Was Pope John Paul I Murdered? Part V
There is still one more part of my original work that I feel I should post before I get to Yallop’s newest claims. I had originally intended to save the question of the true cause of the Pope’s death until later, but I now think that both this and the question of why there was no autopsy should be put here so that my later analysis of Yallop and Cornwell will be clearer. But I needed some time to revise this part slightly. Then a few days ago, I came across some information, soon to be published, that includes some very interesting details confirming what I already knew, and throwing new light on the whole question. I’ll include or link to that information when it’s published. Sorry to be so mysterious! In the meantime, here are my original findings.
Update, October 22, 2008: Unfortunately, the information I was hoping to put here has not yet been published. I hope to track down and interview the person who has it myself in the near future.
The Lack of an Autopsy
Cardinal Villot was widely blamed for not having ordered an autopsy on the Pope at the time of his death, and this is, of course, one of Yallop’s major causes of suspicion against him. What’s the truth here? Did Villot somehow decide unilaterally not to have an autopsy, and make the decision on the morning of the Pope’s death or even before his “murder”? Certainly if he really knew of, or had participated in the Pope’s murder by poison, he would have had to be absolutely sure there was no autopsy.
In fact, this is very far from the case. Villot himself submitted the question to the first General Congregation of cardinals meeting on September 30, the morning after the Pope’s body was discovered. He informed the cardinals that the doctors who had examined the Pope’s body wanted to carry out an autopsy so that they could sign the death certificate, which had not yet been published. He wanted their opinion. This was noted by Benny Lai, an Italian journalist who was a Vatican “insider” and who had access to some of the cardinals in the Curia. (1) Clearly this was not the action of someone who wanted to be 100 percent certain of not having an autopsy! The cardinals discussed the question, and there were various opinions for and against. Some thought a good idea, given the climate of public opinion in Rome. Others didn’t want to set a precedent, and thought that the provisions of the Apostolic Constiutions on the death and election of a Pope should be strictly adhered to – and these made no provisions for an autopsy. On the other hand, according to the same source, the cardinals didn’t consider themselves competent to confirm the medical diagnosis on their own.
In fact, steps were taken preserve the Pope’s body on the evening of September 29, before any question of an autopsy was publicly raised. An autopsy after that time would perhaps not have been impossible, but was rather impractical. And even though public opinion was taken into account, the cardinals themselves, including Villot, did not seem to have had any suspicions of foul play.
In addition, Vatican spokesmen insisted several times to the press in the days following John Paul’s death that an autopsy would not satisfy those who were clamoring for it. Since this reference was probably to the traditionalists, it was made with good reason. An autopsy may have established the cause of John Paul’s death with medical certainty, but it would probably not have stopped the absurd murder plot theory that is still being spread today, since the fanatics who believe that John Paul I was murdered do so on ideological, not medical grounds. There are, of course, other people whose confusion and suspicion are not ideologically motivated, and who would have welcomed some medical proof of the cause of Pope John Paul’s death. But although it is unfortunate that an autopsy was not performed, and also unfortunate that the Vatican rarely seems to give as much importance as it should to public opinion, there is no reason to think that the decision not to have an autopsy was made in order to cover up a murder.
The True Cause of the Pope’s Death
There is one final question: What was the real cause of the Pope’s death? Yallop claims that the lack of an autopsy is suspicious, and that John Paul I, who was, he claims, in excellent health, and had never suffered from heart trouble, could hardly have died of a heart attack, as the Vatican said.
According to the statement released by the Vatican, Dr. Buzzonetti said that the Pope’s sudden death “could be related to acute myocardial infarction,” (2) As I indicated above, the doctors were uncertain about the cause of death and wanted clarification. Dr. Buzzonetti’s original opinion was evidently just a rough guess that would have required an autopsy to clarify. In reaching his first opinion, he relied primarily on the age of the victim, the external appearance of the body and the suddenness of death. According to later interviews by Lorenzi and Magee with John Cornwell and others, they did state that the Pope had chest pains the night before, but never told the doctor about this (I will talk about these when I discuss Cornwell’s book). There is an element of doubt obvious in Buzzonetti’s diagnosis, which is natural, since he made it from external evidence only, and without having any exact knowledge of the Pope’s previous medical history.
It is true that Pope John Paul had never shown any cardiopathic symptoms in the medical tests carried out at various times during his life, and his low blood pressure made the development of coronary heart disease unlikely. Perhaps it is true that to someone who was acquainted with Albino Luciani’s medical history, a diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction would not have been immediately apparent. But Dr. Buzzonetti did not have this knowledge. Yallop did an investigation into the Pope’s medical history, and trumpets the fact that he had no heart trouble as evidence for murder. He ignored the fact that there are a number of other causes of sudden death, including some that John Paul I was susceptible to. Yallop was also either ignorant of or kept from his readers many of the details of Luciani’s medical history. Now let’s turn to those details and those possible causes of death.
