Sister Lucy : The “Official” Biography. The plot against the Messenger of Heaven.

AFTER Sr. Lucy’s death on February 13, 2005, almost ten years ago, the Carmelites of Coimbra went through and classified her archives that contained hitherto unpublished manuscripts. Thanks to these documents, they wrote and published a voluminous biography of the seer, under the title of Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria [A Path under the Gaze of Mary] ; (Carmel Publications, October 2013)r.

The book, prefaced by Bishop Virgilio Antunes of Coimbra, was officially ‘revised’ by three Portuguese clerics, members of the Historical Commission of her process of beatification: Msgr. Luciano Guerra, Canon Luciano Cristino and Fr. Pedro Ferreira.

This book is Sr. Lucy’s ‘official’ biography, so to speak.

I had waited impatiently for its publication for years, because I had never gained access to the Carmel’s archives, despite all the approaches I had made to its ecclesiastical superiors. Fr. Pedro Ferreira, Provincial Superior of the Carmelites, told me that the sisters are not to be “rushed.” He rejected my request.

As for Bishop Albino Cleto of Coimbra, he ordered Mother Prior of the Carmel to show me only a single manuscript, one that had already been published: How I See the Message.

At the Carmel, I took advantage of a parlour conversation with Mother Maria do Carmo to ask about another document that I wanted to consult, Sr. Lucy’s unpublished autobiography. “No, we do not have its manuscript here,” she replied to me.

Later on, I questioned an extern sister with insistence and she admitted that the notebooks are kept in the Carmel.

They are the essential source of the biography written by the Carmelites.

Let us point out that Sr. Lucy began writing her autobiography on January 13, 1944, ten days after having written the Third Secret. She did this on the order of her ordinary, Bishop da Silva who feared that she would soon leave for Heaven. It is she who entitled it My Path, and later on, it was referred to as her Diary.

In addition to this source, the Carmelites relate accounts concerning Sr. Lucy that were heard during their Community recreations.

Thus, this biography has allowed me to enrich the one that I had written and that we published last summer (Sœur Lucie, confidente du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, [Sr. Lucy, the Confident of the Immaculate Heart of Mary,] ed. CRC, 2014, 490 pages).

Yet is the full truth about her divine and prophetic mission as well as the insurmountable obstacles that she encountered in her attempts to fulfil it presented in the official biography?

That is the question! For if the oppositions and refusals on the part of the hierarchy with which the messenger of Our Lady met are omitted, it is the great tragedy of her life that is occulted.

The salvation of souls and peace in the world depended on it and still do today.

The critical study of the book will prove to be very beneficial: by seeking and discovering all that has been censored, we will bring “the real Lucy” back to life. She assuredly bore witness throughout her life to the divine message that had been communicated to her, a message unparalleled in the entire history of the Church, and for her it was a martyrdom.

THE CALL TO THE CARMEL: A ROAD TO IMMOLATION

The first chapters of the book relate the childhood of Lucy and her apparitions of 1916 and 1917, by quoting her Memoirs presented as historical and true accounts. No suspicion against the testimony of the messenger of Heaven is expressed.

Her autobiography becomes an account of the smallest events of her life beginning with her departure from Fatima in 1921.

We were already aware that her Carmelite vocation had been frustrated by her superiors who compelled her to enter the Congregation of the Dorthean Sisters.

Her autobiography, however, reveals the extent to which the call to the Carmel was still echoing in her heart even when she was committing herself by vows, first temporary then perpetual, to the Dorthean Sisters. She took them despite very great reluctance, out of obedience to her confessors and her superiors.

Thanks to well-combined quotations of her autobiography, we relive all the phases of her road to immolation.

Even when Pope Pius XII authorised her transfer from the Dorthean Congregation to the Carmel in 1947, Bishop da Silva was still opposed to it:

“You must abandon the idea. Stay where you are, for you are fine there.”

“On hearing this,” Sr. Lucy wrote, “tears flowed down my cheeks and I replied:

“‘I cannot back down now.’”

“What? You cannot? Did not Our Lady tell you to follow the path that I would indicate to you?”

Our Lady had ordered her to do this during her seventh apparition, on the eve of her departure from Fatima in 1921.

“ Yes,” Lucy replied to him, “ but now that I have received the Holy Father’s approval for my transferal, I believe that I must enter a Carmel.”

Sr. Lucy came out of this conversation extremely distressed.

“The Bishop made me think of parents who reject their daughters when they behave badly or persist in wanting to make foolish mistakes. He made me cry for days and nights, but he also did me good, for he detached me from many creatures. It is in the Tabernacle that I always find consolation.”

