The Phantom Sister Lucy Theory - An attempt to Hijack a Criminal Investigation

VIDEO REVIEW · CATHOLIC RESTORATION CONFERENCE 5

By SLT - The Fatima Files

Introduction by Dr. Chojnowski:

Let’s start from the beginning. The Sister Lucy Truth investigation has spent the last 7 years collecting photographic, video, and handwriting evidence to document the life of Sister Lucy dos Santos, the Seer of the Fatima Apparitions from May to October 1917. From the beginning, we have made it our goal to follow the evidence with an empirical/forensic investigation that puts aside all theological controversies that, although important, do not relate to the matter at hand, whether there was an imposter put in the place of Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima and, if there was, who was she. This monumental task has been undertaken meticulously, with the help of many experts who have employed their unique and recognized expertise to the questions that this investigation has raised. After these 7 years, we can state with moral certainty that there was an imposter that first appeared in public on May 13, 1967. Even though this is not as certain as the above, we can also infer that the real Sister Lucy was no longer on the scene by 1960. The lack of photographic evidence showing the real Sister Lucy post-1959, along with the statement by the diocese of Leiria/Fatima that “Sister Lucia has no more to say about Fatima,” strongly points to the fact that the real Sister Lucy was no longer on the scene. We have looked for real, undeniable evidence that would show that the real Lucy was on the scene post-1959, but we have found no such convincing evidence. The convincing evidence is that the real Sister Lucy was on the scene possessing her own persona through most of the 1950s, and, also, the convincing evidence shows that the imposter Sister Lucy had fully taken over the persona of the real Sister Lucy by at least 1967. This information that we have put out has gained an international audience. It has even forced the Fatima Center to acknowledge the reality of an imposter Sister Lucy since 1967 and has even provoked the Fatima Shrine to send an interviewer to the Carmelite Convent at Coimbra, Portugal to interview two of the Carmelites about the claims concerning an imposter Sister Lucy. Not all that we would want, but steps in the right direction.

The Interview follows:

JUDITH SHARP: Since we haven’t had an update on the Sister Lucy Truth movement in some time, we thought it appropriate to do just that, get an update. Therefore, Dr. Peter Chojnowski, director of Sister Lucy Truth, joins us today to bring us current information about the movement. He’s given his talk the title “The Phantom Sister Lucy Theory and an Attempt to Hijack a Criminal Investigation.” Doesn’t that sound rather ominous? I think so. Well, Peter, welcome back. I for one am eager to hear the news. What’s going on?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Well, I think that the whole Phantom Sister Lucy theory, which I mention in the title, is really something that in a certain way is positive for the Sister Lucy Truth investigation, because at least it shows that people are having to recognize that there is a fake, that there was a fake Sister Lucy put in place, at least by May 13, 1967. So people are having to recognize it. They’re recognizing that it’s obvious when the evidence is presented. However, once it’s obvious, they want to change the narrative and add to the narrative so it doesn’t seem so bad for the perpetrators of this crime. Because we at Sister Lucy Truth hold that it’s a crime, even though we don’t know exactly what happened to the original Sister Lucy dos Santos of Fatima, nor do we know exactly who her replacement is. Still, we recognize that there was a crime. Either she was taken out by murder, either she was unlawfully imprisoned and put away, or certainly, no doubt, she was subject to identity theft on a grand scale. And in her name there were various crimes committed. The Fatima message was distorted and changed. There was voter fraud, someone voted in her name year after year. So this is a matter of criminality. And people who look at the facts but have a different agenda try to steer the narrative and hijack the facts and the investigation to go in their own direction, according to their own agenda.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: The Phantom Sister Lucy theory is simply this. While this impostor was on the scene, this woman claiming to be Sister Lucy, the real Sister Lucy was at the convent in Coimbra, continuing to send correspondence to people, hundreds and even thousands of correspondents, and even meeting with people regularly. And this continued all the way into the twenty-first century. You had the fake out in public, meeting with the popes, giving interviews, appearing with cardinals. And you had the real Sister Lucy behind the scenes, unseen, but continuing to live, continuing to correspond, continuing to make statements.

JUDITH SHARP: Can I just ask a question? Do you think she knew that there was an impostor out there talking for her, speaking for her?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Well, that’s what I’m saying. This is the theory that people are putting forward, and I believe, and I don’t just believe it, I know it, that the theory is so implausible as to be ridiculous, almost impossible.

JUDITH SHARP: Can we, at this point, since we don’t know forensically that it didn’t happen—

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Absolutely, we don’t know what happened to the real Sister Lucy. But even though we don’t know, we can say this is so implausible as to be nearly impossible. Because I mean, just mathematically speaking, just thinking about it from those who perpetrated the crime and the imposture: how likely would it be that someone, if she’s meeting with hundreds of people over the course of decades, if she’s continually corresponding with people, if she’s making statements about Fatima, if she’s even running into nuns continually in the convent, how likely is it that someone is not going to point the finger and say, wait a minute, this woman who’s appearing on the screen, this woman who’s appearing in all the pictures and videos and interviews, is not the real Sister Lucy. I met the real Sister Lucy and she’s still in the convent. And that woman with the chin is not her. The odds would be overwhelming, because someone could point out that this fraud is taking place. And the Vatican, who was obviously in charge of this whole escapade and this crime, would risk having their whole puppet show blown, and their whole replacement pointed out, and their whole modernist takeover of the church exposed.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: So how likely is it that they’re going to risk exposure by keeping the real Sister Lucy around and interacting with people continually? It’s just not plausible.

JUDITH SHARP: Who are the people who are putting this forward?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Well, I’ll put out the Fatima Center, because that’s an organization which has been very public. But there are people in Brazil, there are people in Poland now, who are sort of jumping on the whole bandwagon of this Phantom Sister Lucy idea. And it’s continuing to spread. It threatens to derail the whole Sister Lucy Truth investigation, because it makes it seem basically like just a shadow play, like well, there was nothing really threatening, just a change, almost like, oh, you play this character and I’ll play this character, and we’ll just change the situation with regard to the play, and we’ll continue that for forty years. That doesn’t make sense.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: I mean, if the Vatican is going to put someone else in her place, the real Sister Lucy, the seer of Fatima, the woman who was charged with spreading the message of Fatima, if they put her aside for all these decades, if for all these decades someone who was not her was assumed to be her, if they pull that off, they’re not going to risk exposure by keeping the real Sister Lucy around. I think that’s just common sense. I’m not adding any information to the investigation. I’m simply stating the facts, that this just is not plausible, and it really weakens, if not destroys, the whole force of the case that we’re really investigating a crime.

JUDITH SHARP: I do have a question. For instance, when Mel Gibson and his wife went to visit, there were pictures of that. Do you think that was the real Sister Lucy?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: No, I don’t think so either. Not at all. That was in 2001, I believe. No, there’s no way that was the real Sister Lucy. But nobody knew. It’s not his fault.

Someone could point out that this fraud is taking place. The Vatican would risk having their whole puppet show blown.

Dr. Peter Chojnowski

JUDITH SHARP: And how many people met with the fake?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: According to our judgment, the real Sister Lucy disappeared by 1959. She was off, because they were making statements for her, for example, in July 1959, the Diocese of Leiria felt free enough, felt confident enough to make the statement that Sister Lucy has no more to say about Fatima. And they denied the content of the Fr. Fuentes interview.

JUDITH SHARP: Really? So powerful.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Absolutely. They had Sister Lucy, quote unquote, deny that she had made any statements of that kind. No apocalyptic statements, as she says she was just talking about her cousins, and nothing about the punishments of God or the end times. Nothing like that. It was simply talking about her cousins, and that’s it. And then there came out the statement from the Diocese: Sister Lucy has no more to say about Fatima. That was July 1959. Well, now, don’t tell me, if they knew that the real Sister Lucy was alive and the year 1960 was coming in six months, don’t tell me that they would ever feel free and confident to make that statement, that she had no more to say about Fatima.

JUDITH SHARP: And you’re right, you’re referring to the fact that in 1960 the Third Secret was supposed to be revealed.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Correct. The Third Secret was supposed to be revealed by 1960. That was a key part of Sister Lucy’s mission. And so this is the case, adding to the inference that we’re making, that this Phantom Sister Lucy idea is absurd. Think, Judy, we’re trying to get together all the crimes that would have been committed by the real Sister Lucy if this Phantom Sister Lucy idea is true. One is voter fraud. One is allowing someone to take your own identity when it’s a false identity. Think of what we would be saying about the real Sister Lucy if this Phantom Sister Lucy idea is true. We’d be saying that she was silent with regard to the failure to reveal this Third Secret by 1960.

JUDITH SHARP: I don’t believe it.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: No, we would be saying she was silent in the face of the modernist takeover of the Catholic Church. No, the change of the mass, the change of the doctrine, the new theology, she would be absolutely silent, hiding in her convent. Not when she was so prolific at writing, and all the stuff that she did and all she said before that. No, that’s not a possibility.

