John Paul II and Ronald Reagan: Two Assassination Attempts with One Story?


The term “conspiracy theory” famously was  developed  by the Central Intelligence Agency to label any story that deviated from the official narrative of the Kennedy assassination. However, the American people and the people of the world never have bought this lone gunman theory even as much we have come to associate the word “conspiracy” with mental illness and/or science fiction. The answer to who killed President Kennedy will never be definitively found because the very nature of espionage precludes an answer. The CIA is not an individual or even a corporation that makes corporate decisions, and the overlap among intelligence agencies, organized crime, cults, banking, and corporations is so complicated and vague as to provide a clear smoking gun. However, there are individuals who clearly were part of or at least knowledgeable of the Kennedy assassination, and there were individuals who were clearly not part of the Kennedy assassination.

I briefly want to visit the assassination attempt on John Paul II and its relationship to the attempt on President Reagan–two assassination attempts that also seem to provide more questions than answers. While reading John O’Sullivan’s sycophantic and ultimately vapid triple biography of John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, and Ronald Reagan, The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister, I noticed something rather curious. All three people whom O’Sullivan among other neocons have paraded as the great emblems of true conservativism and the great crusade against communism had attempts on their life in relative chronological proximity to one another.


John Paul II was shot by Mehmet Ali Agca, a member of the Grey Wolves, a nationalistic crime syndicate, on May 13, 1981. The standard narrative is that John Paul II was miraculously saved from dying by Our Lady of Fatima from a “crazy” Turkish extremist who probably was operating on behalf of the KGB in some capacity. John Paul II was so terrifyingly hostile to the Soviet Union that the Soviets were willing to risk a third world war to get rid of him. This story does not meet the muster of analysis. First of all, John Paul II spent much of his life behind the iron curtain. Secondly, much of John Paul II’s early writings on economics were just as critical of communism as capitalism. This is not to say that John Paul did not aid in the downfall of the Soviet Union or that John Paul was necessarily supportive of the Soviet Union—although it has been suggested that the Soviets and the Polish Communist party did not really perceive him as a threat either because he was liberal enough or perhaps they knew something that the public has yet to find out. Finally, last time I checked, Turkey was a hotbed of NATO-CIA activity not KGB, and whenever you hear the word Turkish mafia, you should not think KGB, but rather CIA. So why would the CIA want to kill John Paul or send him a warning?

The assassination attempt on John Paul II was only six weeks apart from Ronald Reagan’s, which occurred on March 30, 1981 by John Hinckley Jr. whose father was close friends and partners with George H.W. Bush. The story of the Reagan assassination conspiracy has been told and retold over the internet—especially in the past couple of years, but I want to look at the motivating factor behind it as a foil to the John Paul II assassination. The driving factor was, of course, to bring the White House under the control of the Bush clan and eliminate any conservative policies of Reagan’s that would have gotten in the way of Bush’s New World Order that he trumpeted when he became president. Reagan certainly got the message, selling out our beautiful state of California in the 1986 amnesty deal that paved the way for the conquest of so much of our country. The neocons also gained tremendous ascendance in the Reagan white house, and, of course, abortion stayed safe and legal.

If the CIA or some appendage of the Anglo-American-Israeli player of the New World Order was behind the attempted assassination of John Paul II, it may be a clue to understanding JPII’s pontificate—especially if the motivation behind the assassination was to send a message to John Paul II (if not kill him outright). Let’s engage in some brief speculation.

One of the biggest obstacles to traditional Catholics embracing John Paul as a saint is the 1986 Assisi Prayer meeting. Not only were various heretical and non-Catholic sects encouraged to pray in unison, they were given space to pray to their false gods. This was one of the most critical events for ecumenism and religious dialogue and the preparation of a new world religion. All ecumenical and interreligious prayer events cite the Assisi meeting as a precedent. This idea of a world religion is clearly masonic and new age and has been the goal of the United Nations since its inception. Indeed, John Paul seemed sympathetic to the idea that all prayer (except for maybe explicit Satanists?) was prayer to the one true God, but maybe the assassination attempt gave him some extra motivation to help roll out the new world religion.

