Murder in the Vatican

by Lucien Gregoire

  27 This is the most prolific and most widely published testimony of his ministry

  28 In God’s Name David Yallop

  29 Catholic Encyclopedia. Search: ‘paraplegic marriage,’ e. g, Brazil De Brito 22 May 05

  30 29 1 Samuel 18. Jonathan falls in love with David

  31 Veneto Nostro 28 Jun 61

  32 Gospel of Matthew 19

  33 Christian Democratic Party minutes 22 Aug 63

  34 Loving vs. Virginia United States Supreme Court 12 Jun 67

  35 Washington Post 13 Jun 07

  36 Jeremiah 16

  37 The Book of Revelations 3-9 paraphrased by the author

  38 Il Pedophilia del Clero Gregorian University in Rome. Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana

  39 See Little Lady in Disguise in the author’s book of short stories ‘Let’s All Get Behind the Pope.’ The story of 5-year old Joseph Ratzinger and the Cardinal of Munich

  40 Catholic Catechisms dated after 2003

  41 Transgenders includes homosexuals whose sexual orientation drives a preference for apparel and/or mannerisms of the opposite sex—i.e. butch females effeminate males. Also included are transsexuals whose preference for apparel andor mannerisms of the opposite sex is driven by sexual identity, i.e. born with the mind of the opposite sex—i.e. a ’woman’ born into a man’s body or a ‘man’ born into a woman’s body. A ‘woman’ born into a man’s body will instinctively pass up the toy truck and reach for the doll in infancy whereas a ‘man’ born into a woman’s body will instinctively pass up the doll and reach for the truck—i.e. Tom boy - Sissy. Transsexuality, being a function of the frontal lobes, cannot be changed by therapy. Unable to change the mind, the only alternative is hormonal treatments and/or surgery to adjust the body to match the mind. Consistent with the general population, most transsexuals are heterosexual but having a body of the opposite sex lead a homosexual lifestyle. Also included in transgenders are transvestites who acquire a fetish for apparel of the opposite sex for reasons other than orientation. See The Enchanting Stenographer in ‘Let’s All Get Behind the Pope’.

  42 Kullhadd 13 Jul 93. At the time of the alleged scandal the altar boys who serve the pope were under Benedict, as Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith. Allegations were that the boys were molested in the Vatican. Ratzinger enacted a rule which sealed off communications of the boys with their homes during their tenure and required to take an oath, ‘What happens in the Vatican stays in the Vatican.’

  43 Messaggero Mestre 17 Mar 78

  44 La Stampa 28 Dec 58

  45 Treviso Notizie 12 Jan 71

  46 Direct testimony, Luciani to author

  47 Messaggero Mestre 11 Jul 74

  48 Messaggero Mestre 14 Aug 76

  49 Jack Champney witnessed this in Venice on March 9, 1975. The author recreates this incident in the short story ‘The Cardinal’s Bench’ in his book of short stories ‘’Let’s All Get Behind the Pope.’

  Photo Benedict XVI - Associate d Press

  Chapter 9

  Murder in Fatima

  “Visions are harmful to true religion…particularly dangerous when used to promote political ends.”1

  Angelo Roncalli

  In July of 1975, Luciani launched his most vigorous attack of his ministry. He criticized a South American bishop for capitalizing on a comatose twelve year old girl who was alleged to have the Stigmata.

  The girl had been injured and had never regained her faculties. The bishop and her parents put her on display through a one way window set in the wall of her bedroom. In a circus-like atmosphere they paraded thousands of pilgrims past her room for a fee.

  “I can understand why Mother Church might turn her head the other way when greedy people capitalize on defenseless children in this way. After all, she is at the source of this kind of satanic ritual. What bothers me most is that men and women of good conscience of the state stand aside and do nothing about it.”2

  Stigmata and the Shroud

  Stigmata had been a money-making scheme ever since the 13th century when St. Francis had been the first to display wounds in the palms of the hands; he is rightfully credited with having come up with the perverted idea. Most popes since his time have capitalized on this Sideshow of the Roman Catholic Church.

