Statement
on the policy to be followed by this investigative team.
Replies to statements made by Pepe Rodríguez.
 

    Reply policy

    From the very beginning, this investigative team has tried to shed some light on the authenticity of the simoniacal price list published a few years ago by Pepe Rodríguez. We were expecting from our opponent a lively debate within the framework of academic discussions, and at first it appeared he would do so.

    However, we have concluded that the Spanish journalist is not willing to engage in any serious debate, as the reader can confirm by visiting the Rodríguez website. We have no intention in engaging Pepe Rodríguez in anything other than a debate, but unfortunately he seems to be more interested in creating diversions than in engaging in a serious debate. 

    For this reason we want to make public our reply policy to statements such as those issued by Pepe Rodríguez or any other person regarding this debate, as well as messages from any person wanting to contact any team member to express an opinion, request more information on some aspect of the debate, request clarifications, or request any kind of reply from us. Thus:  

    Our replies or observation that we deem appropriate will be published in the apologetica.org website, especially those involving the reputation of third parties. 

    Some observations on what Rodríguez has published

    Regarding our position in this debate, we do not plan to answer each and every one of the statements made by Rodríguez, the main promoter of the simoniacal tariffs in our days. But since in his website Rodríguez has published many irresponsible statements on this issue, we want to refute what we deem appropriate by using some of his own statements, those we regard as representative of his position (his statements were downloaded May 9, 2002).

    1. Let's stick to the facts

    In his reaction to our position of doubting the authenticity of the document he published without providing any references, we find repeated pejorative references to this investigative team and the host website (http://apologetica.org), such as:

"ultra-rigid group", "fanatic Catholic sect", "brazenness and absence of historical and scientific honesty", "bad faith, fanaticism and ignorance", "they boast of great academic and investigative rigor", "lying with great brazenness", "extremist Catholic sect", "demagoguery, fanaticism, ultra-conservative and virulent", "supine cretinism".

    This is how Rodríguez responds academically against those that have questioned the authenticity of one of his published documents. 

    Our opinion is: is time to stop attacking people for their intentions or any other aspect that has nothing to do with the historical debate we have embarked into, and face the issue objectively, that is, prove the authenticity of the published price list (something impossible after the results of our investigations), or at least provide a shred of credible evidence. In short, contribute SOMETHING. We assume his invectives are due to the fact that our position is more than well founded, while he fails to provide any credible evidence of any kind, but tries to disguise it by redirecting the debate to any subject that comes through his mind. The reader can see this in the explanations that  Rodríguez gives on the authenticity of the Taxa Camarae, where he deals with and passes judgment on

the clerical situation at the Institute of the Incarnate Word, the Fugger Bank, the Protocols of Zion,  the Jewish expulsion from Spain, the Danatio Constantini, the firearms carried by Swiss guards, the Italian fascism and German nazism... 

    all these things may be very interesting, but obviously have nothing to do with our subject. Or is it your intention Pepe, that by resorting to these extraneous subjects you can convict pope Leo X or any other pope of whatever comes to your mind? This is what we ask from you and actually it is very simple: that you focus on the subject, that is, the authenticity of the document you attribute to Leo X, according to which Leo X (or some other pope) sold the forgiveness of sins. Anything else is fantasy, as far as the debate is concerned. 

    2. "Extremist Catholic sect" (Rodríguez)

    Regarding what he has said in his website about the Instituto del Verbo Encarnado (IVE), whose member are also responsible for the apologetica.org website (but not for the debate), we wonder how does the particular organization of that institute influence the credibility of this study. In other words, what does the clerical presence at IVE (an obviously false innuendo) have to do with the authenticity of the Taxa Camarae? Or is it a matter of destroying the adversary with derogatory statements, since there is nothing to offer in the academic arena? 

    In any case, the reader can visit IVE's website, and see for himself its history, its clerical situation, the more than thirty dioceses in the world where over hundreds of priests and nuns work as missionaries, the charity work done (with plenty of photos), among many other things, so he can determine for himself the value of  Rodríguez's statement when he judges the institute as an "ultra-rigid Catholic sect, fanatical... and closed down by the Catholic Church herself." Once again,  Rodríguez flings outright lies against us, something that we've gotten used to by now. 