“ Oh, my good Jesus, once again You have saved for me this additional drop, so bitter, in the bottom of the chalice. I want to savour its full bitterness for You! I am confident, while repeating with the psalmist: ‘The righteous cry out, and the Lord hears them; He delivers them from all their troubles. The Lord is near to the broken-hearted, and He saves those whose spirit is crushed.’ (Ps 33:18-19).” (My Path, Vol. 1, p. 242)

After entering the Carmel on March 25, 1948, she wrote to Fr. Aparicio:

“Deep down in my heart, I feel that this was where God wanted me many years ago, from the beginning,” she confided to Fr. Aparicio. “If He allowed me to be guided along other paths, perhaps it was to make my immolation more complete, even to the point of having to renounce my poor heart’s most inner and legitimate aspirations.” The doors of the Carmel opened “when He saw that it was totally crushed, even its innermost fibres.”

Thus the official biography very truthfully retraces her long path of immolation: all is said concerning her religious vocation; nothing is concealed or falsified.

Let us come to her mission as witness to the great Secret of July 13, 1917, which revealed the divine wills for our time.

DHANIS’ PERFIDY IS SILENCED

The question of the credibility of Sr. Lucy, messenger of Our Lady, is not dealt with in this biography: no allusion is made to the controversies on this subject.

Should we not rejoice about this? Should we not exclaim: Bravo!

In fact, Fatima, with the subsequent events of Pontevedra and Tuy, is a true history and will be received as such by the upright and confident souls who, thanks to this book, will become acquainted with the accounts of these apparitions.

Nevertheless, no one in the Church, at least in its highest echelons, are unaware of the Modernist theories of Fr. Dhanis and his like, who reduce Sr. Lucy’s accounts to the level of imaginations or inventions. They were spread through the intellectual circles of the post-war years and carried a preponderant influence in Rome, even with Pope Pius XII. His successors, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI found in them a cover to justify their scandalous disregard for the revelations of the Virgin with the Immaculate Heart.

The fact that this biography does not contain any critical study of the testimony of the seer, nor the slightest reference to Fr. Joaquin Alonso’s decisive demonstrations, which rehabilitate her, is therefore most regrettable. The reader will not know whether Sr. Lucy was or was not trustworthy. This question remains ‘officially’ open.

For our part, we adopted a radically different attitude. Our biography is preceded by a preface written by our Mother Lucy of the Precious Blood, which demonstrates the full and entire truth of the testimony of Our Lady’s messenger. Thus, from the first chapter of our book, our readers will not have the slightest doubt about Sr. Lucy’s credibility.

UNDER ANOTHER TOMBSTONE

The title of the official biography, A Path under the Gaze of Mary, reveals its general orientation and its very serious shortcomings.

In it Sr. Lucy, in fact, is depicted as a nun living under the gaze of Mary: she places herself under the protection of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, possesses much virtue and extraordinary gifts, she brings about almost miraculous conversions. We, however, rarely see her act as the messenger of the Immaculate. Her constant concern about transmitting the message of Our Lady to the hierarchy is occulted.

THE REPARATORY DEVOTION IS NEGLECTED!

The account of the apparitions of Pontevedra (1925-1926) taken from her autobiography, ends with the resolutions that Sr. Lucy took immediately:

“ After this grace, how could I shirk the smallest sacrifice that God would like to ask of me? To console the Heart of my dear heavenly Mother, I would be content to drink the bitterest chalice to the last drop.

“ I desired to suffer every kind of martyrdom in order to offer reparation to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, my dear Mother, and remove one by one the thorns that pierced it, but I understood that these thorns are the symbol of the numerous sins that are committed against Her Son, and are conveyed to the Heart of His Mother. Yes, because through them many of Her other sons are lost eternally.”

The biography, however, resumes the course of her religious life by diverting us with anecdotal accounts, for example, with the mistakes made in Spanish by the young Portuguese sister, who had just arrived in Spain and was as yet unfamiliar with this language.

On the other hand, nothing, absolutely nothing is said to us about her repeated approaches to Bishop da Silva to obtain approval of the reparatory devotion of the five First Saturdays of the month.

Yet this was her cross, and what a cross it was! The bishop’s procrastination made her suffer terribly for fifteen years!

“Presently,” Bishop da Silva explained to Fr. Aparicio, “the bishops have taken charge of promoting throughout Portugal the reparatory communion on the thirteenth of each month,” and therefore, “only later on will we deal with the devotion of the First Saturdays.”

“ The response of his Excellency,” confided Sr. Lucy, “ was a very painful blow for me.” Then she exclaimed: “ Patience!” This is the word that occurs the most frequently in her correspondence with her spiritual directors. Well, it is not found once in this biography! Her cruel torment is entirely erased.

Finally, when Bishop da Silva approved the reparatory devotion after the declaration of war in 1939, he did not set out Our Lady’s demands accurately. Sr. Lucy regretted it. What sorrow!

Further, God wanted, and He still does today, the Pope himself to approve this devotion. It is required for the fulfilment of the great divine plan of grace and mercy that was revealed in the Secret of Fatima.

Yet, this is never stated. On page 201 of the book, the author even states the exact opposite.

