Just how sick is Pope Francis?

Vatican watchers are starting to gossip about the health of Pope Francis. Is some kind of problem being covered up? The Vatican is, after all, quite expert in hiding the truth, not just about the Third Secret of Fatima, but about the medical problems of the Holy Father's two predecessors.

Pope John Paul II was visibly severely afflicted with Parkinson's Disease. His palsy was painfully obvious, yet the Vatican kept denying it until it was impossible to do so any longer. Even in his last days, when JPII was no longer in public view, we were told he was celebrating Holy Mass in his bedroom. But his doctor's official report, published later in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, indicated that he had a fever of 40 degrees Celsius and was rendered essentially unconscious by blood poisoning.

Then there was Pope Benedict XVI, elected at a rather advanced age but, according to the same Vatican sources, in remarkably good health for a man in his mid-80s. Such good health, we could see, that he was unable to walk down the aisle of St. Peter's but had to be transported on a wheeled platform. After his resignation, the "pope emeritus" explained that he had given up the office because of his poor health, flatly contradicting the official party line.

Which brings us to Francis. His audiences scheduled for November 15th were cancelled because -- according to the official Vatican network -- he had a cold. Other media raised the ante a bit, calling his problem "the flu", but that could be just a difference of terminology between North American usage and that of Europe. Whatever it was, it kept him home from work, so to speak.

Now comes news that the Holy Father cancelled a private audience which was to have been held on December 5th. (If you're going to follow the link, ignore the headline. The news about the cancelled meeting comes in the second sentence of the text.) A statement from Vatican spokesthingy Father Federico Lombardi claimed that Francis was "fatigued." How so? Well, it seems the Pope had attended meetings with cardinals that morning and the previous afternoon. You would think that schedule not abnormally onerous, but who knows?

What we do know is that the statement was given by the same Father Lombardi who was, errr, economical with the truth when he spoke of the health of John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Father Lombardi said there was "no cause for alarm". Forgive us, Father, but we've heard that before. Of this you can be sure: when the Vatican denies what would otherwise be a minor matter, they are almost certainly hiding something major!