The author was contacted by clergy in the Vatican itself. They themselves supplied him with documents and interviews to write this book. He did not go looking for them, they found him. The Vatican insiders
knew the foxes had invaded the henhouse.
Surely you can't be so naive as to believe that all priests are holy and good by virtue of ordination? The recent scandals should serve to correct that erroneous belief. But even so, let's say some of these corrupt individuals did start out with good intentions. The money, the power, the prestige, the opportunity for sex, you name it,they faltered and fell. It doesn't take a conspiracy theorist to understand that men who are at risk of losing everything will go to any lengths possible to prevent it. That's not even factoring in the element of evil, which in my mind, is well established within Christ's Church. I am not willing to engage in spin and denial in order to defend some of the ludicrous statements and inaction that has come out of Rome as of late.
In 1984, I spent a week locked in an office with David Yallop, editing In God's Name: An Investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I; this so my then employer, Bantam Books, could publish it as an "instant hardcover". . . . Yallop knew I thought his book proved none of its fantastic claims. . . . He never actually named the murderer, you see, and nervously feigned opacity whenever I pointed it out. The book was published, sold well, and received a lot of attention, most of it (as I'd predicted) negative. In God's Name lacks source notes and a bibliography. Despite Miner's misgivings, it also lacks any warning to readers. As for Yallop, he explained away his heavy reliance on anonymous sources by raising the specter of murder should their names be revealed. But, Yallop asserted, there was no need to worry about accuracy: "I can assure the reader that all the information, all the details, all the facts have been checked and double-checked to the extent that multiple sources were available. I take the responsiblity for putting the evidence together and for the conclusions reached." A handful of book industry observers took that assurance with a shovelful of salt. Edwin McDowell, the book beat reporter at The New York Times, commented that Yallop "does not always say which fact came from which source, and therefore some people consider such 'documentation' pointless. Worse yet, it suggests that his shocking conclusions may have come from some perfectly reputable library included in his list, without giving the reader a way to check this information. The Vatican press office last week denounced the book's conclusions as 'absurd fantasies,' adding, 'It is shocking and deplorable that anyone could so much as think let alone publish theories of this kind.'" In the post-Watergate age, however, during which official denials have come to be regarded as automatically suspect, the Vatican's statement may well have added to Yallop's credibility among many readers. Congratulations, goldenstategirl, you ascribe MORE credibility to that piece of salacious and mendacious trash than does the EDITOR of that book.
Did those "unnamed sources" Email you backing up the wild charges made in that book?