Sharp raised a related claim: that researcher Suzanne Pearson has pointed to letters written by the real Sister Lucy to her cousins that surfaced after 1958.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Well, it wasn’t her, as far as we know. It wasn’t her. We have handwriting analysis of letters written from that time, and we find fraud. I know our famous letters that we’ve had analyzed with Bart Baggett, who’s this world class analyst of handwriting, I would say simply those things have to be submitted to handwriting analysis. Just because all those letters had to be passed through Mother Prioress, nothing was private. Obviously the relatives either were forced into silence, or they simply did not realize what had happened, and they were separated from Sister Lucy by a distance. Such a thing was plausible before it became clear that Sister Lucy was replaced. There is such a thing as forgery, and that’s what happened. That’s why we submitted hundreds and hundreds of pages of authentic, verifiably authentic text of Sister Lucy to Bart Baggett, and he used those authentic memoirs and letters to analyze letters written later, from 1969, from the 1980s, and signatures from this period. And it was revealed to him that those letters were forgeries. It’s all on our website, sisterlucytruth.com, under the handwriting analysis section. He signs it, and he says he’ll testify in court that this is true, and hold him accountable if it’s not.

The conversation turned to how the Fatima Shrine itself has responded to the impostor claim, and to what Chojnowski calls the theory’s central contradiction: that it ends up making the real Sister Lucy complicit in the very crimes SLT has documented.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Another big achievement of ours that occurred this summer was when the Fatima Shrine had to send someone out to the Coimbra convent in Portugal where Sister Lucy lived as a Carmelite. And in the course of that, this interviewer from the Fatima Shrine interviewed two Carmelite nuns from the Coimbra convent, both of which supposedly knew Sister Lucy. He had to bring up and address the impostor Sister Lucy idea that we’ve been putting forward and proving. He brought it up twice to them, and they had to respond. Of course they laughed it off. The only Sister Lucy they ever knew was the impostor Sister Lucy. The old nun that they put there. They only entered the convent in 1974, when Sister Lucy was long gone from the scene. But they had to address the problem. They didn’t say, well, yes, for security purposes we had to have this fake nun take the place of Sister Lucy, but the real Sister Lucy was there and we lived with her. They didn’t say that. They just laughed off the whole idea of an impostor Sister Lucy.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: So no one, the only people that are affirming this theory are those who want to mitigate the force of the evidence. The evidence points to those who run the organization of the Catholic Church since 1958 having committed the crime of replacing the real Sister Lucy with an impostor. The people who are talking about this Phantom Sister Lucy idea are trying to mitigate the force of that argument, of that evidence.

JUDITH SHARP: I’m glad to hear you say 1958, because that’s my feeling too, that everything changed in 1958. There’d be no way that in July 1959, if she was still around, that they could say Sister Lucy has no more to say. That’s ridiculous. There’s no way she wouldn’t tolerate it.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: And I want to point this out too. I think I did speak about it a few minutes ago, but what she would be guilty of. This theory, even though it comes off as being very innocent, very helpful, look at what they’re actually saying. The real criminal in their scenario is the Vatican. It’s the real Sister Lucy. She’s the real criminal, and the Vatican was just trying to help out. No, but that’s the force of the argument that they’re making. That’s what ends up happening. They want to whitewash the Vatican’s involvement, because they don’t want any idea to enter people’s mind that there was criminality involved. Right. Not just, oh, well, differing perspectives. Criminality. They don’t want that to come out. They don’t want that to be generally accepted, and the finger to be pointed at the Vatican, because we know, Judy, that nothing like this would ever happen without the Vatican initiating it or signing off on it. There’s no way.

The real criminal in their scenario is the Vatican. It’s the real Sister Lucy. She’s the real criminal, and the Vatican was just trying to help out.

Dr. Peter Chojnowski, describing what the Phantom theory implies

JUDITH SHARP: My feeling is that somehow they’ve missed the whole idea that the real Sister Lucy, Lucia, was visited by Our Lady, that she saw Our Lady, that she would do anything and everything that Our Lady said she was to do. I mean, this is heavenly, divine. And it’s like they put it in a secular idea. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: This woman has to be a saint, and saints don’t do criminal things. They don’t remain quiet as their identity is taken, as statements are made for them which are not their own. And you know, what is Fatima about, if it’s not to uphold the Catholic faith and to live the Catholic life? What is Fatima about if she was silent in the face of all the abominations that happened after Vatican II? If she was silent, well, that’s criminal. Can you imagine her being silent in July of 1959, and then in 1960, could you imagine her being silent and not reprimanding the pope for not allowing the Third Secret to come out? She would have been very vocal.