Sr. Lucy, however, expressed herself clearly on this subject: “ The good God, deep down in my heart, is pressing me to ask the Holy Father for approval of the reparatory devotion.” (Letter to Fr. Gonçalves of May 1930, Sœur Lucie, confidente du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, p. 208)

Censored!

Then all her efforts to obtain it in the course of her long life are passed over in silence.

Thus, the following passage from her letter to Pius XII of December 2, 1940 is amputated: “ I take advantage, Most Holy Father, of this moment to ask your Holiness to deign propagate and bless this devotion for the whole world.”

SIGNS AND PROPHESIES ARE IGNORED!

Furthermore, the connection between this devotion and the prophecies of the Secret are not at all made evident: it is never said that world peace is linked to it, despite the fact that Sr. Lucy insisted on this in her correspondence with her spiritual directors and with Bishop da Silva: “ War or peace in the world depends on practicing this devotion united to the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

As our Father used to say, “the heavenly remedies proposed by the Virgin Mary seem very pale compared to such terrible threats, precisely because our faith is neither sufficient or good enough.” (homily of June 1962).

The Carmelites do not even make any allusion to the extraordinary atmospheric phenomenon of January 25, 1938. Sr. Lucy, however, recognised in it the “ unknown light” announced by Our Lady twenty years earlier as the harbinger of the war.

To find what is censored paradoxically emphasises the extraordinary character of her vocation: she was truly a prophet. Thanks to the Secret of July 13, 1917, she foresaw future events and announced them.

On June 20, 1939, she wrote to Fr. Aparicio: “Our Lady promised to postpone the scourge of war if this devotion was propagated and practised. We see Her avert the chastisement to the extent that efforts are made to propagate it. I am afraid, however, that we cannot do more than we are doing and that God, displeased, will lift the arm of His mercy and let the world be ravaged by this chastisement. It will be a chastisement such as there has never been before, horrible, horrible.” (op. cit., p. 244)

These prophetic warnings are passed over in silence in the official biography.

Thus, the divine insights with which Sr. Lucy was privileged, her terrible anxiety in seeing the imminence of the divine chastisement and her pressing interventions to avert it are neglected, forgotten and ignored.

THE INTERROGATIONS OF FR. JONGEN ARE FORGOTTEN! 

In order to bring the true Lucy back to life , the confident of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and a prophet, it is necessary to quote her correspondence with her spiritual directors, but also the interrogations carried out by scholarly and pious religious like Fr. Jongen. Thanks to his four conversations with the seer in Tuy in 1946, this Dutch Montfort Father uncovered the lies of Fr. Dhanis.

The official biography, however, never refers to these conversations: none of Sr. Lucy’s answers are recorded in it.

Here are some significant excerpts from Fr. Jongen’s reports:

“We offer our apologies for having to ask her so many questions, informing her that a Belgian Jesuit had just published articles casting doubt on certain of her affirmations. She immediately replies: ‘So what?’

“This disinterested and serene attitude towards those who criticise her writings would make an impression on all impartial, unprejudiced men.

“We ask her: ‘Did the Angel really say: Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I offer You… the Divinity of Jesus Christ?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Some people say that this is an innovation in the manner in which the Church speaks. In their opinion, you must be mistaken on this point.’

“‘Perhaps the Angel was mistaken!’says the sister with a smile.

“‘Is it not possible that you are mistaken? Could you not have forgotten the exact words of the Angel?’

“‘We began immediately after the apparition of the Angel to recite the prayers that he taught us.’

“‘When did you receive permission from Heaven, as you say in your Memoirs, to reveal the Secret?’

“‘In 1927, here in Tuy, in the chapel. This permission did not extend to the third part of the Secret.’

“‘Did you speak about it to your confessor?’

“‘Yes, immediately afterwards.’

“‘We point out:

“‘It is unfortunate that the Secret was not published before the war. Thus the prediction would have had more value. Why did you not make it better known?’

“‘Because no one asked me to.’

“Suddenly, Lucy has an idea:

“‘This Jesuit father could write to my confessors to ask them what I told them around 1927. They are Fr. José da Silva Aparicio and José Bernardo Gonçalves.’

“‘To whom else did you reveal the Secret before the war?’

“‘To the Provincial Superior, to the Bishop of Leiria and to Doctor Galamba.’

“‘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 speak of the Apparitions, I confine myself to the general sense of the words. When I write, however, I try to quote them literally. I therefore wished to write down the Secret word for word.’

“‘Are you certain that you have remembered everything?’

“‘I think so.’

“‘Have the words of the Secret been revealed in the order in which they were communicated to you?’

“‘Yes.’

“‘Did the Blessed Virgin really utter the name of Pius XI?’

“‘Yes. We did not know if it was a Pope or a king but the Blessed Virgin spoke of Pius XI.’

“‘But the war did not begin under Pius XI!’

“‘The annexation of Austria was the occasion for it. When the Munich accord was signed, the sisters were jubilant, because the peace seemed to be saved. I knew better.’

