Murder in the Vatican
Page 35
Also, Cardinal Wright, who had been ill and therefore confined during the first election and was therefore unable to vote, showed up in a wheelchair for the second election. The number of cardinals remained the same at 111 with Wright replacing Luciani.
Since a cardinal cannot vote for himself, this may have tilted the balance a bit to the left, yet, the political balance in the second conclave remained the same as it had been in the first conclave. The cardinal who would have been elected in the second conclave would normally have been the same cardinal who would have been elected in the first conclave had Luciani not been a factor in that election—someone fairly close to Luciani in ideology. One might put men like Benelli, Suenens, Colombo or Willebrands at the top—men who like Luciani could attract those in the middle. Yet, this was not the case. Instead, a conservative won the second election.
In retrospect, the election that elected John Paul II was flawed. Suenens and Wojtyla should have been eliminated as candidates as they were in a position to have lobbied the second election in their favor as they knew how the voting had gone in the first election.
The counters in the first conclave should have been disqualified as candidates in the second conclave because one was dealing with the same constituency in both elections. John Paul II was elected in a tainted process; having been one of the counters in the previous election a month earlier, he had an unfair advantage over the other candidates. Yet, one also knows it is a little late to demand a recount.
Nevertheless, if a conspiracy was involved in the death of John Paul—not known to be a fact—either Wojtyla or Suenens had to have been consulted concerning the question: Which cardinals does one go after to get them to change their votes? Of all we know of these two men, the finger points only to Wojtyla.
This does not mean the Polish cardinal would have necessarily been involved in a conspiracy as conspirators could have drawn this kind of information out of him without him being aware of just why they were asking such questions.
Yet, if a conspiracy had been involved in the murder of the 33-day Pope, this did take place. What’s more, it took place while John Paul was still alive.
‘The Unknown Pope’
John Paul I, was billed in the world press as a moderate—one who had an open mind to changing canon in those cases where it imposed unfair restraint upon the everyday lives of innocent people.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported, “Cardinal Luciani’s election is a signal to the world that the Church is steering a course from the traditionalists who say the Church is changing too fast toward the progressives who say it is advancing to slowly.” 7
Yet, one must keep in mind, not much was known of him outside of Italy. He had been tabbed ‘moderate’ by the world press on what had reached the world press—the times in Belluno he had been caught baptizing illegitimate children, his order to hospitals in the Veneto to admit partners of homosexuals to intensive care units, his public letters opposing the ban on contraception, his position on the innocence of sex, and his courageous defense of the world’s first artificially inseminated child just a month before his election.
Not much was known of this man from Venice.
The Washington Post billed him as ‘The Unknown Pope.’ A few papers went to the left and tabbed him a ‘liberal’ and few went to the right and tabbed him ‘a conservative with an open mind to changing doctrine in those cases it it is unfair to some kinds of people’—as the press had billed both John XXIII and Paul VI when elected.
Conversely, Wojtyla, when elected a few weeks later, was billed as a ‘theological conservative.’ This is demonstrated by his papacy. He changed doctrine only in those cases forced on him by society.
For example, because of confusion caused by his predecessor in the case of Louise Brown, shortly after his election, he reconfirmed Pius’ decree prohibiting genetic research. What’s more, he did it in a way that questioned the ensoulment of artificially inseminated children in the same way doctrine had once denied the ensoulment of out-of-wedlock children. In 1984, public pressure forced him to modify the doctrine recognizing all children have souls.
Yet, for those who knew Albino Luciani, those within Italy and the voting cardinals, the man from Venice was much more than a moderate. He was a progressive. For those who really knew him, he was a monumental progressive.
How the game is played
Although a liberal can make headway in the moderate ranks, the middle is not fertile ground for a conservative. A conservative by nature does not believe in change.
A moderate has broken from his ecclesiastical past concerning one issue and remains firm on all other issues. A liberal is one who has broken from his ecclesiastical past on a number of issues.
