Update on the Plot
to Silence Our Lady

A Response to the Distorters of Our Lady’s Message

by Father Paul L. Kramer, M.Div.

I have not written on the topic of the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima for several years, because I had stated all that I could say on the topic, and nothing more needed to be said — or so I thought.

Three individuals, Father James Morrow, Father Barry Bossa, S.A.C. and Father Robert Fox have recently claimed that the Consecration of Russia has been already performed by the Pope in fulfillment of Our Lady’s request.

These three distorters have made no attempt to refute the overwhelming evidence that I, Father Gruner and others have published over the past ten years as proof that the consecration has not yet been done.1

Let us begin with Father Morrow. In his Christmas newsletter of 1999, Father Morrow asks, "What about the Consecration of Russia?" "Many," Father Morrow says, "now maintain that the Act of Consecration has actually been done!" This is, in fact, exactly what Father Morrow believes, since he exclaims in the next sentence: "It is extraordinary that there should be any doubt about it!"

Truly, however, it must be said that it is indeed extraordinary that there is no doubt in Father Morrow’s mind, since his evidence is so flimsy, and his arguments so disingenuously illogical.

Here is an example of his distorted reasoning:

First of all, it does not pertain to the pontifical office to speak only on matters of Faith and Morals contained in the Deposit of Faith. (We are restricting ourselves to official statements and decrees of the Pope, and not his personal, non-papal utterances.) It pertains to the Pope’s office to issue decrees and judgments in all matters pertaining to his ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

Making judgments on so-called private revelations pertains to the Pope’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The Fifth Lateran Council declared that the Roman Pontiff is the sole judge regarding the interpretation of prophetic revelations.

We have been asking the Pope to issue a ruling on the Consecration of Russia, since this matter pertains exclusively to his jurisdiction, and the Church has solemnly defined that it is the right of the faithful to seek a ruling from the Pope in all matters pertaining to ecclesiastical jurisdiction.

The Pope’s personal opinion, purportedly expressed to bishops privately (sometimes at the dinner table), is of no value as an official judgment in a matter that pertains to the jurisdiction of his public office.

I think it sufficiently clear in view of what is stated above, that Father Morrow’s position, namely, that the Pope would "confuse the two revelations, public and private," if he were to exercise his authority and issue a statement about the Consecration of Russia, is entirely absurd and nonsensical.

The absurdity of Father Morrow’s position is heightened by the fact that the Pope has made a public statement about the Message of Fatima: On May 13, 1982, while in Fatima, the Holy Father stated in his sermon the following words, "the Message of Fatima is so deeply rooted in the Gospel and the whole of tradition, that the Church feels that the Message imposes a commitment on Her."

It is, however, no surprise that Father Morrow speaks nonsense. On the topic of the Second Vatican Council’s failure to condemn Communism, he had this to say when he attended our conference in Hamilton last October:

The community life of the early Church was diametrically the opposite of every aspect of the cruelly imposed godless regime of the Communists. The spiritual peace and evangelical life that is usually found only in devout religious institutions permeated the entire Church.

The evangelical poverty of the common life in the monastery can be compared to the voluntary common life of the early Christians, which was as much unlike Communism as Heaven is unlike hell.

Equally confused is Father Morrow’s reflection on the Conversion of Russia. He says that:

Now to show something means to visibly manifest it. For Russia to show, i.e., visibly manifest a faith that is unseen, and therefore invisible, is patently absurd.

An Ace or a Joker?

Finally then, what is Father Morrow’s great piece of evidence, so conclusive in his mind that he has the confidence to say that it is extraordinary that there should be any doubt that the Consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been accomplished? Father Morrow’s trump card is no Ace of Spades, but much more like a Deuce or a Joker.

Father Morrow’s great Exhibit A is nothing more than a typewritten post card bearing what appears to be Sister Lucy’s signature, in which it is stated that "the consecration made by Pope John Paul II on March 25, 1984 in union with all the bishops of the world, accomplished the conditions for the conversion of Russia, according to the request of Our Lady in Tuy on June 13, 1929."

There exists strong evidence that leads one to seriously doubt or even reject entirely this post card message to the Father Robert J. Fox as inauthentic, i.e., a spurious forgery.

Firstly, the card is dated July 3, 1990. So on that date Sister Lucy purportedly stated that the consecration was accomplished on March 25, 1984, and then one reads further on, "Yes, it was accomplished, and since then I have said that it was made". (emphasis mine) The italicized phrase is a proven falsehood, a lie that Sister Lucy would never have stated.

Here is what Sister Lucy actually stated after the March 25, 1984, consecration of the world.