“‘Yet this Jesuit Father remarks that the occasion for a war is not the same thing as its beginning.’

“Apparently, this observation makes no impression on the sister.

“‘According to the text of the Secret, the Blessed Virgin said. 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 the thorns with which ungrateful men pierce Me 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 to the Sacred Heart in almost exactly the same terms. One might think this was a recollection of Paray-le-Monial.’

“The sister laughs, and her laugh expresses the innocence and candour of a child: ‘Is it for me to tell the Blessed Virgin how She should express Herself?’”

These rejoinders are worthy of St. Joan of Arc. Alas, we find no mention of them in the official biography !

The seer reminded Fr. Jongen of the theophany of Tuy: “ The Blessed Virgin demanded the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, by the Pope, in union with the bishops of the world.”

“‘Did She not speak about the consecration of the world?’

“‘No.’”

Fr. Jongen drew the attention of Sister Lucy to Fr. de Montfort’s prophecies: the reign of Christ will come, by means of the reign of Mary, after the diffusion of the true devotion throughout the world. Sister Lucy reacted immediately:

“ And after the conversion of Russia.”

THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA IS OCCULTED!

This demand, the most important one for establishing devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in the world, is dealt with in a chapter that is nine pages long! No further mention is made to it subsequently.

In this deceptive chapter, we pass, almost without any transition, from the theophany of Tuy, thus from 1929, to the pontificate of John Paul II. We will learn nothing about Sr. Lucy’s innumerable attempts, for seventy years, to communicate this demand to the Popes.

It is recalled that in 1946-1947, she wanted to go to Rome to meet Pius XII. The reason, we are told, was to ask him for her transfer to the Carmel, and that is all!

Through her correspondence, however, we know that she also wanted to remind him of Our Lady’s demands. She was convinced that if she spoke to him in person, she would be able to persuade him to make the consecration of Russia, and of Russia alone, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, in union with all the bishops of the world.

Why is this not said?

Throughout her entire life, it was her haunting concern that the Pope carry out the consecration of Russia. How many sacrifices she offered for this intention!

This is also forgotten!

The conclusion of the chapter is erroneous for two reasons. It is a question of a consecration of the world, and not of Russia:

“The consecration of the world, in accordance with what Our Lady demanded [this is erroneous! She ask for the consecration of Russia alone]… was carried out by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984.” (p. 204-205)

No, John Paul II did not fulfil Our Lady’s demand, but he feigned having done so by his Acts of Entrustment of the world, which were no more than shams of the required act.

By revealing his manoeuvres intended ‘to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect,’ our Father denounced John Paul II as an anti-Marian Antichrist.: “Woe to the earth if the elect themselves give way to this final deception of the anti Marian Antichrist. This is the hour when the power of darkness is unleashed all over the world (cf. Lk. 22:53.)” (CCR no. 225, January 1990, p. 2 and 14)

HER TESTIMONY IS MISREPRESENTED

Let us first of all point out that Sr. Lucy’s authentic and veracious testimony – the fact that after March 25, 1984 she clearly stated that: “ The Consecration of Russia has never been done as Our Lady had requested ” – has been concealed from us.

The Carmelites of Coimbra were aware of her thought since, in the years around 1985, they revealed 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, it has not been done,’ immediately adding, ‘We must pray, we must pray a great deal.’”

The official biography, on the other hand, publishes the apocryphal letters that falsify her testimony by affirming that the consecration has been done.

The Carmelites in fact printed one of the five letters, the apocryphal nature of which we had exposed: the one addressed to Maria de Belem, dated August 29, 1989. We were the first in the world to have published it, showing at the same time that the messenger of Our Lady could not have written it herself because this letter contained gross errors concerning the message of Fatima.

I suspected Msgr. Luciano Guerra, who became one of the three revisers of the biography, of being the author of these apocryphal letters, especially the one dated November 21, 1989. In fact, the whole argument of this last letter, which is worthless, was already elaborated upon in his article Fatima e o romano pontifice (Apelo et resposta, éd. Convento dos Capuchinhos, 1983, p. 46).

In 1992, during an international congress at Fatima, I publicly accused him of being the author of this letter. He replied to me: “ You have no heart! You have no heart!” This did not reply to the accusation that was made.

The testimony of Sr. Lucy is also misrepresented by her booklet How I see the Message. This was one of her lcast written works. She composed it in 1995 because her confessors and ecclesiastical superiors had been insisting for more than ten years that she give her interpretation of the Message, which Heaven had not given her the task of doing. This booklet remained uncompleted, as though she felt that her writing lacked “ divine unction.” It was only published after her death.

I was able to consult the manuscript at the Carmel of Coimbra and to ascertain that it was indeed her handwriting.

I, nevertheless, expressed my astonishment to Bishop Albino Cleto of Coimbra concerning its contents. It is written in it that Gorbachev went down on his knees to John Paul II to ask him pardon for his sins!

