We have collected here the most common objections to the work of Sister Lucy Truth and the idea of an imposter Sr. Lucy along with our responses to each. Those readers who have further questions are encouraged to contact us through this website’s contact form or to send a message on our Facebook page.
- Why focus on this issue? Isn’t it so small compared to everything going on in the world and the Church today?
- Isn’t Fatima simply a private revelation? Why can’t we just ignore all of it?
- It seems suspicious that the theory of the two Sr. Lucys never showed up until 60 years after the fact and, quite conveniently, has been promoted especially among Sedevacantists to fit their own narrative.
- How is this not simply another crazy conspiracy theory?
- Will you not acknowledge the groundbreaking work of others in arguing for two Sr. Lucys?
- People’s personal opinions override any deference to scientific or expert authority. They say, “It seems to me…looks to me like… based on what I’ve read or heard…”
- Some dismiss the weight of the scientific evidence. Typically it comes in the form of a cynical tagline: “You get the results you pay for.”
- Why don’t dental work or aging explain the differences in appearance between the two Sr. Lucys?
- Why has it taken so long to prepare and publish this material?
- Wouldn’t Sr. Lucy’s family or relatives or the nuns of her convent have known that she was an imposter?
- Wouldn’t a false Sr. Lucy have to have sacrificed her entire life in order to play a role? What could she possibly gain?
- Why replace Sr. Lucy when the Vatican could simply silence her?
- How could a cover up this extensive be maintained over decades?
1. Why focus on this issue? Isn’t it so small compared to everything going on in the world and the Church today?
There are several points of response to this important question. First, we have to look at the political and ecclesiastical consequences of this issue; then the theological implications; and finally, the historical importance of the issue of Fatima.
If the hypothesis of two Sr. Lucys were true, consider the massive implications for what has been happening in the Church over the course of the 20th century. If the highest members of the Church hierarchy have been complicit in such a coverup, the ramifications cannot be overstated. Yet we have already seen comparable corruption revealed in the past few decades with all the various scandals emerging from the Vatican. The replacement of Sr. Lucy would be one more unravelled thread to the huge tapestry of corruption and radical changes that have occurred within the Church, especially since the 1960s.
Theologically, devotion to the Immaculate Heart, devotion to Our Lady is vital in the life of every Catholic. Our Lady came to Fatima to establish devotion to the Immaculate Heart as a remedy for the calamities revealed to the seers: firstly, the vision of Hell, and secondly, the wars, persecutions, famines that would occur in the 20th century.
But from another theological perspective, the problem of Sr. Lucy’s identity and the twisting of Fatima cannot but raise the question of Sedevacantism. Even conservative, mainstream Church theologians and writers take the issue seriously and respond to it.
If one studies the history of the 20th century, Fatima is at the heart of it. It touches directly upon the two World Wars, the Cold War, and the spread of Communism. It predicted the start of World War II if Our Lady was ignored. It coincided with the Bolshevik Revolution, with the final overturning of European Christendom in World War I, and finally, with the revolution within the Church herself beginning with the first working session of Vatican II on October 13, 1962, the anniversary of the miracle of the sun. It is a matter of historical fact that Our Lady came to Sr. Lucy in 1929 specifically to ask for the Consecration of Russia as if this were the most urgent matter. “The moment has come…” she said to the seer of Fatima. We know from history what happened in those following years under Stalin’s satanic regime and his policy of dekulakization, which killed millions of lives. Sr. Lucy, trembling and sad, confirmed to Fr. Fuentes that 1960 would be a pivotal turning point in the history of the world and the Church since Our Lady’s requests for the Consecration of Russia had not been heeded. She was silenced, and Fr. Fuentes was disavowed.
The problems we spoke of earlier: the bizarre change in Sr. Lucy, the catastrophic changes in the Church, and all of this tied up with the dilution of Fatima over decades of propaganda and silence by the highest Church authorities. These are problems at the heart of the Church that no observant or zealous Catholic can ignore! We must answer the question: what is the most reasonable explanation for them? The identity of Sr. Lucy is emerging as a key to the answer.
