The three attic nuns
Villot
Remote The nuns
Magee
Villot The valet*
* Only thru an intermediary, not in the Papal Palace the night the Pope died
Let us list the approximate order of events:
Dinner 7:30PM
Pope retires 9:30PM
Pope dies of heart attack per the Vatican release 11:00PM
Police in the square check pope’s windows and light is not on 3:00 AM
Pope dies according to embalmers 3:30Am-4:15AM
The clock set for 4:15AM is turned off 4:00AM
The bedroom light is turned on 4:00AM
Vincenza discovers John Paul 4:35 AM
Vincenza fetches Lorenzi sleeping next door 4:40 AM
Lorenzi sends Vincenza to fetch the doctor 4:50 AM
Lorenzi calls Villot and Magee on the Pope’s intercom 4:50 AM
Lorenzi calls embalmers to get ready for pickup 4:55 AM
Lorenzi calls motor pool to send a van to pick up embalmers 5:00 AM
Magee who was sleeping in the attic arrives 5:10 AM
Villot arrives and performs the last rites 5:20 AM
Motor pool dispatches van to pick up embalmers 5:23 AM
Confalonieri, Casaroli, Caprio arrive 5:25 AM
Doctor Buzzanetti arrives and pronounces him dead 5:30 AM
Embalmers arrive 5:45 AM
Pope found dead by Magee per the Vatican release 6:30 AM
Official press release of the Pope’s death 7:30 AM
Lina Petri views the body 9:00 AM
Embalmers remove body to operating room in salon 9:30 AM
Villot seals the Pope’s quarters 9:45 AM
Embalmers complete light embalming 10:30 AM
Embalmers interviewed by ANSA 11:00 AM
John Paul lies in state in St. Clementine Chapel 12noon-7:PM
Vincenza’s comments reach the press 2:00 PM
The nuns, Lorenzi and Magee are sent on sabbatical 5:00 PM
Embalmers complete full embalming 9:00 PM
One more suspect
We will consider others who had motive. Yet, before we leave the Episcopate, there is one more suspect one must consider—the one who benefited the most by John Paul’s death.
Although it is an unpopular thing to say, to ignore Karol Wojtyla as a suspect in this case would be to eliminate the youthful husband of an aging wealthy heiress as a suspect when he is the beneficiary of a ‘one-hundred-million-dollar policy.’
For an unknown reason something goes astray in the intellect of the public when it comes to evaluating motive in the commission of an autocratic crime. Any detective will tell you the person having the greatest motive, the one who gains the most, is found guilty of the crime of murder nineteen out of twenty times—the reason one concentrates one’s investigation on those with the greatest motive.
Yet, when a crime is committed in the public forum not many consider motive in their speculations—John Kennedy, for example.
It was widely known his vice president, Lyndon Johnson, had an intense craving to be president. He had prepared himself all of his life for the job only to have the prize taken from him at the wire by the upstart senator from Massachusetts.
Johnson knew he would never be president. He knew the more successful he was in his job the more successful would Kennedy be in his job. If John Kennedy was successful, the nation was looking at a quarter-century of Kennedys as his brothers Bobby, the attorney general, and Teddy, a senator were coming up right behind him.
Yet, in Kennedy’s murder, no one ever considered the man who had the most to gain to be suspect despite the fact that out of fifty states the murder happened to have occurred by coincidence in Lyndon Johnson’s home state where he knew everyone from government officials to business magnates to mob bosses to the shoeshine boy on the corner. This included Jack Ruby, the man who killed Oswald who allegedly killed Kennedy. With a simple phone call Johnson could have set it up. The public accepted it was a rare coincidence the murder took place in the only state in which the vice president had any likelihood at all of pulling such a thing off.
Karol Wojtyla also benefited by this phenomenon, the public’s tendency not to consider the one who has the greatest motive. Unlike Johnson, whose motive would have been limited to one of personal gain, the motive in Wojtyla’s case would have been one of principle, that kind of motive which causes great men to kill great men.
