The Forgotten Report


Do you remember the famous 300 page reports that was in everyone's minds – and blogs – around Christmas 2012? The one commissioned by then Pope Benedict XVI and concerning homosexual infiltration in the Vatican?

The last thing I remember is that Benedict had decided to put the report at the disposal of his successor, and that the dimension of the report and the little that had emerged indicated that things were serious indeed.

Nothing has emerged of the report since. We do not know whether Francis even bothered to read it. For all we know he might have put it in his fireside and used it as a humble way to heat his rather extensive humble quarters at the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

In the meantime, we are informed a former Swiss Guard states he has received sexual advances from around two dozen clerical homos during his permanence at the Vatican, among them an undetermined number of bishops and one Cardinal. Swiss Guard soldiers generally stay two years. Do your math.

One wonders. The sin of the sodomites has utterly disappeared from the Vatican radar screens after Francis' election, as we are invited to not “obsess” about such trivial things as a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance. All the while, the Pontiff talks day in and day out of a new theology of mercy and doubt, according to which doctrinal security is bad, a priest must smell of favela, morality is not “pastoral”, and “who are we to judge”. A turn of phrase used by the Pontiff about, erm, the homosexual prelate running the hotel in which he lives. If it sounds creepy, it's because it is.

I do not know about you, but this sounds like open complicity with sodomy to me.

In the meantime the report, if it still exists, lies locked in some very robust safe, protected from the indiscreet eyes of whistleblowers.

We live in strange and disturbing times. And we have a very strange, and very disturbing Pope.



Posted on January 8, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. I also have wondered about this. Instead we see the appointment of a known sodomite to a high position in the Vatican Bank and is appointing Cardinals and others who are at the very least sodomite tolerant. There has been NO reform at all but rather a returning to darker days just when we thought there might be a little light. The ‘gay lobby’ is resting easy is my guess.

    • I think they are celebrating, actually.
      How, I do not want to even think.
      I would suggest to Swiss Guards that they guard their backs.

  2. “Addressing the issue of the gay lobby, Pope Francis said it was important to “distinguish between a person who is gay and someone who makes a gay lobby,” he said. “A gay lobby isn’t good.”

    “A gay person who is seeking God, who is of good will — well, who am I to judge him?” the pope said. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this very well. It says one must not marginalize these persons, they must be integrated into society. The problem isn’t this (homosexual) orientation — we must be like brothers and sisters. The problem is something else, the problem is lobbying either for this orientation or a political lobby or a Masonic lobby.”

    Read more: Pope answers questions about Curia reforms, gay lobby –

    • I hope this is said in irony.

      Francis knew perfectly well:

      1. that a sodomite cannot be a priest;
      2. that Ricca was exposed;
      3. that the entire planet would remember only the phrase he used exactly so that it is remembered, “who am I to judge?”.

      If you are happy just because he said that “a gay lobby isn’t good”, you really do not get the point.

      The rest of the planet, and Francis, do.

      by the by, one who says “gay lobby bad”, and does not say “homosexuality bad”, is working for the devil all right.


  3. I was these days thinking myself of this Report. And came to the same conclusions as you (with less wit, alas). Even if the Report is sleeping in some obscure cabinet, or lighting the fireplace of the Bp. of Rome, there must be at least a second copy which Benedict XVI beholds for himself ; it would have been very unwise to give away the only existing copy.
    Now that’s the time for a keen person, kind of new Snowdon, to find this copy and to make it public. There would be tremor and trembling in the Curia, what a fun!

    Speaking of the Swiss Guard, why do you think that one of the first orders of the new Pontiff to the employees of the Vatican was not to “gossip”?

    Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat!

    • Oh, if you ask me Benedict was so happy to get rid of the problem, I can’t imagine he would want to ever have more to do with it.
      Besides, he had said the report would remain for th eeyes of his successor only, so if he made some unauthorised copy he lied, which I can’t imagine.
      On the othe rhand, those who have written the report might one day talk about their recollections: facts, episodes, various things.
      Already the swiss guard could say enough to make an earthquake, methinks.
      It’s not that they can’t be found. It is that one must want it.


  4. ‘On the othe rhand, those who have written the report might one day talk about their recollections: facts, episodes, various things.’

    It could be that they have the primary copy on hard disk.

  5. Please remember the Vatican butler, and the Vatileaks. Also, the writers of the report would at least have their own notes, and a rough copy of the final report. I write an occasional ‘nurse’ article and I keep my own copy, and generally the draft….Is it naïve to think that the authors of an extensive report meant for gradual general knowledge would destroy all record of their work?

    • Ah, but that butler was already jailed, and spying butlers don’t grow on trees… 😉
      I think the authors are professionally bound to destroy the work. It would a huge breach of integrity if they didn’t.

%d bloggers like this: