We came down the steps from the restaurant to be greeted by a dozen or so half-naked children. I don’t recall if any one of them had all his or her limbs. At least one of them could not see.
We threw the bags into the mud in the midst of them. They went at it like vultures tearing the bags apart and clawing at rice and beans mixed with the mud in the street with bare hands—those who had hands. It reminded me of Luciani’s words, “Christ picked me up from the mud in the street and gave me to you.”
It was then I realized decades of peaceful demonstrations had brought nothing but an occasional burst of gunfire and starving children in the mud of the streets. It was then I realized where Paul and John Paul were coming from. In a land ruled by self-serving juntas demonstrations was not a viable alternative.
Paul and John Paul knew their actions would cost lives, lots of lives. The thousand children who starved to death each day in this tiny isthmus caught up between the world’s great oceans gnawed at their conscience each moment they delayed.
The money bought the conclave votes
In the search as to how the same constituency of cardinals elected a liberal in one election and few weeks later elected a conservative, we came to the conclusion Karol Wojtyla could not have possibly traded off ecclesiastical concessions for them. We know this because the contraception doctrine from which the cardinals in third world countries sought relief has never been repealed or even modified. This gives us the supposition he could have bought the votes with the only other thing that buys votes—money—the $1.3 billion.
This is consistent with the money disappearing in Latin America where most of them lived. It is also consistent with the timetable of the transactions which began shortly after John Paul II was elected.
These were mostly conservative third world cardinals who held the doctrine banning contraception to be philosophically sound, yet, objected to it because of the poverty and starvation it was generating among their congregations. They had voted for Luciani in the first election because he was the most likely to repeal it.
If they were offered huge sums of money to annihilate much of the poverty the ban on contraception caused, they could hold to their conviction the ban on contraception was sound and yet minimize its downside–poverty. They would have their cake and eat it too.
Giuseppe Caprio, as Secretary/Treasurer of the Patrimony of the Holy See, controlled the purse strings of the papacy. From a banking perspective he was the only person in the Vatican who could make it work. Caprio’s relationship with Calvi—the only person outside the Vatican who could make it work—went back a decade to the time Caprio had brought Calvi’s associate Sindona into his fold.
From this prospective that the bank scandal had been a part of the Genoa meeting makes sense. Yet, it makes no sense forty cardinals could have been approached to sell their votes for cash, without one of them raising the alarm. We will leave this one for the dreamers.
Solidarity
The theory the money went to Solidarity is perpetuated by the same people who claim the scandal took place under Paul VI. As if to say, Paul ripped off the investors, put it in the bank for a few years, and the Polish Pope spent it when he came along.
These people do not know their history—the time events took place. By the time Solidarity was conceived, the overwhelming weight of scandal transactions had already taken place. Though they were unable to determine what happened to the money, the Italian courts did determine ‘when’ and ‘where’ it disappeared.
I have said this before, but because it is paramount to what we are talking about here, I will say it again.
During the period in which the scandal took place—1979-81—central banks in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and even the neighboring countries of Costa Rica and Panama often froze or at the least slowed the flow of funds out of these countries. Even if one eventually got one’s money out, its value was often significantly deflated by skyrocketing inflation rates. If the revolutionaries took control, as in Nicaragua, depending on who you were, you ran the risk of losing all your money.
Central America was the last place anyone would risk running money through a bank. You could get the money into any of these countries but getting it out of them was entirely a different matter.
“A funny thing happened on the way to the conclave…”
In our analysis of the conclaves of 1978, in the second conclave Wojtyla would have had to gain about 40 votes which had been cast for Luciani in the first conclave because he was the most likely to repeal Humane Vitae, the ban on contraception. Thirty-eight third world cardinals participated in the 1978 conclaves.
This raises two questions: Why did they vote for Wojtyla in the second conclave when they knew he would never repeal it?
Why would twenty Latin American cardinals and eighteen others from third world countries vote for a liberal in one election and just a few weeks later vote for a conservative?
In Chapter 11 ‘How a Pope is Elected’ we determined Karol Wojtyla, like Albino Luciani before him and Joseph Ratzinger after him, won on the first day of their conclaves. To obscure the lobbying, nominating, politicking and tallying of votes that goes on before the conclave opened, Wojtyla’s election, like that of his successor Joseph Ratzinger, was announced on the second day.
Yet, with one hundred and eleven cardinals to choose from, what made Wojtyla the overwhelming choice of the second conclave? What was it about this man that made him so attractive to the others in the second conclave whereas he may not have been a factor at all, or at best gained less than a third of the votes, in the first conclave?
Under Paul, Liberation Theology had been merely a matter of principle. To the cardinals in the first election it was not much more than talk and wishful thinking. In his short reign, John Paul I had made it much more than just talk and wishful thinking.
Whereas Paul had waged his war on poverty from the pulpit, John Paul had made it clear he would wage it on the battlefield. He would feed them food rather than faith. To the voting cardinals in Latin America and those in Africa and other third world countries, Paul’s encyclical had suddenly changed from being merely a matter of wishful thinking to being a matter of their own survival.
Consider the events which followed the conclaves of 1978.