We are making the small contribution that God has providentially granted us the opportunity to make. Given the severity of the crisis within society and the Church, this issue may seem relatively small, yet it is worth the effort. Few have the opportunity to study theology systematically and defend Church doctrine; few can become professional historians and publish how such dramatic changes could occur within generations; fewer still can combine these fields with the opportunity to publicize this knowledge. Sister Lucy Truth is the simple and sincere effort of Dr. Peter Chojnowski to promote the true and the good in one small corner of the Church.
2. Isn’t Fatima simply a private revelation? Why can’t we just ignore all of it?
Yes, the Fatima apparitions are private revelations. After a thorough canonical inquiry lasting 8 years, José Alves Correia da Silva, the bishop of Fatima, solemnly approved the apparitions on October 13, 1930 in his pastoral letter A divina Providencia with the approbation of Pius XI. As Fr. Antonio Royo Marín, OP, one of the 20th century’s foremost Thomistic theologians, clarifies:
Apparitions and private revelations are not an object of Catholic faith. It is not obligatory to believe in them, and because of that, it is also not heretical to deny them.
However, the Spanish Dominican immediately adds:
But when the Church, after long and mature deliberation, has declared as “worthy of belief” a specific apparition or private revelation, frankly it would be ridiculous, rash, and reckless to insist on continuing to deny it without any foundation.
As we state above, Fatima is at the heart of every significant political and ecclesiastical event of the 20th century: the overturning of Christendom in World War I, the prediction of World War II, the Bolshevik Revolution, Stalin’s genocidal program of dekulakization and the Cold War, and the Second Vatican Council, which marked the overthrowing of the traditional Faith. The miracle of the sun is perhaps the most witnessed miracle in history. Our Lady provided this miracle to confirm the authenticity and importance of the Fatima message. As Antonio Socci summed it up in The Fourth Secret of Fatima:
The Fatima event has received on the part of the Church—which in general is very cautious concerning supernatural phenomena—a recognition that has no equal in Christian history.
One may certainly go on living his faith without any consideration of these facts, but anyone fired with an apostolic zeal for the state of the Church and the world would be hard pressed to ignore them!
3. It seems suspicious that the theory of the two Sr. Lucys never showed up until 60 years after the fact and, quite conveniently, has been promoted especially among Sedevacantists to fit their own narrative.
This objection is a textbook example of a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is committed when a person attempts to disprove a position by pointing to how or why a person comes to hold that view and so fails to assess the position on its own merits. For example, an atheist may dismiss Christianity by saying, “You believe in God because you just want to avoid going to Hell.” But a person’s motivation for believing in God is logically irrelevant to whether or not God actually exists. It may just be the case that the atheist disbelieves in God because he doesn’t want a place like Hell to exist! Likewise, whether a Sedevacantist wants there to be an imposter Sr. Lucy in order to bolster his Sedevacantist belief is logically irrelevant to whether there actually was an imposter.
The truth or falsity of Sedevacantism has nothing logically to do with the irrefutable force of the scientific and medical evidence that Sister Lucy Truth has gathered. Each position must be considered on its own merits.
Sister Lucy Truth takes no official stance on the theory of Sedevacantism. Clearly the existence of an imposter Sr. Lucy does not in and of itself mean Sedevacantism is true, but it certainly raises the question. The fact of the matter is that the theory of two Sr. Lucys has been promoted for over a decade and by people who are not Sedevacantists.
As we state in our response to the objection about how a coverup like this could be maintained for decades, the development of digital communications and the internet have provided an incredible catalyst for scrutinizing the historical facts. The determination to discover the truth of the matter by utilizing state-of-the-art facial recognition technology and expert medical analysis alone drives this project.
