I think that there is some sort of misunderstanding here. The records available to me on this board tell a different story as to what I did and didn't "instigate" as regards Fogarty's book.
Sometimes when we ourselves are all hopped up on a given topic we tend to project to others our own red hot degree of interest.
I believe that I recommended one text by one Moynihan. It was available on line.
I am not "the one who is insisting" that Rampolla could be a liberal despite his not having been a Mason.
I am the one who is insisting that Rampolla supported the nefarious Archbishop Ireland and was part of his perfidious little clique.
I think that I have already provided evidence that this was so.
Yes, the Yale connection was not with Fogarty's book on the Americanist crisis but with Fogarty himself.
Fogarty is a Jesuit who was ordained in 1970. I find it shocking that a post-Vatican II Jesuit should take a dim view of the Americanists, thus proving himself better inspired than pre-Vatican II orthodox American priests who out of a misguided sense of loyalty claimed that Americanism was a "phantom heresy." (Of course, there was no question of a heresy at all, strictly speaking: no doctrinal point of Divine and Catholic Faith was pertinaciously denied. Being a sneaky apostate doesn't make one a heretic.)
I didn't see the point of expressing doubts that Fogarty's book WIL show a connection between Rampolla and the American Liberal faction before you read it when it has already BEEN shown that there was a connection between Rampolla and Ireland, and that according to Ireland Rampolla instructed him as to how best to neutralize Leo XIII's anti-Americanist encyclical.
I am personally interested in the history of the Americanist crisis. But my interest in this forum is to get the truth about Rampolla. And that only because I'm taking it for granted that everyone here has read about Rampolla the Wicked Satanic Mason a hundred times in Traditional Catholic publications or even heard about that mythological creature two or three times in a sermon in a Traditional chapel. I think that that charge is false, but I would hate to see people thinking that they had egg on their face for having swallowed that fable.
Whatever the motivations of the original Masonbuster accuser against Rampolla were, I think that nowadays the Mason charge is a kind of "coded message" about Rampolla's REAL offenses, which constitute a kind of taboo among Catholics. Why a taboo? Because pious Catholics do not relish being forced to observe that to say the least the Antimodernist spirit and program of the glorious Pope St Pius X were not well served by one or more of his successors. And getting to the truth about Cardinal Rampolla leads to getting to the truth about the whole catastrophe of resurgent Modernism in the period between the death of the thrice blessed Pope St Pius and the start of Vatican II.