Although hundreds of priests and nuns and even a few bishops supported and fought for and even gave their lives for Liberation Theology in the war-ravaged countries of Central America, after John Paul’s death, with the exception of Lorscheider of Brazil, none of the Latin American cardinals or, for that matter, African cardinals ever spoke out in favor of it. In fact, most of them spoke strongly out against Liberation Theology. There is a reason for this.
They lived in mansions and were a part of the elite themselves. They dined on fine cuts of meat and caviar and wine together with the wealthy whose influence had made them bishops and ultimately cardinals—the wealthy families of Latin America were at the time the largest contributors to the Church. They did not want war.
If revolutionaries were successful in overthrowing their ruthless dictators in Central America it would drive a wave of uncontrollable uprisings in the Condor nations of South America—Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru—at the time, all countries ruled by extreme right wing military dictators.
In the second conclave, these cardinals were offered candidates like Benelli, Colombo and Suenens. Like Luciani, they would go after the dictators of Latin America. Like Luciani, they would dig up the Historic Compromise which had been buried with Aldo Moro. They would turn Italy and perhaps all of Europe into turmoil.
They could not take another chance on another liberal who might threaten the capitalistic foundations their world was based on. They could not take another chance with another liberal who thought the movement toward the left—toward Christ—was going too slowly.
In the first conclave Humane Vitae—Paul’s doctrine the ban on contraception—had been the issue.
In the second conclave another of Paul’s doctrines had suddenly risen to the top.
Communism - Liberation Theology - feed them food rather than faith
This is what made a man, who may not have been a factor in the first conclave, the overwhelming choice in the second conclave.
The word ‘communism’ struck fear into the hearts of the voting cardinals, just as it struck fear into the hearts of Americans who had supported the Nixon/Kissinger terrorization of the Italian people and the Reagan/Bush terrorization of the poor in Central America. They didn’t care if it was the will of the people. To them, confused by what was going on in the Soviet Union, all communism was bad.
What’s more, communism in the Soviet Union had risen up as the ally of atheism. The Vietnam War—the war between Catholicism and Atheism—had made communism synonymous with atheism. Atheism—meant the end of their world. They would lose their jobs.
Karol Wojtyla had spent his life fighting communism. Poland was at the frontline of the cold war—capitalism vs. communism. Of all the cardinals, he was by far the best qualified to defeat this demon which had raised its ugly head under John Paul I—feed them food rather than faith—communism. No one else came close.
They voted for the man most likely to respond to Kissinger’s plea, “Domination by Moscow is not the issue. Communist control of Italy and Central America is the issue… It would have terrible consequences for the United States and it is today the number one threat to its national security and must be dealt with accordingly.”6
They voted for the man most likely to maintain the status quo—pheasant under glass and swirls of Latour at their dinner tables while a thousand miniature caskets were lowered into the ground each day.
We have answered the question: How is it possible the same cardinals elected a liberal in one election and just a few weeks later elected a conservative? Communism had raised its ugly head.
The $1.3 billion did not fill the pockets of the civil principals in the scandal. Neither did it go to Solidarity nor to buy the votes in the second conclave of 1978. We have, by process of elimination.
The war in Central America
On January 1 1969, in a private audience attended by priests and nuns from Central America, Paul VI first mentioned “Liberation Theology.”7 Thus began the struggle for the poor.
For the first time, priests and nuns, backed by Paul’s encyclical and driven by their own compassion for children starving to death while the rich dined on fine cuisine and exceptional wines, began to lead the poor of Central America into a better world.
In the late twentieth century, when the war in Central America ended, although few had reached notoriety, nine hundred priests and nuns had died carrying out Paul’s edict, many of them bearing arms and leading militias to bring about a more just society.
Yet, back in 1969, as the poor in Central America took up rifles against their ruthless dictators, Richard Nixon, a republican—a rich and poor society—became president of the United States. He reacted immediately and sent hundreds of millions of dollars and planes and tanks and guns and bullets to mow the insurgents down.
The United States took on the role of supporting ruthless dictators against the poor who were struggling to achieve free elections and a just society. The United States, which prides itself as the epitome of democracy, allied itself against those struggling for democracy.
Yet, Paul would live to see another event occur that would give his cause renewed hope. A few years later in 1977, Jimmy Carter, a democrat—a redistribution of wealth society—became president.
It was Carter’s election which caused right wing elements in the Vatican to draft the plan which led to the bank scandal. If Carter were to cut off support to the dictators, Central America would fall to communism—archenemy of the Roman Catholic Church.
Nicaragua, A week after taking office, Carter cut off military aid to the Somoza regime citing human rights violations.
In 1979, the Sandinista Liberation Front, a socialist/communist party which had grown up out of Paul’s Liberation Theology, overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. Under Carter, the United States was the first nation to recognize the new government.
Contras, On the heels of the Sandinista takeover, the CIA-Opus Dei-P2-Ambrosiano coalition organized the Contras to overthrow the Sandinistas and return Nicaragua to a rich and poor society.