Another terrible blot on John Paul’s record is his gross negligence of the abuse scandal. John Paul repeatedly appointed bishops who were either sex offenders and/or covered for sex offenders, and there is evidence that John Paul was aware of the abuse crisis before matters reached a crescendo in 2002. Perhaps, John Paul was  pressured not crack down on abuse–especially if that crack down would implicate anyone in American intelligence or the Republican or Democratic parties in child abuse. Interestingly, as well, Fr. Marcel Maciel, a repeat abuser, told his mistress that he was “a spy.” Fr. Maciel was very close to John Paul.

Also, maybe John Paul was being pressured to be more anti-Soviet or at least anti-Soviet in the way American intelligence wanted him to be. This could explain his rendezvouses with Zgibniew Brzezinski as well as George Weigel’s desperate attempts to rule out any connect between John Paul and American intelligence. There was a clear channel of communication between American and John Paul II and the Solidarity movement. The only question is: Was it merely friends working together against a common enemy, or was there more going on?

In the end, I firmly believe that the story of John Paul II has not begun to be written. I do not believe it is clear that he was an active agent of evil so much as a liberal pope who was exceptionally intelligent and a very skilled actor. However, there are many, many unsolved mysteries around John Paul II’s life and work, and many of these mysteries involve American intelligence.

The Media’s “Job,” and Some Just Can’t Handle the Truth

That is Mika Brzezinski; I just did a blog post on her dad’s friendship with JPII.

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics

A couple of brief, close out the week items via reader T.  First up, the media let’s us know what their real job is, not just presenting events as they occur in a factual and unbiased manner, but, no, telling us scary, unstable, easily enraged little people what to think:

Secondly, the billboard below apparently enraged some North Carolina feminists:


Seems pretty straightforward to me. I guess theirs no accounting for taste, but I think you have to be pretty messed up to find this notion so offensive as to stage a protest…… to a billboard:

A billboard on Interstate 40 West near Winston-Salem is angering many who say its message is offensive to women.

The board reads: “Real men provide. Real women appreciate it.” The owner of a Winston-Salem women’s boutique called Kleur has organized a demonstration against the billboard’s message for Sunday at 11 a.m.

On the…

View original post 23 more words

John Paul II and the Zbigniew Brezinski Connection


Dear Reader,

One of the strangest conspiracies to surface in the wake of the Cold War is that John Paul II was elected to the papacy by the machinations of Zbigniew Brzezinski, former director of the Trilateral Commission (1973-1976), national secret advisor to President Carter, and mentor of Barrack Obama. There even is a photo (which I cannot find as of now) that shows Brzezinski walking in St. Peter’s Square after the election of John Paul in October of 1978 with an enormous grin on his face. While there are a number of gaps in the narrative, the relationship between Brzezinski and John Paul II opens up an interesting can of worms that helps us peel back the layers of the aura that surrounds John Paul and allows us to come to grips with an often complicated and confusing pope whose true story has yet to be written.

In his sentimentally hagiographic and deeply manipulative work, Witness to Hope, the most prolific of Catholic neocons, George Weigel, presents a few interesting passages that show us that both Brzezinski and John Paul had a number of rendezvouses in the 1970s and 80s. An examination of the language that Weigel uses reveals some curious clues as to what John Paul and Zgib were up to. While Cardinal Wojtyla was visiting America in the summer of 1976, Brzezinski went to hear the Cardinal lecture at Harvard. It would seem perfectly normal for a Polish-American Political Scientist to want to hear the lecture of a powerful Polish Cardinal coming to America’s premier university.  However, Weigel oddly feels as though it is necessary to reassure readers that it was a “spur-of the-moment decision” that prompted Brzezinski to meet see John Paul’s lecture. Weigel then later provides a detailed description of the scene: “Zbigniew Brzezinski, who ‘hadn’t been in the habit of attending social functions of visiting Polish bishops,’ was vacationing in Maine. But ‘for some reason’ he could never understand, the Columbia University political scientist and future national security advisor to the President of the United States accepted an invitation to Cambridge to have tea with Cardinal Wojtyla, and came away struck by his combination of ‘intellgience and calm strength.'” Again, Weigel goes out of his way to reassure that reader that there was no special reason for Brzezinski to visit Cardinal Wojtyla, and certainly the meeting was not planned in advance. Well, no one said it was.


