The life of Sr. Lucy and the catastrophic changes in the Church over the course of the 20th century give rise to a problem that demands an explanation.
How do we account for the complete change in Sr. Lucy after 1960?
How do we account for the behavior of the Vatican and Church hierarchy remaining completely silent on the Third Secret for 40 years and promoting a propaganda campaign to create an entirely new understanding of Fatima, the understanding introduced by modernists and liberals, that waters it down into insignificance?
How do we account for “Sr. Lucy’s” complete support of this propaganda as well as her requests for complete and blind submission to the postconciliar Popes when before 1960 she did not hesitate to repeat how the preconciliar Popes had failed to heed to Our Lady’s requests and how displeasing this was to Our Lord, Our Lady, and herself?
More specifically, how do we account for the dramatic changes in Sr. Lucy’s behavior, in her appearance, and even in her handwriting?
These pages will document and highlight the contradictions in the post-1967 Sr. Lucy’s words and behavior. The best explanation for these contradictions is that the true seer of Fatima was replaced by an imposter speaking and acting in her name. In fact, these contradictions only serve to make the case for an imposter Sr. Lucy more compelling.
In addition to documenting the imposter Sr. Lucy’s contradictions, we believe it is important to document the major facets of the Vatican’s propaganda to water down the Fatima message since the 1960s. This long process of dilution is the context for the imposter Sr. Lucy, whose words agreed with the Vatican message and asked for unquestioning obedience to the postconciliar authorities.
The 1992–1993 Interviews
Carlos Evaristo, who served as the translator for the two interviews, covers the details and contents of the interviews in a 30-minute documentary featured on his YouTube channel. The following factual details of the interview are summarized predominantly from his video.
Why is an analysis of the 1992–1993 interviews important?
We must give the most reasonable explanation for her contradictory statements because, if true, they change our entire understanding of Fatima. We document them here as extraordinary and undeniable evidence of how the post-1960 Sr. Lucy’s words contradict everything the pre-1960 Sr. Lucy said. Until now there have been essentially two ways to look at these interviews: one either accepts them at face value or one doesn’t.
Most people in the mainstream Church who have heard about these interviews accept their content at face value. John Paul II’s 1984 consecration was accepted by Heaven even if not satisfying every condition previously thought necessary. Mr. Evaristo, Dr. and Mrs. Zugibe, and mainstream Catholics have accepted these points.
The other approach completely rejects these interviews as fabrications. “Sr. Lucy’s” statements were so outlandish that most conservative and traditional Catholic Fatima groups clamored to excuse the interview away as unreliable. Evaristo notes that he has been threatened, accused of being a KGB agent, offered bribes, attacked, and even kidnapped by various people in attempts to silence his reporting of the 1992–1993 interviews. For over 10 years, he filed and won 12 lawsuits in Portugal against the various groups who defamed him besides his other efforts to defend his public and professional reputation. In short, we cannot dismiss these interviews as the mere fabrications of Evaristo.
But both of these approaches assume that the “Sr. Lucy” interviewed was the true seer of Fatima. The evidence that Sister Lucy Truth has gathered demonstrates with scientific certainty that this “Sr. Lucy” was an impostor. This replacement explains how “Sr. Lucy” could so easily contradict her former self and, more than that, agree with the Vatican message of Fatima: she was not her former self but a substitute placed to promote the Vatican. Therefore, we can reject the content of these interviews because we have positive evidence that Evaristo was not talking to the true Sr. Lucy in the first place.
The proposal that the “Sr. Lucy” featured in these interviews was an impostor is in fact the most reasonable explanation for their bizarre content. Those unaware of the impostor would accept “Sr. Lucy’s” words as authentic even if initially puzzling, as Evaristo himself admits, and those who have noticed something has gone wrong, but are unwilling to accept the extent to which churchmen have been corrupted, are humiliated, looking like conspiracy theorists to be easily brushed aside.
What are the 1992–1993 interviews?
On October 11, 1992, Cardinal Antony Padiyara, who served as the first Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, met with “Sr. Lucy” in the convent of Coimbra for two hours. Bishop Francis Michaelappa of India and Fr. Francisco Pacheco from Brazil were also present. Carlos Evaristo, a Portuguese-Canadian journalist and historian, served as the translator. Cdl. Padiyara wished to ask Sr. Lucy about Fatima and the Third Secret in light of the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. After the interview, its content was published by order of the cardinal.
Exactly one year later on October 11, 1993, Cardinal Ricardo Vidal came to the convent with other priests, seminarians, and friends to interview “Sr. Lucy.” Since the cardinal did not know Portuguese, the one hour interview was conducted in Castilian Spanish and filmed by one of the seminarians. Sr. Lucy was asked to confirm and elaborate on what she had declared in the interview the year before, and the transcription of this interview was added to the published minutes of the first interview.
