McCarrick on Bergoglio’s Election: “We did it!”

July 15, 2020 (Steven O’Reilly) – Once again, we return to the case of McCarrick and the “influential Italian gentlemen.” This article will provide Roma Locuta Est‘s most important update to the story. I will not re-summarize here the whole history of McCarrick and his ‘mysterious’ visitor in early March 2013. By this point, if you are a denizen of this blog, you are familiar with story of the “influential Italian gentleman” and are probably up to speed on the latest—until now.  If the topic is new to you, you can review the former articles on this topic and the 2013 conclave:

  1. The “Influential Italian Gentleman” (June 25, 2019)
  2.  Questions Regarding the “Influential Italian Gentleman” (June 28, 2019)
  3. 2013 Conclave: Was there a violation of Universi Dominici Gregis 12? (July 31, 2019)
  4. The 7th Anniversary of McCarrick’s “Influential Italian Gentleman” (March 5, 2020)
  5. The Influential Italian Gentleman: McCarrick “touted the praises” of Bergoglio Prior to the Conclave (June 30, 2020)
  6. The “Influential Italian Gentleman”: A Sant’Egidio Connection? (July 15, 2020)

Before providing the latest bit of information, I’d like to say a word as to why we continue to follow and investigate the story. The tale of the “influential Italian gentleman” — along with the related “St. Gallen mafia” story — certainly appear, on the surface at least, to involve potential violations of various provisions of Universi Dominici Gregis. Whether these potential violations would, even if proven true, invalidate a conclave is above my pay grade. I am not a canonist.

However, I do recall Patrick Coffin’s interview of Cardinal Burke in August 2019. The interview touched upon the various concerns surrounding the 2013 conclave involving the activities of the “St. Gallen mafia” and of McCarrick’s “influential Italian gentleman”(see here). During the Coffin interview, Cardinal Burke agreed the McCarrick incident was suspicious. While the cardinal underlined the need for “concrete proofs,” he did wonder whether it was even possible  anyone could demonstrate such proofs. I don’t want to put words in Cardinal Burke’s mouth, but it did not appear he shut the door to ‘something’ being done, provided the right evidence is produced.

We have always believed here at Roma Locuta Est, particularly with regard to the McCarrick story, that there are folks out there with bits and pieces of this puzzle–even if they do not realize what they have. They may be in Rome. They may be in Buenos Aires. They may be elsewhere. Roma Locuta Est has continued to investigate, for example, recently identifying a contemporary witness who affirmed that McCarrick did indeed ‘talk up Bergoglio‘ before the 2013 conclave (see The Influential Italian Gentleman: McCarrick “touted the praises” of Bergoglio Prior to the Conclave).

We continue to investigate because it is an interesting and curious story. As a former intelligence officer, I find such stories fascinating–indeed they are an exciting challenge to take on, and potentially solve. In fact, Roma Locuta Est has two individuals on our “staff” with US intelligence community background who are working this case and evaluating the evidence. What it ultimately means, I can’t say. If nothing else, we and others might be able to contribute a couple bits of information to the historical record with regard to some of the pre-conclave maneuvers. Certainly that, but there is also the long-shot possibility that some of the facts already and or yet uncovered, taken individually or collectively, might some day be deemed worthy of further investigation by Church authorities, i.e., Cardinal Burke’s “concrete proofs.”

Roma Locuta Est has a standing request for priests, bishops, and or cardinals in Rome or for those who might have been in Rome in 2013 (also seminarians at the North American College) to contact us with any information of interest related to McCarrick and the 2013 conclave (laymen too). I am absolutely confident some of you have pieces of this puzzle, perhaps a chance conversation with McCarrick, or an observation–perhaps, most obviously, seeing him with a prominent Italian layman at the North American College in early March 2013, etc. The anonymity of those who contact us will be protected.

The above said as background. As fortune would have it, over the last few months, a number of sources in Rome and elsewhere have reached out and or responded to Roma Locuta Est in its efforts to collect information and to develop leads. One of these sources, a Catholic prelate, offered a particularly noteworthy piece of intelligence. This source informed me that soon after the election of Pope Francis, the source encountered McCarrick in Rome.  According to the source (emphasis added):

“His very first words to me, before he said anything else – indicating that he had been part of a group working on this – were, “We did it.”  The words left me surprised and pondering. Since I was not involved in any campaign, it seemed to me that McCarrick had been.”

We did it.” A short phrase but one packed with implications. The statement and the context reported by the witness certainly is consistent with, if not outright confirmation of the hypothesis there was an active campaign — or should we say ‘conspiracy‘ — to elect Cardinal Bergoglio, something that went beyond the mere “exchange of views concerning the election” allowed by papal election rules, e.g., Universi Dominici Gregis  (cf UDG 81).  This despite the strenuous denials to the contrary made over the years by various “St. Gallen mafia” members and or by Bergoglian groupies. In addition, this information is consistent with, if not confirmation of the view McCarrick specifically campaigned for Cardinal Bergoglio’s election–as requested by the “influential Italian gentleman”–and for which, per Vigano’s Testimony, McCarrick was apparently rewarded by Pope Francis [NB: more of this in an upcoming part II].

