luciani in 1977, a truth that was finally fulfilled during the night of September 28 to 29, 1978: he had been killed.

All that we know about John Paul I’s intimate dispositions is in keeping with the lesson of the Secret: his death was the sacrifice of the Good Shepherd who gave his life for his sheep, in imitation of Our Lord Jesus Christ. As our Father wrote: “He was and forever remains the holy Victim, the Victim without stain, the innocent Victim killed by his brothers, the Priest of the incomparable Sacrifice of the Roman altar.”

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels.

Murder at the Vatican, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 172, October 1984, pp. 1-25; Justice Will Be Heard, Catholic Counter-Reformation No. 172, October 1984, pp. 10-11.

Paul Hofmann, Ô Vatican! ed. Payot, 1984, translated from American, pp. 171-172.

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 45-46

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 45-46

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 161-173

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 171

Ivan Marsura, Giovanni Paolo I, Il sorriso dell’umile, Vittorio Veneto, 2012, p. 451

Positio 2, pp. 1112-1114. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, p. 91.

John Paul II’s strategy worked so well that Father John Magee was never troubled by any judicial investigation. When there were no longer any suspicions of murder weighing against Magee, John Paul II appointed him bishop of the diocese of Cloyne, Ireland. He was thus consecrated bishop by the Pope in Saint Peter’s Basilica on Saint Patrick’s Day, March 17, 1987. In the end, Magee was accused of having covered up for two priests of his diocese who were involved in pedophilia cases; this brought about his resignation on March 24, 2010.

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, p. 91; Ivan Marsura, Giovanni Paolo I, Il sorriso dell’umile, Vittorio Veneto, 2012, pp. 451-452

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 172, p. 9

Positio 3. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 84-85.

Positio 2. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 79-81

Positio 2. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 79-81

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, p. 81

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, p. 81

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 166-168

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 82-83

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 82-83

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 115

Camillo Bassotto, “ Il mio cuore è ancora a Venezia ”, ed. Krinon, 1990, p. 208.

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 82 and 125

Ivan Marsura, Giovanni Paolo I, Il sorriso dell’umile, Vittorio Veneto, 2012, pp. 372

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 89

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 89

Positio 2. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 90-91.

Positio 2. Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 90-91.

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 169

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, John-Paul I, the Pope of the Secret, ed. CRC, 2003

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 107, February 1979, p. 15.

Jesus Lopez Saez, Se pedira cuenta, 2nd ed. Origenes, 1991, pp. 62 et 121.

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, John-Paul I, the Pope of the Secret, ed. CRC, 2003, p. 288.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 172, October 1984, p. 23

30 Days, French edition, September 1992, p. 34.

Catholic Counter-Reformation no. 172, p. 5.

David Yallop, In God’s Name, 1984 ed. Christian Bourgois, pp. 58-59.

30 Days, French edition, September 1992, p. 35

Catholic Counter-Reformation no 172, p. 5.

David Yallop, In God’s Name, 1984, p. 289.

David Yallop Le Pape doit mourir (The Pope Must Die. Nouveau Monde, pp. 456-477

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, John-Paul I, the Pope of the Secret, ed. CRC, 2003, p. 452

Omnia opera, vol. 8, p. 469.

Camillo Bassotto, “ Il mio cuore è ancora a Venezia ”, ed. Krinon, 1990, p. 116

R. Kummer, Albino Luciani. Una vita per la Chiesa, Messaggero, 2009, pp. 666-669, 676-678, 685; D. Malacaria, Trenta Giorni, 6, 2007, pp. 90-91.

Positio 2, Testimonia extraprocessualia, vol. 19; Trenta Giorni, 1, 2007, pp. 72-77.

30 Days, French edition, 1, 2007, p. 42.

Fatima collection, St. Joseph’s House Archives.

Gente Veneta of July 23, 1977.

Stefania Falasca, Papa Luciani, cronaca di una morte, pp. 43 and 58

Ugo Padoan, ‘On Pilgrimage with Luciani,’ Humilitas, October 2005, p. 11.

Camillo Bassotto, “ Il mio cuore è ancora a Venezia ”, 1990, p. 115. Report by Luisa Vannini, Archives of the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima

(“At Fatima,” Humilitas, May 1988.

R. Kummer, Albino Luciani. Una vita per la Chiesa, Messaggero, 2009, p. 542.

Il Sabato, August 28, 1993

Brother Francis of Mary of the Angels, John-Paul I, the Pope of the Secret, ed. CRC, 2003, p. 328

Camillo Bassotto, “ Il mio cuore è ancora a Venezia ”, 1990, p. 116.