The musings and meandering thoughts of a crotchety old man as he observes life in the world and in a small, rural town in South East Nebraska. I hope to help people get to Heaven by sharing prayers, meditations, the lives of the Saints, and news of Church happenings. My Pledge: Nulla dies sine linea ~ Not a day without a line.
Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 7 March 1274), was a Doctor of the Church, Philosopher, Theologian, Jurist, Dominican Friar, and Priest. Known as Doctor Angelicus "Angelic Doctor," and the Doctor Communis "Universal Doctor" his writings serve as a defense and proof of the validity of Christ's authority over all. The Summa contra Gentiles (also known as Liber de veritate catholicae fidei contra errores infidelium, "Book on the truth of the Catholic faith against the errors of the unbelievers"). The Summa contra Gentiles consists of four books. The structure of Saint Thomas's work is designed to proceed from general philosophical arguments for monotheism, to which Muslims and Jews are likely to consent even within their own respective religious traditions, before progressing to the discussion of specifically Christian doctrine.
Book II is dedicated to the Creation (in other words, the physical universe, everything which exists).
Whether you are a history enthusiast, a student of religion, or simply curious about the impact of the Roman Catholic Church on the world, this playlist is designed to provide an informative and engaging journey through its captivating past. Subscribe to the Contemplating History channel for more educational content and immerse yourself in the rich tapestry of history.
If superintelligence is inevitable, can it ever be controlled? Roman Yampolskiy argues that advanced AI may be fundamentally uncontrollable—and that this single fact could determine the fate of every technological civilization.
0:00 A Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence
1:36 Intellectology as Applied Philosophy
2:27 AI Safety as a Control Problem
4:33 Consciousness and Detecting Intelligence in Machines
7:20 Limits of Testing AI Systems
8:48 The Fermi Paradox and AI as a Great Filter
Roman V. Yampolskiy is a tenured Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Louisville's Speed School of Engineering, where he founded and directs the Cyber Security Lab. Widely credited with coining the term "AI safety" in 2011, he is the author of AI: Unexplainable, Unpredictable, Uncontrollable.
Convicted of INCEST with his famous sister, this is the story of the execution of George Boleyn, younger brother of Anne Boleyn, who was beheaded on Tower Hill on 17 May 1536 two days before the one-time Queen of England and second wife of Henry VIII met a similar fate within the Tower of London’s walls.
In this Tudor history documentary from History Calling I’ll look at the arrest, show trial, condemnation and final hours of George Boleyn, Viscount Rochford, son of Sir Thomas Boleyn, Earl of Wiltshire and Ormond and his wife, Lady Elizabeth Howard. I’ll discuss the evidence against him (or lack therefore), ask was George Boleyn guilty, look at why so many people thought he would be found innocent and discuss the letter he read out in court which may have sealed his fate. His wife, Jane Boleyn, Viscountess Rochford, has long been blamed for providing evidence against him too and we’ll also look at whether or not that is true.
The video will share with you the final speech of George Boleyn, including what he thought of his conviction and his religious beliefs. We’ll then look at the death of George Boleyn and at where George Boleyn was buried. This was in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula in the Tower where he was soon joined by his famous sister and several years later, by his wife Jane and cousin, Queen Katherine Howard. I’ll also tell you if the body of George Boleyn has ever been dug up, as far as we know.
Mark Irons sits down with Dr Evelyn Tang, Assistant Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Rice University, to hear why she believes Catholicism and science go hand-in-hand — and how that's influenced her own spiritual life.
Even as the Church celebrated his beatification, next steps are underway to investigate 6 possible miracles for Fulton Sheen’s canonisation.
While the Church rejoices at the beatification of Fulton Sheen in St. Louis on September 24, the next steps are already underway for his cause for canonization.
Experts have begun investigating potential miracles to see if one could be confirmed authentic. An approved miracle is the last step needed for Archbishop Sheen to officially be canonized.
(Quick refresher: Blessed Sheen is at the third of four steps toward canonization. Read here about all the steps before the Catholic Church formally declares someone a saint.)
Possible miracles to be investigated
Monsignor Jason Gray, a canon lawyer and priest who serves as the executive director of the Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen Foundation and who led the formal investigation into the miracle already attributed to Sheen, shared details at a press conference before the beatification. Bishop Louis Tylka, also of the Diocese of Peoria, and Bonnie Engstrom, mother of the “miracle baby,” joined him for the conversation.
There are six potential miracles currently under investigation, he said, with two sounding particularly promising, although nothing can be determined until the Church has completed its investigation. He said:
We're looking for a miracle for canonization, and it turns out that, because Pope Francis did authorize the beatification in July of 2019, we actually are able to take anything presented from July 2019 forward as a potential miracle for canonization.
We actually have six prospective miracles that we're working on now. We're in the process of trying to get them all to supply information because … we have to document everything and then determine which one is the best.
There's a potential healing from stage four cancer that resolved itself, like, instantaneously. That one sounds pretty good. That's a big deal. There's another one of hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy of a newborn child…
So we have a couple different candidates: one for healing of cancer, another healing of another child. At this point, it's premature to say much more than that, and we'll investigate and leave it in the hands of the Holy See.
The process to approve a miracle
Many people may not be aware of the incredibly thorough process by which the Church approves a miracle as authentic. The diocese in which the miracle takes place conducts two tribunals: scientific and theological.
The scientific commission must determine that there is no natural explanation for the alleged miracle, and then the theological commission must rule whether the cure was a miracle in the strict sense — that is, by its nature can only be attributed to God. You can read more here about the rigorous criteria for an authentic miracle.
