by: BOB WOODWARD
IF CASEY WAS going to sell the Nicaragua operation in the Democratic House, he would have to hold conservative Democrats from the South and the West. One such person was Dave K. McCurdy, a thirty-three year-old Democratic congressman from Oklahoma, who had joined the House Intelligence Committee that January. An Administration friend and avidly pro-defense, McCurdy was assumed to buy the whole Reagan foreign-policy and defense-program package. In a private conversation, Casey told McCurdy that the CIA would "do whatever it takes" to influence the Sandinista government. McCurdy had a feeling of slipperiness in his discussions with Casey.
At one hearing, McCurdy asked Casey how much the Sandinistas were spending on schools, roads and hospitals in their country.
"I don't know," Casey snapped. There was a tone of intolerance that reverberated through the secure committee room on the top floor of the Capitol building. It was a small room, and the congressmen were arranged around a built-in horseshoe table. Casey was on edge. He was making it clear that he found the hearing tedious and McCurdy's inquiry silly and irrelevant.
McCurdy asked whether this was because Casey himself didn't know, or whether the CIA didn't have the information. "What's your point, Mr. Congressman?" Casey asked. "I grew up in rural Oklahoma," McCurdy said, "and you ought to understand why we are Democrats in rural Oklahoma."
McCurdy went on to explain about FDR's New Deal and the Rural Electrification Administration (REA) that had brought the farmers of Oklahoma into the twentieth century. And the question, he said, is whether the Sandinistas are on that road. Are they winning the people?
Casey got the point and became somewhat more approachable. The Catholic Church was opposing the Sandinistas, he said, and if there were truly free elections in Nicaragua the Sandinistas would not win.
Mr. Woodward does not inform his readers that head
of the CIA William Casey was a Knight of Malta Roman Catholic.
Knights of Malta are a Roman Catholic sub-cult
sworn to defend the Roman Catholic "Church".
" the Catholic church itself
is split over the revolution."
From.......... INSIDE CENTRAL AMERICA
By Phillip Berryman
Published by Pantheon Books, NYC copyright 1985
........... who see the revolution as offering hope for their future and those who see it as diminishing their power and prestige. Naturally, opponents of the revolution do not refer to their own interests but to such principles as political pluralism, free enterprise, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
As noted in Chapter 2, the Catholic church itself is split over the revolution. The bishops' anti-Sandinista stand has its roots in their close association with anti-Somoza business and upper-class groups during the 1970s.
The honeymoon ended for them at the same time it did for the business opposition. Alfonso Robelo resigned from the junta in April 1980, and in May the bishops told the priests in government posts they should leave (see p. 43).
Many ordinary Nicaraguan Catholics are scandalized that their bishops, who have frequently criticized the Sandinistas, have never raised their voice to protest the CIA-directed contras, who by mid-1984 had inflicted 7,000 casualties, most of them civilians.
Similarly, La Prensa, which the U.S. media describe as an "independent" newspaper, is viewed quite differently by ordinary Nicaraguans. To begin with, for about half the population, it would be unthinkable to buy La Prensa since it would take 5 percent or more of a day's income.
In any case, most see La Prensa as a weapon being used against the revolution. (The CIA worked with the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio in its efforts to overthrow the elected Allende government.) La Prensa is not "independent" of the elites. Some Nicaraguans would no doubt prefer to see La Prensa closed, and that is no doubt a temptation to the Sandinistas, who have thus far sought to maintain some measure of press freedom even when under military attack. The point here is modest enough: the whole question of La Prensa looks quite different when viewed from the angle of most Nicaraguans.
Again, after forty-five years of complete subservience to the United States under the Somozas, most Nicaraguans are proud of their new independence. As citizens of a nonaligned country and as members of the international community, they feel free to maintain a warm relationship with Cuba and to welcome collaboration from other socialist countries. By one count there were 1,200 technical assistants from socialist countries in Nicaragua, alongside 3,400 from Europe and the Americas. Some Cubans have worked with the Nicaraguan army and police, but there is no public proof for the administration's assertions that 2,000 or more Cubans are in Nicaragua.
From ........... National Catholic Reporter
September 9, 1994 page 30
IN CENTRAL AMERICA, HOPE IS A FAR HORIZON
Religion and politics in a grotesque dance, but seldom with poor
STUBBORN HOPE: RELIGION, POLITICS AND REVOLUTION IN CENTRAL AMERICA
By Phillip Berryman
Orbis Books, The New Press, 276 pages, $22.95
By TIM McCARTHY
Perhaps nowhere in the world has the church more vividly defined itself in the past generation, for better or worse than in Central America.
From the imperial go-between Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo in Managua to Archbishop Oscar Romero in San Salvador, from the born-again evangelical President Efrain Rios Montt in Guatemala to the countless nuns and priests and catechists and other lay people who laid it all on the line, the church has been a major player, politically and otherwise. That after all those years of bloody turmoil, with tens of thousands dead and mutilated and tortured and uprooted, we should be back pretty much where we started is, for some, one of the heaviest disappointments of our day.
Ironically, the concerns of U.S. foreign policy in the region are in some ways the same as the concerns of the church. The United States, however begrudgingly, can tolerate democracy in, say, El Salvador, if it is democracy imposed from the top down and does not disturb the social order past the point where it would be more difficult to exploit economically. Even the oligarchs can live with that.
But if it is a genuine movement from below, if it is the cry of people rising up to reclaim their birthright Ñ as it was in Nicaragua in 1979 Ñ the United States cannot tolerate it. So, too, in the church.
Pope John Paul II's hatred of the Sandinistas did not have nearly as much to do with their Marxist leanings as it did with the threat of a revolutionary society altogether compatible with, a people's church. Nicaragua had a chance to become liberation theology made real, liberation theology incarnated. And that was dangerous.
Phillip Berryman chronicles all this and much more in 'Stubborn Hope'. A longtime observer of the region, Berryman often writes from personal experience. He picks his way through the deepening tangle of religion and politics during the past 20 years or so in Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala. The historical summaries are brief but cogent. With a tracker's hard eye, he lets nothing pass, marks every misstep, no matter which side makes it.
Nowhere was the dynamic between religion and politics any clearer than in Nicaragua. There the people's church, or popular church, was on the side of the revolutionary government. Four priests held prominent government posts. With a popular military victory behind them, the Sandinistas clearly intended to continue their revolution in part by working with elements of the church they thought they could trust, the same elements that had helped them defeat the Somoza regime.
But a hierarchy grown fat on Somoza pork opposed them from the start. The bishops ordered the priests in the government to step down. The priests refused and the lines between the institutional and popular church were drawn. While the Sandinistas insisted that unlike other Marxist parties they were committed to freedom of religion, the bishops claimed they were embracing religion only to strangle it.
Many in the popular church criticized the Sandinistas as well, but without losing sight of a revolutionary process that was transforming a society in terms of literacy and health care and promising an economic future that would embrace rather than exploit the poor. Not so the bishops. The bishops condemned the Sandinistas at every turn. They Ñ rightly Ñ condemned them for human rights violations against the Miskito Indians on Nicaragua's east coast, but were silent about contra atrocities against civilians. When the contras butchered a Catholic lay leader and four of his sons and carved the words 'With God, Without Communism' on the chests of two, no doubt the bishops thought the rebels were merely elucidating which side God was on.