Yallop failed to mention the fact that Luciani suffered from hardening of the arteries, or arteriosclerosis, a contributing factor in heart attacks and strokes. In January 1978, Luciani had told a priest in Venice that arteriosclerosis had been causing his difficulties with his vision, and that he thought it would mean “a quick old age” for him. (3) While arteriosclerosis is most common in those with high blood pressure, it is by no means confined to these people. Yallop claims that Luciani’s low blood pressure lessened his chances of a heart attack. Perhaps this is true, but as Dr. Baima Ballome explains, his low blood pressure might mean that he was “inclined to collapse and thrombosis.” (4) That is, he may have been particularly subject to the formulation of a thrombus, or blood clot, which can block a blood vessel, causing what is known as an embolism. It is an embolism which usually causes myocardial infarction, which is the blockage of a blood vessel in the heart. One form of stroke, a cerebral embolism, is caused by a clot blocking the arteries in the brain, and a pulmonary embolism is a clot which blocks the pulmonary artery leading to the lungs. Both of these types of embolisms rank with myocardial infarction among the leading causes of sudden death.
Luciani did suffer from such an embolism in a blood vessel in his eye in 1975. According to Dr. Rama, who treated him for it, it may have been that sign of a vascular problem that could have caused his death. After explaining this to Yallop, Rama told him, “I was very surprised that they did not ask me to come and examine the Pope’s body.” (5) It is amazing that after hearing from the Pope’s doctor that he had such a condition, and publishing the information in his book, Yallop still thought that a death due to natural causes was unlikely.
Msgr. Senigaglia, who was Luciani’s secretary from 1970-76 in Venice, and in fact had known him since 1964, when he was bishop of Vittorio Veneto, told me that the embolism he suffered at that time was probably linked to circulatory problems, although nothing showed up on the medical tests that were performed afterwards in Venice to show the exact cause. He explained that some years before while bishop of Vittorio Veneto, Luciani had experienced rheumatic back pains, of the type that are often linked to circulatory disturbances, and in fact, he had worn a body corset for a time because of them. (This is another thing that Yallop neglects to mention, in spite of his frequent boast that he is the only author to have Luciani’s compete medical history). Senigaglia also said that for a long time after coming to Venice, Luciani had not suffered from these disturbances, but that he began experiencing them again in 1978, including some circulatory disturbances in his legs. (6) Then in the spring, at a meeting of the bishops of the Triveneto, he told his friend Archbishop Gottardi of Trent that he had been having some chest pains. He said he didn’t know whether the pain had to do with heart trouble or his respiratory problems, which dated back to an episode of severe viral pneumonia he had gone through as a young priest (7) It was these various pains, including swollen ankles and knees, that prompted Luciani to spend some time at the Stella Maris Institute on the Lido, a seaside resort in Venice, at the end of July and beginning of August 1978, less than a month before was elected Pope. His doctor, Dr. Da Ros, had advised him to do some sunbathing, because this could relieve rheumatic symptoms. (8) At the same time, Luciani went to a hospital for some medical tests, but they did not indicate the cause of the disturbances. (9) Yet is it impossible that these circulatory disturbances may have led to his death a few weeks later, especially when several hours before his death he experienced a recurrence of the pains? Yallop says nothing of these pains, and maintains instead that this stay in the hospital was intended “to counter-act a possible recurrence of gallstones.” But he does not say where he got this information. (10)
Circulatory problems also run in the Luciani family. In an interview he gave after Yallop’s book was published, Edoardo Luciani reacted to the charges that his brother’s death was not due to natural causes by saying:
Sudden deaths are frequent in our family. My great-grandfather and two of my aunts died suddenly, without ever having felt any pain: he while he was putting wood in the fireplace, one of my aunts while she was gathering potatoes in the fields, and the other while she was working in the kitchen. They were all around 65 or 66 years old–which was my brother’s age. I am convinced that had he stayed in Venice, nothing would have changed. His time had come, that’s all there is to it. When I heard about his death, I thought right away about my great-grandfather and my aunts . . . I have never had the least perplexity about his death. (11)
It is therefore quite possible that John Paul I may have died from a cerebral or pulmonary embolism. The Pope’s niece Lina, who is a doctor, said: “According to my professor of pathological anatomy at the Gemelli [Mario Alberto Dina] he heard that when they were preserving the body they had great difficulty injecting the fluids. This could be further indication of massive blockage in the pulmonary artery.” (12)