The vote of a moderate can be gained by a liberal if the voting cardinal is willing to accept some of the other issues the liberal candidate stands for in order to gain the change in the doctrine he wants repealed. But a moderate would never vote for a conservative because he would know that if a conservative were elected the change in doctrine he, himself, sought would never come about.
A moderate who wanted a repeal of Humanae Vitae and stood steadfast on all other issues might vote for a man like Luciani who also supported genetic research and women equality. The voting cardinal would accept the changes in what he felt were lesser issues in order to gain for himself what he felt was the major issue.
Regardless, in 1978, which cardinals made up the moderates?
There were those who wanted the Church to loosen its ropes on celibacy, homosexuality, remarriage and women in the Church. Yet, none of these was the major issue in the first conclave of 1978.
Humanae Vitae, the edict prohibiting the use of contraceptives, was this issue. It was this issue, and this issue alone, that marked the difference between a moderate and a conservative; the moderate sought repeal of the doctrine and the conservative did not.
Wojtyla’s position concerning this issue had been made clear.
It had been spread across Europe when the proclamation was being drafted. “No use of contraceptives regardless of spread of disease, poverty and starvation.”8 He had been the loudest voice in the days leading up to the election against repeal of the doctrine.
This suggests it may have been Wojtyla and not Siri who retained the twenty-one votes withheld from Luciani—cardinals frozen in their convictions. After all, the media which guessed Siri retained these votes knew no more about what goes on in a conclave, than does the preacher about the afterlife—it has never been there.
We have The Times article, “…Cardinal Villot approached the cardinal in the center seat. Directly opposite him was Karol Wojtyla of Poland…”9 If the supposition concerning the seating arrangement is valid, then Cardinal Wojtyla, and not Cardinal Siri, as the pressed had guessed, was the runner-up in the first election of 1978.
Regardless, who retained these twenty-one votes is immaterial to the conclusions which follow. Yet, this is precisely how Luciani had gained the moderate vote in the first election of 1978. Publicly, he had been the loudest voice concerning repealing the doctrine.
A few months before the decree, he had sent a public letter to his superior Cardinal Urbani of Venice, “I recommend the anovulant pill developed by Professor Pincus be adopted as the Catholic birth-control pill.”10 A week after Pope Paul issued the doctrine, Luciani challenged it “Some accommodations for artificial birth control must be made within the confines of the Church.”11
Now we have come to a most remarkable conclusion.
Not only does a conservative win the successive election, but one who held stark ideological differences from those in the middle and those on the left concerning the most important campaign issue of the time. How is it possible the same cardinals elected the man most likely to repeal Humanae Vitae in August and turned around in October and elected the man most likely to hold the status quo?
In winning the second election, it is clear Wojtyla gained the lion’s share of the votes in the mi
ddle as he could have never gained those on the left. He did not gain the moderate vote on his promise to repeal the doctrine prohibiting contraception for this was at the core of his ecclesiastical existence. Just how did he muster the votes of those in the middle? We will answer that question as we go along.
In retrospect
Beyond motive and opportunity, one has another measure of who may have been involved in murder. I call it ‘in retrospect.’
The astute detective concentrates his investigation on those who have the greatest motive because nineteen out of twenty times the one who has the greatest motive is found guilty of murder in a court of law. He does not ignore the youthful husband of the aging heiress who is beneficiary to a one-hundred-million-dollar-policy.
Yet, if one considers John Paul II having been involved in the murder of his predecessor, one is dealing with scant evidence.
One is limited to the coincidence two of the six men—cousins in the Gambino family—who shared the Papal Palace with John Paul the night he died were elevated by John Paul II shortly after he became pope and by another coincidence these happened to be the two bishops he met with in Genoa three weeks before John Paul’s death. We have the notice in a Genoa paper, “September 13 1978, Cardinal Wojtyla arrived last night at the airport. He will spend the week with Cardinal Siri at his residence. Bishops Casaroli and Caprio arrived by train this morning from Rome to visit with the Polish cardinal.”14 Keep in mind, CIA affiliate Cardinal Cody had spent the previous week with Cardinal Wojtyla in Krakow.