In June 1982, John Paul II weighed in with a letter condemning the Nicaraguan popular church and urging the people to rally round the bishops and the institution. The Sandinistas made the mistake of suppressing the letter.
Then came the pope's ill-fated 1983 visit, when he ignored the Reagan war against Nicaragua, chastised the popular church and got some rough treatment at the hands of a crowd shouting for peace and 'people's power.' After that there was a curious mesh of U.S. and Vatican foreign policy toward Nicaragua.
In Guatemala and El Salvador, where the government and the military were far more repressive, there was far less distance between the institutional and popular church. After Romero was martyred in San Salvador, it was as if his successor, Archbishop Arturo Rivera y Damas, a more cautious figure, could not in conscience turn away from Romero's example. The San Salvador archdiocese became one of the most reliable chroniclers of human rights violations and a refuge for people uprooted from the countryside.
The Guatemalan bishops also spoke out against human rights abuses and army atrocities. Even some of the fast growing number of Protestants, who generally stayed on the political sidelines, criticized born-again President Rios Montt, calling his methods anti-Christian and accusing him of using personal religiosity for political ends and 'wrapping political arguments in biblical language.'
[ which is exactly what RC 'liberation theology' is ...... JP ]
But at the heart of all this, in what ever country, was the pastoral mission called accmpanamiento, accompanying or standing by the people. Writing in a 1979 pastoral letter, Romero was probably the first to use the word in that context. It became the watchword for countless Catholics, clerical, religious and lay, who believed that the preferential option for the poor was indeed a mission and a way of life.
No matter what the stance of the official church, those priests, nuns and catechists and other church workers stood by the people and often accompanied them into death.
Before his own brutal death in San Salvador in 1989, Jesuit Fr. Ignacio Ellacuria saw a 'third force' emerging from the clash between left and right, a mass movement of the people that would be beyond any ideology of whatever stripe. This is the same force that many hoped would energize the revolution in Nicaragua and help it to grow. This is the same force that many looked to in Central and Eastern Europe after 1989, no matter how much the economic 'third way' it might have created was mocked by so called democratic capitalists.
But that is precisely the kind of popular force that neither the United States nor the institutional church can tolerate. And yet, the church that both shaped and was shaped by that force, the church that made 'acompanamiento' real Ñ an organism living so deep in the marrow of a people that it would be impossible to imagine justice without it Ñ that church is still for many everything the church was ever meant to be.
Despite the fact that, as theologian Jon Sobrino put it, 'the powerful continue to make laws to make the rich richer while ignoring the poor,' years of enormous suffering have left the people with a vision they can carry with them toward a better future. There is hope in that.
It is a part of Berryman's stubborn hope. If we have learned anything from the events in Central America these past years, awesome in so many ways, it will be our hope as well.Ñ
Tim McCarthy is a journalist and fiction writer.
He covered the murder of the Jesuits in El Salvador in 1989.
page 30 National Catholic Reporter 9 Sept.1994
From .................... PEOPLE'S DAILY NEWS
July 24, 1994
By Dominic Taranowski
CHRISTIANS, COMMUNISTS, AND STRUGGLE
During this critical time in world history, when the U.S. government denounces the disarmament overtures of the USSR, no effort should be spared in unifying all sectors of American society oriented toward social justice. One unity that must not be neglected is that between Communists and Christians. Though the theology and ideology may be quite different, the separation that has often been antagonistic must be mended for the common good. We must seek out the common ground that exists.
It is useful to look at the Nicaraguan Revolution in this context.
The majority of Nicaragua's population is Christian.
Ernesto Cardenal, [Roman] Catholic priest and Nicaraguan Minister of Culture, states in Margaret Randall's book, Christians in the Nicaraguan Revolution, that the promised land proclaimed by Jesus is not to be patiently anticipated in the next world, but rather built here today.
He further equates this earthly kingdom of God with Marx's perfect communism.
Early Christians lived in communes in which there was no private ownership and citizens received from the society in accordance with their contributions. Over the centuries this definition of Christianity has been largely distorted by the church, which, so as not to break with tradition, has allied itself with the capitalists in our day.
The Catholic Church, with its notorious Vatican Bank, is a chief example. There is, then, a distinct difference between Christianity and "churchianity."
Jesus, a member of the working class, taught his followers to denounce an unjust distribution of wealth and work for the betterment of society.
The church, which has always made profits its first concern, has brainwashed the common Christian into passive subservience through the use of dogma and rituals. The poor, they say, will get theirs in the next world.
In most socialist countries today, there are no homeless, no undernourished children, no unemployment. But there is free health care and education.
It is hard to imagine the subversive carpenter from Nazareth condemning such things. After all, Jesus was committed to assisting "the least of these": the poor. Capitalism is clearly anti-Christian.
Liberation theology is revolutionary Christianity.
Of course, there is no denying that the Christian belief in and worship of a God is in conflict with Marxism. Still, such contradictions should not overshadow our similarities. It should be clear to every sober-minded person that our country is on a dangerous path. The U.S. war machine has appropriated a lopsided portion of our society's wealth. Despite Irangate, there is still a bizarre personality cult of Reagan and the president is still hailed much like a pharaoh. The coercive media trains the public not to question capitalism.
A bright future lies in ending the often factionalized nature of our movement. Though there may be great differences in our beliefs, Communists and Christians must make an effort to stand united with the other allies in our movement to transform American society in favor of peace and the working class.
From................. National Catholic Reporter
January 31, 1992
"This made a great contrast with the Ronald Reagan era.
In the "good old days" the pope was in alliance with the United
States in Central America, destabilzing Nicaragua, supporting the
'contras', propping up the Salvadorans and generally repressing
liberation theologians with the aid of the CIA
(see the Santa Fe document). *END QUOTE*
Liberation Theology was the perfect blueprint for the Sandinistas. It incorporated the very aim of Marxist-Leninism.
It presumed the classic Marxist "struggle of the masses" to be free from all capitalist domination.
And above all, the Marxist baby was at last wrapped in the very swaddling clothes of ancient [Roman] Catholic terminology.
From ....... THE JESUITS -The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church
By Malachi Martin
["Father" Martin, a prolific RC author, was a long time Jesuit and remains a Roman Catholic in good standing ...... JP ]
Published by Simon & Schuster, NY. .......... ISBN: 0-671-54505-1
page 56-62 .................. ............. THE TESTING GROUND
...... by the early seventies, at least seven years before their grab for power, the Sandinista leaders openly proclaimed their ultimate aim: to create a Marxist society in Nicaragua to serve as the womb from which Marxist revolution throughout Central America would be born. "Revolution throughout the Americas" was the slogan.
From their beginnings as a group, when they were nothing more than rag-tag guerrillas, bank robbers, and hit-and-run terrorists, the Sandinistas understood full well that they had no hope of installing a Marxist regime in 91.6 percent Roman Catholic Nicaragua unless they could enlist - in effect, inhale - the active cooperation of the Catholic clergy, together with suitably altered [Roman Catholic] Church doctrine and [Roman Catholic] Church structure.
Mere passive connivance on the part of the clergy would not be enough. If the Sandinistas wanted the very soul of the people, they knew the road: [Roman] Catholicism was inextricably bound up in the warp and woof of Nicaraguan culture, language, way of thinking, and outlook, and was integral to all the hope of the people.
Here, Fernando Cardenal, as [Roman Catholic] priest and Jesuit, was a towering influence.
