As pope becomes more frail, talk of resignation no longer taboo

Catholic News Service ^ | 2 June A.D. 2002 | John Thavis

[Catholicguy]

In 1984, I spent a week locked in an office with David Yallop, editing In God's Name: An Investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I; this so my then employer, Bantam Books, could publish it as an "instant hardcover". . . . Yallop knew I thought his book proved none of its fantastic claims. . . . He never actually named the murderer, you see, and nervously feigned opacity whenever I pointed it out. The book was published, sold well, and received a lot of attention, most of it (as I'd predicted) negative. In God's Name lacks source notes and a bibliography. Despite Miner's misgivings, it also lacks any warning to readers. As for Yallop, he explained away his heavy reliance on anonymous sources by raising the specter of murder should their names be revealed. But, Yallop asserted, there was no need to worry about accuracy: "I can assure the reader that all the information, all the details, all the facts have been checked and double-checked to the extent that multiple sources were available. I take the responsiblity for putting the evidence together and for the conclusions reached." A handful of book industry observers took that assurance with a shovelful of salt. Edwin McDowell, the book beat reporter at The New York Times, commented that Yallop "does not always say which fact came from which source, and therefore some people consider such 'documentation' pointless. Worse yet, it suggests that his shocking conclusions may have come from some perfectly reputable library included in his list, without giving the reader a way to check this information. The Vatican press office last week denounced the book's conclusions as 'absurd fantasies,' adding, 'It is shocking and deplorable that anyone could so much as think let alone publish theories of this kind.'" In the post-Watergate age, however, during which official denials have come to be regarded as automatically suspect, the Vatican's statement may well have added to Yallop's credibility among many readers.

Congratulations, goldenstategirl, you ascribe MORE credibility to that piece of salacious and mendacious trash than does the EDITOR of that book.

Did those "unnamed sources" Email you backing up the wild charges made in that book?

[Catholicguy]

16. What is certain is that Pope John Paul I died 33 days after being installed, under severely mysterious circumstances. Allegations involving P2 ("Propaganda Due", a clandestine Masonic order which allegedly specializes in political assassination, and was disbarred by International Masons due to refusal to release membership list) the Italian and American Mafias, and six specific men including the Vatican's banker (Chicago born Bishop Paul Marcinkus) and ultra-conservative Secretary of State, Cardinal Jean Villot, are the most persuasive explanation we have seen to date. The main source for this theory is David Yollop (1984), In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I. A minor source, but important to me, was Sister Mary Giovanni Gourhan, SSND, renowned in West St. Paul, who was at the Vatican during the date in question, and returned convinced that internal "Mafia" had killed her Pope. Why is this Pope important to war? First, he was about to reverse the Vatican ban on birth control, one of the most powerful acts which could reduce the population pressure which drives so much war and poverty today. Second, the major allegations behind his murder involved organized crime participation in Vatican banking. This has implications in many countries where conflict has financial roots.

Conspiratorialistic theories abound. Here is one "explanation" of a possible motive for those that "killed" the Pope.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You didn't address any of the issues in my post #60. You do however, keep throwing in other people's opinions about what a lousy book it is. Please tell me, since when do exposes have bibliographies? Since when do informants surrounding a murder investigation give their names and locations, especially when they work for the institution itself accused of criminal wrongdoing? An outsider writing an expose on a secretive institution is not going to have a lot of access, documented sources and informants willing to give their names. Do you expect the Vatican was going to say "Hey, come on in, we've got nothing to hide." Just like now, huh?

A lousy book that lacks credibility doesn't go through more than one printing as this one did.

Vatican press office Now there's an oxymoron. Get your Kool Aid cup ready.

I don't know who these mysterious sources who are emailing me as you claim, perhaps you'd care to enlighten me as to what the heck you are talkng about? Personally, I could care less if you liked the book or not. The author said what a lot of people are thinking, and you do not have the right to ridicule them just because you don't agree with them. If you can't address any of these issues and keep it civil, then perhaps we should end this now because it is rapidly disintegrating into personal attack.

[Catholicguy]

According to the divine revelations made to Veronica Leuken, Seer of Bayside' N.Y. during the last decade, there has been a hidden Modernist revolution in the Vatican. The papacy of Pope Paul VI was overthrown by apostate and traitorous ecclesiastics. The leaders of this revolution were named at Bayside as Cardinal Jean Villot (now deceased) former Vatican Secretary of State; Cardinal Giovanni Benelli and Cardinal Agostino Casaroli. The latter is the Secretary of State under the present Pope John Paul 11. Benelli, if elected, "Would have been the 'Anti-Christ' Pope. These men and numerous other ecclesiastical traitors made Pope Paul V1 a prisoner. In his place they installed an Imposter Pope, a priest who was a fine actor. By means of skilful plastic surgery he was made to appear very like the true Pope and taught to imitate his voice and mannerisms.

You sure you want to throw-in with these kind of folks?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

You sure you want to throw-in with these kinds of folks?

When did I? I don't even know who this Veronica person is. Now you're just being an insulting jerk.

[Catholicguy]

You didn't address any of the issues in my post #60. You do however, keep throwing in other people's opinions about what a lousy book it is.

I sure did, honey. The EDITOR of David Yallop's book DIDN"T BELIEVE HIM. But, you do. So, I figure YOU must have MORE information than the man who EDITED the book.

Do the theories and explanations of conspiratorialists become MORE believeable when they lack evidence? I guess they do. I guess the less evidence presented and the more outrageous the unsupportable charges are the more probable the thesis.

Dang, I got to get into this racket...I can make scads of dough in the conspiracy business

[Catholicguy]

I was not referring to you as either a non-Catholic or a schismatic nut.

Obviously, that was too hasty a conclusion

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

See post #65.

[Coleus]

Who said that Fr. Malachi Martin was wrong?

[Catholicguy]

I guess you are correct. I apologise. I see now I was way too hasty. I was personally insulting you when I responded in a manner that indicated I thought you were irrational and unfair in recommending an unproven, unsourced book that indicted unnamed men in the Vatican.

How could I have been so insensitve? I just should have ignored what I thought of the book (you HAVEN'T read it, have you?)and its lack of evidence. I should have ignored the statement of the Editor of the book that he didn't believe it. I should have ignored the similarities existing between Yallop's "thesis" and the vapid, vile and vain blathering of Veronica Leuken.

Yes, I should ignore evidence as that tends to militate against an evil conspiracy that antiCatholic bigots love to embrace. As they say now-a-days, "my bad."

[ward_of_the_state]

Although I'm not sure I can put a lot of stock in anything Malachai Martain ever said, I don't think our current Holy Father ever has been in charge in Rome.</tinfoil off>

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The false piety and sarcasm are unbecoming. Whether your insults are blatant or backhanded, they are still uncalled for.

[nickcarraway]

Hey, don't go overboard. Popes have been murdered before and not everyone who might believe JPI was assasinated is anti-Catholic.

[Coleus]

Here is another story about the Jesuits, seem Fr. Malachi Martin has company, and was right. No?

Are the Jesuits Catholic? A review of "Passionate Uncertainty." by Paul Shaughnessy

I have friends who went to Jesuit-run high schools. One Jesuit told his class that Jesus did not walk on water; He walked on a Sand Bar!

These guys are not preaching the faith.

[Siobhan]

The Society of Jesus is almost a lost cause except for a few like Fr. Fessio. Perhaps there is an orthodox and faithful province left somewhere. But the Jesuits today are the image opposite of St. Ignatius' early company of faithful Catholic men.

[Coleus]

I agree, so why were you knocking Fr. Malachi Martin. He did write a book decrying the Jesuits?

[Catholicguy]

Hey, don't go overboard. Popes have been murdered before and not everyone who might believe JPI was assasinated is anti-Catholic

I was speaking specifically about this book. To me, it is clear golden..girl hasn't read it. I have. It was dark, conspiritorial garbage. The editor of the book didn't believe it. Not surprisingly, it has the same sort of nutball "quality" as do the "visions" of Veronica Leuken. All I am doing is going on facts and I am cautioned to "don't go overboard?"

This isn't "tinfoil hat" stuff; this is tinfoil hat,shirt, underwear, jacket, pants, socks and sneakers stuff. Conspiracies appear to be attractive and believeable to the extent there is NO evidence. Absence of evidence is "proof" to those with a certain inclination to believe evil of others - whereas the Bible tells us not to think ill of others.

I guess the lesson here is to follow the conspiracy theorists