    Again:           

The great "intellectual" and "academic" level boasted by the followers of the Instituto del Verbo Encarnado/apologetica.org is apparent in the supine cretinism with which one of its outstanding members,  a priest called Juan Carlos Sack, displays when he e-mails Daniel Sapia: "..You should also know that Pepe Rodríguez, the originator of the Taxa, is an enemy of God, of Jesus Christ, of the Bible, of the Church, of the Faith, and of any sound doctrine. A son of disobedience, a group we all used to be a part of. We must pray to God for his conversion." ¡¡¡¿?!!!

    This comment about a Catholic priest (a person that happens to be interested in the conversion of people), made in a personal correspondence to a Christian acquaintance, appears to us intended to destroy the credibility of our presentation. Will Pepe Rodríguez please explain how? 

3. "My goal is never to create scandal, but to offer well founded criticism of the subject I'm dealing with" (Rodríguez).

    Since our newspaperman describes himself as stated above, and on the other hand he spares no effort to hurl insults to deny this investigative team any "academic" merit, we will quote some of his statements so the reader may judge for himself.  

I. The Internet and the 1936 booklet.

"... despite their claim of great academic and investigative rigor, and of being an international organization, they have been unable to find Gay's work (it only requires a good search engine to look for "Teofilo Gay", "Taxa" and be linked to the website that reproduces part of his work [...] or, also from the Internet, search the name [...]. They've also been unable to find the 1936 edition by Librería Pons that we reproduce here, nor any other one".

    We were looking for a printed copy of Gay's book to base our work on facts. The Internet is a great tool, but also with limitations under this context. Anybody knows not to blindly trust what is found in the Internet without independent verification. We cite the article published by Gian Antonio Stella in the Corriere della Sera, as a bad example of this (click here for the embarrassing details).

    As to the "1936 edition by Librería Pons", we want to add something else to what we have previously stated (here). First of all, we note the childish attitude in his statement "they've been unable to find the 1936 edition". Pepe, we remind you that as you stated in your correspondence, this book is not important from a scientific point of view: 

A far as I'm concerned, I have a complete copy of a booklet [by an anonymous author] that contains the Taxa, was edited in Barcelona in 1936 and is extremely anti-clerical (typical of Spain in those years), it also does not cite the sources and faithfully reproduces the text that I had copied in French, but in any case it is irrelevant, I'm interested in going much farther than that. I want to know who was the document's author, the rest is absolutely not important to me. [boldfacing is always ours]

    Pepe, your desire for relevance is impressive! But if this is the case, why the need for your proud statement that "we have been unable to find this edition"? What would be the benefit of that anonymous booklet, "irrelevant", with a total lack of references? 

    On the other hand, you appear to be one of the few lucky ones in this world to have a masterpiece of anti-clerical literature, since it is not in the Catalan Library, nor the Library of the University of  Barcelona, or the National Library of Argentina, or the National Library of Colombia, or the Vatican Library, or the Gregorian Library, nor in any of the public libraries in Rome, and neither in the National Library of Spain. So Mr. Rodríguez, how about giving us a tip on where to find your 88 page long anonymous pamphlet? 

    But we have found something... It is a book with the same title, that is, La Lujuria del Clero según los Concilios (The Excesses of the Clergy as Stated by the Councils), "Tres Catorce Diecisiete" Editors, colección "Infierno de los escritos sobre el cuerpo", publicado en Madrid en 1978 (Hell of the Body's Writings Collection, Madrid, 1978). It is in the National Library of Spain, where two other publications with the same name are also found, undated, edited in Madrid, colección "Apostolado de la Verdad" (Truth Apostolate Collection). Besides being undated, one booklet is 32 pages long and the other one is 42 pages long. Neither one contains the Taxa Camarae.

    The 1978 edition is the closest to the one cited by Rodríguez, at least as far as number of pages, and we have confirmed that it does not contain the Taxa.  The work ends in page 84, followed by a one page index. In the introduction to the work, the editor (Javier Ruiz) makes no mention to any previous work by the same title. 

    Finally, we are not aware of any explanation on the mystery surrounding the close similarity between the 1936 anti-clerical booklet published in Barcelona and the translation from the French original made by Rodríguez fifty years later  (you can se the details here).

    To conclude, we agree with our critic that, besides our "inability to find the work", the 1936 booklet is irrelevant. 