For some time, certain [Roman] Catholic theologians in Latin America - principally Jesuits of the post-World War II period - had been developing a new theology. They called it the Theology of Liberation, and based it on the theories of their European counterparts.
It was an elaborate and carefully worked out system, but its core principle is very simple: The whole and only meaning of Christianity as a religion comes down to one achievement - the liberation of men and women, by armed and violent revolution if necessary, from the economic, social, and political slavery imposed on them by U.S. capitalism; this is to be followed by the establishment of "democratic socialism."
In this "theological" system, the so-called "option" for the economically poor and the politically oppressed, originally described as a "preferential" option by Catholic bishops in Latin America at their conference in Medellin, Colombia, in 1968, became totally exclusive: There was one enemy - capitalist classes, middle and upper and lower, chiefly located in the United States. Only the "proletariat" - the "people" - was to be fomented by the imposition of Marxism.
Liberation Theology was the perfect blueprint for the Sandinistas.
It incorporated the very aim of Marxist-Leninism. It presumed the classic Marxist "struggle of the masses" to be free from all capitalist domination. And above all, the Marxist baby was at last wrapped in the very swaddling clothes of ancient Catholic terminology. Words and phrases laden with meaning for the people were co-opted and turned upside down.
The historical Jesus, for example, became an armed revolutionary. The mystical Christ became all the oppressed people, collectively. Mary the Virgin became the mother of all revolutionary heroes. The Eucharist became the bread freely made by liberated workers. Hell became the capitalist system. The American president, leader of the greatest capitalist country, became the Great Satan. Heaven became the earthly paradise of the workers from which capitalism is abolished. Justice became the uprooting of capitalist gains, which would be "returned" to the people, to the "mystical body" of Christ, the democratic socialists of Nicaragua. The Church became that mystical body, "the people," deciding its fate and determining how to worship, pray, and live, under the guidance of Marxist leaders.
It was a brilliant synthesis, ready-made and just waiting for the activists who would set about erecting a new sociopolitical structure on its basis, as a building rises from a blueprint.
The Nicaraguan people were the first guinea pigs on whom the theory was experimentally tried. And the priests who were charter members in the Sandinista leadership - Jesuit Fernando Cardenal Ernesto Cardenal, Miguel D'Escoto Brockman of the Maryknoll Fathers, Jesuit Alvaro Arguello, Edgar Parrales of the Managua diocese - made the experiment doubly blessed and likely to succeed.
If such men, duly ordained as priests, could successfully get this new "theological" message across - that the Sandinista revolution was really a religious matter sanctioned by legitimate Church spokesmen - they would have both the [Roman] Catholic clergy and the people as allies in a Marxist-style revolution by armed violence.
[no R. C. was ever excommunicated for engaging in violent revolution ..... JP ]
Without a doubt, the plan had been carefully thought out and elaborated, based on a profound analysis of the Nicaraguan people and of its clergy.
No doubt, too, the first connivers in the scheme were the priests themselves; there are even those in Managua today and among prominent Nicaraguan exiles in Panama, Honduras, and Miami, Florida,who point the finger at Fernando Cardenal as the prime architect of the scheme. But what evidence there is does suggest that he was not the only Jesuit involved.
In any case, the Sandinista undertaking was ever more brilliantly explained, refined, and dinned into the ears of seminarians, nuns, university students, and the popular mind by increasing numbers of their Jesuit, Franciscan, and Maryknoll teachers and lecturers throughout the schools of Central America. The seeding time was well spent in the view of ultimate Marxisation. The pathetic court testimony of the young Nicaraguan Edgard Lang Sacasa told the world as far back as 1977 that it had been his priest educators who had persuaded him and thousands like him to join the Sandinista guerrillas.
Hand in hand with this new Theology of Liberation went, of necessity, the establishment of a new and "pliant" Church structure to replace the old one.
In the traditional Roman Catholic structure, knowledge about God, Christ, Christian salvation, personal morality, and human destiny derived from the hierarchic pastors of the Church - namely, the Pope and his bishops.
They were the only authentic source of knowledge about the faith; apart from them, there was no accurate knowing possible about Christianity. Submission to them and acceptance of their teaching and laws were necessary for salvation.
It was precisely this structure, in which ultimate control is Rome's, that stood between the Sandinistas and the people. And it was precisely this structure that the earlier, European-based architect-theologians of Liberation Theology had criticized. This structure was, Liberation Theologians said, dictated by "a view from above" and "imposed from above" on the people "below."
Franciscan Liberation Theologian Leonardo Boff, teaching in a Brazilian seminary, put it in terms Fernando Cardenal and his clerical colleagues could champion: "There has been a historical process of expropriation of the means of production on the part of the clergy to the detriment of the Christian People." Boff was not talking about industry or commerce, but about theology and religious doctrine; the means of production - the "plant," as he called it - was the preaching of the Gospel.
According to the new theologians, "Roman" and therefore "alien" imposition of religious doctrine was the very reason social injustice and political oppression flourished in lands where this hierarchic [Roman Catholic] Church flourished. In lands such as Latin American countries. In countries such as Nicaragua. On top of that, the argument went on, Christianity and specifically [Roman] Catholicism was not merely alien in and of itself, but had always accompanied actual invasion by alien European cultures. "Alien" - that was the key word.
To counter that alien, imposed structure, the new theologians looked "from below." From the level of the people. From the perspective of oppression and injustice - because that, they said, was all they found "below" among the people. The task, in other words, was to impose the "preferential option" on all the people, rich and poor alike. Immediately, as Fernando Cardenal and the other Sandinista priests quickly realized, a new concept of "Church" was born.
The ordinary body of believers, by revised definition, would become the very source of revelation. The faith of believers would "create" communities among those believers. Base Communities, they are called in Nicaragua and elsewhere in Latin America - "comunidades de base" . And those Communities taken together would form the new "Church," the "People's Church."
These Communities began to form years before the Nicaraguan revolution stormed onto the stage of geopolitics in 1979. Groupings of laymen and laywomen would gather regularly to pray, to read the Bible, to sing hymns, to discuss their local concrete problems in economics and politics; to choose not only their political leaders but their priests as well; and to determine not only the solutions to their secular problems, but how best to worship and what to believe.
It was a dream come true. A dream put into clear words by the same Father Boff: "The sacred power must be put back in the hands of the people." No teaching or directing authority would be allowed "from above," from the alien, hierarchic [Roman Catholic] Church. In fact, the very symbols of that Church must be firmly rejected.
Symbols and all else must only come "from below." From the people. From their Base Communities - nearly 1000 of them in Nicaragua alone, in time; and nearly 300,000 in Latin America at large. The idea of Base Communities spread to the United States, where they are sometimes called "Gatherings."
Fernando Cardenal, Ernesto Cardenal, Miguel D'Escoto Brockman, Edgar Parrales, and Alvaro Arguello were the showcase priests of the Sandinistas, the intended and willing legitimizers of this new "People's Church" that would appropriate
by Humberto Belli
Published by GOOD NEWS PUB, Westchester, IL .........1985
In July 1979, when a bloody revolution swept away the forty two-year-old Somocista dictatorship in Nicaragua, many eyes looked expectantly to this small Central American nation - especially Christian eyes.