4. How is this not simply another crazy conspiracy theory?
These days, we are used to hearing the label “conspiracy theory” casually tossed around in order to dismiss positions that run against the mainstream narrative. Given all of the misinformation in the world, the confusion, and the opportunity for any obscure person to broadcast his ideas across the internet, no matter how bizarre, this is an understandable reaction. Initially we did not accept the theory of two Sr. Lucys, and we would not believe it ourselves—if it wasn’t for the undeniable force of the evidence. We simply ask the reader to evaluate the evidence presented here, which speaks for itself.
The experts and labs that we have commissioned are not obscure individuals or groups that have been dismissed from the wider scientific community. They are well-established leaders and notable experts in good repute within each of their respective fields. They have generously agreed to have their names attached to their work, putting their professional reputations on the line. Lastly, they are not personally invested in the results of this work.
Sister Lucy Truth makes no attempt to draw theological conclusions from our findings. We simply wish to present the truth.
5. Will you not acknowledge the groundbreaking work of others in arguing for two Sr. Lucys?
While the analyses of these individuals may contribute in important ways to the debate about Fatima, they nevertheless hinge on the authors’ personal analysis and gut feelings. When it comes to two Sr. Lucys, the analysis consists solely of side-by-side comparisons by laymen. The problem is that any other layman can come along and deny the “gut feelings” of these people with their own armchair analysis. Hence there is endless arguing about what “seems” right to each.
Sister Lucy Truth’s approach is completely novel to what has been done until now. Sister Lucy Truth is about obtaining scientific, irrefutable evidence of the highest, most objective kind, which would even pass in a court of law. Our reports and efforts have produced precisely that. These findings cannot be dismissed as the supposed loony reflections of a lone individual but are the findings of multiple experts and state-of-the-art facial recognition technology, which all have independently come to the same conclusion.
6. People’s personal opinions override any deference to scientific or expert authority. They say, “It seems to me…looks to me like… based on what I’ve read or heard…”
Sister Lucy Truth moves past all personal opinions, which leads to endless bickering. This is why we have commissioned multiple scientific and medical experts, people who are specifically trained and competent in their fields to conduct the analysis that we have asked for. They have all independently concluded the same thing: there are two individuals.
It is simply impossible to explain these scientific findings on the theory that there was always one Sr. Lucy. No matter what a person may have read or heard, these historical changes and scientific facts must still be explained. One simply cannot account for the differences in every aspect of her life as demonstrated above with the idea that there was only one Sr. Lucy. We can take the line of Sherlock Holmes as our own:
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
7. Some dismiss the weight of the scientific evidence. Typically it comes in the form of a cynical tagline: “You get the results you pay for.”
First, this is an uncharitable assumption that we have dishonest motives, and this alone should be sufficient to dismiss the accusation. But further, it ignores the fact that we have a public and professional reputation to maintain. Publicly conducting this sort of project has consequences.
The scientists and experts commissioned also have public, professional reputations on the line. Further, they are not personally invested in the results. All of them were given this material for analysis without any explanation of the desired results. They were simply asked to analyze and deliver the conclusions based on their own expertise or technological equipment. They all independently came to the same conclusion: there are two individuals.
The most critical response, however, is that we received results that we did not expect or want, such as in the iPRoBe Lab or the handwriting analysis of the Third Secret. If we had simply paid off these experts, then all the results should be in our favor. The fact that not everything lines up as we had hoped or expected is a further proof of their objectivity.
8. Why don’t dental work or aging explain the differences in appearance between the two Sr. Lucys?
Dr. Ruud Karsten, Dr. Julio Garcia, and Lois Gibson all independently affirm that the preponderance of physical differences between the two Sr. Lucys cannot be explained away by dental work or the aging process. They further state that the differences are so significant that the most reasonable explanation for them is the existence of two separate individuals. When one considers that the success of their professional careers has been based on the rigorous competence of their medical and scientific training, it would be rash to flippantly claim that they were all wrong on the same points.