The bishop replied to me: “ Sr. Lucy was deceived by someone.” Bishop Cleto did not specify who had deceived her. It, however, must certainly have been Pope John Paul II himself who attested to Gorbachev’s repentance to Sr. Lucy. He spoke to her about it during his one-to-one meeting with her on May 13, 1991 (Sœur Lucie, confidente du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, p. 444).

Almost at the end of the biography, we are told that on May 13, 2000, Sr. Lucy was able to sing her Nunc dimittis. The Third Secret had been revealed, “the consecration of the world has been done as Our Lady had requested,” thus her mission was “accomplished,” finished (p. 427).

This lie, namely that the consecration demanded by Our Lady had been done by Pope John Paul II in 1984, has incalculable consequences:

‘All has been done and well done!’ The act of 1984, however, has borne none of the promised fruits: neither the conversion of Russia to Catholicism nor world peace. Thus, there is nothing more to be expected or hoped for from the revelations of Our Lady!

Fatima is finished!

This biography is a tombstone used to bury once and for all the two great demands that were addressed to the Holy Father: approval of the reparatory devotion and the consecration of Russia.

WHAT IS BEING CONCEALED FROM US

When they lie concerning the attitude of the hierarchy towards Our Lady of Fatima, they end up occulting the testimony of her messenger and her heroic patience in her trials for more than fifty years!

‘MY PATH’ IS CENSORED!

The quotations of her account My Path become extremely rare when the Carmelites relate her life in their monastery. The second notebook, third one that is more than 385 pages long, and the fourth one, are almost never quoted.

What are they hiding from us?

Her moving warnings!

There is not a word about her conversation with Fr. Lombardi in October 1953: “ Father, many are those who are damned… Many will be lost.”

There is not a word concerning her declarations to Fr. Fuentes on December 26, 1957, which constitute, as it were, her testament because she was expecting to leave shortly for Heaven.

She told him: “ We should not wait for an appeal to the world to come from Rome on the part of the Holy Father, to do penance. Nor should we wait for the call to penance to come from our bishops in our diocese, nor from the religious congregations. No! Our Lord has already very often used these means and the world has not paid attention. That is why now, it is necessary for each one of us to begin to reform himself spiritually. Each person must not only save his own soul but also all the souls that God has placed on our path.

“ The Devil is engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. A decisive battle is the final battle in which we will know which side is victorious and which is defeated. Hence, from now on we are either for God or for the Devil. There is no other possibility.

“ The Blessed Virgin told that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

There is not a word about her parlour conversations with Fr. Umberto Pasquale who heard her lips utter this sad observation: “ What I can tell you is that the world has not yet received the message of Fatima.” Neither the world nor the Church.

HER RECLUSION IS FORGOTTEN!

The Devil’s retaliation for each of these conversations – i.e., the untruthful denials – are hidden from us.

The measures taken by the Vatican, from 1955 on, to limit her parlour conversations and to reduce her to silence are hidden from us.

“Pope Pius XII,” John Haffert reports, “decided that only the persons who had met with her previously would be permitted to see her again without the express authorisation of the Holy See.” At the same time, Rome enjoined the seer refrain henceforth from replying to any questions bearing upon the apparitions and the message of Fatima without the express permission of the Vatican.

Finally, he forbade the printing of even the least important of her hitherto unpublished pieces of writing.

Nevertheless, one of her letters to Mother Martins, on the Rosary, was published in the Jesuit review Magnificat.

The Nunciature in Lisbon became alarmed about it, as well as the prioress of the Carmel: “The worst of it all,” Mother Martins related, “was that a copy of it was also sent to the Carmel of Coimbra indicating that this famous letter was going round the world in newspapers and reviews, as well as in private correspondence. The poor prioress suffered greatly from this affair, because, by order of the Holy See, it was her duty to see to it that Sr. Lucy’s writings remain rigorously unpublished.”

The official biography passes these Roman bans over in silence.

We will not know that her voice had been muzzled.

Pius XII remained deaf to her petition of June 6, 1958: “ God wants my voice to be heard throughout the world, like an echo of His, setting out what the Message of Fatima was and still is as regards God and souls, in time and eternity, in order that minds may be enlightened as to the path of Christian life that they must follow and as regards the errors that they must shun so as not to let themselves be deceived by false doctrines.”

Two years later, in 1960, Sr. Lucy was confined behind the grille of her Carmel at the express command of Pope John XXIII.

“ The cross is becoming heavier,” she wrote to a friend. “ The sacrifice that God is asking of us now is also crueller.” (May 15, 1960)

This was “ an inhuman trial heroically accepted,” our Father commented.

“ How does it happen that the hatred unleashed by Hell turned into persecution against a young woman who is as pure as an angel, devoted to the Virgin Mary, and courageous after forty years in a Carmelite convent? How does it happen that it lasts, and will last up to her death?

“ Because they do not want her to say the words of the Virgin Mary that would immediately save the world.” (December 31, 2000)

The Carmelites mention that Sr. Lucy wanted to have a one-to-one meeting with Pope Paul VI on May 13, 1967. Why?