An uninspiring, corrupt, and decadent dictatorship had been overthrown by the massive participation of Nicaraguans from all parts of society. Even more notable, the revolution had been won with the collaboration of Marxists and Christians on a scale unsurpassed by any contemporary revolution.
Thousands of Christians, including. some [Roman] Catholic priests had fought with the Marxist guerrillas. The influential [Roman] Catholic bishops had issued pastoral letters denouncing the government's violations of human rights and spoke about the people's right to rebel in the face of prolonged, unbearable tyranny.
In many ways the Nicaraguan revolution seemed to defy skepticism about the possibility of positive social change in Latin America and to challenge previous judgments about the nature of Marxist revolution and the incompatibility of Christianity and Marxism.
Many among the victorious leaders of the revolution, known as Sandinistas, had expressed sympathy for Marxism-Leninism.
But four [Roman] Catholic priests held positions in the government - minister of foreign affairs, minister of culture, minister of social welfare, and leader of the Sandinista youth movement.
And the Sandinista government promised to follow policies based on the principles of political pluralism, a mixed state-free market economy, nonalignment with either the United States or the Soviet Union, and full respect for human rights, especially the rights of free expression and religious freedom. For many people inside and outside Nicaragua the revolution .............
From.......... National Catholic Reporter
June 19, 1987
Reports say clergy in Managua tapped North's war chest
By JIM McMANUS Washington Bureau Chief
SOME FUNDS from Oliver North's secret bank accounts made their way to the Catholic church in Nicaragua, according to press reports and recent congressional testimony. The revelations, at a time of delicate church-state negotiations to relieve tensions in Nicaragua, could damage the credibility of church figures, sources said.
ÒThis is part of an organized campaign against the church. They are trying to eliminate any peaceful solution" to the contra war, said contra spokesman Jorge Rosalez of Miami.
However, the Nicaraguan government made no comment on the fund diversions. As details about the Iran-contra network (See War chest, page 4) ...........
"It would have meant banishment of those Jesuit priests who preached Communism. These [Roman Catholic] priests sought out the youngsters from the upper class families and indoctrinated them to the Leftist cause. Their effort never ceased."
Somoza was a Cardinal Spellman-era Roman Catholic in good standing.
From ..... NICARAGUA BETRAYED
by Anastasio Somoza as told to Jack Cox
[shortly before Somoza was gunned down]
Western Islands Publishers
395 Concord Ave. Belmont, MA 02178
copyright 1980 ISBN: 0-88279-235-0
pages 23-26, .......... 91-93
Chapter Two .................. HOW IT ALL BEGAN
As far back as 1963, there was guerrilla activity in Nicaragua. These were sporadic attempts by the Leftist movement to influence and control people in some of the remote areas. At that time, the Sandinistas represented no serious threat to the government of Nicaragua. While the government was in the throes of recovering from the earthquake, the guerrillas stepped up their activities in the mountainous northeast section of Nicaragua. This was done after a group of Cubans had crossed over the border on foot and conferred with the rebels. They were told by the Cubans that if they could recruit eight hundred fighting men, they would get all the arms and ammunition they wanted.
The rebel Sandinistas then began sporadic raids in the smaller communities of the northeast. In these raids they murdered eighty justices of the peace. In the eyes of the rebels, these were the local representatives of the government, so they were killed. The rebels even overran the small town of Rio Blanco and, for a short time, held it. So, I dispatched "Bravo" Salazar to this area and he and his men brought an end to that guerrilla activity. However, it was like a malignant cancer. You could stamp out the disease in one part of the body politic and it would suddenly appear in another part. Had I been a dictator, as was claimed by my political opponents and the international press, I could have eliminated the cancer entirely. This would have meant drastic action on my part and curtailment of the freedom I wanted the people of Nicaragua to have.
It would have meant banishment of those Jesuit priests who preached Communism. These priests sought out the youngsters from the upper class families and indoctrinated them to the Leftist cause. Their effort never ceased.
One must understand that within the Jesuit organization there are two religious concepts. One concept is based upon the theological thesis that a priest should be apolitical. This thesis adheres to the philosophy that the Catholic Church has no place in partisan politics.
Now, the other thesis is that it is the responsibility of a priest to become directly involved in partisan politics. But there is a "catcher" to all this. These priests teach Communism. They believe that Jesus Christ was a Communist; and that we will have world peace when all the world is communistic. They teach that capitalism is evil and that all material things should be shunned.
It is noteworthy that Pope John Paul II adheres to the thesis that all priests should be apolitical and should not engage in partisan politics. This religious philosophy has a significant impact upon those young minds which are in the formative stages. This is why children from successful families in Nicaragua turned against their parents. To use a phrase which evolved from the Korean War, it's a form of "brainwashing." An interesting report appeared in the July 11, 1979 issue of Accuracy In Media, Inc. This is a publication which comes out of Washington, D.C. In that issue, AIM quoted Mr. Robert Moss, who writes for the London Daily Telegraph, as follows:
Moss reports that the Sandinista "roving Ambassador," Fr. Ernesto Cardenal, showed up in Teheran last April, where he had long talks with the Ayatollah Khomeini. He broadcast praise for Khomeini over the Teheran Radio on April 8. Moss says that Cardenal has described experiencing his "second conversion" during a three months stay in Cuba in 1970. He established a Catholic commune on an island in Lake Nicaragua, which became a Sandinista recruiting base .........
We knew where Cardenal stood and we knew he was not merely a "philosopher poet," as he was described by some members of the press. He was only one priest whose political philosophy was exposed to a limited number of people. Most of them working under the cloak of priesthood, conducted their subversive activities without the exposure of public scrutiny.
I can't stress strongly enough the role that the priests played in the Sandinista movement.
I say again that the influence they exercised on their young students was far greater than an outsider could comprehend. And the quote from Mr. Robert Moss is revealing in another way. It shows the relationship between the Sandinistas and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
In Nicaragua there were many priests who actively opposed our government and continually painted me as some sort of an ogre. A number of these priests came from the United States and Spain, and they seemed more dedicated to the Communist cause than the local priests.
Naturally, I knew who these men were and I knew what they were teaching. Of course, we had intelligence sources and at any given moment I could have told you the names of those priests who wanted me dead and the government in the hands of the Communists. Had I been a dictator, such as Fidel Castro, or the leaders in any of the Soviet-controlled countries, these priests would have been banished or they would have been liquidated. After all, they were truly subversives and they were advocating the overthrow of the government. But I have always believed in freedom of religion and, even though these misguided priests sought to destroy me, I chose not to impose sanctions against them. Rather, I tried to monitor their activities and curtail, as much as possible, their field of influence.
If I had taken hostile action against this segment of the Catholic Church, I can visualize the hasty retaliation by the international press. SOMOZA DENIES RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN NICARAGUA, or, DICTATOR SOMOZA KICKS PRIESTS IN THE TEETH - so the headlines would have read. Automatically, world opinion would have been against the government of Nicaragua and I would have been the devil with horns.
With only one side of the story, the Vatican would have had misgivings, the U.S. Congress would have denounced me, and condemnation would have come from every section of the world. It's ironical, but there are literally thousands of loyal Catholics in Nicaragua today who wish I had taken such a course.
I encountered substantial opposition from certain university staff members and students. They opposed me, my government, and the free enterprise system. The university was a hotbed of Communist activity and Leftist indoctrination was a way of life on the campus.