Though the CIA bypassed Carter’s order and funneled some funds through Ambrosiano to the Contras, the bulk of the money came from other sources including from investors whose money disappeared in Central America and exploded in the Vatican bank scandal. As already pointed out, the first transfers from the Vatican bank to the Ambrosiano branches to Panamanian ghost affiliates occurred in May 1979—the exact time the Contras were organized.
El Salvador, The Sandinistas’ success in Nicaragua had given the people of El Salvador renewed hope. The revolutionaries began to tip the scales against the regime which had ruled for centuries.
On March 29, 1980, Oscar Romero was gunned down with an American made bullet as he spoke a sermon calling for the CIA’s death squads to cease terrorizing the Salvadorian people.
On the heels of Romero’s assassination, the FMLN emerged, an umbrella sheltering five socialist-communist groups struggling for human rights. All-out civil war broke out.
Guatemala, As early as 1951, Juan Jose Arbenz—a redistribution of wealth society—was elected by the will of the people. In 1954, under Eisenhower—a rich and poor society—the CIA implemented Operation WASHTUB planting a Soviet arms cache in Nicaragua to falsely claim Guatemalan ties to the Soviets. Arbenz was replaced by the Eisenhower administration with a military junta which it suffered under for three decades. In 1978, in a fraudulent election, General Romeo Garcia assumed power giving birth to two parallel guerrilla groups, the Organization of the People in Arms and the Guerrilla Army of the Poor. In 1979, Carter cut off financial and military assistance to the Garcia regime. Revolutionaries—until then restrained by the militia government—moved toward democracy.
Honduras, the military dictator Policarpo Paz Garcia provided safe haven to the Contras which together with the CIA set up the terrorist group Battalion 3-16. Honduras remains in poverty today.
Panama, except for economic impact, Panama was insulated from the revolution by American presence—nineteen military bases. Yet, during the period of the scandal—1978-1982—its central bank often slowed monies flowing out of the country for up to one year.
Costa Rica, enjoyed relative economic and political stability compared to its neighbors. Yet, like neighboring Panama, during the period of the bank scandal transactions 1979-1982, its central bank froze monies flowing out of the country for periods of up to a year.
Lillian Carter, the American president’s mother visited Paul in his last days at Castel Gandolfo. I can’t help but think he asked her to convey his appreciation for what her son was doing to bring an end to an everyday event in this tiny isthmus caught up between great oceans—a thousand miniature caskets lowered into the ground.
The Reagan-Bush Contra War
As 1981 dawned, the region was on a path to free elections and a just society. Contras’ funds had been cut off by Carter in the United States and Italian court investigations of Vatican banking activities in Central America had cut off Contras’ funds from the Vatican.
Then an event occurred which would be the Contras’ salvation. Reagan—a rich and poor society—took over the White House.
Reagan and Bush chose Honduras as a base for their Contra war. They established an air base at Soto Cano equipping it with a vast battery of military power including planes, helicopters, tanks, jeeps, automatic weapons and ammunition. What’s more, it was turned into a state-of-the-art training base for the Contras’ death squads.
In identical fashion as had the Nixon administration employed CIA’s Operation Gladio to carry on terrorist activities in Italy and frame the Red Brigades to turn the mindset of the Italian people against communism in t
he 1970s, the Reagan-Bush administration commissioned CIA’s Battalion 3-16 to carry out terrorist activities in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras cleverly planned to frame the Sandinistas and turn the mindset of the people against the Sandinistas and communism in the 1980s.
CIA’s Battalion 3-16, in conjunction with the Contras, carried on widespread bombings, kidnappings, rape and murder of civilians.
In 1982, the Guatemalan guerrilla groups joined in coalition with Salvadoran guerrillas (FMLN) and Nicaraguan guerrillas (FSLN) in a war against the United States. Reagan-Bush escalated the war raising their requests in Congress from millions to tens of billions.
Though there were hundreds of kidnappings, rapes and murders of innocent people including children, few attracted attention.
In 1980, four nuns flew from Nicaragua to El Salvador to help guerillas. They were brutally raped and murdered. Fingers pointed to the guerillas. This misconception drew congressional support for the Reagan-Bush Contra war until late 1982 when five Salvadorian soldiers trained in Battalion 3-16 were convicted of the crime.
Though a tiny part of the atrocities, the incident caught fire in the press and turned world opinion against United States intervention.
At about the same time, Reagan-Bush began to lose their voice in congress. Though they continued to hold an edge in the senate, the house drifted overwhelmingly toward the democrats. Late in 1982, congress cut off funds for the Reagan-Bush Contra war.
Reagan appealed to the Pope who, as the most influential man in Catholicism, could do what bullets and bombs could not do.
Early in 1983, John Paul II toured Central America.
He told the people to stop supporting the revolutionaries. The revolution came to a halt as if one had turned off a water faucet.
Perhaps, nothing demonstrates more clearly what the CIA-Opus Dei-P2-Ambrosiano coalition was looking at when John Paul I made overtures that he did not oppose the revolutionaries, but he would encourage them to bring about a more equitable society. Had he lived another month to address the Puebla Conference, the United States would have been dealing with a half-dozen mini-Cubas in its backyard. The reason slow poisoning was not an option in his case.
Murder in the Vatican Page 46