No reason is given. We will not know why.

Nevertheless, it is a known fact; Fr. Kondor revealed it: she wanted to beseech the Pope to restore her freedom of speech so that she might fulfil her mission, namely, to make known and loved the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Dismissed by Paul VI, the messenger of Our Lady wrote to Fr. Pasquale: “ I burn with enthusiasm about everything. I must continually throw water on the fire to smother it under the ashes.”

WHAT ABOUT THE “DIABOLICAL DISORIENTATION”?

Her warnings against the “ diabolical disorientation” in the 1960s and 70s are hidden from us. The expression is not even found once in the book.

Yet Sr. Lucy used it often in her conversations and her correspondence.

“ Sr. Lucy is convinced,” her Salesian nephew told me, “ that Satan even insinuates himself into the Church, that the bishops are playing into the Enemy’s hands because they are won over by the diabolical disorientation.”

We find this commentary in her letters at the beginning of the 1970s. For her, evil is not only in the world, which is “ plunged into the darkness of error, immorality and pride.” It is also in the Church, where the devil has his “ sectaries”. The faith itself is under attack: Sr. Lucy speaks of “ false doctrines,” of “ blindness” among the very ones “ who have great responsibilities.” She deplores the fact that among Pastors, several “ allow themselves to be dominated by the diabolical wave pervading the world” and are “ the blind leading others who are blind.”

If, in 1917, Our Lady demanded daily recitation of the Rosary, it was with the prophetic intention of “ forearming us against these times of diabolical disorientation.”

Our Father thought that this expression was very pertinent to describe the state of the Church since the conciliar Reformation. The Church, he explained, is suffering, as it were, from a diabolical possession: “She does not lose control of herself; she keeps a discipline; her laws are still professed; there is a Pope and cardinals and Roman dicasteries. The ‘disorientation’ is such, however, that the members of the Church commit all sorts of crimes and disorders which should call for the greatest condemnation. The Church is bound by a diabolical force.” (CCR no. 301, September 1997, p. 6)

This is the case because her Pastors have refused to satisfy the divine will by embracing the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

THE APPARITION OF JANUARY 3, 1944: CARDINAL BERTONE’S LIE

The Carmelites published no hitherto unpublished revelation of Sr. Lucy in relation to the message of Fatima, except on the Third Secret.

Under the title: Difficulty in Writing the Secret, the Carmelites printed a long passage from My Path. Everything is related: the Devil’s outburst preventing her from writing it, then the apparition of January 3, 1944 that gave her the insight and strength to write it. Our Lady’s words clarify and resolve the controversial question of the date on which it ought to have been divulged.

Why had Sr. Lucy spoken of 1960?

Since that year, whenever she was asked that question, she remained silent: “I do not have the permission to explain how I came to know this date.” (Letter of June 24, 1987)

We know more about it now, which only makes Cardinal Bertone’s lie on this subject more flagrant.

In fact, in the official dossier that accompanied the divulgation of the Third Secret in Rome on June 26, 2000, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published a report of his conversation with Sr. Lucy on the previous April 27. He attributed the following reply to her:

“It was not Our Lady but myself who chose the date of 1960, for according to my intuition, before 1960, people would not have understood. They would only understand later on.”

Henceforth it is Sr. Lucy in person who, through her autobiography, formally denies his claim. Here is a short excerpt from her account:

“Perplexed, half engrossed, under the weight of an obscure cloud that seemed to be hanging above me, my face in my hands, I waited, without knowing how, for an answer. I then felt a friendly, tender and maternal hand touch me on my shoulder; I raised my eyes and I saw my dear heavenly Mother.”

“ Do not fear. God wanted to put your obedience, your faith and your humility to the test; be at peace and write what they have asked of you, but not what you were made to understand about its meaning. After having written it, put it into an envelope, close and seal it, and write on the outside that it can only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria. ” (My Path, Vol. 1, p. 158)

Thus this date does not originate in an “ intuition” of Sr. Lucy, but in a word of the Most Blessed Virgin.

This is a confirmation of what our Father, Georges de Nantes, always affirmed: to have refused to divulge the Secret in 1960 was an act of disobedience of the Pope to the Virgin Mary Herself.

THE PROPHECY OF RIANJO IS CONFIRMED

The prophecy of Our Lord, in Rianjo, which announced that His ministers would fall “ into misfortune” for not having satisfied the demand of Our Lady, is watered down in the official biography.

Nevertheless it was fulfilled: they were struck with spiritual blindness, “ the great and just punishment of the vengeful God,” which falls upon those “ who stray from Him” (St. Pius X, February 29, 1906).

It is noteworthy that neither John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II nor Benedict XVI drew any lesson from the Secret to reform the Church at its summit!