II. The Swiss guards and the Taxa Camarae

The apologetica.org members, who boast about doing their work in a strict, honest and academic manner, are brazenly lying when they say there are no better sources. They exist, are many and more relevant, but neither they nor their information sources, nor anybody else can see them to prove who is right. Apologetica.org knows very well, but does not agree to it to protect their Catholic interests, that right next to the Vatican library there is a building that houses the so called "secret archive" --its access restricted by six strict security controls, three of them protected by armed Swiss guards-- to which only authorized researchers can enter, but they are limited to work with the documents listed in the catalogs given to them. The first conclusion is that any document not listed in a catalog cannot be requested, since officially "it does not exist".  

    a. We have already answered this several months ago in our reply.

    b. We add some observations: in his reference to "armed" guards, Rodríguez adds a long explanation to justify that Swiss guards carry weapons while serving in the Vatican, a fact that appears that we had denied (we quote "Given the absurd denial made by some Catholic apologists that the Vatican Swiss Guard is not armed, ..."). We request our reader's patience to explain the following: 

    - we never doubted that Swiss guards use weapons, since this has nothing to do with our debate, and Rodríguez can write all he wants about this. This a typical strategy of sophists, when they take elements of the debate and then connect them to secondary elements tied to the main issue while using similar words, all to distract the attention of the unaware reader. Pepe, we are not debating here whether Swiss guards carry weapons or not, nor over who, how, and why was Commander Alois Estermann killed. 

    - what we doubted, or better yet, definitely denied, was that the Swiss guards, carrying whatever weapons Rodríguez cares to allow them, are part of the ridiculous six control stations in the Vatican secret archives; 

    - the limitations that Rodríguez refers to about "catalogued documents" is applicable to any library and archive in the world, since nobody goes to an archive and starts throwing documents around  until he finds the right one. All archives are "catalogued", otherwise they are useless. What Rodríguez is suggesting is that the Church has disappeared those documents, or at least has hid them. Well, the person making these charges has to prove them true. As we already know, the evidence to back the claims is nowhere to be found.  It is obvious that the proof to support that claim is nowhere to be found. It appears that one must accept such "well founded criticism" with a blind and obedient "Amen", and anyone that doesn't do that... Ignorant! We have had the opportunity of going into the secret archives and as expected, there's nothing even remotely similar to what Rodríguez claims in his story. The reader can see more details here.

Today, nobody knows what those archives contain, so up to now nobody can confirm or deny anything in a definite way regarding the Taxa Camarae being true or not (or about "similar documents" that my critics were looking for and obviously have not found); it obviously follows that they could neither be found by those who in the referenced centuries worked in the Vatican archives but with no access to the material that without which, any conclusion or statement is only tentative. 

    And when we began our debate, didn't Rodríguez know this? Didn't he know it when with great ease he stated that the Taxa Camarae can be found in any good library on religious or Middle-Age history, including the Vatican's and those in major seminaries? How can he now claim that the Taxa is actually inaccessible and no historian can get to it? What was the basis for his first statement, with which he wanted to deceive his readers? And what is the basis for his second one, with which he intends to continue deceiving them?

    As someone has already noted, we get the impression that Rodríguez says the first thing that comes to his mind. In any case, that is what he writes. 

    The reader must note that once this principle has been set (that is, that the documents are inaccessible because he says so), then no one can contradict him any more. His "document" can never be found and therefore it will always be "authentic"... (rather than "fake", which would be more logical). In doing this, the author of Mentiras Fundamentales introduces us to a weird kind of academic logic unique to Pepe Rodríguez. This is very evident form his very own words: 

...applying a strictly-honest academic and intellectual criteria, it is impossible to affirm or deny anything. Only when all the documents that the Church is now hiding can be reviewed, and/or it is known who and how published what today is still know as the Taxa Camarae, will we be able to confirm or deny the truthfulness of this document's contents. 

    This is what Rodríguez calls "applying a strictly-honest academic and intellectual criteria". 

    In spite of everything, we have good news for you Pepe: we have found the documents of that period, including the official tariffs, and before reaching any conclusions, this is enough to discredit the complex description you came up with involving Swiss guards, the untouchable file cabinets, as well as the anti-clerical stories about a Church collecting tax lists everywhere to remove them from circulation.   

    Yes Pepe, the authentic tariffs are in the secret archives and in the Vatican Library, accessible to all authorized visitors; there's no need to dream up any other explanation. We were never stopped by a Swiss guard (there were none, or could it be they were hiding in the flowerpots?), nor were we threatened with excommunication. The fact of the matter is, the entire nature of the tariffs must have to be revisited, since it has nothing to do with what you state in your book and in your website. (See  the main article and the photo gallery for the information we have found on the true tariffs). 