An unusually unanimous decision
Msgr. Gray described some of the process, sharing the detail that approval of Sheen’s miracle for beatification was unusually unanimous. He said:
Investigation of a miracle means you have to hear witnesses and you have to gather documents. The witnesses include medical experts — the doctors who were involved, the nurses who were involved, and then also the people present … the family and anyone who was present at the birth.
It also means gathering medical documentation, which is the entire medical file from the midwife who provided care beforehand, the care from OSF St. Francis Medical Center where James was admitted, and then later the follow-up with the pediatricians to determine that he was continuing to meet all the normal benchmarks, that there was no sign of lingering damage from that.
My job was to gather the information, and then we sent it to Rome. It's reviewed there by Rome by a series of experts, and usually — you have doctors, you have theologians, you have cardinals — and usually one or two of them will vote no. But as long as the majority vote yes, then the cause proceeds.
The votes in these were all unanimous. The doctors in Rome unanimously approved the miracle. The theologians unanimously approved. The cardinals unanimously approved. It's actually one of the few where that happens.
Bonnie Engstrom, who of course became intimately familiar with the miracle investigation process through her family’s story, shared her perspective as someone who witnessed it firsthand. At the press conference, she said:
A lot of it was just signing releases that doctors could talk about it. But if I could say, as a laywoman, I was so impressed with how thorough the investigation was … We felt very reassured that, wow, when the Catholic Church says something is a miracle, it is a legit miracle!
As the Church awaits a possible second recognized miracle through Blessed Fulton Sheen’s prayers, and as the miracle investigations are ongoing, you can join the cause with this prayer for the canonization of Fulton Sheen, which was prayed at the end of his beatification Mass.
Vigano issues a sharp rebuke to the Vatican's latest abomination of a document, “A Journey of Hope,” which calls for the end of "proselytising" (meaning evangelising like you actually believe the Gospel) because we 'live in a global village'.
Traditional Catholic morning prayers to help start your day in a holy way! The month of September is dedicated to the Seven Sorrows of Our Lady. I hope these prayers increase your devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary this month, to share in her sorrows and to and draw you closer to her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Begin each day with morning prayer! This video is a compilation of many traditional evening prayers Catholics say, and should not be considered a replacement for those who have an obligation to pray the Divine Office morning prayers.
Every year, roughly 12 to 13 million people photograph Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, and almost every one of them misses the point. Most people believe it is a masterpiece of art. It is actually a masterpiece of preaching. Stone by stone, window by window, this cathedral was built to teach the Christian faith to anyone who would slow down and read it, not with words, but with sculpture, with light, and with the very direction it faces. There are seven messages hidden in plain sight, and millions of visitors stand right in front of them and never see them. This is not a monument that happens to be a church. It is a Bible you can walk inside.
In an age when few could read a page of Scripture, the Church raised cathedrals that could be read like books in stone and glass. The 28 kings above the doors are not the kings of France. They are the kings of Judah, the family tree of Jesus, the stump of Jesse made visible. The whole building is a cross you can walk inside, and it faces the dawn because the rising sun was the oldest Christian image of the risen Christ. At the top of the spire, a golden rooster keeps watch over a fragment of the crown of thorns, and it was found whole in the ashes of the 2019 fire. So the next time you enter any church, slow down and read it. Notice which way it faces. Look for the cross beneath your feet. And thank God that he still speaks, even in stone.
In this video:
• The 28 kings on the facade are not French royalty, and the mob that beheaded them in 1793 made the same mistake tourists do
• The Last Judgment carved over the door, so no one enters without passing under it
• Mary as the new Eve and the new ark, carved into her own doorway
• Why the whole building faces east, and the Greek word that makes the dawn a name for Christ
• The rose windows as two testaments preached in light, and the rooster that survived the fire
⏱ CHAPTERS
0:00 A Bible You Can Walk Inside
2:21 The 28 Kings Everyone Gets Wrong
3:22 The Judgment Over the Door
4:21 Why the Cathedral Is Named Our Lady
5:51 The Cross Beneath Your Feet
6:39 Why the Whole Church Faces East
8:41 The Gargoyles and the Golden Rooster
📖 SCRIPTURE REFERENCED
• Isaiah 11: a shoot shall grow from the stump of Jesse, the promise the 28 stone kings make visible.
• Matthew 1 and 25: the family tree of Jesus on the facade, and the wise and foolish virgins over the door you walk through.
• Malachi 4: the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings, the oldest image of the risen Christ.
• Luke 1: Christ, the dawn from on high. The Greek anatole also means the rising, a name for the Messiah himself.
• 1 John 1: God is light, and in him there is no darkness at all, the sermon the rose windows preach.
• Romans 11: a wild branch grafted onto the ancient tree of Israel. We do not stand over that inheritance; we kneel inside it.
⛪ FROM THE CHURCH FATHERS & THE CATECHISM
• St. Gregory the Great (6th century): a picture gives to the unlettered what writing gives to those who can read.
• St. Irenaeus (2nd century), Against Heresies: the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary.
• St. John of Damascus (8th century): Christians pray toward the east, watching for the return of Christ, who will come like the sunrise.
• CCC 411: the Church names Mary the new Eve.
📜 SOURCES & FURTHER READING
• The gallery of kings: beheaded in 1793 by a mob who mistook them for French royalty; 21 of the heads were dug up beneath a Paris building in 1977.
• William Durandus (13th century): a church is shaped like a cross to show that the faithful are joined to the crucified Christ.
• The Second Council of Nicaea: the honor given to an image passes to the one it represents.
• The gargoyles: true gargoyles are waterspouts casting rain and impurity away from the holy building. The famous brooding figures were added in the 19th century by the restorer Viollet-le-Duc.