After having read it, they paid no heed to its urgent call for penance and conversion: they obstinately refused to carry out the first and most important of the duties of their office, namely, to teach dogmatic truths while condemning the errors that had been devastating the Church since the Reformation decreed by the Second Vatican Council. This was due to the fact that they themselves had strayed into heresy.

That is why Sister Lucy wrote in 1989: “ What we lack is the humility of Peter, who acknowledged his sins, wept for them and asked for forgiveness. This is the penance that God wants and demands of us: that we acknowledge our own personal sins with humility, that we ask forgiveness for them and that we change our lives.”

This letter is not published in the official biography, which never mentions the faults of St. Peter or those of his successors.

COMMUNITY DEVOTIONS ARE REFUSED!

The sorrow of the Virgin Mary and Sr. Lucy’s will to console Her by ‘community’ exercises of devotion are hidden from us.

We know that Sr. Lucy beseeched John Paul II to recognise the Rosary as a liturgical prayer.

Why did they not quote the long passage from her letter of May 12, 1982 to the Pope, justifying this request, since the Carmel has a copy of it?

Sr. Lucy would have liked the Rosary to be recited daily in her Carmel, together as a community.

This is forgotten, because the Carmelites refused the idea!

The fact is that certain sisters, who thought that Divine Office was already a heavy burden, were opposed to it. “We must not,” they said, “add to the exercises established by our Rule, devotions that are not in accordance with our constitutions. Such exterior exercises are not in keeping with the spirit of the Carmel.”

This demand of Sr. Lucy shows how extremely important the revelations of Fatima are in salvation history. Our Father taught it to us. They define the clauses of a “ new covenant” in Mary, which must renew the prayer of the Church.

The Sacred Heart of Jesus wants the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be honoured, exalted and privileged. It is an absolute will of God. Now, the Rosary is the devotion that pleases this Immaculate Heart sovereignly.

Even in a religious Order like the Carmel in which, according to its Constitutions, only silent prayer and the chant of Divine Office are carried out as a community, Sr. Lucy wanted the recitation of the Rosary to become a community exercise.

As for our Father, having apprehended God’s will for our time, through the revelations and demands of Fatima, he decided of his own accord to have us recite the first five decades of the Rosary in community after the office of Lauds.

What an admirable point of agreement!

Sr. Lucy also wanted the reparatory devotion of the five First Saturdays to by officially practiced in her Carmel. Certain sisters were opposed to it.

Before dying, she renewed her request to them.

This is forgotten!

This is all the more regrettable because a year after her death, the Carmelites began to practice it officially.

THE TEARS OF OUR LADY ARE EFFACED!

We remark another omission, an astounding one: the tears of Our Lady on May 26, 2003. Mother Marie Celine, prioress of the Carmel of Coimbra was, however, privileged to witness them:

“I was with her in the lower choir in order to photograph her next to the statue of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, which had been offered to us a short while before. When the photo had been taken, Sister Lucy continued to look at the statue. I did not disturb her… Turning towards me, she said to me with distress: ‘Our Lady is weeping.’” (Sœur Lucie, confidente du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, p. 454-455)

In 2003, not only was Our Lady’s face marked with a trace of sadness as in 1917, but She shed tears. Her tears silently demanding consolation and reparation.

The grave warnings of Sr. Lucy to Fr. Fuentes were more than ever relevant: “ Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has attached any importance to Her message, neither the good nor the bad.”

THE MYSTERY OF THE CROSS

Why was Sr. Lucy misunderstood, despised, and contradicted even in her own convent?

In one of her letters to Fr. Pasquale, she evoked her sufferings. After having read the biography of Alexandrina Maria da Costa, she wrote to him:

“There is undoubtedly no one who can understand better than I what this martyrdom must have been like… but such is the path of the souls that God chooses in order that they may follow Him on the way of the cross, and furthermore they are all well intentioned! Our Lord foresaw this when He said: ‘the hour is coming when those who persecute you will think they are offering worship to God. They are so numerous, the kinds of persecutions that God uses to purify souls and make them victims for Him and for sinful humanity, that He alone knows the diversity of the paths that lead to Heaven!’”

Prophet but also victim, such was indeed the vocation of Sr. Lucy: every day of her life, she offered her sufferings to God “ as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, as well as for the blasphemies and insults to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and in supplication for the conversion of sinners,” in accordance with what she had promised to Our Lady during Her first apparition on May 13, 1917.

The fact that Sr. Lucy’s life had been deeply marked by the Cross is the sign that she was a true messenger of God. She spoke from experience when she affirmed:

“Jesus Christ says to us that we will be blessed if we are persecuted for the sake of Him, because previously the prophets were persecuted. Yet why are those whom God has chosen for some special mission and with whom He maintains a more direct relationship persecuted and oppressed? It is the mystery of the Cross that continues and places us on the path to Heaven.” (Calls of the Message of Fatima, p. 213)

Reduced to silence and detained, the messenger of Our Lady continued preparing the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart by her immolated life since she was, in her own words, a “ roughly hewed ashlar hidden in the foundations of this triumph” (My Path, Vol. 1, p. 146).