There was no gain in principle in Johnson’s case as he shared the same ideologies as Kennedy. He could have achieved his ideological goals even if Kennedy had lived. In retrospect, it was Johnson who eventually brought Kennedy’s dreams and aspirations to fruition.
Ecclesiastical motive for murder
When Hitler lost the war, Karol Wojtyla lost much of what he dreamed of, and now that Luciani had risen to power, the rest of his ambitions were about to come to an end. During the war, Wojtyla and Hitler shared the same objectives the reason Pius XI had united the Vatican with the Nazi movement in the German Concordat of 1934. This does not mean, in itself, Pius, Hitler and Wojtyla—were bad men. At the time, that is the way most good Christians thought.
Yet, there was a difference between these men. Hitler would achieve his ends through annihilation. Wojtyla would achieve his ends through political means. The results can be equally devastating. It makes no difference whether a child dies in a concentration camp or whether he dies of starvation or AIDS in a third world country.
Regardless, if one considers the assassination of world leaders, the weight of them have been ideologically motivated. Great men do not kill great men for personal gain. They kill them for principle, to permit the enactment into society of their own ideologies.
Notwithstanding their opposing positions on other aspects of the social revolution—feminism, remarriage, gay liberation and so forth, their disparity on contraception, by itself, could have done the trick.
One will never know what the 33-day Pope would have achieved concerning his ecclesiastical ambitions. Yet, only an imbecile could view the actions he took during his brief reign and not conclude he was on a fast track to rid the world of poverty. He could have never done this without first removing the driving force behind it—the ban on contraception.
If one is a prolife extremist as Wojtyla was—believed God has preselected the sperm and egg that will eventually become a human being—the murder of John Paul I was not only a good thing to do, it was a holy thing to do. In Wojtyla’s mind, Luciani was a baby killer.
Luciani threatened to make the ‘pill’ the mainstay of family life to control the world’s population and rid it of poverty and starvation. Worse yet, he would make condoms available to teenagers to avoid untimely pregnancies and prevent the spread of disease.
To underline how ingrained this thinking is in men like Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger, in March 2009, Benedict XVI visited countries so heavily infected with AIDS that pregnancy invariably produces an AIDS child born only to live an unspeakable life and die an unspeakable death. He told them to use a condom was mortal sin.
According to Christian scripture ensoulment takes place at birth, the reason why no church baptizes before birth.10 Jeremiah could not have made it more clear, “I knew thou before thou wast in the belly and I sanctified thou when thou camest out of the womb.”11
To Wojtyla and Ratzinger quality in this life is immaterial—it is none of their business. Their business is the afterlife. In their minds, this life is as a grain of sand on the vast beach of eternity.
In the case of Luciani, the emphasis was on quality of life in this life—acceptance of what is given one in this life and not lust for more. According to Christian doctrine, Wojtyla and Ratzinger are the ‘good guys’ and Luciani is the ‘bad guy.’
We are speaking of the most fundamental difference between the preacher on the right and the preacher on the left. The one on the right really believes in the afterlife and the one on the left does not. The extrem
ist on the right believes in ghosts while the extremist on the left does not. He believes rising from the dead is nothing more than an idea someone came up with hundreds of thousands of years ago to capitalize on man’s mortality and take advantage of others.
Those on the right believe this life is a grain of sand on the vast beach of eternity. Quality of life in this life is immaterial. To impede the union of a particular sperm and a particular egg which God has predetermined to be a human being from being born is to deprive it of eternal life—the most fundamental goal of Christian belief.
Regardless, in conspiring to murder John Paul, Karol Wojtyla would have a clear conscience as he went about his holy day-to-day business—he would have rid the world of a baby killer and not only preserved the ensoulment of billions of children, he would have saved countless others from eternal damnation as those adults who followed Luciani’s rules for the pill would certainly lose their souls.