  Crucifixion involved the driving of spikes into wooden planks placed over the arms beneath the bone-line into the cross. It would not take a PhD in structural engineering of the anatomy to tell one razor-sharp first century nails driven through the palms of the hands would never support the weight of a human body.

  A short time before the South American incident, a photograph of the Shroud showed the blood as coming from the wrists and not from the palms—Christ was crucified through the wrists and not through the palms. Yet, Christ could not have been crucified through the wrists as He would have bled to death in a few minutes as the arteries would have ruptured immediately under the weight of the body. The early icons placed the spikes in the palms as it was more artistic and all artists since have followed this practice.

  The pain in crucifixion was concentrated in the feet. Spikes were driven crisscross through the ankles into the cross. The hanging impaired the victim’s ability to breathe. In order to keep breathing the victim would put pressure on the heels causing unbearable pain. The victim would eventually succumb to asphyxiation.

  The official position of the Church concerning the shroud is it is a fake. When it first appeared in France in 1353AD, Pope Innocent VI ordered an investigation. After three years Bishop Pierre d’Arcis of Paris reported, “After diligent inquiry and examination, the truth attested by the artist who created it, to wit, it is the work of human skill and not miraculously bestowed. Bishop Henri de Peituers falsely and deceitfully created the hoax for personal gain. In his deception, de Peituers secured a cloth woven in the Holy Land.’3

  Innocent declared it a hoax and ordered it removed from display. After he died it resurfaced. His successor Urban V allowed the hoax to go on. Yet, no pope has ever reversed Innocent’s decree.

  Luciani once told me, “Take a peek at Jewish custom as to how they buried their dead. While the body was customarily wrapped in a white linen shroud as told in the Gospel of John, ‘Then they took the body of Jesus and wound it in linen clothes, as the manner of the Jews to bury,’ the face was first wrapped in a napkin, ‘Then cometh Simon Peter into the sepulcher, and seeing the linen clothes lie, And the napkin that was wrapped about his face, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in one place by itself.’4 If an image of Jesus survived, it would be on the napkin, and not on the shroud.”

  Nevertheless, if Stigmata were an act of God, the Church should have been granting sainthood to those afflicted in the arms.

  The vast majority of Stigmata including those of St. Francis have been self-inflicted. In the case of the comatose girl in South America, it was torture. Millions of people develop cancerous and bleeding sores, sometimes in the legs, toes, genitalia, buttocks and so forth. When they happen to appear in the hands one claims Stigmata.

  Lourdes

  In 1964, Luciani visited Lourdes on the guise of pilgrimage. Two issues had made the case for Bernadette.

  A spring had sprung forth in the grotto. The original transcripts described the first apparition “Bernadette went into the grotto to fetch water for the day.” Transcripts published after 1936 read, “Bernadette went into the grotto to fetch wood for the day.”5

  The second issue, the more critical one, was that the ‘girl’ told Bernadette she was the Immaculate Conception. At the time, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception—Mary had been born without original sin—was not known by the general congregation.

  Like other progressive doctrines, this was politically motivated to bring the Church into sync with social changes. The Christian world had always recognized women as property. In 1853, following Europe’s lead, laws were passed in the United States changing the definition of women from ‘property’ to ‘human beings’ bringi
ng pressure on Rome to elevate the concept of women in the Church.

  In 1854, Pius IX drafted the idea of the Immaculate Conception.6 Yet, for eighteen centuries Mary was assumed to have been born with original sin. Pius’ ‘discovery’ had to be kept secret while he searched for a way to convince the public of its authenticity.

  It was that Bernadette spoke of this doctrine that made her a saint. There was no way she could have learned of it. Luciani was convinced the spring had always been there. Yet, he was puzzled as to how she could have learned of the doctrine. In 1971, he returned and spent much time scouring over records and talking to villagers.

  The first apparition occurred in February 1858. The apparitions which followed were witnessed by crowds. She told them “I have seen a girl of my age silent as to who she was. She would reveal her identity in six months.”6 At the time Bernadette was fourteen.