• The golden rooster on the spire holds relics of two saints and a piece of the crown of thorns.
🔗 EXPLORE MORE
🌍 Website: https://totuscatholica.org/
Rosary Guide: https://totuscatholica.org/rosary
✉️ Contact: https://totuscatholica.org/contact
🔍 Examination of Conscience: https://catholicexaminationofconscien...
📚 Free eBooks: https://buymeacoffee.com/totuscatholi...
👥 Become a Totus Insider: https://buymeacoffee.com/totuscatholi...
An image that presents the Evangelist holding a chalice from which a snake emerges condenses a little-known story of the saint.
Generally, Generally, John the Evangelist is seen accompanied by an eagle. The eagle, as is well known, is an animal with wide field of vision, which allows it to see for long distances. Thus, he has been associated with the vision of the Apocalypse (literally, “Revelation”) that the saint had on the Greek island of Patmos where, according to St. Irenaeus of Lyon, the evangelist wrote the Book of Revelation.
He is also represented, more commonly, seated while writing, or surrounded by some of his disciples (the so-called “Iohannine School”), dictating some of his letters, or perhaps the Gospel.
But there is a less common iconographic model, in which the saint appears holding a chalice with his right hand, from which a green snake emerges, while bringing his left hand to his chest.
The image is related to a certain memorial of the day of St. John the Evangelist, which is celebrated on December 27. Until well into the 20th century, it was a tradition to bring bottles of wine or cider that day to Mass, which would then be blessed.
Thus, every time a bottle of wine or cider was opened in the house, a little of that wine blessed at the feast of St. John the Evangelist was to be poured into the new bottle.
In some regions, this wine (which is nicknamed “Saint John’s Love”) is given to the bride and groom when they get married, or it is administered to those who are going to die, as a sacramental.
The tradition comes from a story associated with the biography of the saint: it is said that, while in Ephesus, John was offered a glass of poisoned wine. Before drinking, he blessed the drink and the poison came out of the cup in the form of a small green snake.
Princeton philosopher Noah McKay investigated Catholic miracles and found himself facing a choice he never expected. In this candid Catholic conversion story, he reveals the evidence that challenged his Protestant beliefs, and why following it came at a personal cost.
From The Golden Legend of Blessed Jacobus Voragine, translated by William Caxton in 1483.
ST. JUSTINA
Justina the virgin was of the city of Antioch, daughter of a priest of the idols. And every day she sat at a window by a priest which read the gospel, of whom at the last she was converted. And when the mother of her had told it unto her father in his bed, Jesu Christ appeared to them with his angels, saying: Come to me, I shall give to you the kingdom of heaven. And when he awoke, anon they did them to be baptized with their daughter.
Justina’s Conversion of the Magician Cyprian
And this virgin was strongly grieved and vexed of Cyprian, and at the last she converted him to the faith of Jesu Christ. And Cyprian from his childhood had been an enchanter, for from the time that he was seven years old he was consecrated by his parents to the devil. And he used the craft of necromancy, and made women to turn into juments and beasts as them seemed, and many other things semblable. And he was covetous of the love of Justina, and burnt in the concupiscence of her, and resorted to his art magic that he might have her for himself, or for a man named Acladius, which also burnt in her love.
Then he called a devil to him, to the end that he might by him have Justina, and when the devil came he said to him: Why hast thou called me?
And Cyprian said to him: I love a virgin, canst thou not so much that I may have my pleasure of her?
And the devil answered: I that might cast man out of Paradise, and procured that Cain slew his brother, and made the Jews to slay Christ, and have troubled the men, trowest thou I may not do that thou have a maid with thee, and use her at thy pleasure? Take this ointment and anoint withal her house withoutforth, and I shall come and kindle her heart in thy love, that I shall compel her to assent to thee.
And the next night following the devil went and enforced him to move her heart unto unlawful love. And when she felt it, she recommended herself devoutly to God, and garnished her with the sign of the cross, and the devil, all afraid of the sign of the cross, fled away from her, and came again to Cyprian and stood before him.
And Cyprian said to him: Why hast thou not brought to me this virgin?
And the devil said: I see in her a sign which feared me, that all strength is failed in me.
Then Cyprian left him, and called another devil more stronger than he was. And he said: I have heard thy commandment and have seen the non-power of him, but I shall amend it and accomplish thy will.
Then the devil went to her, and enforced to move her heart in love, and inflame her courage in things not honest. And she recommended her to God devoutly, and put from her that temptation by the sign of the cross, and blew on the devil, and threw him anon away from her. And he fled all confused and came tofore Cyprian, and Cyprian said to him: Where is the maid that I sent thee for? and the devil said: I acknowledge that I am overcome and am rebutted, and I shall say how, for I saw in her a sign horrible, and lost anon all my virtue.
Then Cyprian left him, and blamed him, and called the prince of the devils. And when he was come he said: Wherefore is your strength so little, which is overcome of a maid ?
Then the prince said to him: I shall go and vex her with great fevers, and I shall inflame more ardently her heart, and I shall arouse and bedew her body with so ardent desire of thee that she shall be all frantic: and I shall offer to her so many things that I shall bring her to thee at midnight.
Then the devil transfigured himself in the likeness of a maid, and came to this holy virgin, and said: I am come to thee for to live with thee in chastity, and I pray thee that thou say what reward shall we have for to keep us so.
And the virgin answered: The reward is great, and the labour is small.
And the devil said to her: What is that then that God commanded when he said: Grow and multiply and replenish the earth? Then, fair sister, I doubt that if we abide in virginity that we shall make the word of God vain, and be also despising and inobedient, by which we shall fall into a grievous judgment, where we shall have no hope of reward, but shall run in great torment and pain.