Neither one of these promotions was an everyday occurrence.
A few months after John Paul’s death, Jean Villot suddenly took ill and died. Agostino Casaroli was raised past two hundred others who outranked him to Secretary of State, the second ranking office in the Roman Catholic Church.13
So as not to draw the wrath of those who were in line for the job, or, perhaps, not to avoid arousing suspicion, it was announced the appointment was temporary on the guise to give the Pope time to decide who was best qualified for the job. A few months later John Paul made the appointment permanent and at the same time he made both Agostino Casaroli and Giuseppe Caprio cardinals.13
Soon afterwards, for reasons we will discuss, he elevated Caprio to Prefecture of Economic Affairs—Chief Financial Officer of the Roman Catholic Church. 13
About the same time, for reasons we will also discuss, Joseph Ratzinger was raised to the most powerful ecclesiastical post in the Church, Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith.13
Yet, it is the strange promotion of these four men to the four ranking positions in the Roman Catholic Church that could possibly link John Paul II to a conspiracy to murder his predecessor and, of course, the providential coincidence a number of men known to be in good health died in rapid consecutive order to make it all possible.
Nevertheless, it is a incredible coincidence Karol Wojtyla picked up the proceeds of the one-hundred-million-dollar policy, Agostino Casaroli picked up the proceeds of the seventy-five-million-dollar policy, Joseph Ratzinger picked up the proceeds of the fifty-million-dollar policy and Giuseppe Caprio picked up the proceeds of the twenty-five-million-dollar policy.
It is something more than a remarkable coincidence that one of two cardinals who had counted the votes in the previous election, of one hundred and eleven cardinals, won the next election—one of two cardinals in the first conclave who could successfully strategize the second election in his own favor won the next election.
“A funny thing happened on the way to the conclave…”
We have left open the door as to the astonishing phenomenon the same constituency of cardinals elected a liberal in one conclave and in the very next conclave made a complete about-face and awarded the prize to a conservative.
It had, on the one hand, elected a man who had ordered hospitals within his jurisdiction to admit long term partners of homosexuals into intensive care units and, on the other hand, elected a man who warned of the intrinsic evils of homosexuality.
It had, on the one hand, elected a man who had been understanding of divorce and remarriage and, on the other hand, elected a man who had condemned the practice.
It had, on the one hand, elected a man who had taught all his life “We have made of sex the greatest of sins, whereas it is nothing more than human nature and not a sin at all” and, on the other hand, elected a man who thought there was something wrong with it.
It had, on the one hand, elected a man who just a month earlier had told the world “I have sent my most heartfelt congratulations to the parents of the little English girl whose birth took place artificially.” and, on the other hand, elected a man who had condemned the same little girl as “…a child of the Devil.”15
It had, on the one hand, elected a man who revered women, “God is more our Mother than She is our Father” and, on the other hand, elected a man who required the solemn oath of all of his candidates for the red cap, “I promise to oppose the elevation of women in the Church for the rest of my days.”16
Yet, most remarkable of all, it had, on the one hand, elected a man who had publicly objected to the doctrine Humanae Vitae—the major ecclesiastical issue of the time—and, on the other hand, elected a man whose efforts had helped make it possible.
How did Karol Wojtyla possibly gain the votes in the middle?
We know he did not waiver on the issue of Humanae Vitae as the doctrine has never been changed or, for that matter, modified.
If he did not buy the votes of those in the middle with a tradeoff of ecclesiastical doctrine, how did he possibly gain them?
Could it be he bought them with the only other thing that buys votes? He bought them for cash?
Could it be Christ changed His mind? Could it be the greatest liberal the world have ever known appeared to the voting cardinals in the second conclave and told them to vote for a conservative?
