There has been some pretty strange tie in articles about popes and conclaves, but this article about an exotic dancer turned papal historian is rather strange. Her interest in popes started with her interesting in reading about poisoners. I wouldn’t give much credence though to her book "The Deaths of the Popes" since she comes to the conclusion that John Paul I was poisoned to cover up a Vatican banking scandal.
6 comments
Jeff–have you heard about the “order of nuns” in Chicago (I’m guessing it’s a specific branch of an order of sisters, but they weren’t named) that’s protesting the conclave? Because women are excluded!? They are outside Holy Name Cathedral.
Pathetic, hilarious, and deserving of mockery. You up for the task? I’m sorry I can’t give you a link; I just heard it on NPR several minutes ago.
It might be these people: http://www.women-churchconvergence.org/conclave
If you’ve got time, they do have a discussion forum 😉
Right after the Pope died I heard a radio interview with the woman who wrote this book. She sounded pretty good on the interview in that she was respectful of the Church. I’m not sure if she’s Catholic or not, but she did know many interesting facts about the Popes.
That bank scandal thing is the plot of Godfather III.
The poissoning of John Paul I cannot be proven but seems likely in face of the facts, and you don’t need to go to conspiracy.com to find information on that.
The name you’re looking for is Marcincus, thought after by italian police, openly hidden away in the Vatican as an archbishop and advisor to John Paul II. The bank scandal was real (Banco Ambrosiano and the Vatican Bank) and people have died (Roberto Calvi in London, Michele Sindona poisoned in prison), only their mutual friend Marcincus survives. If you can’t get access to newspaper archivees of the time (I have) you might just read the book of David A. Yallop (“In the Name of God”)
As the author of said book, I don’t give much credence to YOUR comments about my book because if you read it carefully, you would see that I am very non-biased and am VERY clear to say ALLEGED. I presented BOTH sides of the JOHN PAUL I issue, and made NO conclusions one way or the other. My personal opinion is NOT stated anywhere in the book, as they are not relevent.