by Christopher A. Ferrara, Esq
In the 5th Century St. Jerome was confronted with a crude tract written by an obscure, unlettered young man named Helvidius, who denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although St. Jerome ultimately responded to Helvidius, demolishing his flimsy arguments, the great saint had hesitated at first, “for fear that by replying I should be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation”
The same sort of problem arises in addressing two crude pamphlets produced in 1992-1993 by one Carlos Evaristo, an obscure young man from Portugal who claims to have interviewed Sister Lucy on two different occasions in her cloistered convent. According to Evaristo, during these two “interviews” Sister Lucy essentially retracted everything she had said about the Message of Fatima during the previous 75 years.
For nearly five years the pamphlets were justly ignored by the Catholic and secular press, having been immediately exposed as bunk by leading Fatima experts, including renowned French “Fatimist” Frère François de Marie des Anges. In 1998, however, the pamphlets resurfaced and received considerable publicity.
This development prompted us to commission the following article on Mr. Evaristo’s notorious pamphlets. Although we, like St. Jerome, had some concern that by replying to Mr. Evaristo we, “should be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation,” the recent publicity for his pamphlets required that we address the blatant contradictions of the Fatima Message that Evaristo has presented as the words of Sister Lucy.
Has Sister Lucy repudiated all of her prior statements about the consecration and conversion of Russia and the Third Secret of Fatima? Or is Mr. Evaristo the bearer of a “new” Message of Fatima, conveniently revised to meet the demands of “ecumania” and the New World Order taking shape around us? Read the evidence and the arguments marshaled by Mr. Ferrara and decide for yourself.
This article presents a detailed discussion and analysis of two purported “interviews” with Sister Lucia de Jesus (known to Catholics as Sister Lucy), the last surviving seer of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, who now lives as a cloistered nun in the Carmelite convent at Coimbra, Portugal. The purported interviews were allegedly conducted at the convent on October 11, 1992 and October 11, 1993 by one Carlos Evaristo, a self-styled “journalist, historian and interpreter.”
Evaristo has published the interviews in the form of two pamphlets, entitled Two Hours With Sister Lucy and It All Started With Two Hours With Sister Lucy. The pamphlets have ignited tremendous controversy because in them Sister Lucy is reported as having flatly contradicted a whole series of statements she had made over the previous 75 years regarding the Message of Fatima and its implications for the Church and the world.
Before discussing the purported interviews in detail, it would be best to summarize the circumstances which surrounded their production and publication.
The Original Pamphlet
On October 11, 1992, Carlos Evaristo emerged from the famous convent in Coimbra, Portugal, to make an amazing claim: that he had just spent two hours interviewing Sister Lucy, and that during this “interview” she had contradicted all of her public and private statements over the past 75 years concerning the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the conversion of Russia, and the Third Secret of Fatima.
According to Evaristo, the “new” Sister Lucy, “contrary to everything she had said in some 75 years worth of prior correspondence, conversations and published remarks, was now saying that Russia had been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (in 1984), that Russia is “converting”, that “conversion” does not mean embracing the Catholic faith, and that the Third Secret of Fatima was not meant to be revealed to the faithful in 1960.
Evaristo would soon publish this first “interview” in the form of a crudely produced pamphlet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy. The credibility of the pamphlet was immediately cast into doubt by a manifestly absurd “detail” with which Evaristo embellished his account:
“Carlos Evaristo, who was sitting closest to Sister Lucy and directly in front, held Sister Lucy’s hands for most of the two hour interview.”(1)
Sister Lucy is a cloistered nun who is not even permitted to see her blood relatives alone. The claim that she held hands for two hours with a strange man she had never met before was laughable on its face and impossible to believe.
Equally impossible to believe was the “interview” as a whole. In fact, it was so unbelievable that the only other Portuguese-speaking witness to Evaristo’s alleged encounter with “Sister Lucy”, Father Francisco Pacheco (who is a lawyer as well as a priest), publicly disavowed the pamphlet in its entirety:
“I was the official translator of this meeting, which lasted two hours. I categorically affirm that the booklet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed. When I was first shown a copy in January 1993, I immediately contacted Carlos Evaristo and I personally told him not to publish this booklet because of the gross lies that he had put in it ... I trust that this will end the confusion caused by Carlos Evaristo and his notorious pamphlet.”(2)
Besides Father Pacheco, two other witnesses were present during the alleged 1992 “interview”, but neither of them speaks Portuguese. Anthony Cardinal Padiyara and Bishop Francis Michaelappa, both from India, were in Fatima to attend a Marian conference at the invitation of Father Nicholas Gruner’s Fatima apostolate, and they went along with Evaristo and Father Pacheco to the convent at Coimbra. Afterwards, Cardinal Padiyara would only attest that he had been present during the “interview”, which was conducted entirely in a language he did not understand. As for Bishop Michaelappa, he not only refused to vouch for the authenticity of the “interview”, but joined Father Pacheco in demanding that Evaristo not publish it.
Why did Father Pacheco publicly repudiate Two Hours with Sister Lucy, and why did both he and Bishop Michaelappa demand that it not be published by Evaristo? The answer was supplied by Evaristo himself: In a fax transmission to Coralie Graham, editor of The Fatima Crusader, Evaristo admitted that the statements he had attributed to “Sister Lucy” contain:
“... contradictory and unlogical (sic) things which at times seem almost craziness.”(3) (See fig. 1.)
In the same fax Evaristo further admits: “The dialogue was not recorded at the time. No notes were taken.”(4) (See fig. 2.) As if to demolish any remaining vestige of credibility in the “interview”, Evaristo even concedes that because his memory is unreliable, the “transcript” of the “interview” did not reflect his own memory but was “reconstructed”(!) from the memory of others:
“Although I may have a bad memory this reconstruction of what was said was not largely made by me. I only typed it.”(5) (See fig. 3.)
This is a devastating admission, because if the “transcript” was not based on Evaristo’s own memory of what “Sister Lucy” allegedly said, and if Father Pacheco, the only other Portuguese-speaking witness, repudiated the “transcript” because it “contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed”, then the only possible sources for the “transcript” are Cardinal Padiyara and Bishop Michaelappa — neither of whom speaks a word of Portuguese.
Yet, nowhere in Two Hours with Sister Lucy is the public ever told that the “transcript” of the “interview” with Sister Lucy is not really a transcript at all, but a “reconstruction” from the memories of people who could not even speak the interviewee’s language!