The same question is propounded again. Why did I permit such subversive activity at the National University? There is a parallel here to freedom of religion. I'm a great believer in excellence in higher education, and libertad de catedra.
In order to achieve excellence, I believe this sector of our society must not be fenced in. In other words, I feel it is wrong to impose educational limits. Such limitation can only deter mental expansion. The mind is a wonder to behold and intelligence capabilities will not be achieved if we autocratically install horizons beyond which a scholar cannot reach. In all Communist countries, as in Nicaragua now, there are strict governmental controls on what can be taught and what can't be taught. This is particularly true in the fields of history, philosophy, sociology, and any subject relating to the humanities. In intellect, therefore, the students who graduate from those universities have peripheral limitations.
With my high school education at La Salle in the United States and my most excellent education at West Point, I learned the meaning of expanded intellectual horizons. Not only did I study science, mathematics, physics, and other such engineering background courses, I was privileged to learn about other peoples, other governments, other languages, and a broad range of philosophical adventures were open to me. This kind of system is what I wanted for Nicaragua. And perhaps this explains why I opposed educational control. It was my dream that one day the National University of Nicaragua would have equivalency with any university in the world. A dictator would have stepped in and said, you can teach this course and you can teach that course but here are a list of subjects you cannot teach.
Contrary to the image created by the international news media, I was duly elected President of Nicaragua by the people of Nicaragua, and it was not a dictatorial position from which I could rule the country by decree. The National University of Nicaragua had autonomy and my political party and I believed it should be autonomous. Like all universities in the United States and countries of the free world, our university was run by a board of regents. The makeup of that board would astonish you. The govern .............End page 26
SANDINO AND SANDINISTA
..........life on four different occasions. I couldn't save his life the fifth time. He had decided to abandon the urban areas and went to the bush with other guerrillas. In an encounter with the Guardia Nacional in the bush, Carlos Fonseca Amador was shot and killed. Then the FSLN, or the Sandinistas, had no leader.
At that time, the Leftist priests moved in to fill a void. They continued the work of Carlos Fonseca but at a much higher economic level.
In the Jesuit schools, the seeds of discontent and, basically, the seeds of Communism, were sown. Their doctrine was spread to the children from affluent families, and with many the doctrine was accepted.
You had young men like the Carrion Cruz boys, and the Langs Sacasa for example. They became avowed Communists and they had received their training from the Jesuit priests. Perhaps the foregoing again illustrates the liberty which existed in Nicaragua. Not a single school in which the Jesuits were teaching their communistic philosophy was ever closed.
It is my belief that Nicaragua was pinpointed in Latin America as the key government to destroy, and that the Jesuit priests figured prominently in the planning.
One might ask why, of all the countries in Central America, was Nicaragua pinpointed as the country to be taken? The answer is that we had a successful government. Our country was financially sound. Nicaragua had progress and the future looked bright for all of our people. Also, we had a successful political system based upon a constitutional form of government. More importantly, the people of Nicaragua were, and still are, anti-Communist. They believed in individual liberty and they were proud of their country. Moreover, Nicaragua had earned the respect of her neighbors. Their belief, and it was a sound concept, was that if Nicaragua could be taken by the Left, then the remaining countries in Central America could not stand the pressure. And one by one, they would also succumb to the Leftist onslaught.
With the death of Carlos Fonseca Amador, there was no one single leader of the Sandinistas. This situation would not last long. Shortly, the Sandinistas would have three distinct factions. These were the Communists, the Christian Sandinistas and the Terciary group.
Carlos Fonseca was gone and it was believed the movement could be easily stolen. They didn't realize that at that very moment, Castro had three hundred men trained to be leaders in the movement, and these were the men who took control of it. Additionally, we knew of many who had gone to the Soviet Union and to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to be trained. Some of the Sandinistas had been active with the PLO in Israel ten years previously. All in all, it can be stated with finality that the Sandinistas represent the movement of the people in Latin America which is against the United States.
I have talked to Sandinistas who are not Nicaraguans and who are not Communists, but they support the movement because it is strongly against the United States. One who is not familiar with the modus operandi of the Leftist priests might think that Somoza has to pick on someone, so why not the priests? On this important issue, there is complete verification and my word doesn't have to be taken. To make verification as current as possible, I refer anyone to the New York Times issue of February 8, 1980. The article by the Times writer, Alan Riding, is quite revealing. His article is headlined as follows: NEW NICARAGUA REGIME RECOGNIZES CHURCH'S POTENT ROLE.
From my viewpoint, this is a fascinating article because it backs up my every contention in reference to the Jesuit priests. First, Riding recognizes there are two factions amongst the priests - the apolitical and political. In reference to the political segment, Mr. Riding had this to say:
In Nicaragua, this change was first apparent among priests, often Jesuits, teaching in private Catholic schools: by the mid-1970's, many of their former students, children of wealthy families, had joined the guerrillas. And as the fight against President Anastasio Somoza Debayle intensified, several priests joined the Sandinistas, while others helped organize slum neighborhoods in preparation for last year's successful insurrection. But at the level of the priests, the church was participating fully in the revolution. The Rev. Miguel d'Escoto was named Foreign Minister, the Rev. Ernesto Cardinal became Minister of Culture, the Rev. Fernando Cardenal was placed in charge of the literacy crusade and the Rev. Xavier Gorostiaga was given a key role in the Ministry of Planning. Many parish priests, who had collaborated with the rebels, began organizing their community for the reconstruction effort .
How could it be stated more clearly, and how could I ask for a more clearly defined position of the Jesuit priests? It's all there. It should be made clear, however, that, at the priest level, the Communists have successfully infiltrated Catholic orders other than the Jesuits.
My sympathy goes out to the people of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
The Jesuit priests, in collaboration with the Cuban-trained guerrillas, are following the same course in those countries that they followed in Nicaragua.
If they are able to pursue effectively their preconceived plan of action, then those countries, too, will fall. The plague of the Sandinistas and the ghost of Augusto Cesar Sandino have already fallen upon those other Central American Republics. It's one down and four to go in Central America but, in reality, it's one down and nineteen to go in Latin America.
[picture caption]- "General Anastasio Somoza and brother Luis flank Cardinal Spellman. This photograph was given to Somoza by Cardinal Spellman who had inscribed upon it the following message:
'General and Mrs. Anastasio Somoza, with a blessing for their families and themselves. Respectfully, F. Cardinal Spellman.'"
Reagan's first head of the CIA, Roman Catholic "Knight of Malta" William Casey, is credited with creating and funding RC Cardinal Bravo's 'Contras'.
From ................................. New Internationalist
By "Father" John Medcalf
"Father" John Medcalf is a British RC priest in Nicaragua.
SUNDAY, BLOODY SUNDAY
THE last few days have been the worst of my life so far . Our village (Muelle de los Bueyes) has been attacked by over 500 well-equipped Contras. The battle began at three in the morning and continued uninterrupted until past daybreak. [-----------]
The Contras surged into several of the village streets, where we heard them shouting defiant angry slogans ["We don t want your amnesty" ]. The Sandinistas were forced Into a temporary retreat but returned later with reinforcements to do battle in the streets. The bridge was saved and the Contras eventually dispersed when their supply of ammunition came to an end. [-------------]
It was just four months ago that I met my first Contras face to face. I had been visiting villages to the north of the parish. They must have been watching from a hilltop as I rode towards them because suddenly I was surrounded by a company of about 40 soldiers, all aged between 17 and 18 years.