In Witness to Hope Weigel further notes, not so strangely this time, that when he arrived in Boston in October of 1981, John Paul II was greeted by Rosalynn Carter and Brzezinski at the airport. Weigel uses similar careful language to describe Brzezinski’s later meeting with John Paul on his trip to the USA: “That afternoon, John Paul spent several hours at the Vatican embassy in Washingtton, discussing the international situation with Zbigniew Brzezinski. The meeting hadn’t been on the official schedule. When Brzezinski, responding to the Pope’s invitation, mentioned that there were some family logistical problems that weekend afternoon, John Paul told him to bring his wife and children along. As they were finishing, Brzezinski said that, when he talked to President Carter, he sometimes thought he was talking with a  religious leader, and when he talked with John Paul II, he had the impression of talking to a world statesman.” Again, Weigel goes out of his way to emphasize that Brzezinski had no special reason to meet John Paul, and it was so unofficial that even the wife and kids were brought along. Finally, Weigel defuses the situation with a heart warming joke.

And then there is the conspiracy. The Soviets in Weigel’s work are always depicted as bungling miscreants being foiled by the clever snow skiing Polish pope, so it comes as no surprise that the patriarch of Catholic neoconservatives laughs off the belief among Soviet intelligence and the Soviet press that tied John Paul to Zbigniew Brzezinski “in a plot to destabilize the USSR.”

Weigel provides of description of the Soviet theory: “The report, which reflected the KGB spymaster’s view that history worked throught plots, concluded that Wojtyla had been elected as part of a German-American conspiracy in which key roles were played by the Polish American archbishop of Philadelphia, Cardinal John Krol and Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. The goal of the plot was, presumably, the destabilization of Poland as the first step toward the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact. The analysis was comical, but the threat analysis was acute.” This is not the first time Weigel has laughed off a conspiracy. Like most neocons, even the footsoldiers who don’t financially benefit from lying, Weigel cannot abide any questioning of the mainstream narrative—Weigel has even gone so far as to defend Cardinal Bernadine from the harsher accusations against him (we’ll have a blog post on that issue later). However, what is weird is the intensity with which Weigel attempts to assure the reader that there was no conspiracy. In fact, if Weigel wouldn’t have been so adamant about reassuring his reader that there was no conspiracy, your humble author may have skipped over the passages.

Witness to Hope is not the only time and place that we hear of the suggestion that Bzezinski influenced John Paul II’s election. This suggestion is repeated again in a November 27, 2013 Politico article in which reporter Charles Gati led Brzezinski with the statement: “The Soviet leadership believed that you engineered the election of Pope John Paul II…”

Brzezinski’s response is revealing in its nonchalance:

Sure. The Soviet Politburo was briefed on the proposition that I allegedly got Cardinal [John] Krol of Philadelphia to organize American cardinals. Then the American cardinals organized the German cardinals in an American-German Coalition of Cardinals, then some others, and therefore I was responsible for his election. The pope had heard of this “grand conspiracy.” I remember saying goodbye to him once, and he said, “Come and see me soon.” I said, “Oh, I can’t do that so often. This is too much. You know, it’s a privilege.” And he replied, laughing, “You elected me. You have to come and see me.”

Brzezinski, like Weigel laughs off the suggestion that he  could have influenced the election, but his calmness and the clear absurdity of the story also leave the reader with some pause. The narrative that both Weigel and Brzezinski give of using American and German cardinals seems outrageous; in fact, it seems too outrageous. Is there more to the story? Is there another story that is true? Was that the only way Brzezinski could have influenced the election? Aren’t there more clever ways? Is it really true that the KGB was so completely inept as to fall for such accusations? What was the real relationship between Brzezinski and John Paul?

(As a side note, a point not mentioned by Weigel is that John Paul Met Bzezinski at the Vatican in 1983 along with the entire Trilateral Commission).

Again, there is a lot of weirdness around John Paul II. In many ways, he was the most confusing of popes whose writings and personal actions ranged from intense devotion to Our Lady and Our Lord and genuinely orthodox traditionalism to acts and statements that sound more like something from a new age teacher. The biggest question is: what did John Paul really believe? Was he just a confused, liberal Catholic, or is there much more to the story?