Evaristo Tries Again
Following massive public criticism of the ridiculous statements attributed to “Sister Lucy” in Two Hours with Sister Lucy, Evaristo produced a second pamphlet, which he entitled It All Started with Two Hours with Sister Lucy. The sequel simply re-publishes the original fabricated “transcript”, but this time attempts to buttress it with another purported “interview” which allegedly took place on October 11, 1993 — a year to the day after the first interview. In this second interview the remarks attributed to Sister Lucy are briefer and vaguer than those in the first “interview”, and she does not repeat her remarks about the Third Secret of Fatima not being meant for the faithful.
In contrast with the original pamphlet, which was justly ignored by the press, the 1993 sequel has been receiving considerable publicity in 1998, including coverage on a Spanish television show and articles in the periodicals Christus (of Portugal) and Gente (of Italy). That the sequel has acquired such publicity makes a refutation of its glaring incredibility a matter of considerable urgency.
Evaristo claims that the second interview was audio and video-taped in the presence of himself and eight other witnesses who allegedly attended, including a Cardinal. The alleged audio and video tapes have not, however, been made available to the public.
Evaristo further claims that this second interview was conducted on one hour’s notice to the Mother Prioress of the Convent, after the Cardinal (His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal Vidal of Cebu, Philippines) spontaneously decided that a group of nine people, including Evaristo, should jump into cars and pay Sister Lucy a visit late at night with a video camera and a tape recorder! We are told that this hastily assembled crowd and its equipment was admitted into a cloistered convent at 10:30 p.m. to interview an 86-year-old nun who would normally be asleep at that hour.
As with the first interview, the reader is asked to believe that “Sister Lucy” now contradicts everything she had said publicly and privately about the Message of Fatima for more than 75 years before she spoke to Mr. Evaristo and his witnesses.
Oddly enough, although a Cardinal and 7 other witnesses were supposedly in attendance at the 1993 spontaneous late-night interview of “Sister Lucy”, Evaristo’s sequel does not contain any attestations by these alleged witnesses that the “transcript” of the 1993 interview accurately reflects what “Sister Lucy” supposedly said on that occasion.
The purpose of this article is not to draw any final conclusions about which theory best explains the incredible “retractions” contained in these two “interviews” of “Sister Lucy”. It is not necessary for our purposes to determine whether “Sister Lucy’s” repudiation of her own statements is attributable to treachery on the part of Evaristo, or whether the woman in nun’s garb he allegedly interviewed at the convent in Coimbra was an imposter (as some have theorized), or whether it was indeed Sister Lucy who said the things attributed to her, but only as the result of duress, obedience to the suggestions of her superiors, or the effects of declining mental acuity combined with the suasion of others.
No matter which scenario is chosen, the conclusion is the same: Sister Lucy has been betrayed by those who are promoting her “retractions”.
This article does not seek to establish as fact a particular scenario for this betrayal, but only to demonstrate that a betrayal must have occurred because the statements attributed to Sister Lucia de Jesus in both the 1992 and the 1993 “interviews” are plainly unworthy of belief, for these reasons:
First of all, they contradict the Message of Fatima itself, which, as Cardinal Ratzinger has noted, “three Popes have already recognized in the most solemn manner possible and have wholeheartedly taken part in this devotion;”6
Second, they contradict Sister Lucy’s own repeated prior statements about the Message and its meaning over a period of seventy-five years before the Evaristo “interviews”;
Third, they contradict the evidence of our own senses regarding the drastic moral and spiritual deterioration of the world since the papal consecration of the world (but not Russia specifically) in 1984, and the supposed “fall of Communism” thereafter.
Cardinal Sodano, the present Secretary of State, the second most powerful man in the Catholic Church,recently praised the heretic Hans Kung in a very important lecture in RomeHe succeeded Cardinal Carsaroli as Secretary of State and continues his policies.
Cardinal Sodano, like Cardinal Carsaroli, met Carlos Evaristo at Fatima in 1992.It was after those meeetings that Mr. Evaristo started to publish his modernist, Ostpolotik version of the Fatima Message, in the guise of two “interviews” with Sister Lucy.
The First “Interview”: Two Hours with Sister Lucy
As we have seen, the most obvious problem with the pamphlet Two Hours with Sister Lucy is that it deceptively presents as a verbatim transcript what is nothing more than a “reconstruction” of what Sister Lucy allegedly said, a “reconstruction” which is not based on Evaristo’s own memory but on the memory of “witnesses” who do not even speak Portuguese. The original pamphlet never mentions this crucial fact, but leads the reader to believe that “Sister Lucy” is being quoted word-for-word.
Only in the sequel pamphlet, It All Started with Two Hours with Sister Lucy, did Evaristo finally admit that what he had originally presented to the public as a verbatim transcript is a fictitious reconstruction:
This [the first interview] is not a literal translation. It is a conceptualtranslation. The language used in this document is based on the actual Portuguese dialogue ...? 7
What does Evaristo mean by a “conceptual” translation? What does he mean when he says the translation is “based” on the “actual Portuguese dialogue”? And why did Evaristo fail to inform the public in the first place that his much-vaunted “interview” of “Sister Lucy,” which had caused so much controversy and even outrage around the world, contains only concepts and not her actual words?
That a “conceptual” reconstruction of a conversation was presented to the public as averbatim transcript should be enough to discredit the first pamphlet entirely, along with any further products by its author. The republication of the admittedly fabricated “interview” in the sequel pamphlet does nothing to improve its credibility today, more than five years after the alleged “interview” of “Sister Lucy” took place.
Putting aside, for the moment, the obvious problems with the credibility of the original “interview”, the reader is now invited simply to consider, in themselves, the words which Evaristo ascribes to his 1992 version of “Sister Lucy.”
On the Consecration of Russia
Yes, yes, yes ... The consecration of Russia was already partially done. Pope Pius XII made it in 1942 on October 31, but it lacked union with all of the bishops of the world, which Pope John Paul finally managed to unite in 1984.”
So this consecration  was then accepted by Our Lady?
How are we to reconcile what Evaristo now admits was a fabricated “transcript” with all of Sister Lucy’s prior statements to the effect that neither the 1982 consecration nor the 1984 consecration fulfilled Our Lady’s request?