Then by the enticement of the devil the heart of the virgin was smitten with evil thoughts, and was greatly inflamed in desire of the sin of the flesh, so that she would have gone thereto, but then the virgin came to herself, and considered who that it was that spake to her. And anon she blessed her with the sign of the cross, and blew against the devil, and anon he vanished away and melted like wax, and incontinent she was delivered from all temptation.
A little while after, the devil transfigured him in the likeness of a fair young man, and entered into her chamber, and found her alone in her bed, and without shame sprang into her bed and embraced her, and would have had a done with her. And when she saw this she knew well that it was a wicked spirit, and blessed her as she had done tofore, and he melted away like wax.
And then by the sufferance of God she was vexed with axes and fevers. And the devil slew many men and beasts, and made to be said by them that were demoniacs that, a right great mortality should be throughout all Antioch, but if Justina would consent unto wedlock and have Cyprian. Wherefore all they that were sick and languishing in maladies lay at the gate of Justina's father and friends, crying that they should marry her and deliver the city of that right great peril. Justina then would not consent in no wise, and therefore everybody menaced her. And in the sixth year of that mortality she prayed for them, and chased and drove thence all that pestilence.
And when the devil saw that he profited nothing, he transumed and transfigured him in the form of Justina for to defoul the fame of Justina, and in mocking Cyprian he advanced him that he had brought to him Justina. And came to him in likeness of her, and would have kissed him as if she had languished for his love. And when Cyprian saw him and supposed that it had been Justina, he was all replenished with joy, and said: Thou art welcome, Justina, the fairest of all women.
And anon as Cyprian named Justina, the devil might not suffer the name, but as soon as he heard it he vanished away as a fume or smoke. And when Cyprian saw him deceived, he was all heavy and sorrowful, and was then more burning and desirous in the love of Justina, and woke long at the door of the virgin, and as him seemed he changed him sometimes into a bird by his art magic, and sometimes into a woman, but when he came to the door of the virgin he was neither like woman nor bird, but appeared Cyprian as he was.
Acladius, by the devil's craft, was anon turned into a sparrow, and when he came to the window of Justina, as soon as the virgin beheld him, he was not a sparrow, but showed himself as Acladius, and began to have anguish and dread, for he might neither fly ne leap, and Justina dreading lest he should fall and break himself, did do set a ladder by which he went down, warning him to cease of his woodness, lest he should be punished as a malefactor by the law.
Then the devil, being vanquished in all things, returned to Cyprian, and held him all confused tofore him, and Cyprian said to him: And how art not thou overcome, what unhappy is your virtue that ye may not overcome a maid, have ye no might over her, but she overcometh you and breaketh you all to pieces? Tell me, I pray thee, in whom she hath all this great might and strength.
And the devil said: If thou wilt swear to me that thou wilt not depart from me ne forsake me, I shall show to thee her strength and her victory.
To whom Cyprian said: By what oath shall I swear?
And the devil said: Swear thou by my great virtues that thou shalt never depart from me.
And Cyprian said: I swear to thee by thy great virtues that I shall never depart from thee.
Then the devil said to him, weeping to be sure of him: This maid maketh the sign of the cross, and anon then we wax feeble and lose all our might and virtue, and flee from her, like as wax fleeth from the face of the fire.
And Cyprian said then to him: The crucified God is then greater than thou?
And the devil said: Yea, certainly he is greater than all others, and all them that we here deceive, he judgeth them to be tormented with fire inextinguishable.
And Cyprian said: Then ought I to be made friend of him that was crucified, lest I fall hereafter into such pains.
To whom the devil said: Thou hast sworn by the might and virtues of my strengths, the which no man may forswear, that thou shalt never depart from me.
To whom Cyprian said: I despise thee, and forsake thee and all thy power, and renounce thee and all thy devils, and garnish and mark me with the sign of the cross, and anon the devil departed all confused.
Then Cyprian went to the bishop, and when the bishop saw him he weened that he were come to put the Christian men in error, and said: Let it suffice unto thee, Cyprian, them that be without forth, for thou mayst nothing prevail against the church of God, for the virtue of Jesu Christ is joined thereto, and is not overcome.
And Cyprian said: I am certain that the virtue of our Lord Jesu Christ is not overcome.
And then he recounted all that was happened, and did him to be baptized of him. And after, he profited much, as well in science as in life. And when the bishop was dead, Cyprian was ordained bishop, and placed the blessed virgin Justina with many virgins in a monastery, and made her abbess over many holy virgins. St. Cyprian sent then epistles to martyrs and comforted them in their martyrdom.
The Martyrdom of Saints Justina and Cyprian
The earl of that country heard of the fame and renomee of Cyprian and Justina, and he made them to be presented tofore him and demanded them if they would do sacrifice. And when he saw that they abode steadfastly in the faith of Jesu Christ, he commanded that he should be put in a caldron full of wax, pitch, and grease, burning and boiling. And all this gave to them marvellous refreshing, and did to them no grief ne pain.
And the priest of the idols said to the provost of that place: Command me, sire, to stand and to be tofore the caldron, and I shall anon overcome all their virtue.
And then he came tofore the caldron and said: Great is the god Hercules, and Jupiter the father of gods. And anon the great fire issued from under the caldron and anon consumed and burnt him.
Then Cyprian and Justina were taken out of the caldron and sentence was given against them, and they were both beheaded together. And their bodies were thrown to hounds and were there seven days, and after they were taken up and translated to Rome, and as it is said, now they rest at Placentia. And they suffered death in the seventh calends of October, about the year of our Lord two hundred and eighty, under Diocletian.