The Weirdness of Stephen Spielberg



Stephen Spielberg is unquestionably one of the most important cultural figures in post-World War 20th century American history. He has been an Orpheus or poetic shepherd of generations of Americans who grew up in the 80s and 90s and has radically altered our perception of the world and ourselves.

I want to first point out that Stephen Spielberg is not a great director or artist in the same way that Shakespeare or even Francis Ford Coppola is a great artist. Spielberg never has and never could make a movie like Lawrence of Arabia. Nonetheless, Spielberg is a very good director and a genius in his own right who is very talented. Secondly, there are some morally redeeming qualities to his movies. He is critical of certain aspects of Zionism in Munich, for example, and in many ways Saving Private Ryan is a tribute to the Catholics and Protestants who fought against Germany in World War II—we all remember the scene at the beginning of the movie in which the priest is hearing the confessions of the dying GIs on the beaches of Normandy. Nonetheless, Spielberg’s movies are not only weird, but contain some very disturbing tropes and themes.


The first of these themes is breaking children away from their parents and often transferring their loyalty to another adult or even supernatural (or extraterrestrial entity).

Let’s look at the plot of The Goonies. The movie, although fun and hilarious, has a group of extremely foul mouthed boys who go in search of a pirate named “One-Eyed Willy”, a clear vulgar reference to the male reproductive organ. What’s more, as Jay Dyer has pointed out, there are other subtle phallic references in the movie.  There is also a scene in which a young boy kisses a much older teenage girl in queer soft pedophilia.

This exposure of children to sexuality or at least the idea of transferring a child’s devotion from the parents to another being is present throughout Spielberg’s films. In ET, it is, of course, an alien who secretly befriends a young boy, introducing him to a risqué scene in a John Wayne movie that inspires the boy passionately to kiss a girl—clearly a hint of what Spielberg and all movie directors are doing in educating and molding their audience. What’s more, we see this unveiling of what TV and movies do in Poltegeist in which the young very blonde girl is awake a night watching TV while her parents are asleep when a hand comes out of the TV to touch her.The message here is clearly that while our parents were sleeping Stephen Spielberg has gotten us.

This motif of children going out among strangers to be educated and traumatized is also present in Jurassic Park. The boy and the girl in the movie spend the night in the arms of a stranger, Dr. Grant in a tree–it must be added that  the young girl has a crush on Dr. Grant, and the boy also  develops an attachment to Dr. Grant.

BFG also has a goofy looking giant who, once again, befriends a child. In Band of Brothers the viewer is ambushed by an unexpected sex scene of a young (once again) very blonde woman fornicating with an American serviceman.


Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers have largely shaped the vision of the European theatre for most Americans of my generation. However, in Band of Brothers there is  a revenge scene, not included in Stephen Ambrose’s book, at the end in which a Nazi is killed, sending the clear message that even though the war is over, the Germans will continually have to suffer for it—Art Spiegelman in Maus does the same thing by having a cell of his graphic novel in which the Germans depicted as cats are morning the destruction of their country and one of the Jewish mice insinuates that they deserve to suffer a little bit too.

Indiana Jones beats and brutally kills Germans—the most famous being the big German who is chopped up with an airplane propeller in Raiders of the Lost Ark. These scenes reflect not only Spielberg’s revenge fantasies against Germans (who may or not have been Nazis) but also Spielberg’s own revenge fantasizes against the Chrsitian Americans who bullied him for being Jewish–he comments on this bullying in recent interviews.  What is further disturbing if we follow Spielberg’s logic is that he is trying to get young Christian Americans to interiorize this hatred of masculine and aggressive European males or even to hate their own ethnic and religious identity. Incidentally, Sloth, a large retarded man with tuffs of blonde hair is welcomed into Chunk’s Jewish family in The Goonies.



