One of the interesting revelations of Paul Kengor’s book The Pope and the President is that William J. Casey, Ronald Reagan’s head of the CIA, had to fight against the institutional Central Intelligence Agency to push the narrative that Soviet intelligence was involved in the assassination attempt on John Paul II. Furthermore, Kengor himself was rebuffed by CIA men when he proposed the theory, and as Kengor reveals, the CIA even went out of its way to attack Claire Sterling, the journalist who first proposed the Soviet connection in Reader’s Digest.
Of course, there is evidence of collaboration between elements of American and Soviet governmental bodies during the Cold War. Was there collusion in the attempt on John Paul II’s life? Or was it just a rock the CIA did not want to turn over?
This dismissal of Agca by the Central Intelligence Agency leaves us with some interesting questions.
- Why is the narrative of Soviet involvement in the attempt so important to Catholic neocons?
- Why would the CIA so vehemently deny the involvement of the KGB or any other intelligence agency in the attempt?
- Was Agca working for someone else outside the main channels of Soviet or American intelligence?
I’ll readily admit that I had largely bought the narrative that John Paul II grew more sympathetic to capitalism at the end of the Cold War and projected at least some of that sympathy into Centesimus Annus (even if the neocons were wrong to augment that sympathy into endorsement of American style late capitalism).
However, while reading John Allen’s The Francis Effect, I discovered two quotes from John Paul II in which he strongly and explicitly condemns capitalism. Allen points to a quote from 1993 (two years after Centesimus!) in which John Paul II said, “Catholic social teaching is not a surrogate for capitalist ideology…[which is] responsible for grave social injustices.”
Allen further notes quotes John Paul II as saying “the bourgeois mentality and capitalism as a whole, with its materialistic spirit acutely contradict the gospel.”
These very strong words further condemn the narrative that John Paul gave his blessing to American style capitalism that has been pedaled by Catholic neocons for two decades.
Apropos of John Paul II’s opposition to the second Iraq War, which Catholic neocons have unsuccessfully attempted to hide, I have found this gem from John Allen’s The Francis Miracle. Writing of Pope Francis’s successful prevention of an Obama war in Syria in 2013, Allen writes of “…John Paul II’s vain efforts to stop the Iraq offensive in 2003, which included dispatching personal envoys to both Sadaam Hussein and President George W. Bush in February and March of that year…”
So, who is misleading? John Allen or the neocons?
One of the great cracks that broke open in the face of neoconservative Catholicism in the early 21st century was the dissonance between the Vatican and self-appointed voices of John Paul II in the United States, the Catholic neocons, over the 2003 Gulf War. The failed attempt by Michael Novak who traveled to Rome on behalf of the State Department to garner support for the war is well known as is the efforts of George Weigel and others to downplay John Paul II’s apparent opposition.
However, it is often forgotten that the late Holy Father condemned even more explicitly the first Gulf War led by president George H.W. Bush. In his Urbi and Orbi speech at the end of March 1991, John Paul II stated of the war:
“A choice was made of aggression and the violation of international law, when it was presumed to solve the tensions between the peoples by war, the sower of death..”
These were not the only comments made by John Paul regarding the injustice of the Gulf War.
While Catholic neocons in the past have admitted that John Paul did oppose the first Gulf War, in his most recent work Lessons in Hope, George Weigel tells a different story. According to Weigel, Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran
“confirmed that John Paul II had called President George H.W. Bush the night before the ultimatum to Saddam Hussein requiring him to evacuate Kuwait or face allied military action expired: the Pope said that if diplomacy couldn’t resolve a violation of international law that must not stand, he hoped the allies would win, Saddam would be ejected from Kuwait, and there would be as few casualties as possible.”
So, here we have a curious conundrum, and there are possibilities.
- Weigel is lying.
- Cardinal Tauran was lying.
- John Paul II told George H.W. Bush one thing and the world another (this is actually the worst possible scenario).
It has been well established that George Weigel and other less luminaries in the neoconservative movement cloaked John Paul II in an ideological veil that presented him as the pope of American liberalism. It is also more than clear that the neocons cannot control the image of Pope Francis who clearly self identifies as a political, economic, and theological leftist.
To whom does the banner of papal biographer fall?