9. Why has it taken so long to prepare and publish this material?
Money, time, and manpower are the simple limiting factors, and any additional delays come down to logistical difficulties. The handful of individuals working on this project all have full time responsibilities beyond Sister Lucy Truth. Further, they are scattered across the United States. And as everyone also experiences, unexpected personal issues may arise that cause further delays. We don’t have a dedicated team working round the clock.
Regarding the actual commissioning of reports, it has taken extensive time to gather all the relevant evidence, to confirm its quality and authenticity (e.g. we decided not to pursue an analysis of one supposed text of the Third Secret since there were too many problems with the questioned document to warrant spending the money), to plan and estimate costs, to judge the “return on investment” that any particular analysis may bring, and finally, to overcome false starts and dead ends.
It is unfortunate, but perhaps to be expected, that some have uncharitably assumed that this work is for financial gain. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we have taken the trouble to register Sister Lucy Truth as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization is a demonstration of our goodwill and seriousness. All donations and expenses are set aside only for the stated purposes of the organization and thoroughly documented. Frankly, we lose money by setting aside time for this work, and we are putting our reputations on the line.
10. Wouldn’t Sr. Lucy’s family or relatives or the nuns of her convent have known that she was an imposter?
Firstly, we don’t know what Sr. Lucy’s family, relatives, or nuns “knew” about her, and barring the revelation of some unknown confession, we may never know. However, there are some truths we do know. The scientific and medical evidence we have is irrefutable. All the logistical difficulties of how an imposter could be introduced are secondary details that remain to be discovered. However, we know that the relatives were never allowed to see Sr. Lucy face-to-face but always behind the grille and in the presence of other sisters of the community. Hence there was no opportunity for intimate or in-depth conversation.
If it is true that the Church replaced Sr. Lucy with an imposter, if it is possible that the Church was overrun by Communists and Freemasons, is it not also reasonable to believe that these thugs acting in the name of the Church exerted pressure on Sr. Lucy’s relatives to remain silent and pretend as if nothing were happening? This isn’t proof that there was an imposter. It is simply stating that we should not be surprised that a cover up would involve tying up the loose ends with whatever threats or means necessary.
11. Wouldn’t a false Sr. Lucy have to have sacrificed her entire life in order to play a role? What could she possibly gain?
Many dedicate their entire lives to a cause, and many evil people have made incredible sacrifices for terrible purposes. Likewise, many heroic individuals have sacrificed everything knowing they would never see the fruits of their actions. The work of internally subverting the Catholic Church in the 20th century by external enemies and conspirators is a well-documented fact. Have not Communist or Masonic agents acted as priests and even prelates of the Church for the remainder of their lives? The purpose of playing such a role is simple: the destruction of the Catholic Faith itself.
12. Why replace Sr. Lucy when the Vatican could simply silence her?
For the simple reason that they could not silence the true seer of Fatima. Even more so, given the Vatican’s 40 years of silence following 1960 and its relentless propaganda to water Fatima down into a vague and generic call to holiness, prayers, and penance, they not only needed the silence of Sr. Lucy, they needed her undivided support. Her writings from after 1960 bear this point out. She called for complete obedience to the postconciliar popes. Her adulation of these popes culminated in her 1992/1993 interviews and her supposed approval of the interpretation of the Third Secret given in 2000, all of which make the Third Secret about John Paul II, the great hero of Fatima.
They could not silence the seer. Before 1960, she repeatedly insisted in her letters that obedience to Our Lord and Our Lady compelled her to speak. They could not silence the seer who did not hesitate to criticize each preconciliar pope who failed to heed Our Lord and Lady’s requests. In 1928 she wrote how “Our Lord is profoundly displeased.” In 1929 she let it be known that the Holy Fathers themselves would fail Our Lord as the king of France had failed Him. In a 1935 letter to Fr. José Bernardo Gonçalves, Sr. Lucy’s confessor, she wrote,
Regarding the matter of Russia, I think that it would please Our Lord very much if you worked to make the Holy Father comply with His wishes.