One of the earliest presentations brought forth by Sister Lucy Truth (SLT) in favor of the Fake Lúcia Hypothesis (FLH) was the handwriting of Sr. Lúcia. The organization published between January and August of 2019 various declarations of Bart Baggett, a handwriting analyst from California.[1] Basing himself upon materials sent to him by SLT, Baggett wrote several “declarations” wherein he issued the astonishing conclusion it was “highly probable” certain documents sent to him by SLT were not written by Sr. Lúcia.
Establishing the Declarations
Before going into a formal analysis, it is necessary to provide some explanation of Baggett’s declarations. There were three iterations: December 21, 2018[2], June 26, 2019[3], and August 8, 2019.[4] There were three separate declarations (Reports 1-3) within the June 26, 2019 declaration referenced either on Dr. Chojnowski’s personal blog RadTrad Thomist (RTT)[5], or on the SLT website.[6] The website features a kind of overview of the declaration(s) and provides the reports via PDFs. Also provided are the sources used for the analyses (more on this below). For our purposes, we will mostly (although not exclusively) rely on the August 8, 2019 declaration as it is the most complete.
Given various versions of the declarations, how did SLT organize and collate information before submitting material to Baggett? How comprehensive was the search for information and processing beforehand? Did Baggett possess enough information from SLT to make informed decisions in his declarations?
Origin of the Material
SLT created a “packet” of samples of Lúcia’s handwriting for Baggett. They were samples of her signature, selections of major texts from her Memoirs, selections fromher private diary O Meu Caminho (OMC), four images of the text of the third part of the Secret of Fátima, and some letters.[7] SLT largely depended upon two sources[8] for these texts: the book Memórias e cartas da Irmã Lúcia by Fr. António María Martins (1973), and Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria (2013) by the Carmel of St. Teresa in Coimbra (English edition A Pathway Under the Gaze of Mary, 2015). Fr. Martins’ book contained facsimile reproductions of Lúcia’s documents.[9] Digital stills from an RTP Arquivos video containing images of the Memoirs was also used.[10]
The origin of the four images of the third part of the Secret of Fátima derived from an exposition that took place at the Santuário de Fátima in 2014 entitled “Segredo e Revelação.”[11] They were reproduced on the Spanish website Un Catolico[12], and it was from this site that SLT found the images.[13] Whether other samples of Lúcia’s handwriting made available on the exposition’s official website[14] were given to Baggett is not clear.
Classifying the Material
The series of documents provided to Baggett have a letters and numbers classification system.[15] There are two main categories: the “Known Documents” and the “Questioned Documents.”[16] Baggett labels the text of the third part of the Secret as “Q1-Q4.” One of the letters is dated December 27, 1969, addressed to Dr. Alcino Magalhães, Lúcia’s doctor, and labeled “Q5.” Another letter is dated to April 13, 1980, written to Fr. Umberto Pasquale and labeled “QB3.” Two other “questioned” documents were excerpts from Lúcia’s personal OMC diary that appeared in Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria. They are labeled as “QB1” and “QB2.” Lastly, two signatures were also within the “Questioned Documents” category, the ones appearing at the end of the 1969 letter to Dr. Magalhães, and another said to be a letter from 1967.[17] Baggett labels them as “QC1” and cites his source as coming from page 450 of Fr. Martins’ Memórias.[18]
Baggett was tasked by SLT to determine whether the same hand wrote the documents in the “Questioned Documents” category. He was to compare them with earlier documents from 1955 on back (considered to be authentic by SLT). Ultimately, Baggett concluded with high probability that for QB1-3, Sr. Lúcia “did not write the questioned documents.” He said much the same for Q5 and likewise concluded with a high probability that Lúcia “did not sign the signatures on the questioned documents, QC1.” The text of the third part of the Secret (Q1-4) was considered to have been authored by Lúcia.[19] Baggett provides his reasons in his declarations, and readers are encouraged to read them for themselves. We will here cover some of the more notable statements.
Omission of Samples
The emphasis upon Fr. Martins’ Memórias book for a significant portion of the handwriting samples is not without merit. This book was the first to reproduce the entire text of the I-IV Memoirs of Sr. Lúcia. It was done without her permission, and it is a little-known fact that she had been encouraged by some people to press legal charges against Fr. Martins.[20] The book suffered imperfections, as indicated by the lengthy errata sheet that was printed with the book[21], but also by the admission of Fr. Martins himself.[22] Later editions were published in 1976 (Documentos de Fátima) and in 1984 (Novos Documentos de Fátima).
Absent from consideration for Baggett is some of the earliest material from Lúcia’s own hand. One example is a document Fr. Martins printed in the 1976 Documentos de Fátima book dated January 5, 1922 and concerns the apparitions of 1917.[23] Not even the signature at the end appears to have been provided to Baggett as it is unaccounted for in KC1. Another document was written in 1927 that detailed the apparition of December 10, 1925.[24] A few years later, this document was also reproduced by the Postulation Center in Fátima in the book Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words.[25] It was a much cleaner copy than the one in Martins’ books.
When we look at the signatures reviewed by Baggett, one was from Lúcia’s July 24, 1927 letter to her mother (KC1). This letter appeared between pages 402-403 of Memórias. Outside of the signature on this letter, the text of the letter itselfdoes not appear in the list of documents consultedby Baggett. Moreover, the 1927 document about the apparition of 1925 was on the two preceding pages from the July letter means SLT had ample opportunity to be aware of the existence of the document. Why are these two documents absent from consideration by Baggett? Meanwhile, the 1927 letter to Lúcia’s mother was recently featured at a new exposition at the Santuário de Fátima in late 2025 entitled “Refúgio e Caminho.”[26] A friend took pictures for me:
Lúcia’s 7-24-1927 Letter to Her Mother
The above observations are important because the handwriting is notably distinct from the text of the four Memoirs. We also note the crease down the middle and the faint signature. These texts are very early from Lúcia, who had only begun to learn to read and write some years prior. Their lack of having been considered in Baggett’s analysis creates a gaping hole in his work (even if through no fault of his own). Baggett does acknowledge in his various declarations’ “Basis of Opinion” sections that one’s handwriting can be fluid and there are individual characteristics.