Enter John Allen, Jr. Identified by many Catholic conservatives as a “moderate” or even soft conservative, Allen penned, in 2015, The Francis Miracle: Insider the Transformation of the Pope and the Church. This book is very curious. In it Allen seeks to prove that despite the seemingly very left wing statements and actions of Pope Francis, the current pontiff is, in fact, a “centrist.” Allen argues that there are no real liberals in the leadership of the Church–that is, no high ranking prelate really wants to change the teaching of the Church. There are just those who want to change the application of the Church’s teaching. Here is the typical post-Marxist theological distinction between theoria and praxis or theory and practice. Of course, Catholic teaching will never really change; however, certain practices may be tolerable even though the Church defines them as evil.
The question then is: who is John Allen trying to fool? His book is not written for leftists Catholics who know Francis is on their side and who have no problem with Church teaching changing, nor is the book written for traditionalists who by 2015 had figured Francis out.
The book is clearly written to shepherd deluded conservative Catholics who “want to believe” that Francis is merely a laid back and slightly more liberal version of John Paul II.
It is difficult to believe that John Allen is dumb enough to believe that Francis is a centrist even in 2015. Allen, like Weigel before him, has clearly been brought in to shape the image of Francis and delude the masses of Catholics into following his degenerate teaching.
Also, Time Books, a US intelligence asset, published The Francis Miracle.
Who does Allen work for?
I have finished Paul Kengor’s book, A Pope and a President, which seeks to reboot the good ol’ days of neoconservative Catholicism that began in the Reagan era and climaxed with the reigns of George W. Bush and John Paul II. One the books main theses is that the message of Fatima was fulfilled in the struggle between atheistic communism and American liberalism. American liberalism triumphs in the end, and Russia is “converted” not to Catholicism but to a form of government that more closely resembles Western democracy.
One of the apexes of this triumph of liberalism (again NOT Christianity) is in Pope John Paul II’s meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on December 1, 1989. Kengor makes special effort to show that Gorbachev was “a closet Christian” whose liberalization of the Soviet Union ultimately was the catalyst for the “conversion” of Russia, and Kengor’s depiction of John Paul’s meeting with Gorbachev three weeks after the fall of the Berlin Wall is especially curious. According to Kengor, John Paul II was adamant that Russia accept “fundamental human rights” as well as “freedom of conscience, from which stems religious freedom.” John Paul even argued for freedom of conscience for “…Baptists, Protestants, Jews, as well as Muslims.”
Gorbachev responded positively, explaining that “freedom of conscience and religion” was connected to perestroika, or the liberalization of Soviet society.
Kengor describes the rest of their conversation as a mild debate over moral relativism versus objective moral values.
What we get from this meeting and Kengor’s description of it is especially interesting. Kengor is suggesting that perestroika was part of Our Lady’s plan of converting Russia not to a Catholic country but to a liberal country that allowed freedom of religion and conscience.
We also get a glimpse into John Paul II’s humanist thinking, which seems (at least in this scene) to be very concerned with liberal rights and less concerned with the salvation and conversion of souls.
It is clear that the neocons are desperate to seize the message of Fatima away from groups like the Fatima Center and traditional Catholics and fit it into their own narrative of the triumph of liberalism and not the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for us.
A book that I want to write in the not so distant future will be titled The Mind and Heart of John Paul II: A Critical Examination. In this work, I will explore just exactly what John Paul II believed and taught. One of the curious periods in John Paul II’s intellectual career is his study under Fr. Garrigou Lagrange, the last great Thomist. One would think that the impeccable orthodoxy of Fr. Garrigou Lagrange would rub off on John Paul II, and maybe it did.
In his recent autobiography, George Weigel notes that Polish Stefan Swiezawski “introduced Wojtyla to the works of the French philosophers Etienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain, which took Wojtyla beyond the intellectual milieu in which he was immersed at the Angelicum during his doctoral studies.” Thus like Paul VI, John Paul II was bitten by the bug of Neo-Thomism, and we can thus trace some of the liberal political ideas as well as some of the roots of the personalist anthropology that corrupted John Paul II’s thinking in his reading of Maritain, the grandfather of Catholic neoconservativism.
It is further interesting that Weigel is clearly pleased that John Paul II was weaned off of the the traditional Thomism he learned at the Angelicum.