On July 20, 1987, Sister Lucy stated to Enrique Romero in a subsequently published interview that the Consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima is not yet done.

In an interview which appeared in the September 1985 issue of Sol de Fatima, Sister Lucy was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy when he consecrated the world on March 25, 1984. Sister Lucy answered:

The interviewer then asked, "So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?" Sister Lucy answered:

These statements correspond precisely to the conditions which Sister Lucy set forth in her official statement of March 19, 1983, to the Apostolic Nuncio, Sante Portalupi, in which she stated for the record, that:

She then set forth the conditions necessary to fulfill in order to validly accomplish the Consecration of Russia according to Our Lady’s request at Tuy:

  1. 1. Russia must be clearly indicated as the object of the consecration; and

  2. 2. each bishop must make a public and solemn ceremony in his own cathedral.

The importance of the public and solemn participation of the bishops of the world can be grasped when one considers the proper meaning of the words "in union with all the bishops of the world". What is meant by this phrase is manifested in a parallel passage of Our Lady’s words in Tuy set forth in writing by Sister Lucy:

In view of all this clear and precise evidence, one is compelled to seriously question the authenticity of the alleged statements of Sr. Lucy that the Consecration of Russia has been accomplished.

It is not only Father Morrow, but also Father Fox who resorts to spurious typewritten documents. It is important here to recall that Lucy’s own late sister Carolina had stated repeatedly that Sr. Lucy does not type, she writes in longhand only. She also told me this personally.

We submitted one of the typewritten letters to a forensic scientist, accredited as an expert by the courts of law in Canada. His verdict was that the typewritten letter was not signed by the same person who signed the documents in Sr. Lucy’s memoirs.

Father Fox deceptively conceals the fact that a dubious typewritten document is his evidence. In his article, Russia will be Converted, appearing in the October ’99 issue of Lay Witness, Father Fox claims, "Sr. Lucy told me that God had accepted the collegial consecration of March 25, 1984, and that the Lord would keep His word." Told him? Really? Well, not exactly. Father Fox was not physically in the presence of Sr. Lucy uttering these words.

What is most curious about all these computer-generated and typewritten documents purportedly signed by Sr. Lucy that have been appearing since 1989, is that they all contradict what Sr. Lucy has consistently stated on the topic of the Consecration of Russia during all the previous sixty years.

The explanations given to uphold the validity of the March 1984 consecration do not reflect Sr. Lucy’s mind, but rather concisely restate the old, discredited arguments that appeared in the magazine articles of John Haffert during the mid-eighties.

This curious fact should shed light on the real origin of all these typewritten documents that have been attributed to Sister Lucy.

All of these typewritten documents manifest a mind-set that is utterly opposed to the clear and lucid ideas that Sister Lucy has expressed in her published documents, written in her own hand, and manifested in her official statement to the representative of the Holy See — while, on the other hand they very clearly reflect the mind-set of Bishop Cosme do Amaral (who says that "John Haffert is one of the greatest experts on the Fatima messages"), and Mons. Luciano Guerra (the rector of the Fatima shrine, and faithful servant of Cosme do Amaral).

In a brief meeting with Father Gruner, in the presence of Father Clarke Moore, Father Fox held up the post card as though it constituted conclusive proof that the Consecration has been accomplished in fulfillment of Our Lady’s request. His position can be summed up as:

"Sister Lucy says that it’s done. End of discussion."

When Father Gruner began to object that it is not so simple, and there are many relevant questions that need clarification, Father Fox abruptly ended the conversation claiming that Father Gruner was just being obstinate.

Such is the hypocritical judgmentalism of Father Robert J. Fox, that a friendly and reasonable debate with him is impossible, because anyone who disagrees with Father Fox is judged to be "obstinate".

Father Fox ought to consider the etymology of the word "hypocrite". A hypocrite is one who is hypo-critical, i.e., one who is lacking in critical discernment. Such a one refuses to make a rational and objective analysis of all the obtainable facts, while seizing upon only those facts which appear to support one’s own pre-ordained and desired conclusion.

Such a one is Father Robert J. Fox, who judges Father Gruner to be obstinate because Father Gruner insists on being rational, objective and analytical, therefore prudently refusing to jump to an uncritical, unfounded conclusion in the manner of Father Robert J. Fox.

Father Fox has never even attempted to refute the evidence that I have presented in my numerous, previously published articles on the topic of the Consecration of Russia (eleven of them to be exact).2

In the past he has preferred to respond with defamatory personal attacks. He has a long history of this, and lest anyone forget, nearly fifteen years ago, in a Blue Army newsletter, Father Fox went so far as to make the slanderous assertion that "The Fatima Crusader perpetuates and encourages rebellion and mistrust of the hierarchy." (cf. The Fatima Crusader, no. 20, The Plot to Silence Our Lady, Part II).