At present, and for the sake of comparison, here are two samples of Lúcia’s writing, taken from Fr. Martins’ Memórias book. The first is the 1927 document about the December 1925 apparition, and the second is from the Fourth Memoir in 1941 (click to enlarge):
Lúcia’s 1927 DocumentPage from the Fourth Memoir
There exists another letter from these early years that seems worthy of our consideration. It is a letter of Lúcia to Bishop José da Silva (Leiria), dated October 2, 1928 and was labeled as Exhibit 50 during the exposition. Even though it was likely unknown to Baggett, this letter was made available for public display at the December 2025 exposition. I present it here for a further comparative handwriting sample of these early years:
Lúcia’s October 2, 1928 Letter to Bishop da SilvaEnhanced Version
The Signature of Sr. Lúcia
While Baggett’s declarations might suffer from a lack of information provided to him, it is also noteworthy that there are discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between his declarations. A notable one concerned the discussion of Sr. Lúcia’s signature. In the third report of June 29, 2019, Baggett examines the 1969 letter to Dr. Magalhães (Q5). He wrote:
The first name in the questioned signatures is not written as Maria, as shown in the known signatures. The writer uses the prefix ‘Sr’ which is most likely a truncated version of the word ‘Señorita’. While this would be a reasonable option for an unmarried woman, the use of the ‘Sr.’ prefix is not found in the comparative signatures.[27]
Based upon this observation, Baggett then stated on lines 14-15 “Therefore, the formation and stroke features of the letter ‘S’ have no comparative value in this side-by-side analysis.” He extends his observation between lines 16-21.
The signature of Sr. Lúcia from the December 27, 1969 letter to Dr. Magalhães
A female religious’ title is “Sister,” which, in English, is typically abbreviated as “Sr.” However, the Portuguese word for “Sister” is “Irmã,” and its abbreviation is “Ir.” Thus, the signature is “Ir” and not “Sr.”[28] Moreover, interpreting it as “señorita” would not make any sense as this word is Spanish (Portuguese: senhorita). As Baggett’s own text notes the problem, why is this matter not more critically reviewed?
Curiously, this discussion of “señorita” remains in Baggett’s August 8, 2019 declaration, but with a notable change: the “Sr.” now reads “Ir.”[29] Despite this change, the rest of the text in question remained the same with “señorita,” along with the discussion about the letter ‘S’ and its formation. This discussion makes no sense once the S to I mistake is noted, and the knowledge of a religious sister’s title is applied. Additionally, within the 1969 letter, there are no less than two examples of a capital letter “I” on lines 10 and 15 (starting from the top) with the word Igreja (Church) and they clearly match the signature. The following table shows the letters:
Igreja – Line 10Igreja-Line 151969 Signature
Formation of a Phrase
In his original declaration of December 31, 2018, Baggett discussed a phrase that is found within the 1969 letter to Dr. Magalhães: “The words printed in lowercase in the 11th line from the bottom on Q5 (which contains the word ‘Esperanca’) is a variation in writing formation within the questioned document that is unaccounted for. The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.”[30] The full Portuguese phrase is “…Fé, na Esperança, e na caridade…” (“…Faith, in Hope, and in charity….”) This phrase is not written with cursive handwriting, as evidenced the following visual from Memórias:
The “Faith, Hope and Charity” Phrase
Baggett calls this text a “variation” and “unaccounted for.” So, why the sudden change to print? Is this a stylistic choice of Lúcia or the work of a fraudulent ghostwriter? If it is the former, then it would be helpful to show consistency with previous writings.
Variation Unaccounted For?
Let us turn to the Carmelites’ 2013 biography about the text from Sr. Lúcia’s OMC diary about the January 1944 vision of Our Lady to Sr. Lúcia.[31] This text was reviewed by Baggett (QB1). The cursive-print-cursive (CPC) style appears in this text. While describing the events themselves preceding the apparition of 1944, Sr. Lúcia writes in cursive. There is a printed quotation mark («) followed by Our Lady’s words in print handwriting. At the end of these words, Lúcia returns to cursive for several words before she returns to print again. This time, she is not quoting. Rather, she is describing a vision that she experienced after receiving the clarification from the Virgin. At the end of this description, Lúcia goes back to cursive. It appears that not only does she use the CPC style for direct quotations, but also for descriptions involving serious matters.
Example of the CPC style in the account of the apparition of early January 1944 (click to enlarge).
The CPC style also appeared in the reproduction of page 139 of Sr. Lúcia’s OMC diary and which was reviewed by Baggett (QB2). This text is dated May 29, 1941. Most of this document is in cursive but the last several lines are in print. These lines appear to be a quote, indicated by a printed double angle printed quotation mark («) preceding the text, which is standard in Continental European usage. It is likely that Sr. Lúcia is using Psalm 149, at least in part, to compose a prayer to the Lord.