In these two interviews, “Sr. Lucy” contradicts nearly every statement she herself had made for the past 70 years regarding the details of Our Lady’s requests at Fatima for the Consecration of Russia as well as the details of the Third Secret. She offers a definitive interpretation of the Fatima message that is novel and yet agrees with the propaganda of the Vatican since the 1960s, which diluted Fatima to a benign call to prayer and penance that should avoid any vocal reference to Russia or its consecration. The message of Fatima, rather, is one of hope, peace, and ecumenism. Hence we see the astounding ramifications of these interviews. In his analysis of the two interviews, Christopher Ferrara sums up the force of the contradictions:
What sort of “Sister Lucy” was 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 was a Sister Lucy we had never known; a Modernist Sister Lucy whose strange new words made a mockery of everything she had said before. It was a Sister Lucy sent to give us a New Fatima for the New Church the Modernists would have us believe emerged like a butterfly from a chrysalis at the Second Vatican Council. A New Fatima which heralds neither conversion nor triumph, but 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. (False Friends of Fatima, p. 78) [emphasis ours]
Later on, Ferrara asks the million-dollar question regarding Sr. Lucy’s identity and yet gives the most bewildering response, a shrug of his shoulders:
Was it Sister Lucy de Jesus, the last surviving Fatima seer, who spoke to Carlos Evaristo on October 11, 1992, and again on October 11, 1993? It does not matter.
Despite the strange lack of interest in pursuing the truth of Sr. Lucy’s identity, Ferrara is ironically correct: it was indeed a Sister Lucy we had never known.
But is the content of these interviews accurate?
If the “Sr. Lucy” interviewed was an impostor, then the accuracy of the interviews becomes irrelevant since they were never the words of the true seer. We would need to pay attention to them only as documented evidence of how the impostor “Sr. Lucy” not only contradicted the near-unanimous understanding of Fatima before 1960 but also agreed with the Vatican propaganda of Fatima’s “true message” after 1960.
A summary of “Sr. Lucy’s” points during the 1992–1993 interviews
As we have noted, in these interviews “Sr. Lucy” contradicts almost everything that she had formerly said and makes many other bizarre statements. Here she introduces a completely novel understanding of the Fatima message from everything she wrote about formerly, but one that is complementary to the propaganda of the Vatican.
She denies that the Third Secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960 even though it was she herself who had indicated that the secret ought to be revealed either by 1960 or upon her death, whichever came first.
She states, in agreement with the Vatican, that the Secret was intended only for the Pope, but he could have revealed it if he had wanted to.
She adds that she was opposed to its public revelation, in complete contradiction to everything that was stated by her and every bishop and theologian before 1960.
She declares that John Paul II’s consecration of March 25, 1984 was valid even though it involved only a majority and not all Catholic bishops.
She claims that John Paul II’s consecration avoided a nuclear war in 1985.
She says that Russia did not need to be mentioned explicitly by name in the Consecration since the year 1929 had passed and the errors of Russia had already spread.
These are striking contradictions for the seer who formerly complained over and over that Popes Pius XI and XII had not precisely followed the request of Our Lady in each particular step and detail!
She notes that Gorbachev was an instrument of God in the process of the conversion of Russia.
She clarifies that Our Lady never said the conversion of Russia would be to Catholicism nor even to Christianity. Rather it would be a conversion from militant atheism to that of any country that respects the free will given to men by God, the freedom to choose between good and evil.
She also asserts that the annihilation of nations does not refer to actual nations or physical war, but a spiritual annihilation that was the result of atheistic Communism.
In this interview, “Sr. Lucy” also seems to know positively that heaven had accepted John Paul II’s consecration of the world. Yet when asked in 1947 about Pius XII’s 1942 consecration, Sr. Lucy admitted she did not know whether heaven had accepted it because it had not been revealed to her. Yet at that time, she had not hesitated to add that Pius XII’s 1942 consecration did not follow Our Lady’s request exactly.Evaristo documents that “Sr. Lucy” would repeat her certitude about John Paul II’s consecration to Dr. and Mrs. Zugibe, who visited her in 2002 asking whether the consecration was completed.
“Sr. Lucy” further claims in this interview that the conversion of Russia has concluded because of the end of atheistic Communism.
Also she explains that World War II was a war against the Jews, who “continue to be a chosen people of God.”
This statement is very strange since Sr. Lucy had never before spoken of the Jews, yet here she approvingly uses the precise phrase that was promoted by the liberals and modernists in support of Jewish ecumenism!
She states that we are in the “Third Day of the Fatima Week,” which is ongoing.
“Sr. Lucy” explicitly claims that the “triumph of the Immaculate Heart has taken place”! It began when Our Lady saved John Paul II’s life in Saint Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981.
But then she renders this triumph meaningless by adding that “the triumph is an ongoing process.”
Ratzinger, as Benedict XVI, will contradict this statement in May 2010 by saying that the triumph of the Immaculate Heart has not yet occurred.
Lastly, “Sr. Lucy’s” closing message is: “He who is not with the Pope is not with God.”