One held up a Bible and a rosary, but none spoke until an older man, their commanding officer, strode up with an outstretched hand which I shook without enthusiasm. He spoke with a deference that was almost fawning: they were fighting to save their country from an atheistic dictatorship. Nobody desired peace more than these loyal sons of the [Roman] Catholic Church. Their victory against the Soviet Sandinistas was inevitable.
I remained seated on my mule, uncomfortably aware that my every gesture and expression was being carefully observed. The slightest word of encouragement would have elicited wild cheering, I felt. Looking back I wish I'd been more courageous.
I told them that the Sandinista soldiers were also [Roman] Catholics; were also fighting for their country; were also longing for peace. I urged them to listen to the voice of their individual conscience. And I suppose the general coldness of my tone conveyed my disapproval of their activities. Then I looked at my watch, pretended to be surprised at the lateness of the hour, and dug both spurs into the flanks of the mule, hoping to God that a bullet would not follow my hasty departure.
Two or three hundred villagers kept me busy that evening. All the prayers were for peace and for those who were fighting - in both armies. Afterwards, while the congregation said the rosary, praying for an end to the war,[------]
From ............................. NEWSWEEK
June 15, 1987
"A symbol of opposition to Sandinista rule: Cardinal Obando y Bravo"
[caption under a picture of Cardinal Bravo]
COVERT AID AND THE CHURCH
DID THE CIA AND OLLIE NORTH HELP A CARDINAL ?
The contras call him nuestro cardenal, "our" cardinal.
President Reagan has quoted him to discredit the Sandinistas and rally Congress to vote aid to the rebels. Within Nicaragua, he has drawn tens of thousands of supporters into the streets, shouting, "Christianity, yes, communism, no. " Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, archbishop of Managua, is a leading symbol of internal opposition to Sandinista rule.
A dogged, canny figure who insists he is above politics, [ha ha ha ha..... jp] Obando has come to represent a deep current of protest in a country that brooks little open dissent.
Because Obando is seen as a bulwark against the Sandinistas, he and the Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua have received support from around the world. NEWSWEEK has learned that his church also may have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in covert aid from the United States - from the CIA until 1985, and then, after official government aid was stopped by congressional oversight committees, from Oliver North's rogue operation in the White House basement.
There is no evidence that the cardinal knew the source of the funding. In an interview last week with NEWSWEEK'S Joseph Contreras in Managua, he flatly denied getting aid from the CIA, North or Richard Miller, a North associate who is said to have acted as a conduit for the money.
Obando said the suggestion that he had received aid from the CIA was "a tremendous slander" and "a falsehood." He added vehemently, "I have not received donations from Mr. Richard Miller."
Sources in the U.S. intelligence community and the Nicaraguan opposition provide a picture of how the CIA operation may have worked. The CIA, sources say, used a maze of independent "cutouts" to shield both itself and the Nicaraguan recipients from knowledge of each other's identity - so-called double deniability.
Former contra leader Edgar Chamorro suggests that some of the agency money was channeled through the contras themselves. "The CIA was working through all these [contra] directors," Chamorro says, "using them to buy everybody." The money is said to have made its way into Nicaragua in a variety of ways: wired into archdiocese accounts, carried in by contra couriers and passed directly to church lay workers traveling outside the country.
The General Accounting Office, which was investigating the use of U.S. humanitarian aid to the contras, unexpectedly found a signature card with Obando's name on it apparently linking the churchman to an account at BAC International, a Cayman Islands bank used by the agency and the contras. NEWSWEEK'S sources could not say whether the signature had been verified as that of Obando.
In 1985 congressional committees moved to stop the CIA aid out of concern that the church would be compromised if the covert operation was exposed. At that point, sources say, North and his White House crew got involved, circumventing the oversight panels.
One American with ties to the operation recalls that North himself expressed interest in helping Obando some time in 1985 - although in later months Richard Miller, a key financial player in North's private aid network, seems to have handled the transactions. (In a separate matter involving covert military aid to the contras, Miller has since pleaded guilty to charges that he and North conspired to defraud the U.S. Treasury.)
When asked if he helped channel aid to the church, Miller said last week: "I'm not in a position to discuss any of the substance." Sources say payments eventually went out through one of the many shell corporations that North and his colleagues set up to fund their various operations. North's cutouts, the sources say, funneled at least $125,000 to the church through the Cayman account and banks in New York and Miami. Some of the money was reportedly used to fund seminarian training and a November "Eucharistic Congress" that helped draw attention to the church's conflict with the Sandinistas.
Other payments, a source says, went to Frederico Arguello, a conservative priest close to Obando. Arguello confirmed to NEWSWEEK that he had received $31,000, but refused to say who arranged the payments. The money, he says, was deposited in a New York bank and then sent to Nicaragua "to help the church and the poor."
Outside money: Like the contra rebels based outside Nicaragua, the church and other opposition to the Marxist government make little secret of their need for foreign support. As one of Obando's top aides, Msgr. Bismarck Carballo, now living in exile, puts it: "In Nicaragua, everyone receives money from outside." Obando's archdiocese openly took assistance from the U.S. Agency for International Development in 1982, and when that was blocked he sought help from U.S. Catholics and business executives.
Referring to the secret U.S. aid, one source in the intelligence community says, "Maybe [Obando] thought it was just another rich North American or West German." A clue to what the money may have been used for can be gleaned from an internal memo circulated in May 1984 at W.R. Grace & Co., which reportedly helped arrange for a foundation contribution to the church for Bibles and religious articles. Obando, the memo says, was soliciting private aid for "leadership" courses and "religious instruction" to "thwart the Marxist-Leninist policies of the Sandinistas."
What, if anything, is wrong with this sort of effort to support the democratic opposition? The problem in Nicaragua is that such aid, if it becomes public, plays into the Sandinistas' hands. It allows them to call church leaders "U.S. Iackeys," undermining their credibility with all but the most conservative of Nicaraguans. It also provides yet another excuse to crack down on the whole spectrum of democratic opposition. In the end, the risk of such an operation is that it will likely hurt the very people Washington is trying to help.
ROBERT PARRY and TAMAR JACOBY
A maze of shell corporaffons and clandestine links: Flow chart found in North's safe - [in sidebox]
While the above is taking place, Roman Catholic KNIGHT OF MALTA
William Casey is the head of the American CIA
and another Roman Catholic is Secretary of State.
Head of W.R. Grace & Co. [mentioned above] is Peter Grace,
who was head of the American branch of the KNIGHTS OF MALTA.
Bear in mind that Roman Catholic [mostly Jesuit] priests CREATED
and held leadership positions within the "Sandinista" government.
"The CIA has covertly funded key Sandinista opponents for years, including at times 'La Prensa' and the Roman Catholic Church, say intelligence sources." [NEWSWEEK July 25, 1988]
"Report says clergy in Managua tapped North's war chest" "Some funds from Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North's secret bank account made their way to the Catholic church in Nicaragua, according to press reports and recent congressional testimony." [Jim McManus, Washington Bureau Chief, National Catholic Reporter ]
Vatican Power, Witchcraft
And Top US Officials
US High-Level Officials Are Only Subservient
Vassals For Vatican Power and Witchcraft
By Greg Szymanski
Although Americans are hoping the recent mid-term elections provided a glimmer of hope, it should be understood that the U.S. is really only a subservient vassal under the immense control of Vatican witchcraft and power.
For example, five of the eight U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic with their first allegiance to the Pope and his fascist agenda, not America.
Besides the corrupted judiciary, the U.S. is being used to subdue and destroy the Middle East for the Vatican, as many of America's top military leaders are Roman Catholics with their first allegiance to Rome, not America.
In fact every major political appointment made by the illegal occupant of the White House and Luciferian Skull and Bonesman, George W. Bush, has been consistently Roman Catholic.
Listen to a Vatican researcher who connects the dots among the Illuminati, the Bush administration and the Vatican, all trying to destroy America silently from within with lies and deceptions:
"Examples include Opus Dei John Roberts, Samuel Alito appointed to the Roman Rota of the U.S. empire- the U.S. Supreme Court, Gen. Peter Pace (Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), Michael Peter Jackson to the SS of the American Reich the Department of Homeland (Romeland) Security, Alberto Gonzales to the post of U.S. Attorney General and many, many more.
"Honorary Shriner and Knight of Malta former President Ronald Reagan's administration was the most Roman Catholic but I think the Bush administration now holds that record. Former CIA director Knight of Malta George J. Tenet, Jesuit-trained at the Walsh School of Foreign Service was rewarded for his bold act of high treason with a professorship at his alma mater. Former CIA director Skull and Bonesman, Porter Goss, will be rewarded for his secretive actions. I wouldn't surprised if Georgetown or Fordham soon gives him a professorship.
"The fact that the Bush Administration is predominately Roman Catholic might be an indication that a concordat with the Unholy See was secretly signed during one of Bush's audiences with Papal Antichrist JPII. I don't know for sure.
"Recently, Luciferian Emperor Bush said that his brother Jeb became a Third Degree Knight of Columbus. And 33rd Degree Freemason, Southern Baptist devotee of the pagan goddess Gaia Al Gore is also one of them.
"It doesn't matter who the Archbishop of New York selects the same wicked Jesuit agenda will be served by his puppet in the White House who is nothing more than a slave to the Jesuits of Georgetown University, his local boss Theodore Cardinal McCarrick who was trained by Jesuits at Fordham and ordained to the Romanist priesthood by Francis Cardinal Spellman in 1958 and his national political boss Jesuit-trained Edward Cardinal Egan." There of course would be no problem with Catholics involved in government if history hasn't already proved that the Vatican and Jesuit Order's intentions have always been to destroy freedom, not advance it.
Here again listen to a Jesuit and Vatican researcher connect the dots between high military leaders trained at Jesuit-Georgetown and connected to the Knights of Malta, a powerful organization in America fronting Vatican power and dominance over U.S. foreeigh and domestic policy.
"According to a February 2006 speech by Georgetown president Jesuit-trained Knight of Malta and CFR member John "Jack" J. DeGioia USMC Gen. Peter Pace Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff successor of CFR member Richard Myers is a Georgetown alum having been "a member of the School of Foreign Service's Leadership Seminar 14 years ago.
"He has also come back several times to speak to current seminars as an alumnus, and has publicly lauded the program for the manner it enables connections and friendships to be made around the globe." and was awarded the President's Medal (of Georgetown University Other recipients of this award include according to DeGioia, "It has been presented to heads of state during their visits to campus, as well as three guests this evening: President Aznar, [SMOM] Secretary Nicholson in his previous role as Ambassador to the Holy See, and [Jesuit-trained] Senator Leahy. I take great pride in adding General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to that distinguished list. General Pace, please step forward.
"SMOM DeGioia said, 'Our motto here at Georgetown is "Utraque Unum" or, "Both and One." It is often used to ensure we look at two sides of things-so it can sometimes refer to art and science, sometimes to body and soul, sometimes to mind and spirit. The motto of the Marine Corps is another Latin phrase: "Semper Fidelis" or, "Always Faithful.
'Would you please all join me in a two-part toast? First, to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Pete Pace. His "always faithful" service, integrity and loyalty as a joint officer and a Marine, as a scholar and a warrior, and as an officer and a gentleman are an inspiration to leaders everywhere. And second, to his wonderful wife, Lynne. Her care and mentorship of others at the USO, with at American With Disabilities, at overseas orphanages, and at so many other places of need show that her inner core values are easily the equal of any Marine, and of any Jesuit.'
According to another recent article, Gen. Pace in his speech to the John Carroll Society said
"I stand before you as someone who is appreciative... who truly does believe this award is in anticipation of future conduct," Pace said.
And the Vatican researcher wondered after hearing this speech:
"Could the true meaning of this quote be that the future betrayal of U.S. troops in the Middle East is anticipated by Jesuit-trained Pace and his masters-the Jesuits of Georgetown? I think so. He is being rewarded for his obedience to the Order and his future complicity in the destruction of the U.S. Armed Forces most of whom unknowingly serve the Papacy.
"I honestly believe Jesuit-trained Pace, NATO Supreme Commander James L. Jones, George Casey Jr., Georgetown Law dropout Donald Rumsfeld and CFR member John Abizaid will very soon at the command of their Jesuit masters and their Council on Foreign Relations betray U.S. troops in the Middle East. The Jesuit connection to this war of annihilation against the Muslim peoples and at the same time U.S. soldiers most of whom are unaware that they are cannon fodder for a Jesuit-led Papal Crusade is unmistakable. It is no coincidence that these are connected to Georgetown University, Opus Dei, and the Council on Foreign Relations.
"I suspect Pace is also a member of Opus Dei given his connection to Jesuit-trained Romanist priest Peter Vaghi of the Church of the Little Flower and chaplain of the John Carroll Society of which Peter Pace, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts who has ties to Jesuit Georgetown having been an Adjunct Professor in London, Jesuit-trained Supreme Court Justice and Opus Dei member Antonin Scalia are members." http://www.johncarrollsociety.org/new_page_7.htm
To illustrate how President Reagan sold out his country by re-establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican, read this portion of Chapter 1. Subliminal Rome, from Tupper Saussy's book, Rulers of Evil.
When a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter announced in his 1992 Time Magazine cover story that a "conspiracy" binding President Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II into a "secret, holy alliance" had brought about the demise of communism, at least one reader saw through the hype.
Professor Carol A. Brown of the University of Massachusetts fired off a letter to Time's editors saying,
Last week I taught my students about the separation of church and state. This week I learned that the Pope is running U.S. foreign policy. No wonder our young people are cynical about American ideals.
What Brown had learned from Carl Bernstein I had discovered for myself over several years of private investigation: the papacy really does run United States foreign policy, and always has.
Yes, Bernstein noted that the leading American players behind the Reagan/Vatican conspiracy, to a man, were "devout Roman Catholics" namely, William Casey (Director, CIA), Richard Allen (National Security Advisor), Judge William Clark (National Security Advisor), Alexander Haig (Secretary of State), Vernon Walters (Ambassador-at-Large), and William Wilson (Ambassador to the Vatican State).
But the reporter neglected to mention that the entire Senate Foreign Relations committee was governed by Roman Catholics, as well. Specifically, Senators Joseph Biden (Subcommittee on European Affairs), Paul Sarbanes (International Economic Policy, Trade, Oceans, and Environment), Daniel P. Moynihan (Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs), John Kerry (Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Communications) and Christopher Dodd (Western Hemi-sphere and Peace Corps Affairs).