            III. Two theologians and three historians

    Pepe Rodríguez adds the following regarding the publication of the Taxa in his book: 

Obviously, before including it I asked two Catholic theologians friends of mine to review it and they told me it "was correct", that it was one of the reasons for Luther's breakup. I received the same answer from three historians y consulted (one on the Middle Ages and the other two on history of religions). 

    With all that scientific assistance, it is worth noting that up to now his two theologian friends, and especially his three consulting historians have not made any contribution at all. We understand it may be a matter of time and that not everyone is interested in this subject, nor are they obligated to do anything about it, based on their own motives. The reason we mention this here is because with this statement, Rodríguez wanted to give his "explanation" the appearance of "authenticity", since the document would have been "validated" by professionals. However, we have not been able to find any type of evidence, of any kind, from those five friends of  Rodríguez to support the document's authenticity. We suggest that Pepe give them a copy of this work's bibliography so his friends can assist him in determining the validity or not of the bibliography and of this work. Perhaps they may get out of their indifference and decide to contribute a document. 

Although when reproducing the text I did not have the original reference to its source, neither I nor the experts I consulted to review it had the least bit of doubt regarding the authenticity of a text that was understood to have been published in 1517, precisely the date when the granting of indulgences scandal reached its peak, all in order to collect funds to build St. Peter's Basilica

    Note again the naked attempt to use the "experts" smokescreen to justify its irresponsible publication. The argument that Rodríguez uses here follows more or less along these lines: in that period (15th to 16th centuries) everything was corrupt, so the Taxa was certainly authentic. Can someone be more irresponsible that this in the historical field? Is this also part of the "well documented criticism" of the issue at hand? Another example of the Pepe Rodríguez academic decency.

    Rodríguez now has added a file where the reader will find a "List of books and articles where the so called Taxa Camarae has been published". We want to confirm here what is in that list as of the date of our study's publication (August 2002): four versions of the same work, including different editions and languages, an anticlerical and anonymous pamphlet dated 1936 (whose whereabouts are unknown to the best libraries in the world) and his own work (Mentiras Fundamentales…). 

    Impressive, Mr. Rodríguez, impressive.

    We would also like to call attention to the value of such "publication list": Are we to understand that according to this, any time that a publication mentions the word Taxa, regardless of the isue involved, it automatically refers to the Taxa published by Rodríguez? For instance, the Gay works that he lists deal with another Taxa, as we have already proven (see here).

    Will our bibliography be included in that list?

            IV. "The worst of  human corruption", but interestingly "not important at all"

    In another place Rodríguez tries to lessen the importance of this issue, saying that it did not bother him his lack of references to prove the authenticity of the document, since the Taxa Camarae "was not important at all within the context of the entire book."

    But this is not so. When he introduces the Taxa in his book he says that it deals with "one of the worst times of human corruption." We fail to see how can a document be regarded as the worst of human corruption and at the same time be regarded as not important at all within the context of his book. A few lines down, it appears he tries to explain the issue somewhat, but always by justifying every accusation against the Church of that period, regardless of it being true or false: 

Just as has been argued already, there can not be a definitive answer to this issue. What the document says coincides with what happened to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages and this is no secret to anyone. But something very different, obviously, is that such a list of horrors was set in written form and signed by the credited pope.

    We recognize the correct observation made in the last sentence of this paragraph. In spite of this, we believe this issue is more important than what Rodríguez pretends. When taken in context, we get the impression that everything is the same, whether the "worst of human corruption" is real or not it doesn't matter: what matters is that in the Middle Ages the Church was completely corrupt: so be it, and woe to the person that questions this. Recently, he says so with these words in a recent revision added at the end of a fictional "biography" on Leo X (we will come back to this at the end): 

It remains to be determined, once access to all the historical documents still remaining to be reviewed [back to the legend], if Leo X was, or was not the Taxa Camarae's author, but even under a best case scenario, the reputation of this despicable human being that occupied the so called "Chair of Peter" will not improve the least bit.  

    This is how this scholar tries to diminish the importance of this issue, while at the same time insisting on a legend. We hope that the more than 150 pages of documents now available to him at apologetica.org will help him "see" if Leo X was or was not the Taxa Camarae's author.

    This brings to mind another statement, this one by Sapia, who says in his website: 

The proof that the "Taxa Camarae" is authentic or a fake will not change for better or worse the already dark chapter of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, regarding abuses on granting Indulgences.  

