In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy - New York Times Bestseller | Exposing Church Scandals & Religious Controversies | Perfect for History Buffs & Political Book Clubs

Frederic Martel’s In the Closet of the Vatican: Power, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy (Bloomsbury Continuum 2019) was released on February 21, 2019, in 20 countries in 8 languages. That alone is an indication that the book, if not good, is going to be controversial. I believe the book is both. I received my book by Amazon Prime on February 21st and read the complete book, all 550 pages, over the next few days.Reading the reviews of the book on Amazon.com’s page shows an interesting distribution of the number of stars given to the book by the reviewers. As of 2 March 2019, the top 5-star rating was given by 46% of the reviewers. However, 20% of reviewers gave it a 1-star rating, 11% 2-star, and 17% 3-star. I’ve also had some discussion with colleagues about the book in person, on email groups and on Yahoo groups with a similar distribution in opinion. My opinion (and I’m a retired psychiatry professor) is that the reviews and opinions tell more about the reviewer than they do about the book.If one has a negative gut feeling in reading the book, which is not difficult to have for several different reasons, it is easy to nit-pick at the book’s style, which is journalistic, rather than academic, the absence of end notes or foot notes or references (which are on a free web site), the absence of an Index, the gossipy guilt by association conclusions, often as vague innuendos by the author, the anonymity of many of the sources for the reader, although known by the author, and some factual errors.Some of the factual errors are factual errors, such as a reviewer pointing out that Martel wrote that Pope Paul VI was elected in 1962, when it was 1963. Other times, a negative review will point out a factual error that a reader of the review will think is attributed to Martel. But when reading the book, one sees that the inaccurate statement was in quotes attributed to one of Martel’s sources.I have two easy nit-picks about the book, although since the book was translated from French, the nits could be in the translation, not the original French. The first is that Martel uses the word “pedophilia” incorrectly throughout the book to describe an adult male’s sexual attraction to any under-age person. The technical meaning of pedophilia is preferential sexual attraction to pre-pubertal persons. There are other terms for an adult male being preferentially sexually attracted to 11-14-year-olds (“hebephilia”) and then to 15 - 17 year olds (ephebophilia). Very few priests, who are sexually attracted to under-age persons, are true pedophiles, most being hebephiles and ephebophiles.Another nit-pick is that throughout the book the author writes about homosexuality and pedophilia as though these terms were two different, mutually exclusive kinds. If one breaks down sexual orientation into its two components -- age orientation and gender orientation -- pedophilia is an age orientation and homosexual is a gender orientation. Someone could be a homosexual or heterosexual pedophile. I understand Martel’s reason for doing this, as it differentiates adult homosexuals, who are sexually attracted to age-appropriate other same-sex adults, from adults who are sexually attracted to pre-pubertal little boys.In some ways one should read the book like one reads the Bible, not so much for the historical accuracy of ancient facts but rather for the principles that are delivered through the stories. To give another analogy, if one reads the book with the emphasis on the small details (like the leaves on trees), one misses the general principles (like the trees) or like the main theme of the book, the Vatican’s closet, which is the forest.The most controversial claim in the book, which is the equivalent of circumstantial evidence obtained by connecting many dots from many sources, is that about 80% of the Cardinals and other clergy in the Vatican are gay, some just in feelings and attraction (“homophilia”) and some who have acted out their feelings and attractions (“homosexuals”), but almost all of whom are “in the closet” to varying degrees.When I told one colleague about the book’s claim that 80% of the Vatican’s cardinals are gay, my colleague, who knows the Vatican well, said, “No, that’s too high.” When I asked, “What is the correct percentage?” my colleague said “maybe 40%.” But I say to you, the reader of this review, what’s the difference. It is like the difference in the words “revealed” and “inspired” in how one understands sacred texts.One of the more interesting aspect of the book was the author’s putting lots of dots together from many different sources and coming to the conclusion that the more homophobic a cardinal is, the more evidence exists that the cardinal is either homophilic or homosexual. That’s not new in the scientific study of sexuality, where two independent studies have shown that homophobic men, claiming to be heterosexual, have more arousal using a penile plethysmograph, to male erotica, then non-homophobic men, also claiming to be heterosexual.Another interesting aspect of the book is an insight into the politics of the Vatican, two factions of closet homophiles and homosexuals, the conservatives and the liberals, against one another. The author combines this throughout the book through the papacies of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and now Francis. The first two popes being more homophobic and Francis being at least more “gay friendly.”My recommendation for anyone who has bought the book, or has at least looked at the book, is to first read the Acknowledgements (pp. 551-555). They give an idea on how the information in the book was acquired and why it was acquired as it was. Were it not acquired as it was, the book could not have been written. If one does not read the Acknowledgements first and just start reading the book, within the first 50 pages or so one will come to the conclusion that the book is just a bunch of gay gossip, one faction having “the goods” on the other.I gave the book 5 stars because I think it is an important book. Martel, who is a professional journalist, is also a gifted writer, which makes what one is learning from the book easier, as otherwise, one could get lost in names and details. I overlooked the books may flaws because of the overall message delivered by the book. I believe it will probably receive a Pulitzer Prize. As I said to a colleague, who stopped reading the book at page 30, “if only 25% of what is in the book is true, it is a startling revelation.”Jay R. Feierman