  In early March, two days before the apparition in which the ‘girl’ would reveal her identity, Bernadette was interviewed by a bishop from the Vatican. The vision was witnessed by ten thousand people. All they saw was a girl talking to the air. Afterwards, she told the crowd, the ‘girl’ had told her, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”7

  The next day, dozens of crutches appeared lined up against a wall suggesting crippled pilgrims had walked away. Townsfolk told Luciani they had been placed there by villagers seeking to capitalize on the visions. Within days, the poverty stricken town was booming.

  There was no greater feminist activist in the history of the world than Albino Luciani. One could ask why he would destroy the myth of the Immaculate Conception when it would contribute to one of his lifelong objectives: to bring about equality of women in the Church.

  He would not take part in deception to fool people into thinking women equal. He would remove obstacles the Church and society had placed in her path. Woman, herself, would prove she was equal.

  Fatima

  In 1916, Lucia Santos, age 9, and her cousins Francisco Marto, age 7, and Jacinta Marto, age 6, were tending sheep outside of Aljustrel Portugal. The specter in the first vision was the Angel of Peace. The second vision, a few weeks later, featured the Angel of Portugal. In the third vision, still another angel gives Lucia Holy Communion and Francisco and Jacinta a drink from a chalice.

  So convincing was she that though her mother told reporters she was a pathological liar they sensationalized Lucia’s story, “Lucia wants to become a saint. She knows many have been made saints for no other reason than they convinced the Church of visions.”8

  A reporter questioned the younger children Francisco and Jacinta. Their recollections of what the angel said not only contradicted Lucia but contradicted each other. Lucia successfully refuted her cousins as being too young to understand what they witnessed and by year end, her stories had reached much of Portugal.

  In December of that year, a Portuguese writer, Jose Santos Silva, in his book Short Mission told of the appearance of a ‘Lady’ to two children tending sheep. To the extent his story included secrets told the children by the ‘Lady’ he seemed to have plagiarized the La Salette visions of September 1846 in southern France in which Our Lady appeared to two children herding cows and tells them secrets.9 Yet, the timing of his book suggests he was motivated by the events of 1916. Regardless, he wrote of a ‘ghost’ appearing to more than one person at a time—a very rare occurrence in saintly visions.

  The visions of Fatima in 1917 were quite different from those of Aljustrel in 1916. Like the book, Short Mission, they involved a ‘Lady’ rather than angels. Also, it was arranged the younger children would see the ‘Lady’ but not hear or participate in the conversations to avoid contradictions which had been a problem at Aljustrel.

  The first apparition of the ‘Lady’ took place on May 13, 1917 at Cova da Iria near Fatima and was witnessed by a small crowd and a pair of reporters. A comparison of the 1858 Lourdes transcript and the 1917 Fatima transcript disclose Lucia plagiarized Bernadette in describing the ‘Lady.’ Both transcripts have identical wording, “The Lady was clothed in light wearing a white mantel edged in gold. A star was caught in the folds of her dress. She herself was as if made of light…I saw a girl of fourteen who was silent as to whom she was. She would reveal her identity in six months.”10 In both transcripts is the wording, “I want you to build a chapel here in my honor.”11

  Bernadette had, herself, plagiarized Juan Diego in his testimony of the apparition of the ‘Lady’ of Guadalupe in 1531, “…The light around her formed a dress edged in gold; a gold star in its hem. She told me ‘Tell Bishop Juan to build a chapel here for me.’”12

  Cardinal Antonio Belo of Lisbon explained the similarities, “The timing and descriptions of the visions and the request for a chapel would be identical as they involved the same Lady.”13

  Although the younger children were excluded from conversing with the ‘Lady,’ there were contradictions as to what they saw. For example, in her testimony to the reporters Lucia claimed ‘…the Lady was wearing huge magnificent dazzling earrings.’14

  When questioned independently the younger visionaries never mentioned the earrings. When pressed for an answer, Jacinta did not remember much of the earrings other than ‘they were beautiful.’13

  Francisco, thinking it a trick—Lucia had not mentioned earrings—told reporters ‘the Lady was wearing a veil which covered her ears. I could not see her ears.’14

  From this point on, it was arranged, Francisco and Jacinta would no longer witness the visions.