In both documents, we clearly have earlier texts containing the CPC style. Curiously, Baggett says nothing about this style being present in these earlier documents. It is also most unfortunate that SLT’s founder, Peter Chojnowski, labels these documents as frauds.[32] (Doing so cuts off people from learning something previously not well known about the development of Lúcia’s writing style.) Nevertheless, what we have observed here about the CPC style and early dates in other documentsreviewed by Baggettis notable information. Why is this fact not highlighted?[33]
Being aware that the CPC style appears in earlier documents is not a negligible matter. It both establishes consistency and questions the thoroughness of the material furnished to Baggett.[34] Baggett possessed examples of the CPC style of Sr. Lúcia dating back to 1941. He did not say much about it except it is “unaccounted for” in the rest of the 1969 letter to Dr. Magalhães. He offers no interpretation, yet neither did he state in his declarations that the same CPC style appeared in the OMC diary. Did anyone ask questions about the origin or provenance of this style? If so, why was this fact not published? If no questions were asked about it, why?
Printed Letters Do Not Match?
There is another observation to make in Baggett’s assertion about the CPC style. Concerning the “Faith, Hope and Charity” phrase in the 1969 letter, Baggett stated, “The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.” On line 6 (starting from the beginning paragraph), the word “Fé” (Faith) appears. It appears to be in print, not cursive. Here is how the word appears on line 6 (left) in comparison with line 14 (right):
Line 6 Usage of Fé (Faith)Line 14 Usage of Fé (Faith)
The CPC Style: The Prioress Explains
Having said all the above, we must still answer why Sr. Lúcia would use a CPC style.To this point, I wrote to the Prioress of the Convent of St. Teresa in Coimbra on January 26, 2019 via E-mail and asked: “the text is mostly cursive, but parts of the text appear in print (non cursive). Was this a particular style for Irmã Lúcia? If so, what was the reason for it?” The Prioress wrote back on February 7 and confirmed that this was Sr. Lúcia’s style “to distinguish what were her words and what was [a] quote.” Put another way, it would be analogous to using Roman type and italic type for the same distinction in a printed work.
Problem with Copy/Paste?
On a final note, regarding the CPC phrase of the 1969 letter, if we return to Baggett’s text, it changed slightly after his December 31, 2018 declaration. In every subsequent document wherein the matter is mentioned, the word “Esperança” is incorrectly spelled. Here are the texts side by side for comparison:
The words printed in lowercase in the 11th line from the bottom on Q5 (which contains the word “Esperrazza”) is a variation in writing formation within the questioned document that is unaccounted for. The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.
The words printed in lowercase in the 11th line from the bottom on Q5 (which contains the word “Esperrazza”) is a variation in writing formation within the questioned document that is unaccounted for. The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.
The words printed in lowercase in the 11th line from the bottom on Q5 (which contains the word “Esperrazza”) is a variation in writing formation within the questioned document that is unaccounted for. The printed letters do not match the writer of the rest of the questioned document.
Baggett spells the word “Esperança” as “Esperrazza.” One can only surmise that the error was made in the first declaration of June and was subsequently copied and pasted into the other declarations. How was the word correctly spelled in the original December 2018 declaration and then consistently misspelled in the subsequent declarations?
A Notable Admission
What has been said up to now must be tempered with information very recently made public. As the canonization cause of Sr. Lúcia progresses, the public is learning more information about her life. In early 2025, the vice-postulator for her cause, Sr. Ângela Coelho, published a book co-authored with the French Carmelite writer Fr. François-Marie Léthel, Viver na luz de Deus (To live in the Light of God).[38] This book is based primarily upon Sr. Lúcia’s OMC text. In Viver, we learn that someletters to Sr. Lúcia were answered by other sisters:
Lúcia also suffered greatly because of correspondence: until 1977, many letters were not delivered to her, they always arrived opened (a common practice in religious life at that time) and many were read and answered by other sisters. Only at the end of 1977, after many difficulties and the intervention of superiors, did correspondence finally begin to be delivered to her entirely and sealed. Consider the following intimate notes where she addresses the question and shows how it was gradually resolved, in everything always renewing her Yes.[39]
The two authors then provide the following quotes from Lúcia’s OMC diary:
Our Mother [the Prioress] came to bring me the correspondence accumulated since the month of October. It is the first time that, since I left my parents’ house, at 14 years old, now I am 70, correspondence is delivered to me sealed; not even the letters from my mother, while she lived. I have endured for love of the Lord, fulfilling my “Yes”. “Do you wish to offer yourselves to God to bear all the sufferings that He may wish to send you…?” “Yes” (December 14, 1977).
Our Mother came to tell me that, from this point forward, the offerings that come in the correspondence are destined to pay the expenses of the same correspondence and, what remains, is given to the poor. I was content (January 1, 1978).[40]
Léthel and Coelho reveal that for fifty-six years, letters to Lúcia had been opened and read by others before (and if) they reached her. Many letters were read and answered by other sisters. This system was in place until late 1977, making difficult a more objective examination of the facts. At the same time, the disclosure neutralizes any suspicion behind the matter of the handwriting. As already mentioned, opening and reading letters was a common practice within religious life at that time. An argument from traditional religious life should not be a cause for scandal to SLT.
So, even though we learn that other sisters responded, we are not told if that correspondence was given to Sr. Lúcia for her approval and signature. Thus, what letters were by Sr. Lúcia’s own hand and which ones were not? Were the disputed 1967 and 1969 letters written by Lúcia or another sister? Moreover, did other sisters respond under their own name for Sr. Lúcia? Léthel and Coelho are sparing on the details of this matter, and the texts quoted from Lúcia’s OMC diary say nothing about sisters answering letters for her. Some clarification on the matter would greatly assist the public’s understanding. Until such a clarification is given, we can say that Léthel and Coelho’s disclosure does not provide ipso facto proof of fraud.