For example, there is Sister Lucy’s September 1985 interview in Sol de Fatima, the Blue Army’s official publication in Spain:
John Paul II had invited all the bishops to join in the consecration of Russia, which he was going to make at Fatima on May 13, 1982, and which he was to renew at the end of the Holy Year in Rome on March 25, 1984, before the original statue of Our Lady of Fatima. Has he not therefore done what was requested at Tuy?
There was no participation of all the bishops and there was no mention of Russia.
So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?
No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.
Sister Lucy’s statements in the Sol de Fatima interview are completely consistent with all of her other prior statements about the requirements for a valid consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary: (a) that it be done solemnly and publicly by the Pope, (b) in union with all the world’s bishops, and (c) with specific mention of Russia.
This is precisely what Sister Lucy told the Papal Nuncio to Portugal, Most Rev. Sante Portalupe, when he met with her on March 21, 1982, to discuss how the Consecration which the Pope had planned for May 13 of that year should be carried out:
“Sister Lucy explained that the Pope must choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and Consecration of Russia ...” 9
As if that were not enough, on May 12, 1982, the day before the attempted 1982 consecration,L’Osservatore Romano (Italian edition) published a 1978 interview of Sister Lucy by Father Umberto Maria Pasquale, a Salesian priest, who was “the confidant of the seer of Fatima since 1939”.(10) During her interview of August 5, 1978, she told Father Umberto in no uncertain terms that Our Lady had not requested the consecration of the world in general, but of Russia specifically, and only Russia:
At a certain moment I said to her: “Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you ... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?” “No,Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia).”11
After this conversation, Father Umberto asked Sister Lucy to put this clarification in writing. Her handwritten note was first published in a 1980 pamphlet produced by Cavaleiro da Imaculado, establishing beyond any doubt that the consecration of “the world” did not suffice to fulfill Our Lady’s request at Fatima, as Sister Lucy herself would later say after both the 1982 and 1984 consecration ceremonies. The following is a translation of the letter written by Sister Lucy to Father Umberto on April 13, 1980.
Reverend Father Umberto,
In replying to your question, I will clarify: Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the consecration of Russia in the letter which I wrote to the Holy Father Pius XII — at the direction of my confessor — I asked for the consecration of the world with explicit mention of Russia.
Yours devotedly and in union of prayers. Coimbra, April 13, 1980.
Here Sister Lucy confirms to the whole Church that the consecration of the world is extraneousto the Message of Fatima, and represents, at most, the suggestion of her confessor. This suggestion seems to have resulted from a command by the Bishop of Gurza that Sister Lucy address to Pius XII a request for the consecration of the world (in addition to Russia), in her letter of December 2, 1940. 12
Precisely because the attempted consecration in 1982 made no mention of Russia (and the bishops did not participate), Sister Lucy told the Papal Nuncio on March 19, 1983 that:
“The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady requested. I was not able to make this statement before because I did not have the permission of the Holy See.”13
Even Evaristo admits in his sequel pamphlet that the 1982 Consecration was insufficient because “there was no participation by the bishops, making it invalid.”(14)
Indeed, how could the Pope consecrate Russia without even mentioning Russia? The notion offends simple logic and common sense. Yet the “Sister Lucy” who allegedly spoke to Carlos Evaristo in October 1992 offered this curious explanation, which contradicts everything she had said before:
But does not Russia have to be specifically mentioned, and did not Our Lady say this?
The Pope’s intention was Russia when he said “those peoples ...” in the text of the 1984 consecration ... God knew that the Pope’s intention was Russia and he meant “Russia” in the consecration. What is important is his intention, like when a priest has the intention to Consecrate a Host.
But as “Sister Lucy” should be expected to know, the mere unspoken intention to Consecrate a Host does not suffice to bring about the transubstantiation of mere bread into the Body of Christ. That is precisely the point: The priest must say aloud certain specific words — “This is My Body” — in order to carry out Our Lord’s command at the Last Supper. Absolutely no other words will do in their place.
In his original pamphlet Evaristo avoids mentioning a critical fact which demolishes any claim that the words “those peoples” are just as good as the crucial word “Russia”: After Pope John Paul had said the words “those peoples” while reciting the 1984 Consecration in St. Peter’s Square, he spontaneously added the following words to the prepared text:
“ ... of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.”
While the added phrase does not appear in the prepared text printed before the 1984 Consecration of the world, it does appear in the report of what the Pope actually said inL’Osservatore Romano.15 As the Pope’s spontaneous addition to the text establishes, “those peoples” -the peoplees of Russia- were still awaiting Consecration to the Immaculate Heart on March 25, 1984. Russia was not consecrated in St. Peter’s Square on that date because, for whatever reason, the Pope had determined that a Consecration of Russia by name was not expedient.
This is confirmed beyond doubt by a report in Avvenire, the Italian Catholic Bishops’ newspaper, which notes that several hours after His Holiness had recited the act of consecration, he again addressed Our Lady of Fatima, this time inside St. Peter’s Basilica, stating in the presence of 10,000 witnesses:
“We wished to choose this Sunday for the act of entrusting and consecration of the world ... of all peoples, especially those who have a very great need of this consecration and entrustment, of those peoples of whom You Yourself are awaiting our act of consecration.”16
So, hours after His Holiness had recited the 1984 act of Consecration in St. Peter’s Square, he clearly understood that Russia (“those peoples”) was still awaiting consecration to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, and that he had yet to perform the act. And, as we have shown in the quote above, in September 1985 Sister Lucy publicly stated in Sol de Fatima magazine that the 1984 consecration ceremony did not fulfill Our Lady’s request.
Pope John PaulII met with Sister Lucy for a half-hour in 1991.She never told the Pope that he had, in 1984, fulfilled the request of Our Lady of Fatima for the consecration of Russia. Had she done so, it certainly would have been announced to the world after their famous meeting.
Futhermore, we certainly would have,by now ,seen the promised conversion of Russia and world peace had it really taken place in 1984!
In any case, it should be obvious that when God commands the public consecration of a particular thing, it means that this particular thing must be mentioned to the public. A public consecration of Russia which does not even mention Russia is, therefore, no public consecration at all, but a mere private, unspoken wish. One might as well claim that the Pope could publicly consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by merely thinking to himself — “I consecrate Russia” — while strolling in the Vatican gardens! The very notion is ridiculous.