Bernstein would have been wandering off-point to list the Roman Catholic leaders of American domestic policy, such as Senate majority leader George Mitchell and Speaker of the House Tom Foley. In fact, when the holy alliance story hit the stands, there was virtually no arena of federal legislative activity, according to The 1992 World Almanac of US Politics, that was not directly controlled by a Roman Catholic senator or representative. The committees and subcommittees of the United States Senate and House of Representatives governing commerce, communications and telecommunications, energy, medicine, health, education and welfare, human services, consumer protection, finance and financial institutions, transportation, labor and unemployment, hazardous materials, taxation, bank regulation, currency and monetary policy, oversight of the Federal Reserve System, commodity prices, rents services, small business administration, urban affairs, European affairs, Near Eastern & South Asian affairs, terrorism/narcotics/ international communications, international economic/trade/ oceans/environmental policy, insurance, housing, community development, federal loan guarantees, economic stabilization measures (including wage and price controls), gold and precious metals transactions, agriculture, animal and forestry industries, rural issues, nutrition, price supports, Food for Peace, agricultural exports, soil conservation, irrigation, stream channelization, floodcontrol, minority enterprise, environment and pollution, appropriations, defense, foreign operations, vaccines, drug labeling and packaging, drug and alcohol abuse, inspection and certification of fish and processed food, use of vitamins and saccharin, national health insurance proposals, human services, legal services, family relations, the arts and humanities, the handicapped, and aging in other words, virtually every aspect of secular life in America came under the chairmanship of one of these Roman Catholic laypersons:
Frank Annunzio Joseph Biden Silvio Conte Kika De la Garza John Dingell Christopher Dodd Vic Fazio James Florio Henry Gonzalez Thomas Harkin Edward Kennedy John Kerry John LaFalce Patrick Leahy Charles Luken Edward Madigan Edward Markey Joseph McDade Barbara Mikulski George Miller Daniel Moynihan John Murtha Mary Rose Oakar David Obey Claiborne Pell Charles Rangel Dan Rostenkowski or Edward Roybal.
Vatican Council II's Constitution on the Church (1964) instructs politicians to use their secular offices to advance the cause of Roman Catholicism. Catholic laypersons, "whoever they are, are called upon to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification," and "to make the Church present and operative in those places and circumstances where only through them can it become the salt of the earth" (iv, 33).
Vatican II further instructs all Catholics "by their competence in secular disciplines and by their activity [to] vigorously contribute their effort so that the goods of this world may be more equitably distributed among all men, and may in their own way be conducive to universal progress in human and Christian freedom and [to] remedy the customs and conditions of the world, if they are an inducement to sin, so that they all may be conformed to the norms of justice and may favor the practice of virtue rather than hinder it" (iv, 36).
Vatican II affirms Catholic doctrine dating back to 1302, when Pope Boniface VIII asserted that "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." This was the inspiration for the papacy to create the United States of America that materialized in 1776, by a process just as secret as the Reagan-Vatican production of Eastern Europe in 1989. What? American government Roman Catholic from the beginning?
Consider: the land known today as the District of Columbia bore the name "Rome" in 1663 property records; and the branch of the Potomac River that bordered "Rome" on the south was called "Tiber." This information was reported in the 1902 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Daniel Carroll. The article, specifically declaring itself "of interest to Catholics" in the 1902 edition, was deleted from the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967).
Other facts were reported in 1902 and deleted from 1967. For example, when Congress met in Washington for the first time, in November, 1800, "the only two really comfortable and imposing houses within the bounds of the city" belonged to Roman Catholics. One was Washington's first mayor, Robert Brent. The other was Brent's brother-in-law, Notley Young, a Jesuit priest.
Daniel Carroll was a Roman Catholic congressman from Maryland who signed two of America's fundamental documents, the Articles of Confederation and the United States Constitution. Carroll was a direct descendant of the Calverts, a Catholic family to whom King Charles I of England had granted Maryland as a feudal barony. Carroll had received his education at St. Omer's Jesuit College in Flanders, where young English-speaking Catholics were trained in a variety of guerrilla techniques for advancing the cause of Roman Catholicism among hostile Protestants.
In 1790, President George Washington, a Protestant, appointed Congressman Carroll to head a commission of three men to select land for the "federal city" called for in the Constitution. Of all places, the commission chose "Rome," which at the time consisted of four farms, one of which belonged to Daniel Carroll. It was upon Carroll's farm that the new government chose to erect its most important building, the Capitol.
The American Capitol abounds with clues of its Roman origins. "Freedom," the Roman goddess whose statue crowns the dome, was created in Rome at the studio of American sculptor Thomas Crawford. We find a whole pantheon of Roman deities in the great fresco covering the dome's interior rotunda: Persephone, Ceres, Freedom, Vulcan, Mercury, even a deified George Washington. These figures were the creation of Vatican artist Constantino Brumidi.
The fact that the national Statehouse evolved as a "capitol" bespeaks Roman influence. No building can rightly be called a capitol unless it's a temple of Jupiter, the great father-god of Rome who ruled heaven with his thunderbolts and nourished the earth with his fertilizing rains. If it was a capitolium, it belonged to Jupiter and his priests.
Jupiter's mascot was the eagle, which the founding fathers made their mascot as well. A Roman eagle tops the governing idol of the House of Representatives, a forty-six-inch sterling silverand- ebony wand called a "mace." The mace is "the symbol of authority in the House." When the Sergeant-at-arms displays it before an unruly member of Congress, the mace restores order. Its position at the rostrum tells whether the House is in "committee" or in "session."
America's national motto "Annuit Coeptis" came from a prayer to Jupiter. It appears in Book IX of Virgil's epic propaganda, the Aeneid, a poem commissioned just before the birth of Christ by Caius Maecenas, the multi-billionaire power behind Augustus Caesar. The poem's objective was to fashion Rome into an imperial monarchy for which its citizens would gladly sacrifice their lives. Fascism may be an ugly word to many, but its stately emblem is apparently offensive to no one. The emblem of fascism, a pair of them, commands the wall above and behind the speaker's rostrum in the Chamber of the House of Representatives. They're called fasces, and I can think of no reason for them to be there other than to declare the fascistic nature of American republican democracy.
A fasces is a Roman device. Actually, it originated with the ancient Etruscans, from whom the earliest Romans derived their religious jurisprudence nearly three thousand years ago. It's an axe-head whose handle is a bundle of rods tightly strapped together by a red sinew. It symbolizes the ordering of priestly functions into a single infallible sovereign, an autocrat who could require life and limb of his subjects. If the fasces is entwined with laurel, like the pair on the House wall, it signifies Caesarean military power. The Romans called this infallible sovereign Pontifex Maximus, "Supreme Bridgebuilder."
No Roman was called Pontifex Maximus until the title was given to Julius Caesar in 48 BC. Today's Pontifex Maximus is Pope John Paul II.
As we shall discover in a forthcoming chapter, John Paul does not hold that title alone. He shares it with a mysterious partner, a military man, a man holding an office that has been known for more than four centuries as "Papa Nero," the Black Pope. I shall present evidence that the House fasces represent the Black Pope, who indeed rules the world.
Later, I will develop what is sure to become a controversial hypothesis: that the Black Pope rules by divine appointment, and for the ultimate good of mankind.