Truly, this “ hidden ashlar” was polished by the trials of a long martyrdom as we demonstrated in our biography.

THE PLOT IS THWARTED: MSGR. GUERRA BETRAYED HIMSELF

Msgr. Luciano Guerra, the principle ‘reviser’ of the ‘official’ biography, was the rector of the sanctuary of Fatima for more than thirty years. Nevertheless, he always kept his distance from Sr. Lucy. To my knowledge, he never spoke with Lucy about the message of Fatima. On June 27, 1991, he wrote: “ Sr. Lucy has never talked to me about the apparitions or their content.” (CCR no. 250, August-September 1992, p. 2)

When we denounced him as being the author of the ‘apocryphal’ letters, he confided to Fr. 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.” (ibid.)

What an admission! That day he betrayed himself.

I commented on this: “Msgr. Guerra is waiting for the seer’s death to be free to obscure definitively the requests of Our Lady, which ‘importune’ the Holy Father, especially this request for the consecration of Russia and of Russia alone?” (ibid.)

More than twenty years ago, we denounced, exposed and thwarted Mgsr. Guerra’s manoeuvres, which were intended to misrepresent Sr, Lucy's testimony.

Further, when he learned about her laudatory letters concerning President Salazar, he declared: “ We will never publish them.” This is the case; not a single one of them is found in the official biography. Monsignor, you are not a reviser; you are a censor!

The opposition of this Christian Democrat to Fatima ends up blocking all of “Heaven’s communications with us poor humans. The Devil, Fr. de Nantes points out, has been working to gain acceptance in the Church for an idea that is very favourable to him. It is the idea that Bishop Cauchon ¹ and his like prevail in authority, knowledge and grace over saints like Joan of Arc in the Church. The idea is that Bishop Cauchon and his like judge what they have to do as masters in the Church, subjecting God’s envoys to their scrutiny, whilst themselves submitting to no judgement, either divine or human.” (CCR no. 225, January 1990, p. 15)”

FERREIRA AND CRISTINO VOUCH FOR THE LIE !

I spoke several times to the second reviser, Fr. Pedro Ferreira, the former Provincial Superior of the Carmelites. He explained to me:

“ Sr. Lucy was very concerned about the consecration of the world. She wanted the Pope to do it.” This Carmelite Father did indeed say “ the consecration of the world [sic].” This shows that he scarcely paid any attention to the words of the seer!

“ I do not know,” he also said to me, “ whether the Pope must approve the reparatory devotion of the First Saturdays. It is of no interest to me.”

He was the confessor of the messenger of Our Lady! Poor Lucy!

As for the third reviser, Canon Luciano Cristino, Director of the Fatima Sanctuary Services for Studies and Diffusion, that is to say, the official archivist of Fatima, and for forty years now, he has become the kingpin of Sr. Lucy’s process of beatification. I meet him almost every year and he has already told me: “You are a conscientious historian. That is sure.”

He is aware of my denunciation of the apocryphal letters and he knows that the proofs that I have furnished by the internal criticism of these documents have never been refuted by anyone.

When I blamed him last February 26 for not having corrected the errors and lies contained in this biography, he, in the end, replied to me: “ This is not a book of a scientific nature; it is only a pious biography.”

“ I beg your pardon!” I replied to him. “ One must not mistake piety for falsehood.”

Being aware of the soundness of my accusations, he lost his composure and even seemed to grow faint.

I added: “ You not only can but you must repair the harm that you have done.”

Indeed, he is well placed to inform the Pope of the authentic demands of Our Lady of Fatima that have not yet been satisfied.

LET US BRING SISTER LUCY BACK TO LIFE

If we were not disoriented by the official lies, it is because we carried out our inquiries, research and works under the direction of our Father, Georges de Nantes, who had perfectly discerned Sr. Lucy’s extraordinary vocation and trials. He wrote:

“ The seer of Fatima, Carmelite in Coimbra, opposed in her mission, finds herself in the same dereliction as Joan of Arc in her prison. Despised and vilified, she came up against the lowness, the duplicity and the hypocrisy of the hierarchy. Yet it is this humiliation, through which humility is attained, that is the distinctive feature of truly predestined vocations. It does not prevent the work of God from being fulfilled; on the contrary, it is like the entrance through which the fruitfulness of the apostolic life must pass, opening onto heavenly glory.” (Sœur Lucie, confidente du Cœur Immaculé de Marie, p. 467-468)

While the official biography is another tombstone placed on Fatima, our biography brings the messenger of Our Lady back to life with the hope that her urgent requests will soon become known to our Holy Father, Pope Francis, and honoured by him like the clauses of a “ new covenant,” overflowing with marvellous promises.

It is most certainly by this means that the Church and Christendom will be reborn.

Brother François de Marie des Anges.

(1) Pierre Cauchon, Bishop of Beauvais, who condemned Joan of Arc to the stake.