Yet it is precisely this ridiculous notion which is now adopted by the “new” Sister Lucy, who contradicts today everything she has said for the past seven decades about the specific requirements for the Consecration of Russia:
But doesn’t Our Lady want Russia to be specifically mentioned?
Our Lady never requested that Russia be specifically mentioned by name (!). At the time I didn’t even know what Russia was. We [all three Fatima seers] thought she was a very wicked woman. (!)
Are we now to believe, after all these years, that when Our Lady came to Fatima to request the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, She did not care whether Russia was evenmentioned? Does it seem likely that the Queen of Heaven would neglect to make it clear to the seers of Fatima that Russia is a nation, not some “wicked woman”?
We know that this cannot be true simply on the basis of Sister Lucy’s statement to Father Fuentes, the Vice Postulator of the cause of Jacinta and Francisco, on December 26, 1957:
“Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. Tell them, Father, that many times the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation…” 17
This statement alone establishes beyond all dispute that the seers of Fatima understood from the beginning that the very essence of the Message of Fatima requires the conversion of thenation of Russia as a sign of God’s grace at work in our times.
What is more, in the course of four detailed memoirs about the apparitions at Fatima, Sister Lucy had never indicated the slightest confusion about the meaning of the word “Russia”. Nor can we find anything Sister Lucy wrote or said to anyone in the world before Evaristo’s 1992 “interview” which would suggest that the Fatima seers did not understand, from the very beginning, that Russia is a nation singled out by God for a special act of consecration that would bring about the conversion of that nation and peace in the world.
But the new “Sister Lucy” now claims that the Fatima seers were all ignorant of the most basic meaning of what Our Lady told them, and that Heaven itself did nothing to disabuse them of their ignorance! This, of course, is completely impossible. Therefore, something is seriously amiss at the convent in Coimbra.
In any case, it is absurd that an act as important as the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary — an act specifically commanded by Our Lord Himself through His Blessed Mother — should now become the subject of a worldwide guessing game, in which the faithful are left to argue about the meaning of the vague phrase “those peoples”. Is this how the Church of God carries out the command of God? With an equivocation? We are certainly permitted to ask ourselves, and each other, why in Heaven’s name was Russia not mentioned specifically in 1984 so as to end all doubt about the matter? What possible impediment could there have been to the simple utterance of one word — “Russia”?
It is no wonder that Evaristo himself admitted that there are “contradictory and unlogical things which seem almost craziness” in these “two hours with Sister Lucy” — two hours which he himself concedes (however belatedly) were “reconstructed” from the “memory” of witnesses who do not even speak Sister Lucy’s language!
On the Conversion of Russia
Now, if Catholics believe anything, they believe that their Church is the sole ark of salvation and that (invincible ignorance aside) conversion to the one true religion is objectively necessary for the salvation of souls. As Our Lord Himself warned us just before He ascended into Heaven:
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” [Mark 16:16]
When Our Lady came to Fatima She brought with Her a divine warning and a divine promise, with the promise being contingent upon conversion to the one true religion:
“You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart ... If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved, and there will be peace ... In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted”.
In the context of the Message of Fatima, conversion can obviously mean only one thing: embrace of the Catholic Faith. The Catholic Church has defined three times ex cathedra that outside the Church there is no salvation:
Ex cathedra: There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved. (Pope Innocent III, the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
Ex cathedra: We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, the Bull Unam Sanctam, 1302)
Ex cathedra: The Most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441).
In view of these pronouncements, anyone who says there is salvation outside the Catholic Church is denying the Catholic Faith. In one way or another, all of the souls in Heaven enter as members of the Catholic Church.18
Therefore, when Our Lady said that Russia will be converted, She can only have meant a conversion to Catholicism. Nothing less than becoming Catholic could constitute a true conversion, because the Catholic religion is the religion established by God Himself.
God did not establish the Russian Orthodox Church, whose doctrines differ very signicantly from the doctrine of the religion God established. For example, the Russian Orthodox Church rejects: the Papal primacy; the teaching of the Catholic Church on divorce and remarriage; the Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together, not simply from the Father; Catholic doctrine on Purgatory; and the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary.
On this last point of doctrine, God has decreed that souls are to be saved by devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Obviously those souls must first believe in the Immaculate Heart of Mary as an object of faith — that is, they must be Catholic, since the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is unique to the Catholic Church, which is the one true Church of God.
Further, if “in the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph”, as Our Lady prophesied at Fatima, then Our Lady must be recognized by the nations of the world for what She is — and first of all by Russia. Hence the conversion of Russia can only mean that Russia will become a Catholic nation, because the Russian Orthodox religion does not admit as a doctrine that Mary was immaculately conceived and free from all sin whatsoever during Her earthly life.
Therefore, without a conversion of Russia to the Catholic Faith, the Message of Fatima is completely and utterly meaningless.
Indeed, if Russian Orthodoxy were acceptable to God, why would He have sent His Mother to Fatima in 1917 to speak of the conversion of Russia, when it was already Orthodox?
But what does this strange new “Sister Lucy” who appears on the pages of Evaristo’s admittedly fabricated “transcript” have to say on the all-important subject of the conversion of Russia through devotion to the Immaculate Heart? It defies belief:
Has the conversion of Russia then taken place?
Yes. The news speaks for themselves (sic).
Yes, the “news” does speak for itself; but the news does not tell us that Russia is converting. On the contrary, the “news” tells us that Russia has just enacted a new law which discriminatesagainst the Catholic Church and in favor of Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. This new law requires that the few Catholic parishes which exist in Russia apply for annual registration, along with other “foreign sects” — registration which can be revoked at will by any local Russian bureaucrat in any town in Russia. The same law forbids Holy Mother Church to “proselytize” among non-Catholics in Russia. In other words, Russia has just made it illegal for the Catholic Church to seek the conversion of Russia! Yet the new “Sister Lucy” tells us that Russia is “converting”!
There is more “news” which Evaristo’s “Sister Lucy” seems to have missed: Classroom “sex education” has just been introduced into Russia over the protests of non-Catholic psychologists, while Poland — the Pope’s own country — has embraced both classroom sex-education and“legalized” abortion since the “consecration” of Russia in 1984.
Meanwhile, in the world at large some 600 million innocent children have been slaughtered in the womb since the “conversion of Russia” in 1984. What sort of “conversion” results in the death of 600 million children in the womb? Only a conversion to satan. And that is precisely what we have seen in Russia and the world at large since the “consecration” of 1984.