Finally, Spielberg, while not as clearly an occultist as George Lucas, nonetheless seems to want radically to  tweak the Christian beliefs of his audience. ET appears as a Christ figure with a glowing chest is a teacher and special friend to the young boy and girl in the movie.  ET’s famous movie poster clearly is meant to replace God creating Adam. In Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the chalice of Christ is merely a magical charmed object to be fought over—thus the belief in the Real Presence is overshadowed by a vague paganism—Henry Jones also cryptically tells Indy that he found “illumination” at the end of the film. In Poltergeist, the Jewish medium tells the Christians not to place their trust in their faith. Even movies like Jaws reinforce the idea that humans are weak fallible creatures who are pray to the natural and supernatural forces of the universe.  Like much of the 80s horror genre, Spielberg’s movies are meant to shed the comfort and safety of children, to make them not to trust their parents or their faith and to let them know that they are very vulnerable to manipulation and attack form diabolic forces—wielded by Spielberg himself.



It seems to be the main messages that Stephen Spielberg wants to get across are as follows:

  1. Germans and Arabs are really bad people and should be killed.
  2. America is a fundamentally multicultural and multi-religious country whose job is to kill any ethnocentric European country.
  3. The world is full of terrifying forces that our Christian parents cannot protect us from.
  4. The real gods are ETs from another planet who want to be our friends and radically alter our understanding of the universe and religion.
  5. It is really important for children to know about and even experience sex.
  6. Kids just need to get away from their parents sometimes and hangout with adult strangers.
  7. The world is full of magical and charmed objects that can be used by humans to gain power or provide some sort of mystical experience.
  8. Jewish people are just as American as everyone else and are really funny and clever and are here to help us  shed our racism, religious prejudice, and sexual mores.

My goal here has not been to destroy the childhood memories of others. I am a child of the 80s and would still rock out to Van Halen if they weren’t Satanic perverts (another story for another time) and play endless hours of NES if it would not come at the price of my immortal soul. My goal has been to unveil the evil that clearly is present in Spielberg’s movies.

In light of the increasing revelations that Pizzagate is just the tip of the iceberg of a large scale trafficking of children, the fixation in Spielberg’s movies on child sexuality is disturbing—whether or not Spielberg himself is guilty of any sort of sexual abuse. Furthermore, the prevalence of occultism could be shrugged off simply as the influence of George Lucas or Spielberg’s own dabbling in Jungianism and not a revelation that Spielberg himself is practicing Kabbalist or something—but it is present in his movies. Finally, Spielberg does not have to be happy about what individual Germans did to his people in the 1930s and 40s or happy about the how the Jews were on the losing end of a religious and ethnic war for much of the past 2000 years of Western Civilization. However, it is important to remember that a movie is never just a movie, and it is precisely because Spielberg’s movies are so alluring that they are so dangerous.

A Genealogy of Love Power: Marsilio Ficino, Jacques Maritain, and Gandhi with Special Guests: Tears for Fears and the God of Surprises



Dear Reader,

Do you believe in the power of love? Me neither. But once upon a time I did. I believed that humans could bring out a radical transformation of world society through the changing of the emotional state of grouchy reactionaries. If we moved from a hard hearted pharisaical and cruel society to a kinder, gentler, one the world would be a better place. We could shed our hang-ups about sexuality, religion, ethnicity, and even table manners, and be a happier freer people. This idea of returning to a Golden Age in which we were free from restraint is as old as Hesiod and is a recurring notion throughout Western history. Since the Renaissance or early modern period, humans have attempted to bring about this radical transformation, and one of the methods has been the idea of “love power” or the notion that if people just became nicer and gentler the world will be a better freer place. This method has even entered the Church through Pope Francis’s “revolution of tenderness” and is found not only in the sewers of 20th century modernism and trashy pop culture, but also in the occult.

It should be no surprise that such ideas can be found in the notorious pseudo-Thomist, Jacques Maritain, who was even “outed” as a leftist in recent EWTN documentary on Maritain’s good friend Saul Alinksy. In his poisonous blueprint for Catholic liberalism Man and the State (1951), Maritain, the former adept of the vitalist philosopher Henri Begson, refers to a “vital energy” of the people (65).  Maritain writes that Christians would do well to draw from the wisdom of Hinduism, writing that there is an “order of means “of which our Western civilization is hardly aware, and which offers the human mind an infinite field of discovery—the spiritual means systematically applied to the temporal realm, a striking example of which has been Gandhi’s Satyagraha” (68). Thus one of the manifestations of this vital power for animating post World War II society will be a Hindu love magic. Christians in their process of transforming the world into the new political system that Maritain is peddling should employ Hindu spirituality as a “means of spiritual warfare.” As Maritain himself points out, “…Satyagraha means ‘the power of Truth.’ Gandhi has constantly affirmed the value of the ‘Power of Love,’ or the ‘Power of the Soul,’ or the ‘Power of Truth’ as an instrument or means of political and social action” (68). Thus we have an idea of love power, which instead of Catholic militancy and martyrdom, should be utilized in the war against the reactionary regimes that blight the earth.