So the Polish cardinal did have clear motive to have conspired to murder his predecessor since the latter threatened his ecclesiastical destiny. What’s more, unlike Johnson, his motive would have been one of principle, that which causes great men to kill great men.
In addition to motive of principle, in Karol’s case there would have also been personal ambition. He never concealed his ambition to accede to the papacy. As we have said he campaigned ten years for it visiting just about every city where a voting cardinal lived.
If one considers the history of the courts, as we have said, nineteen times out of twenty times the person having the greatest motive for a capital crime is found guilty.
Karol Wojtyla goes to the top of the list. The reader is reminded of the sacred code of the tribunal, ‘innocent until proven guilty.’
1 Kullhadd 13 Jul 93
2 John Paul I public audience 27 Sep 78
3 Details of his last dinner a composite of La Repubblica 3-5-16 Oct 78
4 The official title of the Foreign Minster was Secretary of the Council for Public Affairs
5 The official title of the Under Secretary of State was Substitute for General Affairs. Under Paul VI, Villot had no financial acumen; he appointed Benelli and Caprio to oversee banking activities
6 La Osservatore Romano 8 Sep 78 ‘Papa porte Guido Gian Paulo Guzzo dal paese del Veneto’
7 La Osservatore Romano 30 Sep 78 La Repubblica 3 Oct 78 La Stampa 8 Oct 78
8 La Nazione Florence 28 Sep 78 ‘Edoardo Calo’
9 This is still true today, a nun serves as the bishop’s secretary in Vittorio Veneto
10 Late in the twentieth century Canon was issued to consider baptism by desire to cover unborn children, yet, it remains a matter of ‘hope’ and not a matter of ‘faith’
11 Jeremiah 1 consistent with Adam’s creation in Genesis, ensoulment takes place at birth. Photo Karol Wojtyla Associated Press 2 Sep 78
Chapter 28
A Conspiracy Buff’s Delight
There is a more concrete reason than ecclesiastical motive and personal ambition to include Karol Wojtyla among our suspects.
First, let us, once and for all, clear up the delusion concerning interim counts in a papal election.
Books, motion pictures and even newspapers, in sensationalizing an election, report counts of the interim ballots in dramatic fashion.
Concerning the conclave which elected Luciani, one newspaper reported, “On the first ballot Pignedoli led with forty-one votes, Siri had nineteen, Suenens had thirteen…On the second ballot Luciani had come into the pack with fourteen, Suenens had advanced to twenty-seven..Pignedoli had all but dropped out of the race.”1
Another newspaper gave this account, “Suenens and Siri came out of the gate neck-and-neck with thirty votes each with Pignedoli close behind with twenty-two…Things remained relatively stable for the next two ballots and then on the fourth ballot Luciani suddenly made his move and came from behind to take the roses.”2
Still a third newspaper captured the imagination of its readers, “A thirty-to-one shot Baggio came out of the gate with forty votes with the rest of the field spread out behind him…”3
Dozens of others reported vastly different accounts. The reason for this disparity is because no one outside the conclave knows.
I have said this before, and because it is paramount to what we are speaking of here, I will say it again. If a cardinal discloses anything that goes on within a conclave he excommunicates himself. No cardinal has ever revealed anything that goes on in a conclave.
Yes, as we have said, after a cardinal dies, an author might claim the cardinal had confided with him before his death and write a book to capitalize on the suckers. Yet, no media has ever published what a cardinal might have said of a conclave while he was still alive.
Until John Paul’s election, the final count was obvious as all elections had been announced as unanimous. When Luciani failed to gain a unanimous vote, it caused a problem—the Curia could not use the word ‘unanimous.’ A decision was made to reveal the count: ninety votes—the only time the Vatican released a specific number.