    If it is of any help, Sapia should know that the tariffs of the Roman curia and the indulgences are two distinct issues that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Regardless of this, and since he confuses his readers on this subject, we find it sad to see in Sapia's words the same lack of good faith in presenting the truth that we saw in Rodríguez: Sapia doesn't want to know if the simoniacal document through which the pope sold the forgiveness of sins (this is a monstrosity) is authentic or is a fake, what matters is that the corruption was complete. The issue of whether the popes were selling the forgiveness of sins, or where fighting against this horror appears "not to change" anything. Strange way of presenting history.  

    On the other hand, the proof that the document is actually fake reveals to us another kind of corruption, dealing with the irresponsible people that have no scruples in blaming the pope for such document. To us, THIS is a better candidate for "the worst in human corruption", than the payment schedules of the Roman curia. 

        Rodríguez confidently states:

Up to now I had not received any objection, but I have received from experts in several countries very detailed corrections and amendments to the book where it was published, but never to question it at all.

    We don't know who are his "experts from several countries" who sent him "very detailed comments" on his work, but we do know that this is an attempt to try to assign some degree of value to this publication.  

    In a public and formal way, we now present the results of our investigation, hoping that our reader, regardless of his opinion, can now learn the true history of these events based on documents. 

                  V. Leo X and his bio-history by Rodríguez.

    We are already familiar with the type of bibliography that Rodríguez uses when dealing with the Catholic Church. A good example of this are his "notes on the life of Leo X" posted in his website some time ago. He took the pope's alleged biography from the book The Sexual Lives of the Popes (of course!) by Nigel Cawthorne. The reputation of Leo X is destroyed in a few paragraphs. Let's face it: who can have access to lengthy documents, hard to find and many of them in Latin, German, Italian, French or English, and dealing with the pope's life, in order to confirm what is being said about him?  

    As Rodríguez correctly states in his introduction to Cawthorne's satire, "everything must be noted". This is why we present to our readers that introduction and our comments, in order to help him prepare a critical baseline of what is being read: 

When I included the Taxa Camarae's text in my book "Mentiras fundamentales de la Iglesia Católica", I did not think is was appropriate to delve deeply (nor was it necessary for the book's objective) into the dissolute lives of the popes of that period, because I felt it was an issue well known by everyone, but it appears that the members of apologetica.org prefer to obviate the "human" aspects of their popes. 

    The authenticity of the Taxa Camarae and the alleged dissolute lives of the popes of that period (quite a generalization) are two totally separate issues. Our entire debate deals with the first issue, and if the second one is mentioned, it is done so only in reference to the first one. The references that Rodríguez now makes to the "dissolute lives of the popes" is nothing more than a trick to distract the reader's attention. 

    Furthermore, his statement "the members of apologetica.org [referring to this investigative team] prefer to obviate the human aspects of their popes" is another attempt at slander, plain and simple. This is confirmed by simply reading our report. Rodríguez attacks with distractions: nobody intends to ignore the human aspects of the popes. Our intent is to combat the many ridiculous lies being said about them, something we're entitled to do, and in fact obligated to do so, whether Rodríguez likes it or not.

The apologetica.org people say in their website that: "On the other hand, it is very easy to slander the Church, considering that the Church has two great disadvantages: one, to be made up of human beings (in fact something we already knew before Gay); the other is to be responsible for her actions (present Catholics see Leo X and all other Popes as their Popes, regardless of what they might have done)." But without a doubt, this "regardless of what they might have done" does not fit at all with the glorious hymn of praise sang in another part of their website: "What we have seen in Leo X's authentic writings is as different from the contents of the Taxa as white is from black", so which one is it? well, each believer can subscribe to his own peculiar justifications for what can not be justified...

    It is a fallacy to call our statement on the analysis of the writings of Leo X a "glorious hymn of praise". It is not a "glorious hymn of praise", it is a proven scientific fact. We state what the documents say and we compared it with the farce published by Rodríguez.

    As to "which one is it?", has no logic, has no meaning at all. Pepe, we said that we are responsible for the popes "regardless of what they might have done", and we also said "what we have been able to see in the authentic writings of Leo X is as remote from the contents of the Taxa as white is from black."  Can you show us the contradiction in this? Can you point out the "peculiar justifications for what can not be justified" of "each believer"? Who is the one trying to justify the unjustifiable in this debate? And why your attack on the "believer"? Can it be that you're using slander to disqualify us? As the reader has certainly noted already, Rodríguez seems to be suggesting that once we have accepted responsibility for the popes, including their good and bad deeds, we have to accept that the Taxa he published belongs to Leo X. Well, he will have to wait a very long time.  