Maritain does admit that “…Gandhi’s theory and technique should be related to and clarified by the Thomistic notion that the principal act of the virtue of fortitude is not the act of attacking, but that of enduring, bearing, suffering with constancy (68). This is a very ambiguous and misleading statement, and is not the only time that Maritain attempts to baptize incompatible ideas as being Thomistic. Maritain even goes so far as to say that Satyagraha can be used to aid Christians in their “struggle…to transform civilization making it actually Christian, actually inspired by the Gospel” (70). This is a radically variant idea from traditional Christianity. The idea of love power did not build Christendom: Christian fortitude and a zeal for souls did—not to mention this idea of “love power” is a pagan not Christian idea. Maritain’s notions of Christian politics as a subdued and gentle kindness contributed to the climate that produce Vatican II’s awful Dignitatis humanae and has crippled Catholic political thought for almost a century now. This effeminate idea of passive resistance has led to the erosion of Catholic influence in world politics and the destruction of any idea of the Catholic state. It is a thoroughly diabolical idea—even the pagans say so.

This idea of using love power to transform the world has an old pedigree. The idea of the transformation of the world into a new Golden Age is at least as old as the Roman poet Virgil who wrote of it in his Eclogues. It is also present in the tradition of Neoplatonic occultism.


In his work On Love, Renaissance Neoplatonist Marsilio Ficino writes, “the whole power of magic consists in love.” Ficino’s love magic involves a transformation of the world through science and philosophy and love to create a new, better world.  In this tradition, love is integrally tied to the magician’s craft of reforming the world and bringing about a new Golden Age. It is not surprising that such ideas would be found in Hinduism, but the same ideas were part and parcel of Maritain’s blueprint not only in Man and the State but in Integral Humanism, The Person and the Common Good, and other writings in which Maritain attempted to craft a new political Pentecost in the ruins of World War II that would transform the world.

Well, dear reader, where does 80s pop group Tears for Fears fit in this alchemical stew of lies, heresy, and Satanism? I would like to direct your attention to the band’s 1989’s “Sowing the Seeds of Love.” The video has been analyzed several times, but I want to take a quick look at it again, for it provides us with a visual of how pervasive this ideology of love power is. The video begins with a rocky man with his eyes closed–an obvious symbol of a hard stoic or serious Christian whose heart has not been warmed by the love power of Ficino, Maritain, and Gandhi. The man’s eyes open and a door to his head also opens. On the doors of the man’s head are the alchemical symbols of a sun and moon. As viewers, we enter into the mind of the man that is now a bright sky with Tears for Fears singing about love. The video is loaded with occult symbolism tied to the idea of world transformation through magic. We an eye of Horus on top of a pyramid, a clear reference to the return of Saturn and the creation of a new Saturnalial age of love and freedom. There are levitating bodies in some sort of trance—the body of Roland Orzabal floats near his girlfriend’s in a clear reference to sex. There is also a peacock and sea shell—clear homages to the mother goddess Juno and the goddess of love Venus who road on a sea shell. We also see the Egyptian Ankh, the symbol of life as well as the symbol of world transformation in addition to Buddhas, but, sadly, there is no Gandhi. The lyrics of the song also are loaded with a clear attacks on Christianity and the idea of a transcendent God. Roland Orzabal ridicules the idea that those who are hungry “Look to the sky for some kind of divine intervention.” He laments that the people are without a “love and a promised land.” Orzabal and Curt Smith also urge the viewer’s to read about it in a book that appears containing the alchemical sun and some jumbled modernist paintings. The video ends with Orzabal planting a seed, which grows into a giant sunflower that is imposed over the entire world. Thus the alchemical transformation from a hard hearted and serious world.

