We use our own and third party cookies to improve your user experience; by continuing to browse, we understand that you accept their use. You can get more information on our cookies policy.

Rome Reports

You are using an outdated browser

In order to deliver the greatest experience to our visitors we use cutting edge web development techniques that require a modern browser. To view this page please use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer 11 or greater


John Paul II and the statue that cried blood

He says the pope?s personal secretary, Stanislaw Dziwisz, asked him to take the statue to the Vatican. It was June 9, 1995, three months after the bishop saw the weeping statue with his own eyes.Msgr. Girolamo GrilloBishop Emeritus of Civitavecchia“We were praying for a long time. During dinner, the pope asked me to tell him what happened. I started to explain but I stopped because I realized ; he knew more than me. I was impressed. Then he spoke about the meaning behind the tears. After dinner, he told me to keep quiet about this. But he also said, that one day, I should tell the world that John Paul II had revered the image of the Virgin of Civitavecchia. I asked when I should make this public. ; He told me, I would know when.”As evidence of this meeting, the book shows a letter describing the visit between the two. It?s signed and dated by John Paul II himself.Msgr. Girolamo GrilloBishop Emeritus of Civitavecchia“I asked Stainslaw: ?Who will believe me, who will believe what I wrote in my diary?? He told me to write a letter describing what happened that night. I sent him two copies. A week later he returned the letter signed by John Paul II.”The bishop also says Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the former Secretary of State, called him several times on behalf of the pope. The Cardinal said he had faith and believed in the weeping statue.The Vatican however, in particular the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has not made any official statement to validate these accounts. Andrea TornielliVaticanista“During a first investigation by a commission, it concluded with the definition “non constat de sopranaturalitate,” a somewhat vague conclusion, which means its supernatural origin could not be confirmed. It?s not a negative conclusion, like the one defined by“constat de non.” That term means it?s certain it?s not supernatural.”Monsignor Grillo saw the beatification of John Paul II as a sign, to make the veneration public. The release of this letter is the latest development in this case; a case in which the Church hasn?t yet given its final word. CB/AE