...On December 26, 1957, Father Augustine Fuentes conducted a famous interview with Sister Lucy which was published in July, 1958, and reprinted thereafter by various magazines around the world.1 A full year passed before anyone in “authority” suggested it was not authentic. On July 2, 1959, nine months after the death of Pope Pius XII, an anonymous chancery official (who has not been identified to this day) suddenly published in the Diocesan bulletin of Coimbra that Father Fuentes had lied and had made up the interview out of thin air.2 In response, Father Fuentes' own Archbishop of Vera Cruz, and the Cardinal Primate of Mexico, publicly stated that Father Fuentes was an honest, good priest who did not merit the charges being leveled against him by the anonymous “news” bulletin.3 Nevertheless, the anonymous bulletin of the Curia of Coimbra was successful in suppressing Sister Lucy's statements and having Father Fuentes removed as vice-postulator for the cause of beatification and canonization of Jacinta and Francisco.4 Oddly enough, he was replaced by the very person Frère François now accuses of being behind the bogus letters of Sister Lucy in 1989, Father Luis Kondor.5
As Father Paul Leonard points out: “Of course it is manifestly dishonest and unjust what was done to Father Fuentes. Obviously if that Curia official of Coimbra or anyone else is not willing to stand behind his words, if he won't even take responsibility for his own ‘official’ acts, then clearly no one else should take his anonymous words and acts seriously either. This is clearly a case of some powerful figure who does not want anyone to question, rebuke, examine or subject his actions to judicial review but who wants to impose his opinion, judgment and decision. In other words, it is the action of a man who recognizes no authority over himself but who forces his will on others when he has no real authority to do so. All authority by men over other men comes from God, but God gives no one, not the President, not the Prime Minister, not the Pope nor the Supreme Court Judge any authority to command or judge unless the person in authority takes personal (and therefore not be anonymous) responsibility for his authoritative, official acts.”
As Father Gruner notes: “The whole nature of law, which must be observed if a society is not going to be subverted by a secret society, is that those in authority must take personal and public responsibility for their official acts. This posture is a fundamental requirement of the natural law.”6
Incredibly, a similar attempt was made on no less a personage than a Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. In 1975, a statement was published declaring that Cardinal Mindzenty had resigned from being Archbishop of Esztergom, Primate of Hungary. The Cardinal issued an immediate rebuttal stating, “I have not resigned and I presently cannot resign because of all the things going on in Hungary today which endangers souls.”7 Here was a Cardinal, one of the electors of the Pope, a prince of the Church, but even this did not deter certain Vatican bureaucrats from removing him from office and, at the same time, giving the public the impression that he had left his post willingly.
Due to Cardinal Mindzenty's courageous stand, the truth won. He wrote:
“On February 5, 1975, the announcement of my removal from the See of Esztergom was published. Next day, to my profound sorrow, I found myself forced to issue a correction through my office:
“A number of news agencies have transmitted the Vatican decision in such a way as to imply that Jozsef Cardinal Mindzenty has voluntarily retired. The news agencies furthermore stressed that before the papal decision there was an intense exchange of letters between the Vatican and the Cardinal-Archbishop, who is living in Vienna. Some persons have therefore drawn the conclusion that an agreement concerning this decision had been reached between the Vatican and the Hungarian primate. In the interests of truth, Cardinal Mindzenty has authorized his office to issue the following statement:
Cardinal Mindzenty has not abdicated his office as Archbishop nor the dignity as Primate of Hungary. The decision was taken by the Holy See alone.
After long and conscientious consideration the Cardinal justified his attitude on this question as follows:
1. Hungary and the Catholic Church of Hungary are not free.
2. The leadership of the Hungarian dioceses is in the hands of a church administration built and controlled by the communist regime.
3. Not a single archbishop or apostolic administrator is in a position to alter the composition or the functioning of the above-mentioned church administration.
4. The regime decides who is to occupy ecclesiastical positions and for how long. Furthermore, the regime also decides what persons the bishops will be allowed to consecrate as priests.
5. The freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Constitution is in practice, suppressed. “Optional” religious instruction has been banned from the schools in the cities and the larger towns. At present, the struggle for optional religious instruction in the schools is continuing in the smaller communities. Young people, contrary to the will of their parents, are being educated exclusively in an atheistic spirit. Believers are discriminated against in many areas of daily life. Religious teachers have only recently been confronted with the alternative of choosing between their professions and their religion.
6. The appointment of bishops or apostolic administrators without the elimination of the above-mentioned abuses does not solve the problems of the Hungarian Church. The installation of ‘peace priests’ in important ecclesiastical posts has shaken the confidence of loyal priests and lay Catholics in the highest administration of the Church. In these grave circumstances, Cardinal Mindzenty cannot abdicate.
This is the path I have traveled to the end, and this is how I arrived at complete and total exile.”8
Father Marcel Nault reflecting on the above experiences of Father Fuentes and Cardinal Mindzenty said:
“In Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 20 (Verse 28-31), St. Paul warns the bishops that, from among their own number, perverse men will arise to draw the faithful after them. And urges them to watch therefore and not be taken in. St. Jude, in verse 4 of his Epistle, says that infiltrators will enter the Church. In the Apocalypse we can read about the false lamb with two horns. This false lamb represents bad bishops. The two horns symbolize the two points on the miters of bishops who, while giving the appearance of a lamb, are actually false.9 In fact, as we have learned from Frère Michel's painstaking research, the Third Secret clearly refers to the responsibility of a number of members of the hierarchy for the present state of apostasy within the Catholic Church today.10 And as we have seen, this infiltration of the hierarchy has been predicted in Sacred Scripture.
“Thus, it seems we have here