The Holy See, however, has never found anything unorthodox, disloyal or rebellious to Church teaching or authority in any of the issues of The Fatima Crusader.

Every issue of the Crusader is sent to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and they have never found anything objectionable in matters of Faith or Morals.

Even the Apostolic Signatura has stated that there in nothing objectionable in this Fatima apostolate which publishes The Fatima Crusader.

We come now to Father Barry Bossa, the third, last, but not least of the three distorters. Father Bossa writes like one who has an axe to grind — and quotes the apocryphal interview of "Sister Lucy" with Cardinal Padiyara.

The "Sr. Lucy" of the interview claims that "In 1982, our current Pope, made the consecration in Fatima, but this consecration also lacked the union with all the bishops.

"Then in 1984, Pope John Paul II sent an invitation to all the bishops to unite with him and participate in the consecration which took place on March 25 … All the bishops joined the Holy Father in the Act of Consecration."

The last statement is patently false — very few bishops participated in the act, and that is why the real Sr. Lucy stated in her above-cited Sol de Fatima interview:

These are the two reasons given by Sr. Lucy in her explanation why the March 25, 1984, consecration did not fulfill the request of Our Lady at Tuy for the Consecration of Russia.

These are precisely the same two reasons given by Sr. Lucy for the failure of the 1982 consecration in her official statement to the representative of the Holy Father, and therefore it is entirely incredible — utterly unbelievable that Sr. Lucia, would have said in the presence of Cardinal Padiyara, in answer to the question, "But did not Russia have to be specifically mentioned …?", that this is not what Our Lady requested.

It is inconceivable that the real Sister Lucy would say exactly the opposite of what she said in her official statement to the Papal Nuncio.

There is definitely some fraud taking place in the alleged October 1992 interview with "Sister Lucy". If the real Sister Lucy had actually made these statements attributed to her, then she would explicitly contradict what she had previously maintained constantly for more than sixty years. If she had really done that, then what would her word be worth now?

The real Sister Lucy, however, would not have refused to autograph a copy of her memoir for Cardinal Padiyara, claiming that her signature might be misused.

Misused by whom, the Cardinal? It was his personal copy that he asked "Sister Lucy" to sign.

Would the real Sister Lucy have anything to fear by signing the Cardinal’s personal copy of her memoir — and let the reader bear in mind that her signature appears in many places in her previously published memoirs.

No, the real Sister Lucy would have no motive to insult the Cardinal in this manner. Only an imposter would need fear that her signature might be turned over to a forensic scientist, who would then expose her as an imposter.

Under the subtitle "Father Nicholas Gruner," Father Bossa quotes the alleged words of "Sister Lucy" on the topic of Father Gruner. I need not say more than this: Father Francisco Pacheco, who speaks Portuguese as his native language, was present at the October 11, 1992 "interview".

Father Pacheco unhesitatingly stated that "Sister Lucy" had not made any comment about Father Gruner. These statements therefore clearly appear to be an obvious invention of a self-appointed "translator" of the alleged interview.

Father Bossa goes on to produce a thoroughly apocryphal account of the events of October 12, 1992, at the Coimbra Carmel. Every single "fact" that he alleges is false. I was there, I am an eyewitness, along with a significant number of other eyewitnesses who can attest to the falsehood of Father Bossa’s allegations about Father Gruner. Father Bossa’s journalism is on the level of the worst supermarket tabloids. I will not dignify his spurious allegations with any other comment than this:

Here at The Fatima Crusader, we have always tried to present evidence to support our position that Our Lady’s request for the Consecration of Russia has not yet been fulfilled.

We have presented our case in a sober, objective and dispassionate manner. We have been answered with defamatory personal attacks and flimsy, spurious arguments that studiously avoid any attempt to refute our evidence. I therefore challenge anyone to refute the evidence I have presented in this article — sticking to the facts and the arguments, and refraining themselves from the slanderous personal calumnies that are so typical of the three distorters dealt with in this article, and the other distorters we have dealt with in the past.

Christian charity and justice demand no less.


  1. 1. The Fatima Crusader issues: No. 20, pp. 9, 13; No. 22, pp. 12, 26; No. 25, p. 20; No. 27, p. 12; No. 28, p. 23; No. 29, p. 3; No. 30, p. 8; No. 31, p. 4; No. 34, p. 4; No. 35, p. 5; No. 37, p. 10; No. 41, p. 18; No. 43, p. 17.

  2. 2. Ibid.

    Table of Contents