Conclusion
For now, it is enough to say the considerable amount of evidence suggests the declarations of Bart Baggett on Sr. Lúcia’s handwriting were questionably edited and based upon information selected by Sister Lucy Truth. A discussion by the organization on the totality of evidence would have balanced out the presentation. We also must leave it to the postulation for Sr. Lúcia’s cause to address more clearly the matter of how exactly other sisters at the Carmel of St. Teresa answered on the Venerable’s behalf.
[2] “Handwriting Analysis.” Sister Lucy Impostor (2019). This entry is from the June 4, 2019 entry on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and refers to Bart Baggett’s first declaration of December 2018.
[3]Ibid. This entry is from the July 19, 2019 entry on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine and refers to Bart Baggett’s June 26, 2019 declarations.
[4]Ibid. This entry is from the November 18, 2019 entry on the Internet Archive Wayback Machine which updates the page with the August 8, 2019 declaration.
[6] At the time, the official website was www.sisterlucyimpostor.org. Today, this URL automatically redirects to www.sisterlucytruth.org. There is also a third website (https://sisterlucytruth.com).
[7] For our purposes, it is not necessary to go through every detail of this classification system. Readers are encouraged to see for themselves the classifications within the declarations.
[8] The source for the April 13, 1980 letter is not entirely clear from within the declarations and packets.
[9] Fr. António María Martins, S.J., Memórias e cartas da Irmã Lúcia (Porto: L.E. Simão Guimarães, 1973). Readers are encouraged to view this book as we go through the material used by SLT/Baggett.
[10] Cf. Teresa Pacheco de Miranda. “Morreu a Irmã Lucia.” RTP Arquivos (February 14, 2005), 00:51 – 01:06.
[13] Cf. Dr. Peter Chojnowski. “RadTrad Thomist Withdraws.” RadTrad Thomist (December 27, 2018); Ibid. “We have found a Very Good Copy.” (December 28, 2019); Ibid. “Photo of the Third Secret.” (December 29, 2018). We draw readers’ attention to the fact that these posts appeared between December 27-29, 2018—i.e., within five days of Baggett’s first declaration dated to December 31, 2018. Did Baggett originally work with the reproductions on the Vatican’s website (published in 2000)?
[16]Declaration of Bart Baggett (August 8, 2019), page 1, lines 16-19. We will not here focus too much upon the “Known Documents.” It is enough to say that they are various letters, signatures and samples from Lúcia’s Memoirs largely taken from the video digital stills and Fr. Martins’ Memórias book. They are labeled K1-K101, KC1-KC4 by Baggett (Declaration of Bart Baggett [August 8, 2019], page 2, lines 6-20). They were used as the baseline to judge the “Questioned Documents” material.
[17] In Martins’ Memórias book, this letter appears to the left of the 1969 letter to Magalhães. Interestingly, it is not dated, so how Baggett and SLT concluded that it is from 1967 is not clear.
[18] The information provided in this paragraph can be found in the August 8, 2019 declaration of Bart Baggett, pages 1-2, lines 21-28, and 1-5 respectively.
[19]Declaration of Bart Baggett (August 8, 2019), page 8, lines 17-27 through page 9, lines 1-6.
[20] Fr. Robert J. Fox and Fr. Antonio Maria Martins, The Intimate Life of Sister Lucia (Alexandria, South Dakota: Fatima Family Apostolate, 2001), 74-75.
[21] The online copy of the book available at the Internet Archive Wayback Machine reproduced the errata sheet.
[28] Baggett refers to Lúcia as “IRMA LUCIA” throughout the declarations. In the earlier letters reviewed by Baggett from the mid-1950s, “Ir.” is used.
[29]Declaration of Bart Baggett (August 8, 2019), page 6, lines 12-27 through page 7, lines 1-7.
[31] Carmelo de Santa Teresa – Coimbra, Um caminho sob o olhar de Maria, 269.
[32] Cf. Chojnowski. “On Centenary of the Death of Francisco of Fatima.” RadTrad Thomist (April 3, 2019). In particular, he wrote, “The latest […] helps to identify both the fraud of the 1967 and after ‘Sister Lucy’ but also directly implicates the Carmel at Coimbra in the coverup and substitution of an imposter for the real Sister Lucy. Soon to be published information, with the accompanying analysis and texts, prove that source texts attributed to Sister Lucy, from which the ‘Pathways’ book, published by the Carmel of Coimbra, is drawn, is an example of forgery.”
[33] The CPC style also appears in a letter written by Sr. Lúcia on April 12, 1970 (cf. Martins, Documentos de Fátima [1976], 452).
[34] As to why Baggett himself did not note it, perhaps it is out of his purview as a handwriting analyst to show correlation. After all, a true forensic examination is performed according to the rules of the discipline at hand and does not venture into areas outside its domain (see Gregor Čavlović. “We’ve Been Using the Wrong Science in Court For 50 years.” Veritasium YouTube Channel [June 22, 2026]). While it is true that a forensic examination must adhere to the rules of its discipline, there is a principle that must also be applied: the totality of evidence. In our case, differences in handwriting do not necessarily equate to a forgery or the work of a ghostwriter. Sometimes a little historical knowledge goes a long way, such as Lúcia’s very rudimentary education and continued writing development over the years, also the conditions under which she wrote various documents such as her Memoirs (see Kevin J. Symonds. “On the Third Part of the Secret of Fátima: Introduction to Recent Scholarship.” OnePeterFive (July 6, 2026). All of these things and others must be factored before arriving at a conclusion.
[35] First Report of Bart Baggett (June 26, 2019), page 4, lines 18-21.
[36] Second Report of Bart Baggett (June 26, 2019), page 3, lines 9-12.
_by_Carlos_Evaristo_(cropped)%20(2).jpg)