  The next vision was on June 13, 1917, the feast of St. Anthony.

  Lucia spoke of her conversation with the ‘Lady.’

  “Will you take us to heaven?” asked Lucia.

  The ‘Lady’ replied, “Yes, I will take Jacinta and Francisco soon, but you will remain a little longer since Jesus wishes you to make me known and loved on earth…”15

  When questioned why the younger children had not witnessed the vision, Lucia said, “Only I was brave enough to see the Lady.”

  Several months later, newspapers reported the younger children making confusing statements. Jacinta retracted some of what she had said and Francisco, probably because he had been cut out of the visions, began to deny them entirely. Shortly afterwards, both fell ill.

  The nature of Francisco’s illness remains unknown as, although he suffered for several months, he was deprived of medical attention. Jacinta died a few months after Francisco of pulmonary edema which had been mistaken for pleurisy in a Lisbon hospital.16 For the mystery buff, arsenic poisoning very often culminates in edema.17

  Lucia’s prediction had come true. “Yes, I shall take Jacinta and Francisco soon…” The Church recognizes this as a miracle. Any criminologist will tell you it is grounds for premeditated murder.

  “She didn’t see it dance.”

  Regardless, on July 5, 1977, Albino Luciani visited the village where Francisco had died. The next day he visited Saint Stephen Hospital in Lisbon where Jacinta had died. He spent the evening with Cardinal Robeiro in the Patriarch Palace.18

  The following morning, he interviewed the nun Lucia Santos at Coimbra. Scores of reporters swarmed the cardinal as he left the convent. They looked for the familiar smile. All they got was a look of anguish and despair. When asked why Lucia had not discussed the ‘miracle of the sun’ with reporters the day of the alleged miracle, Luciani told them “She didn’t see it dance.” Other than that he was mum as to what took place behind closed doors.18

  It could be Lucia was the pathological liar her mother claimed her to be. It could be she was a paranormal schizophrenic who really believed the things she imagined she saw. It could be she had actually seen a ghost. These things explain Fatima.

  But, they do not explain why Lucia predicted the deaths of her co-visionaries. Countless books portray the loving Lucia taking a bowl of soup on her daily visits to her sick and dying cousins. One will never know.

  Aftermath

  After the spark of enthusiasm which followed Jaci
nta’s death—the ‘Lady’s’ prophecy had come true—only the most devout clung to Fatima. In the darkened corners of pubs and in schoolyards were whispers of ‘murder’ in the coincidental deaths of the children.

  One could argue the children died of the 1918 Flu. Yet, both died outside the Flu mortality period and the cause of Jacinta’s death is explicit in hospital records. Also, had Francisco been suffering from the Flu—readily diagnosed by coughing up of blood and darkening of stool to the extent one swallowed the blood—he would have been required by law to be quarantined in a sanitarium. No one survived the Flu for more than a week and both suffered for over six months.

  Nevertheless, the coincidental publication of Short Mission prior to the first vision and the testimony of the overwhelming number of witnesses who saw nothing unusual the day of the sun nailed the case shut for the doubters. Scientific journals which had demolished the authenticity of the ‘miracle of the sun’ and the lack of mention of it in the Sunday editions the day after it allegedly took place nailed the case shut for those who accept the real world they live in.

  The ‘miracle of the sun’ was created two weeks after it allegedly occurred. Illustracao Portuguese19 paid a half dozen witnesses to testify they had seen the sun fall down out of the sky.

  The tabloid plastered pictures on its front page of witnesses gazing upwards—obviously responding to Lucia pointing toward the sky, “There she comes.” The crowd had come to see the ‘Lady.’

  Unlike Lourdes, in which case the town had exploded overnight into prosperity, Fatima remained in relative poverty. The villagers built a chapel. Yet, the Vatican not only failed to encourage the hoax, it did much to discourage it. Benedict XV ignored it. The bishop of the governing diocese of Fatima not only refused to recognize the apparitions but refused invitations to visit the chapel.