Could it be they voted for the Polish cardinal because they thought he would look pretty in a white satin gown?
You’ve got it—none of these.
John Paul I drew a huge roar from the crowd in St. Peter’s Square in his first public words as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Church, “A funny thing happened on the way to the conclave…”17
Consider the major issue in the first conclave.
Two-thirds of the cardinals were from first world countries which were totally ignoring Humanae Vitae and practicing planned parenthood. If Karol Wojtyla was elected, according to canon law, their congregations would be condemned to live in a perpetual state of mortal sin for the rest of their natural lives. What’s more, they would live out their supernatural lives burning in hell for all eternity.
One-third of the cardinals were from third world countries whose congregations adhered to Humanae Vitae. They would be looking at decades of poverty, starvation, disease and death.
One would wonder how Wojtyla could have possibly gained a single vote, let alone the overwhelming plurality he needed to win.
Something happened that caused these men to change their minds—something that made the Polish cardinal the overwhelming choice in the second election whereas he may not have been a factor at all in the first election.
Something that did not take place on the spur of the moment midway in the conclave as one might be led to believe. A funny thing happened on the way to the second conclave of 1978. We will get to that ‘something’ before you turn the last page in this book.
Yet, for now, as we proved conclusively in Chapter 11—How a Pope is Elected, the cardinals knew who they were going to vote for—Wojtyla—before they entered the second conclave of 1978 just as they had known who they were going to vote for—Luciani—before they entered the first conclave of 1978.
John Paul II was not chosen by Christ.
Like John Paul I before him, he was chosen by the politicking and collaboration of men. Perhaps, even the murdering of men.
Shall we see? We shall see. Yes, we shall see…
1 Il Foggio 29 Aug 78
2 La Stampa 29 Aug 78
3 L’ Espresso 30 Aug 78
4 Washington Post 27 Aug 78. New York Times, on strike at the time was limited to wire service
5 L Osservatore Romano 27 Aug 78
6 L Osservatore Romano 25 Aug 78
7 Philadelphia Inquirer 27 Aug 78
8 Dziennik Polski 3 Jan 68
9 The Times London 29 Aug 78
10 Veneto Nostro 21 Apr 68
11 Messaggero Mestre 28 Jul 68
13 Agostino Casaroli, Giuseppe Caprio, Benedict XVI – biographies
14 Genova Secolo XIX 13 Sep 78
15 Polityka 21 Jul 78
16 Washington Post 22 Feb 01
17 The Times London 29 Aug 78
Chapter 29
The Murder of Paul Marcinkus
“You don’t run money through war-ravaged parts of the world unless you intend it remain there.”
Paul Marcinkus
It would seem we have narrowed the choice down to those from the lower floors who attended the last supper who might have hid in the valet’s rooms. Both Casaroli and Caprio left dinner early.
The guard on the 6PM to 9PM shift would have seen them arrive and assumed they had left during the 9PM to 12PM shift and the guard on the 9PM to 12PM shift would have never known they had been there. The guard on the 6AM to 9AM shift who would see them leave in the morning would assume they had arrived on the 3AM to 6AM shift when the clamor had begun.
For the mystery enthusiast, Casaroli carried a briefcase in which he could have concealed most anything, including one of his little ‘friends’ from the miniature desert at the Castle Gandolfo.
A conversation with Paul Marcinkus
In the fall of 2005, Paul Marcinkus, who had been working as a common priest in Sun City Arizona, picked up a copy of Murder in the Vatican in a Phoenix bookstore.
It was that he recalled the young man he had once taken around the Vatican grounds, rather than anything in the book, he called me.
Yet, he told me, “Although I had suspicions in Paul’s death, I have nothing to add to what you have found in the papers concerning John Paul. Yet, the Vatican’s refusal of autopsy has always haunted me. I was surprised one was not performed, especially when Benelli and Felici wouldn’t let up in their demands for one.