A conversation between the Pope and Sister Vincenza on the last day of his life, September 28, confirms this theory as well. The sister had been in Luciani’s household for about 12 years. She was a trained nurse and often reminded him about taking his medication. She said that she had noticed that morning that the Pope’s hands and feet were swollen, and that he confessed to her that his knees were swollen as well; a sign that he earlier troubles had returned. Nevertheless, he didn’t think it serious enough to see the doctor about, at least not immediately. Sister Vincenza was well acquainted with the Pope’s medical history, and she told Venetian author Camillo Bassotto: “I am of the opinion that the Pope died of a pulmonary embolism and not of an heart attack.” (13)
Msgr. Senigaglia also told me that he thought an embolism was a likely answer, because of Luciani’s medical history. He thought that the effect of stress on a man with John Paul’s sensitive personality may have helped to trigger it. “It had been a summer when he hadn’t had a vacation,” he said. “Then there was the added stress of the papacy. It could also have been the effect of fatigue.” He added: “There was no need for an autopsy. The family didn’t request it. If there had been the least doubt about a death that was not natural, I’m sure the Vatican would have had an autopsy done. But no one thought of a violent death. Given his [the Pope's] personality type and the family precedents, there was no problem.”(13)
Yet in spite of all the evidence provided by the Pope’s doctor, his secretaries, his nurse and his family, Yallop still stands by his opinion that John Paul I was in perfect health when elected Pope. During the course of a debate on Italian television with Father Lorenzi in October 1987, Yallop dismissed Lorenzi’s statement that the Pope had experienced chest pain a few hours before he died as a mere fantasy. Yet Yallop offered nothing that would support his own theory. (15)
There are many other errors in very simple facts, as well as many contradictory statements in In God’s Name. Many of Yallop’s statements are heavily loaded with hyperbole and a large number are partially or completely undocumented. He also distorted or even ignored statements by important witnesses which did not happen to suit his theories. But Yallop’s greatest mistake was to trust his anonymous sources blindly. In order to measure the usefulness of the information he gathered from them, he would have had to have been better acquainted with affairs in the Catholic Church, especially with the persistent campaign by the traditionalists and the right in general against the Curia, but, as he himself states, he was almost totally ignorant about the Vatican when he began his investigation. (16) This is perhaps the most telling point against him: ignorance. Yallop has at least one thing in common with the authors of many other recent sensational works about the Vatican: their ignorance of the history and theology of the Catholic Church. Those who write about the Church should have at least a little bit of knowledge about it first. Their failure to realize or admit this has caused untold damage.
(1) Benny Lai, I segreti del Vaticano, pp. 163-64.
(2) See the declaration in L’Osservatore Romano, 29 September 1978, p. 1. Drs. Renato Buzzonetti and Mario Fontana did eventually sign the death certificate, stating the death to be by “acute myocardial infarction” but it was not immediately released by the Vatican. It was later published in the Acta Apostolica Sedis for 1978.
(3) Arturo D’Onofrio, Giovanni Paolo I: Il Papa del sorriso (Napoli-Roma: La Redenzione, 1978), p. 198.
(4) Baima Ballone, “Si distrugge da solo,” p. 17.
(5) Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 255.
(6) Personal interview with Mario Senigaglia, November 2, 1985.
(7) Gottardi related his conversation with Luciani in La Vita Trentina (Trent), September 30, 1978; quoted in Huber, Giovanni Paolo I: o la vocazione di Giovanni Battista (Rome: Edizioni “Pro Sanctitate”, 1979), p. 167.
(8) Bassotto, Il mio cuore, p. 203.
(9) Personal interview with Mario Senigaglia, November 2, 1985.
(10) Yallop, In God’s Name, p. 247.
(11) Edoardo Luciani, “Mio fratello non è stato ucciso,” p. 92.
(12) Interview with Lina Petri in Cornwell, A Thief in the Night, p. 243. I have some difficulty with the accuracy of many of Cornwell’s statements; even his translations of his interviews are often not correct (more about this later); in this case, however, the statement has been confirmed by other family members and friends of the Pope. According to Don Licio Boldrin, a priest from the Veneto who was a friend of John Paul I, indicates that when the preserving injections were performed, a swelling was found on the Pope’s arm that could indicate the presence of an embolism; Licio Boldrin, “Ma come è morto Giovanni Paolo?” Papa Luciani Humilitas, 2 (August 1985), p. 11.
(13) Bassotto, Il mio cuore, p. 212.
(14) Personal interview with Mario Senigaglia, November 2, 1985.
(15) Orazio Petrosilli in Il Tempo, October 4, 1987; Willi, In Namen des Teufels?, p. 147.
(16) Yallop ignorant about the Vatican: “Le incredibili rivelazioni,” p. 5.