It is perhaps not strange that the same occult ideas can be found in Ancient Greek and Roman poetry and in 80s pop. What is strange but not so strange is that these same ideas are contained in the writings of one of the most influential Catholic philosophers of the 20th century, Jacques Maritain, an architect of the United Nations declaration of Human Rights. The height of weirdness is that these ideas are now the MO of our current pontiff, Pope Francis, who spends his days sowing the seeds of love power.

John Paul II and The Eternal Feminine




In light of the “long Halloween” of Pope Francis, the reign of John Paul II seems like an enchanted period of stability and orthodoxy in the papacy. In fact, in the Arkum Asylum of Francis’s church, it would seem to be a very bad idea to criticize other popes who seemed to at least hold to some tenets of orthodoxy. However, it is, I believe, precisely the time to criticize those popes whose life and writings prepared the way for Francis. Let’s then take a look at a very weird interview by John Paul II in 1989. Explaining his 1988 encyclical Mulieris Dignitate, John Paul stated, “I believe that the situation of women today perhaps can be defined as being the ‘eternal feminine.’ I am seeking the eternal feminine. Everything that is accidental and animated by situations and circumstances cannot change the eternal, which is essential. In this respect, I expressed what I seek and desire in the document about the dignity of women.” There is an excellent article on Tradition in Action on this interview, but I want to spend a little bit more time on it with close attention to a text from the German Romantic poet J.W. Goethe. On first glance, in this interview, John Paul simply seems to be using a term from Romantic poetry (and the occult!) for what scholastics would call the “essence” of womanhood. John Paul is simply trying to explicate the unchanging essence of womanhood. However, this is not the only time that John Paul has said or done something weirdly occultic, and it deserves a closer look.



As Tradition in Action point out, Goethe does treat the eternal feminine in his magisterial Faust. Near the end of the play the title character ascends into heaven in a Dantesque journey. However, what Faust finds is not necessarily a Christian heaven. There is an appearance of  what appears to be the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mater Gloriosa, a Chorus Mysticus and a Doctor Marianus or Mariologist. However, it is quite clear that these characters are not Christian, but rather Christian vehicles of occult ideas:


            MATER GLORIOSA:


                                    Come raise yourself to higher spheres!


                                    When he feels you, he follows there.




                                    Penitents, behold elated


                                    The redeeming face;


                                    Grateful, be regenerated


                                    For a life of grace.


                                    That all good minds would grow keen


                                    To serve thee alone;


                                    Holy virgin, mother, queen,


                                    Goddess on thy throne!




                                    What is destructible


                                    Is but a parable;


                                    What fails ineluctably


                                    The undeclarable,


                                    Here it was seen,


                                    Here it was action;


                                    The Eternal-Feminine


                                    Lures to perfection.




First of all, we see that it is by man’s own efforts that he travels through the spheres—not the grace of God as in Dante. Secondly, all that is required of Faust is that he loves the Virgin Mary, not as, in Dante,  the Virgin Mary as mediatrix of grace whose Immaculate Heart is always twinned with Christ’s. This love of the “goddess on her throne” is undoubtedly the love some sort of literal goddess not the Virgin Mary who is venerated not worshipped. Furthermore, in Faust, there is clearly a pagan understanding of some basic erotic drive that lures the Romantic hero forward. In the play, this erotic drive impels the hero, Faust, to have an affair with a girl that ultimately leads to the death of her child and suicide. How John Paul II, an exceptionally educated and intelligent man, could view this wicked and cruel drive as being a model for an authentic Catholic understanding of womanhood is beyond me.



John Paul II was in the habit of “baptizing” artifacts for cultural consumption, drawing from the works hip hop artists to existentialists, so, upon first glance, John Paul II is applying a forced Christian reading of an irreducibly pagan and Romantic idea. However, it seems ridiculous to suppose that John Paul II did not know that Goethe was using the Blessed Virgin Mary as merely an image of the White goddess, the eternally reoccurring feminine principle of erotic desire. As I hope to further discuss, this interview was just one of many instances of John Paul expression what appears to be a pagan idea. Yet, there are many undeniably authentically Christian statements and actions in John Paul’s life. At the very least, we see a prefiguring of the imprudence that exploded into hysterical confusion under the reign of Pope Francis.