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 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.
I am in the midst of Paul Kengor’s book A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20th Century. This book is very curious, for it tries to seize the message of Fatima and craft a purely 20th century narrative from it, i.e., the real message of Fatima is the struggle between the United States and her allies and the Soviet Union and there is no future chastisement to come. The book also seeks not only to canonize Ronald Reagan but even members of the Reagan family who were known for their irreligiousness.
There is much to say, but I want to focus on Kengor’s curious attempt to prove (once again) that the attempted assassin of John Paul II, Mehmet Ali Agca was working for Soviet intelligence and DEFINITELY NOT WESTERN INTELLIGENCE.
Kengor admits that (without saying so overtly) that Agca had all of the characteristics of a CIA operative, including:
- Unstable family life / and loner genius personality.
- Ties to fascism.
- Ties mafia in a NATO country.
- A mysterious jail break.
- Experience murdering.
However, Kengor explicitly ridicules the idea of the Central Intelligence Agency using a mafia linked criminal from a NATO country to perform an assassination: “It did not take long before both the Bulgarians and Soviets were contending that the CIA had tried to kill the pope. Yes, the CIA. Truly, nothing was beyond the communist propagandists.” This is the typical post-Cold War neocon (and even neoliberal narrative): The Soviets believed that Agca was a right wing assassin because he sure looked like one, but, of course, the Soviets were a bunch of crazy, stupid liars who lost the Cold War, so everything they said was a lie.
Reader, let me leave you with some rhetorical questions.
- Did the CIA ever employ a fascist mafia hitman from a NATO country to perform any criminal activity?
- Is it true that the Soviet intelligence and press were composed of the cartoonish bungling Keystone cops that neocons depict them as being?
- Is it is more likely that the attempted assassinations of John Paul and Ronald Reagan (by a friend of the Bush family) have a CIA not a KGB link?
- Why does every neocon biographer of John Paul II go out of the way to try to prove the KGB assassination theory?
- Why doesn’t Kengor mention the ties between John Hinckley, the attempted assassin of president Reagan, and the Bush Family?