JUDITH SHARP: I would think absolutely.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Of course she would have. And that she would allow someone else to meet with John Paul II for her, and speak for her, all the way until 2000. Cardinal Bertone was meeting with the fake Sister Lucy. And the Third Secret, which they released in 2000, at least not the full Third Secret, certainly not the force of it, she would have remained silent in the face of that revelation. Oh, here’s the Third Secret, and it’s about John Paul II being assassinated. A complete and utter joke. Ridiculous. Put forth on the whole world, on the Catholic peoples. It’s an insult. Let’s just think about it. Why would you have to warn people in 1960 about an assassination attempt that would happen in 1981? So no, she would have remained silent in the face of all that, because according to the Fatima Center and according to others, she lived until 2001. So she would have remained silent in the face of that total distortion of the Third Secret.

JUDITH SHARP: Well, what a pathetic woman she would be. I mean, what happened to this great paragon of virtue and piety, and what would happen to that woman over the course of those years?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: She just became a little novus ordo nun in a convent of the Opus Dei.

Later in the interview, Chojnowski connected the theory to a 1962 papal address, and reflected on his own experience of the liturgical changes he says the real Sister Lucy would never have tolerated.

JUDITH SHARP: Well Peter, remember Pius XII made the statement that he was worried, because the nun of Fatima, this Sister Lucy, was making these warnings all the time coming from Our Lady, warning them against changing the liturgy. Because when you change the liturgy you change the faith.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Yes, and he was worried about that. And those continual statements that were being made. This was Pius XII being worried about it. So in the face of the liturgical abominations that happened in the sixties and after, she would remain silent, after hearing from Our Lady how essential it was to maintain the traditional liturgy, because it was a matter of the faith itself being maintained. I mean, she would remain silent behind the scenes, even, I think, telling Bugnini where he would be going. And she would participate in the novus ordo, because there’s no traditional mass in that convent. She would, according to these Phantom Sister Lucy people, this really gets me, she would be participating in the novus ordo, and they say, and I’ve heard it from them, oh, because she was so obedient. Ridiculous. Absolutely absurd. There’s a time when obedience doesn’t really kick in. If you saw all these things that happened, and Jesus Christ appeared to you, and the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to you, and you had a revelation and a vision of the Holy Trinity, would you care about obedience? Maybe when they tell you to sweep the floor or something, but not when they tell you to shut up about the Third Secret, and not stick up for the attack of the church by the Masons.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: That’s why John XXIII, on October 11, 1962, disgustingly spoke about the prophets of doom. And let me just say, there’s no doubt that he was talking about Sister Lucy and the children of Fatima and Our Lady of Fatima. There’s no doubt that that Freemason, that modernist, was speaking about them. And this new grand new bright world that the sixties pretended was dawning, in these Freemasonic minds, that was what was happening. Oh, this new age is dawning. Yeah, a new age of a complete collapse of Catholic faith, Catholic practice, Catholic morality, and even natural morality would collapse, and the world would be brought to a state of total destruction and cultural degeneration. And no, the prophets of doom, don’t listen to them. This criminal, who I think is ultimately responsible for the disappearance of Sister Lucy, John XXIII, Angelo Roncalli, this disgusting figure, he knew what he was talking about, and he would have never made that statement if the real Sister Lucy was still on the scene.

JUDITH SHARP: That’s interesting about the prophets of doom. I had never put that together before.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Yeah, absolutely.

He would have never made that statement if the real Sister Lucy was still on the scene.

Dr. Peter Chojnowski, on John XXIII’s 1962 “prophets of doom” address

Sharp asked what would happen next. Chojnowski closed with a preview of the investigation’s next step.

JUDITH SHARP: Is there anything, any last-minute thought you might have?

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Just pray for our endeavor, and whatever support people can give us. We’re, next year, 2025, we plan to make a presentation to a professional organization, present our case to a professional organization, nothing to do with the Church at all. And they’ve agreed to hear our case.

JUDITH SHARP: Interesting. Interesting. Well, I don’t want you to give any more details, I’ll blow the whole thing.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: No, but let us, we should get some interesting publicity soon.

JUDITH SHARP: So good, and let us know when that happens, so you can come and tell us. All right, well in the meantime, good luck, and we do support you, and wish you success in all that you’re doing, and just keep up the good work. And God bless you for all that.

DR. PETER CHOJNOWSKI: Thank you, thank you, Judy. Thanks for this opportunity.

JUDITH SHARP: You’re welcome, and we’ll talk again. God bless you, Peter, and your family.

Article about the Phantom Sr. Lucy