Roma Locuta Est

October 6, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – Last weekend, Archbishop Viganò released a video speech titled Vitium Consensus. He also released a transcript of that speech.  In a recent article, Roma Locuta Est provided an analysis and commentary on the thesis Viganò presented (see Thoughts on Vigano’s ‘Mens Rea’ Thesis).

I will not revisit that analysis here, but I do want to discuss, in a little more detail, something I highlighted in my last article.  That is, Viganò mentioned the “influential Italian gentleman” in his speech, and it appears he knows or claims to know his identity. A reader sent me an email with the same observation, and wondering if I would write an article on this topic.  I thought the reader’s suggestion an excellent one.

First, by way of quick background, those who followed the McCarrick scandal will remember that it was Archbishop Viganò, in his famous Testimony, who brought the mysterious character of the “influential Italian gentleman” to our attention.  Viganò reports in his Testimony (p. 6):

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.

The part of the Villanova speech where McCarrick speaks of the “influential Italian gentleman” in relation to Bergoglio’s candidacy for the papacy, and the conclave may be found HERE.  This meeting between McCarrick and the “influential Italian gentleman” has been the topic of much speculation, and many articles, both on Roma Locuta Est, and elsewhere.

According to McCarrick, this “influential Italian gentleman” promoted Bergoglio’s papal candidacy to McCarrick, in early March 2013, saying ‘If he had five years, the Lord working through Bergoglio in five years could make the Church over again.’  This Italian gentleman would then go on to urge McCarrick to “talk up Bergoglio” at the pre-conclave meetings which were to start in the next day or two.

Among some obvious questions are: (1) who as this ‘gentleman‘?  (2) Was he working with or for anyone else for Bergoglio’s election?  (3) Did Bergoglio send this ‘gentleman’ as an emissary to McCarrick, seeking his active support in gaining votes?  (4) Did McCarrick ever actually do as he was requested, i.e., did he ever actually “talk up Bergoglo” before the conclave?

Roma Locuta Est‘s first look at the subject is found in the article The “Influential Italian Gentleman”, wherein I discuss why McCarrick’s help would be important enough to seek out, and laid out a preliminary sketch of who the “influential Italian gentleman” might be. Then, in a latter article, Roma Locuta Est provided documentary evidence that McCarrick actually did in fact “talk up Bergoglio” prior to the conclave (see The Influential Italian Gentleman: McCarrick “touted the praises” of Bergoglio Prior to the Conclave). Roma Locuta Est also found a source who says McCarrick exclaimed “we did it!” on the night Cardinal Bergoglio was elected (see McCarrick on Bergoglio’s Election: “We did it!”). [NB: I outline at a high level some of the other oddities surrounding the conclave, see Five Questions about the 2013 Conclave for the Historical Record) and or one at LifeSiteNews, There are still many unsolved mysteries surrounding the 2013 election of Cdl. Bergoglio to the papacy).

Further, Roma Locuta Est reported on who the “influential Italian gentleman might actually be (see The “Influential Italian Gentleman”: A Sant’Egidio Connection?) and his documented connections to both then Cardinal’s McCarrick and Bergoglio, as well as some possible interesting connections (see Six Degrees of the “Influential Italian Gentleman”?).

Then, when the McCarrick Report was finally released, Roma Locuta Est reported on its glaring omission of the “influential Italian gentleman’s” meeting with McCarrick, and its seeming downplaying of McCarrick’s role at the pre-conclave meetings (see Glaring Omission in McCarrick Report: What about the “Influential Italian Gentleman?”).

Now, with all of that as a brief background, we return to Archbishop Viganò’s recent speech.  Again, we won’t revisit that whole speech, we did that in a recent article (HERE).  However, here I’d like to call out that Viganò makes reference to the infamous “influential Italian gentleman.”  Viganò says (bold added):

On October 11, 2013, in a conference at Villanova University (here), then-Cardinal McCarrick, Bergoglio’s longtime friend, revealed that Bergoglio’s election was strongly desired by a “very influential Italian gentleman,” an emissary of the deep state to the deep church: those who work in the Curia know well who is called “the gentleman” par excellence and what his links are with the power on both sides of the Tiber [the Vatican and the Italian Government], and they also know his embarrassing penchants that explain his close connections to the Vatican homosexual lobby. It is also significant that McCarrick said he was convinced that Bergoglio would “change the Papacy within four years,” confirming the malicious intention to tamper with the divine and unreformable institution of the Church. 

As indicated earlier, Roma Locuta Est has previously offered its opinion on who a leading candidate might be to be the “influential Italian gentleman” (see The “Influential Italian Gentleman”: A Sant’Egidio Connection?for his name).  He is a man who has described himself as a “convinced Bergoglian” and he was a friend of McCarrick as well.

Reading the Viganò’s words above, it seems clear to me at least, Viganò is saying he knows who in fact the “influential Italian gentleman” is. If so, and as I said in my recent article (HERE), I don’t see why Viganò should not reveal his identity, as this would only potentially help continued research and investigation of the events surrounding the conclave.  Whether Viganò has in mind the same “leading candidate” that Roma Locuta Est has contemplated, I do not know.

Even though I named a leading candidate (HERE), I do not have certainty he is in fact the “influential Italian gentleman.” However, Viganò apparently does have certainty — at least as I understand him. So, if Viganò revealed his name, folks could try to do additional research into the question.  Research might confirm the whole or parts of McCarrick’s story, and possibly uncover other interesting leads. For one, enterprising journalists in Rome could directly ask this “influential Italian gentleman” if he had ever met McCarrick under the circumstances described in his Villanova speech. Then, there would be so many follow up questions, such as, did Cardinal Bergoglio ask you to meet McCarrick?

Viganò describes the person he has in mind as an “deep state” emissary, with ties to the Italian government. I am not suggesting cause and effect here, but Italian prosecutors did launch a suspiciously timed ‘mafia police raid‘ on the morning the 2013 conclave was to begin, and press reporting of it that same morning could only have hurt (it certainly did not help) Cardinal Scola’s papal chances — and he was Bergoglio’s chief rival going into the conclave (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?).  That much is historical fact.  It is not speculation.  But was it intentional?

Now, at this point, ten years into this pontificate, I don’t see a way to invalidate the conclave and the election of Pope Francis. Still, whether one believes in any invalid conclave theory or not; if only for transparency and the historical record, such research is important in understanding what really happened ‘behind the scenes’ in the pre-conclave period in 2013, and whether in fact there was any sort of skullduggery.  This is a fair area of research and investigation.

So, given Viganò has revealed so much about so many shady characters in the hierarchy to date, whether in his original Testimony, or his other interventions; if he really knows the identity of the “influential Italian gentleman” — then I see no credible reason why he cannot, or does not reveal it, along with any evidence he may have for his conclusion.

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. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).