There are a few other important items missing from the “news” filtering into the convent which houses the new “Sister Lucy”: The news that euthanasia is being legalized around the world, and that human cloning will soon follow. The news that all the nations of the world are moving toward a “New World Order” in which contraception, abortion-on-demand, divorce and homosexual relations are viewed as “rights”, while the Church’s moral teaching is defied by politicians and mocked by the mass media. The new “Sister Lucy” also seems ignorant of the news that wars and persecutions of Catholics around the world, especially in Russia and China, have increased since 1984.
Considering the following item in Evaristo’s 1992 “conceptual” interview with “Sister Lucy”, we might wonder whether it is “news” or pure fantasy which “Sister Lucy” is receiving in the convent at Coimbra:
[T]hat man in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion . . .
What man? Gorbachev?
Yes, and when he visited the Holy Father in Rome, he knelt at his feet and asked pardon for all the crimes he had committed in his life.
There is one small problem with this bit of “news”. The Vatican denies that it ever happened. Commenting on a Spanish television report about this alleged revelation by Sister Lucy, the Pope’s spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, declared as follows:
“Gorbachev did not ask for forgiveness from the Pope ... Mikhail Gorbachev did not kneel before the Pope and beg forgiveness for his sins, as supposedly stated by Sister Lucy ... It is neither true nor plausible ...”19
Here the maxim “false in one, false in all” would seem to apply. If it can be shown that the new “Sister Lucy” has uttered at least one thing which “is neither true nor plausible”, as the Vatican itself declares, then Evaristo’s entire “interview” of this strange new “Sister Lucy” should, in prudence, be rejected. All the more so, in view of Evaristo’s admitted technique of presenting fabricated “conceptual” translations as verbatim transcripts.
In any case, the truth of the matter is that after his meeting with the Pope at the Vatican, during which he repented of absolutely nothing, Mr. Gorbachev returned to his chairmanship of the globalist Gorbachev Foundation, which busily promotes reduction of the world’s population by several billion people through a strict regime of contraception and abortion. Of such horrors is the “conversion of Russia” made, according to the new “Sister Lucy”.
The New Meaning of Conversion
As we can see, the new “Sister Lucy” has an entirely new idea about what “conversion” really means. It goes along with her entirely new idea about what the “consecration of Russia” really means. Here is what the new “Sister Lucy” has to say about the new meaning of conversion:
But is the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian people to Catholicism?
Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people from carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are in fact taking place ...
Our Lady never said that? Here the new “Sister Lucy” drives a dagger through the heart of our Faith. She tells us that Our Lady did not come to earth at Fatima to seek souls for the Church of which She is the Mother, but rather “an individual choice to remain as they are or convert”!
So, the miracle to be produced by the consecration of Russia and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not the salvation of many millions of souls through reception of the precious gift of Catholic faith, but only “individual choice”! No serious Catholic could be expected to believe this pluralistic drivel attributed to Sister Lucy, who actually saw the Mother of God six times at Fatima, and who was horrified to see the many souls burning in hell for all eternity because of their “individual choice.”
Has the new “Sister Lucy” not considered that long before the 1984 “consecration” the entire Western world had “individual choice”? “The individual choice” to kill babies in the womb; “the individual choice” to contracept; the “individual choice” to divorce; the “individual choice” to indulge in pornography or homosexual relations; and even “the individual choice” to become a Catholic, if one happened to be among the few so inclined in our increasingly amoral civilization. Does this mean that the West had “converted” before Russia did, according to “Sister Lucy’s” new definition of the word? Does the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary mean nothing more, in the end, than the spread of pluralistic democracy to another country?
We cannot fail to note that even this worldly “miracle” of “individual choice” has yet to occur in Russia. On the contrary, as we have seen, Russia has just enacted a law forbidding the Catholic Church to seek converts among the Russian people and limiting the freedom of the Church even to exist in “that poor nation”. So Russia is not even a liberal democracy, let alone a Catholic country today. Yet the new “Sister Lucy” now tells us that Russia is converting.
And where are these “many conversions” which the new “Sister Lucy” says are now taking place all over Russia? Like the fabled repentance of Gorbachev on his knees before the Pope, they are pure fantasy. In all of Russia today there are only 300,000 Catholics. Catholics in Russia are outnumbered by Muslims ten-to-one. In fact, there are far more converts to Islam than to Catholicism. Even worse, there were at least 300,000-500,000 Catholics in Russia at the time of the Russian Revolution — significantly more than today — and today there are fewer Catholic parishes in Russia than there were in 1917! Thus, the Church has been losing ground in Russia since it began “converting” in 1984. 20
Still worse, since the 1984 “consecration of Russia” proselytization by Catholics has not only been forbidden by the law of Russia, but by the Vatican itself: In 1993 at Balamand, Lebanon, Vatican officials negotiated a joint statement with the Russian Orthodox Church. The Balamand Statement declares that in Russia “there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to insure their salvation”; that the return of the Russian Orthodox to the Catholic Church is an “outdated ecclesiology”, and that the Catholic Church will exclude “for the future all proselytization and all desire by Catholics for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church.”21 At Fatima, Our Lady spoke of the conversion of Russia; but at Balamand, Vatican officials agreed that the conversion of Russia is no longer necessary. Yet the new “Sister Lucy” now tells us that Russia has been “converting” for the past fourteen years!
Compare this abysmal situation with the true miracle which occurred in Mexico after the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe in 1531: some seven million Mexicans — virtually the entire nation — converted to the Catholic faith within nine years. And in Portugal itself the apparitions of Our Lady at Fatima worked a similar miracle, causing the Masonic-Socialist government of that nation to topple and the Reign of Christ the King to be reestablished in that nation within nine years of the Miracle of the Sun at Cova da Iria.
But those were the days when conversion meant conversion. Today, in the mind of the new “Sister Lucy”, in the mind of the world at large, many words have lost their meaning — even the words of Heaven at Fatima. In the Church today we see that the poison of Modernism, condemned by Pope St. Pius X as “the synthesis of all heresies”, has seeped into the thinking of many, even prelates. And now it corrupts the once-pure testimony of Sister Lucy of Fatima. In true Modernist fashion this new “Sister Lucy” uses all the traditional words — consecration, conversion, peace — but invests them with false new meanings which completely contradict their true meanings.