Again, we continue our efforts to gather information and or develop leads, whether in Rome, Buenos Aires, or elsewhere. If you read this, and you know something about what really happened, or even if you may have only a small piece of this puzzle–but which has not yet been reported–please contact us.

As for cardinals, bishops, etc., who might be reading this–particularly those cardinals who participated in the 2013 conclave; now might be a good time to seek an opportunity to interview McCarrick, and to query him about the “influential Italian gentleman,” his own efforts on Bergoglio’s behalf, the identities of McCarrick’s “we“, what the we “did” precisely, and what did Bergoglio know about “it.”

There will be a Part II as a followup to this latest revelation released soon (probably within 24 hours).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta with their family. He has written apologetic articles, and is the author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He may be contacted at (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on Parler: @StevenOReilly).


14 thoughts on “McCarrick on Bergoglio’s Election: “We did it!”

  1. I think Dr. Peters gave a great rundown of why even an open campaign would be insufficient for invalidating a conclave – it is easily accessed online. Basically, it is built into the CIC that latae sententiae excommunications render judicial acts illicit but not invalid. I think His Eminence just slipped up in that interview – meanwhile many people go down that rabbit hole, looking for some kind of “way out” when there just isn’t one.

    Thanks for your work…


    1. Christian,

      Thanks for the comments. I think you are right on UDG. If, for example, simony is prohibited but yet does not invalidate an election….it is hard to imagine ‘lesser’ offenses in comparison invalidating a conclave.

      That is to say, as an example, if offering you money to vote for me doesn’t invalidate the conclave, how could simply asking you to vote for me do so.

      But even recognizing that, one of the things I find most curious is Kaspar’s and Murphy-O’Connor’s behavior (e.g., objecting to Ivereigh’s comments in his book) is that–surely knowing this–they have adamantly denied even the little that is obvious. The appearance is that they “doth protest too much”…and is there something more serious they are hiding–and what might that be?

      Whether there even can be something “else” that invalidates..,I don’t know. It seems like a very, very high hurdle. The one particular angle that I think is interesting is whether Bergoglio tasked prominent lay friends to “influence” cardinals. That is prohibited by UDG 80 (i.e., external involvement, even by individuals). But even then, we’d return again to the mechanisms to punish violations. UDG does not provide anything robust. So, hypothetically, even if it was established a foreign government pressured cardinals through bribes, blackmail, etc., to vote for a certain cardinal….it’s not clear from UDG’s text if even that would invalidate.

      So…in end…the election rules seem to merely boil down to “don’t do this or that”…but you can still be elected if you do “this or that.” That is unfortunate…because they’ve given us Francis.




  2. Are you just totally ignoring Dr. Mazza’s brilliant work and research for any specific reason?…

    You’re running further and further down a rabbit hole (granted, one lined with real corruption and filth), when the obvious is being laid out and picked up by more, and more, and more. Even the aging VeeJay turned podcaster Adam Currey’s picked up on it. God does indeed work in mysterious ways.


    1. Susan, thanks for the comments.

      First, as to ignoring Dr Mazza, I don’t know what you can possibly mean. I am sincerely asking you to post your reply to my question.

      I have written 4 articles which specifically address and rebut his thesis (NB: I have added the links to them to bottom of this comment). I have sent a couple of emails to Ann Barnhardt asking her to forward the links to Dr. Mazza. I have reached out to Mark Docherty of NVP asking him to forward the links to Dr. Mazza. A few days ago, I posted my links on Dr. Mazza’s own website asking for him to comment (it was still in moderation last I checked).

      However, having done all this in attempt to get Dr. Mazza to reply to my rebuttal–the first part posted on May 29…a month and a half ago—I have not received any response from him, or seen any indication or sign that he has addressed my rebuttal.

      Now…I see from the link you posted it is dated July 16…that is today. He is addressing Dr. Mattei. While I have only briefly skimmed the article at this point..and I may have missed it….I don’t see where he addressed me and my arguments. So, again, I ask you…what–precisely– am I ignoring?

      Thus…all of the above said…I am sincerely interested in how you could possibly believe I am ignoring Dr. Mazza? Rather…if someone is ignoring someone here….I believe I have demonstrated it is not me. Perhaps you might have better luck asking him to address my rebuttal than i have.

      Now…as to rabbit holes….I find the McCarrick incident interesting from a historical purpose alone. I am not sure UDG can help. What I am sure of…the Benedict is still pope thing does not work. I’ve read and written a lot on that subject, and I haven’t seen any good arguments that withstand examination.

      Having said all this…please let me know how or where I am ignoring Dr. Mazza?



      PS…I am not familiar with Mr. Currey. Are you saying he’s picked up on Dr.Mazza’s thesis? Well…I hope he reads the rebuttals.

