First of all I will directly answer each of your questions individually…
Your questions to me:
What would lead you to believe that he died from un-natural causes other than lack of autopsy? (Which is not allowed by Vatican law)
There are many suspicious events which surrounded his sudden death. There were many with motive and opportunity to have him killed. But all
of those suspicious acts and conspiracy theories are meaningless to this debate. By definition of the title of our debate: "“Pope John Paul I's
Death Was No Natural Death.”" All you and I are arguing is whether or not the Pope’s death can be proven as natural. I stand with my earlier
statements that his death cannot be proven natural without some proof. The doctors who came to the dead Pope and gave their OPINION about what his
death could have been were doing just that, rendering an opinion. But as I showed in prior posts the misidentification of cause of death prior to
autopsy is 33%. Given the suspicious nature of this powerful man’s sudden death, like all sudden deaths of powerful people, must be examined more
closely due to the nature of assassinations of powerful people who are disruptors of the ‘status quo’.
I stand by my earlier statements which states that no one, not even doctors, can PROVE that a death is caused by heart attack without autopsy.
Therefore because there was no autopsy, proof of a natural death is impossible to obtain and therefore making the ‘con’ side of this argument
Can you not agree that this story has been sensationalized and Hollywoodized to the point where the conspiracy has taken over as a bigger
thing than the pope’s death. (Sorta like Elvis, Biggie, 2Pac and now MJ) The want for a conspiracy and foul play blinds peoples judgment.
The words sensationalized and Hollywoodized are both words which would require you and I to come to an agreement on a definition and I
doubt we would be able to find one in the time allotted. Both words would vary by definition from person to person. Also at what point does something
become Hollywoodized or sensationalized? The gauge of the level at which a certain thing attains such monikers would vary from person to person and
again would require us to come to an agreement on definition.
I believe you are alluding to the movie Godfather 3 in which a good man becomes pope and “shakes things up” in the Vatican causing trouble for the
corrupt operators of the Vatican Bank with mob ties. He dies suddenly in his sleep a short time after attaining office. As far as I know no other
movie has been made involving such a similar event. Would one movie make this an over Hollywoodized event? I disagree. I also disagree that the fame
and sensationalism are causes of false suspicions about his death. Quite oppositely I believe that because a movie took note of it and it is
sensational because of the suspicious nature of the event.
What was there to benefit from this pope being killed, he was just replaced by another with the same values/beliefs and demeanor?
You assume Pope John Paul II’s values, beliefs, and demeanor were the same as Pope John Paul I’s. We would need to see a proof of
this/source. Also those are qualities which would be very hard to define and quantify.
Again I could list many reasons of suspicion about this death and those who would benefit, but it would be a waste of time. We are not here to argue
who could benefit, how it was done, who had opportunity, or whether 66 year old healthy men sometimes naturally die from sudden heart attack. As all
you and I need to argue is whether the Pope’s death can be proven natural.
Suspicions persist to this day, particularly given the sweeping changes to Vatican personnel this Pope had already penned, along with the
Mafia-riddled Italy of the time, and the number of subsequent murders of officials investigating the Vatican Bank along with its
Next I would like to address some of the statements you made in responding to my questions and in the body of your post…
You said “With no autopsy performed, you would have to go on the expert report given by the medical professional who examined (even if external
only) the body. If that individual said it was a heart attack you would have no reason to refute it.”
-True a group of doctors rendered an opinion of cause of death, however this is not proof. Misidentification of cause of death without autopsy is
documented at 33% as shown in a prior post.
You said: “As it is against Vatican law for a Pope to be autopsied it is a moot point to say it was un-natural circumstances that led to his
-You are suggesting that because autopsies are against the law that un-natural circumstances never lead to death. This is an obvious false choice.
You said: “There were no signs of struggle or foul play and all reports and examinations prior to embalming led towards the given report of acute
-Official and unofficial reports of the condition of the body, its location, and by whom it was found vary.
However, a degree of uncertainty accompanies this diagnosis since an autopsy was not performed. This uncertainty, coupled with inconsistent
statements made following the Pope's death, has led to a number of conspiracy theories concerning his death. These statements concern who found the
Pope's body, at what time he was found, and what papers the Pope had in his hand.
As I understand it, your position seems to be that the cause of death found by external observation of the corpse by doctors is proof that his death
This position is based on a number of assumptions...
-You assume the doctors are above moral reproach or influence which could cause them to render a false judgment. Even if the doctor or doctors who
rendered the opinion were making their most honest answer, it has been shown that this is incorrect 33% of the time. Based on these factors it is
impossible to use doctor’s opinion as proof of a natural death.
-You also assume that doctor’s have the ability to identify a heart attack by simply viewing a corpse. It has never been shown that a technique
exists for making 100% sure a death was caused by natural heart attack by external handling of the corpse. If you can show how this is done… please
How can a person identify with certainty the cause of death being a natural heart attack without autopsy?
How can you prove the doctors who rendered the cause of death opinion to be above ethical and moral reproach and influence (unlike the many
corrupt members of the Vatican and Vatican Bank and her affiliates with mob ties) which would cause them to be part of a conspiracy?
Would you agree that a person being found in bed as if by heart attack could possibly have been poisoned and without blood tests or autopsy
it would be impossible to prove otherwise?
Would you agree that, given the title of this debate: "“Pope John Paul I's Death Was No Natural Death”" that the ‘pro’ side must
argue that this death cannot be proven as natural?
What proof do you have that this was a natural death?
I politely ask that you give me the courtesy of numbering and responding to all my questions fully and to the best of your ability directly and
individually as I have done above within this post which and which seems to be the preferred method for similar ATS debates.