In Evaristo’s new “Sister Lucy” we see also a perfect example of the Modernist confusion between faith and politics in the post-conciliar Church, where Vatican diplomacy and Ostpolitikseem to have taken precedence over the propagation of the Catholic Faith for the salvation of souls from hell, a place which is not even mentioned any longer. This confusion between faith and politics, between the supernatural and the natural orders is what leads the new “Sister Lucy” of the Carlos Evaristo pamphlets to declare that the granting of a mere appearance of “individual choice” by a still-godless civil government is a supernatural miracle of “conversion”.
What sort of “Sister Lucy” is it, then, who could look upon the awful developments in Russia and the world since 1984 and see in them the fulfillment of the promises of Our Lady of Fatima? It is a Sister Lucy we have never known; a Modernist Sister Lucy whose strange new words make a mockery of everything she said before. It is a New Fatima for the New Church which the Modernists say was created at the Second Vatican Council.
There is neither conversion nor triumph in this new Message of Fatima; there is only a pathetic accommodation to the worldly wisdom of a dying world: “People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or convert.” A conversion of Russia without conversion to the Catholic Faith. What an insult to Our Lady of Fatima. And what an infinite insult to Him who sent Her.
On the Third Secret of Fatima
When Sister Lucy placed the Third Secret of Fatima into a sealed envelope in 1944 and sent it to the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, she made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first. So testified Canon Galamba, the personal friend to the first Bishop of Fatima, Bishop da Silva, whose testimony is contained in the files of Father Alonso, the official Fatima archivist appointed by the Ordinary of the Diocese of Leiria-Fatima.
On September 7, 1946, Cardinal Cerejeira, the Patriarch of Portugal, publicly confirmed at a Marian Congress that the Third Secret has been written and placed in a sealed envelope and “will be opened in 1960.” In conversations with Sister Lucy in October 1946, Canon Barthas asked her “When will the Third Secret be revealed to us?”, and she replied: “In 1960.” When Canon Barthas asked her why 1960 and not sooner, she replied: “Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.” Sister Lucy told no less than Cardinal Ottaviani that 1960 was the year chosen by Our Lady because in that year the Secret “will seem clearer” (mais claro).
In 1960 the whole Catholic world awaited disclosure of the Third Secret. There was even an American television show entitled “Zero 1960”, whose theme was the expected disclosure of the Secret. But, as we know, it was not to be. In February 1960 the Vatican, which had received the text of the Secret in 1957, announced through a Portuguese press agency that the Secret had been suppressed by Pope John and would probably “remain forever under absolute seal.”
As the post-conciliar debacle unfolded over the next 35 years, a growing number of Catholics became convinced that the Third Secret must have predicted what would happen after the Council, and that this is why Sister Lucy had said the Secret “will be clearer” by 1960. By 1960 the Second Vatican Council had been announced.
How sad it is to see that in 1992, at the convent in Coimbra, the “Sister Lucy” of the Carlos Evaristo pamphlet would turn her back on this aspect, too, of the Message of Fatima.
But didn’t Our Lady say that it [the Third Secret] was to be revealed to the public by 1960, at the latest?
Our Lady never said that. Our Lady said it was for the Pope.
For the Pope? Then what of Sister Lucy’s statements to Canon Galamba, Canon Barthas, the Patriarch of Portugal and Cardinal Ottaviani, all to the effect that the Third Secret of Fatima, like the first two Secrets, was for the whole world? What of the very envelope in which Sister Lucy herself had placed the Secret, and which was photographed for Life magazine [1/3/49]; the envelope on which Bishop da Silva had written: “This envelope with its contents shall be entrusted to His Eminence Cardinal Manuel (Cerejeira), Patriarch of Lisbon, after my death” — the very Cardinal who publicly confirmed that the Secret would be opened and read to the world in 1960! What of the Vatican’s refusal in 1944 to accept delivery of the text of the Secret supposedly meant for the Pope? What of Cardinal Cerejeira’s declaration in 1960, when Pope John ultimately suppressed the Secret, contrary to all expectations: “I affirm categorically that I was not consulted.” And, finally, what of the Vatican’s own 1960 press release, which announces the suppression of the Secret, but does not give as a reason that the Secret was “meant for the Pope.”
Throughout all these events, and for decades thereafter, Sister Lucy had never even suggested that the Third Secret of Fatima was meant only for the Pope. No, it was meant for us, and the whole Catholic world knew it. Indeed, before the Blue Army became the instrument of Fatima revisionism (along with the new “Sister Lucy”), its leader, John Haffert, expressed the disillusionment of Catholics everywhere over the unexpected suppression of the Secret:
“1960 came and went and the Pope ‘to whom the Secret had been confided’ did not make it public ... The silence from Rome lay heavily on all of us. People began to murmur that Fatima must have been a fake, that there was no Secret, that the 1960 Secret was ‘a hoax’... [in 1964], the effect of the long silence concerning the 1960 Secret still seemed to hang over us like a pall.” 22
At the convent in Coimbra in 1992 the “Sister Lucy” presented to the world by Carlos Evaristo completely rewrote the Message of Fatima. We have seen that even Evaristo was forced to admit privately that this new “Sister Lucy” had uttered “contradictory and unlogical things which at times seem almost craziness”, that his memory was bad, and that the whole “interview” was a “reconstruction” based on the memory of others who did not even speak Portuguese.
But in 1993 Evaristo would tell the world, in his great sequel, that the illogical and crazy things he had “reconstructed” the year before were the purest truth.
The Second “Interview”
Less of the Same
As our discussion of the 1992 “interview” should make clear, its publication proved to be a severe embarrassment to Evaristo. Hence his second attempt in 1993 to corroborate the capitulation of the last surviving seer of Fatima.
But here we have not more of the same, but less of the same. The 1993 “interview” is only half the length the 1992 “interview” — one hour. Also, the 1993 interview conspicuously omits any discussion of “Sister Lucy’s” alleged statement in 1992 that the Third Secret of Fatima was meant for the Pope, not the Faithful at large.
The 1993 “interview” does contain in substance a repetition of “Sister Lucy’s” alleged statements in 1992 that Russia was consecrated in 1984 according to the wishes of Our Lady, and that Russia is now “converting”. On this occasion, however, Evaristo resorts to blatantly leading questions in order to prod “Sister Lucy” into giving the answers which would buttress the plainly incredible interview of 1992:
So it is true that the consecration is done right? true?