I have no time nor desire to summarize the papal corruption bibliography, but I will use the text sent to me by a Latin American reader on this issue. It deals with chapter 15 of the book La vida sexual de los Papas, by Nigel Cawthorne, published by Grupo Editorial Tomo, S.A. de C.V. (México), October, 2000. This is the translation of the 1997 original Sex Lives of the Popes, published by Prion Books Limited in London, and translated by Marco Antonio Garibay M.

    So we're back to the confusion between the issue at hand (the authenticity of the Taxa) and the "papal corruption". If on the second issue Rodríguez appears to try to be an expert, on the first one he seems powerless to offer anything of value.  

Nigel Cawthorne's narrative is fresh and direct. From his book we only cite a few paragraphs regarding popes Julius II (1503-1513), Leo X (1513-1521) and Adrian VI (1522-1523). Obviously, we refer the reader to Nigel Cawthorne's original text and to his sources. 

    "Fresh and direct" is fine, but more important than this is the truthfulness of what is said in that text, since we question its veracity after having read a multitude of good sources elsewhere. 

When one reads about the many indecent and criminal aspects in the life of Leo X (typical of an entire age and more or less common among popes and princes, everything must be noted) this question is justified: what causes greater harm to the credibility and honorability of the Church, responsibility for the Taxa Camarae regardless of it being true or false, or the depraved life of that Pope (and of many others)? 

    Where does Rodríguez get the "indecent and criminal aspects in the life of Leo X"? From Cawthorne's book? Is Rodríguez concerned about using better researched sources? In these cases, if truth is to be found, a person should not repeat what the repeater of other repeaters say but must consult the source documents, or in the case of the general public, they should refer to recognized historians, whose recognition is not based on being Catholic or not, or because they are liked or not, but due to the high caliber of their work based on archive documents, and for the objective presentation of historical events, free of prejudice. This is the only valid procedure in the historical field. Thus Cawthorne's work does not meet these requirements, since it only concentrates on repeating stereotyped phrases, legendary common places, "they said that he said", statements that nobody can prove, and so on. 

    The readers are also being sold on the idea that the indecent and criminal aspects are "typical of an entire age and more or less common among popes and princes, everything must be noted". This is a perfect example of over-simplified and childish generalizations, unworthy of any intellectual with the least sense of responsibility.

    Rodríguez closes with a question: "what causes greater harm to the credibility and honorability of the Church, responsibility for the Taxa Camarae regardless of it being true or false, or the depraved life of that Pope (and of many others)?". This pretext actually continues the attempt to create a smoke screen to disguise his retreat. It is as if Rodríguez was reasoning this way:  let the reader be entertained with the "depraved life of that Pope (and of many others)", I'll take the Taxa story elsewhere. 

* * *

    We have read highly reliable documents on Leo X, and we can assure our dear reader that Rodríguez once again rambles in accepting Cawthorne's "biography". Since Rodríguez chooses to continue distorting reality instead of accepting it, we will publish a complete work by Von Pastor, arguably the best that exists on the pontificate of Leo X, and where the reader can find a wide spectrum of this pope's life, including his defects and virtues. We are well aware that Cawthorne's "history" will be read by many, while Von Pastor's work will be read by only a few. [June 2003 note:  the digital edition of the work -in Spanish- is available]

    At the end of his comical presentation of Leo X, Rodríguez adds: "...And the apologetica.org people accuse me of slandering Leo X for making him the author of the Taxa Camarae, a work that is mere child's play when compared with the life of this holy man and prince of the Church, may St. Lucy preserve their eyesight." Very funny, Mr. Rodríguez, but in this case the facts are: now that any interested person can learn that the Taxa is a fraud, you are trying to distract the attention and justify your total irresponsibility as a writer in accepting a cheap anti-clerical farce, and regard it as "the worst of human corruption." 

    The sexual lives of the popes and all the scandals you would certainly injoy to present to your readers do not redeem your failure; in any case, they deepen it.

* * *

    You can see here other comments we made prior to the response by Rodríguez and we stand behind what we said. 

Special Investigations Team