      Here are the links to the 4 part rebuttal:


  3. Steve, I think you’re a very ‘nice’ guy. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. But I think you’re a very blinded man, and it simply doesn’t surprise me…nothing today surprises me. I don’t think you’ve ever solidly refuted Dr. Mazza. You’ve used many words…..VERY many words, and never successfully refuted Mazza, Barnhardt, et al (let alone ‘exploded’ anything). I particularly liked your self-satisfied/assured assertion, “I proceeded to refute his argument, demonstrating no where does Benedict indicate he did any such thing.” You demonstrated nothing…B didn’t need to ‘indicate’ anything…he just simply and clearly said it. Munus/ministerium…period. He of all people walking the earth today knows the difference. He assented to this idea many years ago in league with the German bishops. Words have meanings (though the egregious overuse of them doesn’t bolster a weak argument).

    Conversely, in very FEW words, the likes of Arthur McGowan, Lawrence Kallal, and in particular Aqua reasonably and logically cut your locutious, and quite frankly oblique, assertions to ribbons. I can’t really add much more to Aqua’s brilliance (again, in few words…the sign of a solid, obvious argument) of June 11…I would ask you to reread it without a spirit of defense at the ready….just pray for a truly open heart to the Truth, drop the arrogance of pride (oh to be sure, it’s a very ‘nice’, soft-spoken arrogance of pride), and read his assertions again. Christ’s promises cannot be void….Peter cannot torch the deposit of Faith….I would be very very careful about calling Christ a liar. From the point of seeing what we’re ALL seeing, the prudent thing to do is to go back and say (again, with a heart open to Truth), where did the rail-break happen? You have NEVER successfully routed Barnhardt’s or Mazza’s theses….you passed a lot of wind, but you didn’t refute them.

    The final word I can give is Aqua’s post of 6/7 6:10 PM…..I would be arrogant and prideful to try to add anything else to it.

    …well, maybe except for your own words….
    “an imbecilic argument does not make the arguer an “imbecile.” Very smart people can make imbecilic arguments too.”

    Amen to that.

    Regards also,


    1. Susan,

      Thanks for the reply.

      So it is not that I have “ignored” Dr. Mazza’s argument as you originally and explicitly said. Rather, it really boils down to you not liking my responses.

      Thanks for the requested clarification.




  4. In this female attack on you, Steve, I think you’ve finally got a written response from Ann B. herself or her doppelganger, say “Pseudo-Ann.”


  5. Steve Thanks for this article.
    Bergoglio is exponentially excommunicated because he violated the Oath of a conclave revealing to the press what happened inside the Sistine Chapel. Furthermore, Bergoglio publicly admitted that he made modernist pacts in the pre-conclave congregations. And he attributed to the Germans the creativity of solving the theological problem of choosing another pope while the pope was alive.

    McCarrick was a member of the St. Gallen mafia that lobbied for Bergoglio’s election.


    Archbishop Viganò: “At the time I knew nothing of his long friendship with Cardinal Bergoglio and of the important part he had played in his recent election, as McCarrick himself would later reveal in a lecture at Villanova University and in an interview with the National Catholic Reporter. Nor had I ever thought of the fact that he had participated in the preliminary meetings of the recent conclave, and of the role he had been able to have as a cardinal elector in the 2005 conclave. Therefore I did not immediately grasp the meaning of the encrypted message that McCarrick had communicated to me, but that would become clear to me in the days immediately following.”

    More questions arise about the Bergoglio-McCarrick connection in Argentina

    Four days after Pope Benedict XVI announced his alleged resignation, Bergoglio was prepared not to return to Argentina.
    Pope Benedict announced the alleged resignation on February 11, 2013, and it became “effective” on February 28
    The invalid conclave was held on March 12, 14 days after the alleged resignation of Pope Benedict became “effective”.
    The anti-Pope Bergoglio was invalid elected when 15 days had elapsed since the fateful invalid acceptance of resignation.

    Bergoglio traveled on February 27 the day before the resignation of the Pope became “effective”.

    But before traveling he left a video for Easter that he recorded 4 days after Pope Benedict announced the “resignation”. Again, the invalid conclave was on March 12.

    Easter 2013 was Sunday, March 31. In other words, Bergoglio did not plan to return to his Country.



  6. Rabbit Trail: “veering off subject or of the point of the conversation. A story or explanation leading nowhere. making statements with no real purpose just for the sake of stating it”. (Urban Dictionary)

    “Your discussion has gone down a Rabbit Trail … If you’ve ever seen a dog follow a real rabbit trail in a field or someone’s back yard, you’ll see where this idiom comes from. The dog will endlessly sniff around in circles, never getting anywhere”. (Today’s Idiom Blog)

    Next lesson – missing the forest for the trees. Round and around and around we go.


    1. Aqua, thanks for the feedback. As I’ve said, I find this case interesting, even if just from the historical standpoint alone. It would take some extraordinary evidence to invalidate a conclave—and it most likely is not there. Still…If it is found along the way…great. I do know there are more details out there. I see no harm in understanding MCarrick’s role in the election of Bergoglio just as a historical question.

      However, the “Benedict is (still) pope” theory” to which you are beholden is “absurd”, even in the opinion of Benedict. I can’t imagine a deeper rabbit hole.

      I’ve offered various articles offering arguments rebutting both BiP and Dr. Mazza’s twist on it. I get it…you disagree.

      God bless,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s