Yes, it is true ... it is done ...
And Russia has started to convert, no?
Yes, it has started to convert ... the word ... conversion We should not give ears to those people who say otherwise ... The word conversion ... to convert ... indicates a change. A conversion is a change.
A change from evil ... It does not indicate that all evil will disappear but just a conversion from evil to good ...
More on the New Meaning of “Conversion”
As we can see from the above quote, in the second pamphlet “Sister Lucy” continues to insist that the conversion of Russia does not require conversion to the Catholic Faith. She will now settle for a supposed “conversion from evil to good.”
So, Russia, a land of abortion-on-demand and vicious discrimination against the Holy Catholic Church, is now good? And what about the rest of the world, in which 600 million babies have been slaughtered by abortion since the 1984 “consecration of Russia” — is the rest of the world now undergoing this “conversion from evil to good” as well? Or was the whole world already good, given the new meaning of “conversion” invented by the new “Sister Lucy”?
Russia has “started to convert”? Has it “started” to spare the lives of its unborn children? Has the world at large “started” to halt the holocaust of abortion? Is the world today more good or less good than it was before the “conversion” of Russia “started” in 1984? Of course, we know the answers to these questions, even if the new Modernist version of “Sister Lucy” does not.
The new “Sister Lucy” tells us that conversion “does not indicate that all evil will disappear”. Does not conversion require at least that a nation stop killing its own children in the womb? Has “Sister Lucy” forgotten that in 1917, not even communist Russia permitted abortion? Are we now to believe that Russia is “converting” when it is guilty of a routine daily slaughter of innocents which not even the Bolsheviks permitted at first?
Can “Sister Lucy”, the sainted seer of Fatima, really be unaware that more innocent lives have been taken by abortion since the 1984 “consecration of Russia” than were claimed in all the wars in the history of the world, including all the wars spawned by Communism, which is only one of Russia’s errors? When “Sister Lucy” tells us that not all evil will disappear after the conversion of Russia, does she mean to say that a “conversion from evil to good” can coexist with legalized abortion?
We can only be outraged that the “Sister Lucy” presented to us by Mr. Evaristo would apply the word “conversion” to a state of affairs in which the civil authorities of nations around the world, including “converted” Russia, have decreed that children in the womb are not human beings and may be exterminated at will. We can only be sickened by this pollution of the purity of the Message of Fatima.
But the 1993 model of the new “Sister Lucy” has even more to say on the strange new notion of conversion which she introduced for the first time in 1992:
“The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me which will convert” ... and a conversion is a change of a path of evil to good ... “and there will be some time of peace.”
So, Russia is now on the path to goodness? And the West too? What exactly do we see on this path to goodness which the new “Sister Lucy” discerns in world events since 1984? We see, first of all, the emerging European Union with its universal abortion-on-demand, contraception, “legalized” euthanasia, divorce, pornography, prostitution, “gay rights” and empty Catholic churches. If this is the “path of evil to good”, what, God forbid, would constitute the path of good to evil? Sacred Scripture solemnly admonishes “Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil ...” (Isaiah 5:20) Yet that is precisely what the new “Sister Lucy” has done in Mr. Evaristo’s little pamphlet.
We must conclude, therefore, that it could not possibly be the Sister Lucy we know and believe who utters these abominable things. The Sister Lucy who saw the Mother of God at Fatima and the vision of hell Our Lady permitted to her, would never in any sense use the word “conversion” or “good” to describe the unprecedented evil which exists in Russia and the rest of the world today.
The New Meaning of Peace
Cardinal Casaroli has a long history of making previously unheard-of concessions towards Moscow. These concessions go directly against the traditional Message of Fatima which the Russians identified as the number one obstacle to their plans for world conquest .With the new Evaristo version of Fatima, Moscow’s plans for world power are advanced.
At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady promised absolutely:
“But in the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, Russia will be converted and a period of peace will be given to mankind.”
And what of the “period of peace” which Our Lady promised as the fruit of the conversion of Russia? If we have had “a period of peace” since 1984, then how does one explain the incessant war on the unborn, which has claimed 600 million innocent victims since then, or the constant eruption of local and regional conflicts around the globe over the past 14 years?
The Hindu Nationalist government of India has, in early May, 1998, conducted three underground nuclear tests, and the people of New Delhi danced in the streets shouting praise to the Hindu god of war. Pakistan, a Muslim country, has just (in late May) conducted its own nuclear tests in an arms race with India.
This is peace?
But here too “Sister Lucy” finds new meanings for old and well understood words:
But this peace to which the Virgin refers in the prophecy refers to wars and persecutions that the errors of atheist communism were causing all over the world ...
This is important to get straight ... as this is why many people do not comprehend and think that world peace is to be instantaneous ...
The Virgin spoke of a peace from wars promoted by errors ... by the errors of atheist communism in the whole world ... Atheism, yes ... and therefore it is the greatest heresy that exists and it spreads from atheist communism ... it could have been a communism that wasn’t atheist ... But it refers to atheist communism that was producing many wars in the whole world.
Why is there no peace in Russia today? Why?
Because the wars that exist now are practically not derived from atheism but are civil wars.
So, the new “Sister Lucy” tells us that the peace of the Reign of Mary following the conversion of Russia and the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart means only that there will no longer be atheistwars, but all other wars will continue unabated!
A Friendly New Atheism
But does not atheism still exist in the world today? Are not wars still being fomented by atheistsaround the globe? The new “Sister Lucy” has an answer to this question as well: You see, the atheism of today is a kinder, gentler atheism which does not seek to destroy the Holy Catholic Church! Read it for yourself:
... atheism still exists but I think it is no longer the atheism that wanted to destroy the faith, the Church, God, and everything that is supernatural.
So, the Faith is no longer threatened by atheism!
Here the strange new “Sister Lucy” jettisons much of the New Testament! St. Paul tells us in Hebrews (11:6), “He who comes to God must believe that God exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.” Therefore, atheists will go to hell precisely for their atheism. Did Our Lord Himself not say that those who are not with Him are against Him?23 Therefore, atheism makes one an enemy of Christ. Did St. Paul not teach that the atheist stands condemned as an enemy of God because he has closed his mind and heart to the evidence of God in nature (Romans 1:18-21) which even a man without faith can see? Is not atheism the very creed that the devil himself promotes? How, then, could atheists be anything but a threat to the Church, given that they are, by definition, Her enemies by the very fact that they are enemies of Jesus Christ and followers of satan’s doctrine?
Seeing that atheists are enemies of Jesus Christ Who is the Head of the Catholic Church, and realizing that atheists follow the lead of satan, how is it possible for anyone, even the new “Sister Lucy,” to claim that modern-day atheists are not a threat to the Church?
And if this new, kinder atheism no longer seeks to destroy the Church and the supernatural, why is the world today steeped in the death and destruction of both body and soul in godless materialistic societies, which kill babies in the womb by the millions? The new “Sister Lucy” has no answer, because the new “Sister Lucy” is not asked such embarrassing questions. Her questioner, Mr. Evaristo, is self-evidently interested in preserving the credibility of his new “Sister Lucy”, who caused him so much trouble when he first introduced her to the world in his pamphlet of 1992.
This new kind of atheism described by the new “Sister Lucy” must be seen as symptomatic of the general process of apostasy within and without the Church in the post-conciliar period. The destruction of the Roman liturgy, the overturning of our most cherished ecclesial traditions, the loss of vocations, wretched catechisms, the decline in the life of prayer in individuals and communities, have all combined to erode the integrity and the militancy of the Faith.
Did not Our Lord warn us in Sacred Scripture that “you are the salt of the earth but if the salt loses its flavor, of what use is it? It is good for nothing except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” (Matthew 5:13). This new message of Fatima has no salt and is good for nothing. Only a Catholic who has lost the traditional faith could find it palatable. And for millions of young Catholics today, the new message of Fatima will be palatable only because they have never been fed by the faith of the ages in the first place. These millions of Catholics are the victims of the “new” Church of the post-Vatican II era, with its new message of Fatima — a Church which seems determined to bury its own past.
In view of this pathetic new “message” of Fatima, should we not entreat Rome with all the more urgency to reveal the suppressed Third Secret of Fatima? Cardinal Ratzinger told us in November 1984 that the Third Secret refers to the “dangers which menace the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (menace) the life of the world.” 24
For if Christians no longer salt the earth with a fervent faith, what will stay the wrath of God? What will keep Christians who have lost their salt from being trampled underfoot, as Our Lord warned?
Many believe that the revelation of the Third Secret would deliver us from the current apostasy, which clearly includes Mr. Evaristo’s saltless version of the Fatima message.
Yet Another Fantasy
At the end of the 1993 interview, the new “Sister Lucy” offers another observation about world events which brings to mind the Vatican’s dismissal of her fantastic story about Gorbachev’s repentance on his knees before the Pope:
But when [in 1984] we were at the beginning of a nuclear war and all of a sudden (sic), those projects for war that the nations had ... From one moment to another at the moment when the Holy Father made the consecration, those projects of war ... Everything changed! and (sic) these projects of war ... changed into projects of peace! ... These were projects to terminate everything that have now changed into projects to liberate! ...
Then, has the era of Peace come, now that the Consecration of Russia has been accomplished and that communism has collapsed?
The consecration of 1984 prevented an atomic (nuclear) war that would have occurred in 1985 ...
It is very strange indeed that after “Sister Lucy” offered the observation that a nuclear war would have occurred in 1985 if not for the 1984 “consecration”, not one question was asked about this remarkable statement. Was not Evaristo concerned about where Sister Lucy had acquired this astounding knowledge of a nuclear war narrowly averted? Yet Evaristo wanted to know nothing about it during the 1993 “interview”. This is most curious. Perhaps Evaristo realized that, like the conversion and repentance of Gorbachev, this “revelation” would not bear much scrutiny and was best left unexamined.
At any rate, one searches his memory in vain for any recollection of news stories in 1985 about the imminence of nuclear war between the United States and Russia. Nor does anyone with even a modicum of knowledge about world events over the past 14 years believe for a moment that Russia has stopped producing weapons of mass destruction and turned her energies to “projects to liberate”!
And what “projects of liberation”, exactly, is the new “Sister Lucy” referring to? Is she not aware that Russia, along with Israel, is now the chief supplier of weaponry to Communist China, 25 where the Catholic Church has been forced underground and bishops and priests are arrested for the “crime” of being Catholics in union with the Holy See? Is the new “Sister Lucy” unaware that Russia still possesses enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over, and that Russian missiles by the thousands remain “on alert” in their silos?
In fact, a major U.S. television news show revealed that in January 1995 Russia came withintwo minutes of a nuclear launch against the United States 26 in response to a false warning on its early warning radars! U.S. Senator Sam Nunn has stated publicly that Russia’s nuclear weapons are on a “hair trigger”, and that the danger of nuclear war through human error or misjudgment is greater than it ever was during the “Cold War”. 26
None of these hard facts about the state of the world seems to have penetrated the Convent at Coimbra, where the new “Sister Lucy” tells us, through Mr. Evaristo, of a world at peace, on the path of conversion to goodness. Yet we know that the world described by the new “Sister Lucy” is not the world we inhabit. It is a fantasy world, where apostasy is conversion, evil is good and war is peace.
Shortly after his amiable meeting with Agostino Cardinal Casaroli, architect of Ostpolitik and the new ecumenism, Evaristo emerged from the convent at Coimbra with a new “ecunemical” message from Fatima. What inference can we draw from this strange coincidence?
The New Message of Fatima
It would be well to summarize, in conclusion, the new message of Fatima which proceeds from the new meanings given to its key words by the new “Sister Lucy” who speaks to us from the pages of Mr. Evaristo’s pamphlets:
The consecration of Russia does not mean that Russia needs to be mentioned.
The conversion of Russia does not mean that Russia will embrace the Catholic Faith, or indeed any religious faith at all. It means only that Russia will grant “individual choice”, just like the godless pluralistic societies of the West. Nor does the conversion of Russia mean that Russia will stop killing babies in the womb or grant true liberty to the Catholic Church.
The peace which Our Lady promised at Fatima if Russia were converted means only the cessation of wars caused by atheism, but all other wars will continue unabated.
The atheism of today is not an enemy of the Holy Catholic Church.
The careful reader will notice that what this new, Modernist message of Fatima promises us is nothing more than a world in exactly th