When Fr. Gonçalves wrote back in 1936 asking whether it was still necessary to insist on this point, she answered,
Believe me, if it were not for the fear of displeasing Our Good Lord because of my lack of clarity and sincerity, I would never have decided to speak so clearly.
And like a gadfly, she continued to repeat and proclaim the renewed requests of Our Lord and Our Lady in letters all through the years between 1940 to 1952 and for the final time in 1957. At the end of 1957, she said in her interview with Fr. Fuentes,
Believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The chastisement from Heaven is imminent. The year 1960 is on us, and then what will happen? It will be very sad for everyone, and far from a happy thing if the world does not pray and do penance before then.
Not only was Sr. Lucy silenced, but Fr. Fuentes was publicly disavowed. The next bishop of Leiria, Msgr. João Pereira Venâncio, said in 1960 regarding the Third Secret: “I can say nothing.” Despite Msgr. Venâncio’s final attempt in a letter of May 17, 1960 to unite all the bishops of the world in preparation for the Consecration of Russia, John XXIII ignored it.
From then on, not only silence from Sr. Lucy, but any further word from her was in total agreement with whatever the Church hierarchy wished to say about Fatima and the Third Secret. Not only was the Vatican able to finally silence the seer who refused to remain silent, but they could have her agree with any change to the Fatima message they saw fit to promote. How do we explain this complete change in Sr. Lucy’s behavior, which occurred precisely after her final interview was published in 1959?
13. How could a cover up this extensive be maintained over decades?
We don’t have enough information to know exactly how the cover up occurred and how it was maintained. The only thing we have for certain is the irrefutable scientific and medical evidence that there were two Sr. Lucys. Nevertheless, we can still suggest a few reasons how it would have been possible to get away with the substitution.
Part of what made the coverup easy to maintain for decades was the inability to share extensive photographs, videos, and samples of Sr. Lucy’s appearance and handwriting before and after the 1960s. With the advent of the internet and social media, spreading this information has become easy and instantaneous. For the first time in history, we can see for our own eyes how Sr. Lucy appeared, how she changed, as well as her handwriting.
But imagine a person “seeing” Sr. Lucy in 1967 or in magazine publications afterwards. They wouldn’t remember how she had appeared in the decades before. They would have nothing to compare her appearance with. Before instant communications and technology, Sr. Lucy could easily be hidden away in the convent at Coimbra for decades, as she was after the Fr. Fuentes interview.
Following that interview, Sr. Lucy was ordered to keep strict silence about the matter of Fatima and the Secret. The Diocese of Coimbra’s 1959 note said: “Sister Lucy has nothing more to say on Fatima!” This was the last official word of the Church on Sr. Lucy and Fatima. Even when the Third Secret was revealed in 2000, Sr. Lucy didn’t offer her interpretation. Cardinals Sodano, Bertone, and Ratzinger merely say she approved of their interpretation. John Haffert claimed that after 1959 the Pope had authorized only persons who had already met Sr. Lucy to speak with her again; everyone else required the express permission of the Holy See. We know that the Mother Prioress of Coimbra, shortly after the Fr. Fuentes interview, wrote to Father Messias Dias Coelho, an expert Fatima historian,
Do not ask [Sr. Lucy] to interpret what she has written or said. Ask this of the theologians, ask the hierarchy and the apostles of Fatima.
This silence on Fatima is reflected in “Sr. Lucy’s” letters after the 1960s. She addresses the spiritual life, the Rosary, the life of the Church, everything else, always circling around the issue of Fatima. In a letter from 1970, she even says directly, “I must remain in silence.”
As we mentioned earlier, Sr. Lucy’s relatives had no opportunity for intimate and in-depth conversation. In the 1992/1993 interviews, there is no deep conversation but formulaic questions and answers that only serve to confirm the Vatican’s propaganda about Fatima since the 1960s and bolster John Paul II as the great hero of Fatima.
But now with modern technology, the coverup is beginning to unravel. More people are able to educate themselves and discuss the matter. More and more minds are able to scrutinize the gaps and inconsistencies.