With this exception, no responsible newspaper has published the number of votes a candidate received. For example, in Wojtyla’s election in October 1978, The Washington Post reported, “It is not known how many votes the new pontiff received as this information is restricted within the conclave.” The Associated Press and the New York Times wire service reported this identical wording. 4
Yet, we, too, have been guilty of this kind of sensationalism. We have mentioned, from time to time, Luciani won the election with seventy-five votes. An assumption based on what is known today of the cardinals who participated, yet, never released by the Vatican.
Regardless, since Luciani did receive ninety votes on the final count one knows twenty-one remained cast against him. Although no one really knows who retained these votes one does know they were cast for someone whose mindset was fixed against repeal of Humanae Vitae—the major issue of the election. Otherwise they would have certainly been yielded to Luciani on the final count.
It is not only against conclave rules to announce interim counts to the public but prior to 1996 when John Paul II made changes to the rules, interim counts were not announced to conclave cardinals.
To the extent the seating arrangement discussed in Chapter 11 is true—the leading cardinal was placed in the center chair on the St. Peter’s side of the chapel, the runner-up in the chair directly opposite him, and the one receiving the next largest number of votes to his right, and so forth—so the cardinals knew who was running first, second, third, etc., yet, as successive ballots were cast, none of the cardinals knew the number of votes cast for candidates.
The counters
Of course, someone had to know because someone had to count the votes. When one considers Cardinal Wojtyla’s involvement in a conspiracy involving the death of John Paul I, this is a critical point.
In 1978, although the rules specified three counters, only two were chosen. Only these two and the Cardinal Camerlengo were allowed in the room where the counting takes place.
The counters—scrutinizers as they were called—were selected by an open vote of the cardinals, making them the most influential members of the conclave as these two were the only two who—knowing how the interim voting was proceeding—could steer either side to victory. For this reason, they traditionally held extreme political positions, one coming from the left and the other coming from the right, to avoid giving one side an unfair advantage.
Leon Suenens, a liberal, and Karol Wojtyla, a conservative, were the two counters in the conclave that elected John Paul I.5
They were the only ones who knew the results of each ballot as the election progressed. This included the Camerlengo Villot, who though present, was not permitted to know the results of interim ballots until the counters had come up with a winner. At that point, the Camerlengo would recount the ballots and a winner declared.
In the 1978 elections, the ballots together with the counters’ talli
es were burned after each count was completed and no record was permitted to be retained. If no candidate received the required number of votes a chemical was added which produced a puff of black smoke from the Sistine Chapel signaling the vote had failed. If a winner was declared the papers were burned with straw to produce a puff of white smoke signaling a new pope has been named.
In 1975, because of rumors of conclave leaks—never proved—Paul VI tightened up the rules which made the 1978 conclaves the most guarded in history. For example, until then, others than voting cardinals were allowed in conclaves including pages and medical aides. In 1978, only voting cardinals were allowed in the conclave and guards were placed outside the doors of the Sistine Chapel.6
As mentioned in Chapter 11, in 1996, John Paul II made changes to the rules which greatly reduced the secrecy of elections—each cardinal in addition to writing his choice on a slip of paper and placing it into the chalice would announce the name of the cardinal he voted for—materially diminishing the influence of the counters.
Yet, this is important if a conspiracy had been involved in the case of John Paul’s death, either of these two counters would have had to have knowingly or unknowingly participated in it. These were the only two who were in a position to tell what would happen in a successive election. They were the only two who knew who the twenty-one votes withheld from Luciani had been cast. They were the only two—knowing the interim counts in the first election—could successfully strategize a successive election.
The conspirators, if there were any in the death of John Paul, would have had to assure themselves another liberal would not win in a successive election. Otherwise they might be as well off with Luciani. The only way they could be certain of this was to consult with Wojtyla, as Suenens was a liberal. What’s more, they would have had to have consulted with him while John Paul was still alive.
There was virtually no change in the number of voting cardinals in the two elections of 1978. Luciani and one other cardinal had died in the meantime. However, the other cardinal, having fallen ill en route to the first election, had not voted in that election.
Murder in the Vatican Page 34
