Just about everything you have ever read about gays in the Vatican is compiled in this article.
Even the accusations against Pope Paul VI. I dislike the tone of how the accusation is treated in the article, but I do recall the situation clearly.
The Catholic priesthood’s contemporary gay cultural memory begins in the middle of the last century. When Paul VI assumed the throne, in 1963, by one account he took his papal name not from any predecessor but from a former lover, a film actor. That at least was the contention of the provocative gay French writer Roger Peyrefitte, whose 1976 allegations about Paul VI caused such a stir that Paul took to the balcony of St. Peter’s to denounce the “horrible and slanderous” accusations. - VFThe author writes "Paul looked a laughingstock". I never thought so at all. I admired his courage in denouncing such outrageous lies. It was one of the many sufferings Pope Paul endured - even from those closest to him.
“Rumors are O.K., but not scandal”
The article perpetuates centuries of rumors - many of which may be documented and credible, yet without effect upon Catholic moral theology - in other words, homosexual behavior never got approved. I also think the historical accounts demonstrate there never was, nor is there now, a desire on the part of gay clergy to pursue any type of approval for homosexual acts or change in moral teaching, nor to establish any sort of gay culture as we experience it in secular society today. It seems to me it was mostly about lust.
Tales of gays in the Vatican have been told for more than a thousand years. Pope John XII, who reigned from 955 to 964, was accused of having sex with men and boys and turning the papal palace “into a whorehouse.” While trying to persuade a cobbler’s apprentice to have sex with him, Pope Boniface VIII, who reigned from 1294 to 1303, was said to have assured the boy that two men having sex was “no more a sin than rubbing your hands together.” After Paul II, who reigned from 1464 to 1471, died of a heart attack—while in flagrante delicto with a page, according to one rumor—he was succeeded by Sixtus IV, who kept a nephew as his lover (and made the nephew a cardinal at age 17). Some such stories are better substantiated than others. Even while their reliability is questionable, they demonstrate that playing the gay card (even if you yourself are gay) is an ancient Curial tactic. “There are closeted gay priests who are vipers,” observes the theologian Mark D. Jordan, the author of The Silence of Sodom: Homosexuality in Modern Catholicism. “They are really poisonous people, and they work out their own inner demonology by getting into positions in power and exercising it” against other gay men, women, and anyone whom they perceive to be a threat. “Alongside that are suffering priests who seem sincere all the way down, who are trying to be faithful to God, and also to take care of people and change the institution. They are the ones who are always forgotten, and read out of the story from both sides.” - VF"They may not act as a collective but are aware of one another’s existence."
The Vanity Fair piece is pretty much based on gossip and hear say - I'm not saying it isn't true - it seems fairly impossible to verify however. Anyone who has ever been in a seminary or monastery, or who has spent a lot of time around clergy, or who has spent any time in Rome, might know the stories are true. Gaydar is real.
One gay former priest, who still lives in Rome, describes clerical camp as “a natural way of expressing [gay identity] while celibate.” Socially, he says, it is “a key that unlocks a further element of trust.” There’s nothing earth-shattering about this—it’s what every institution does—but “the Church has a lot more experience and practice at protecting itself. As far as that goes,” he says, with a nod to Cole Porter, “they’re the tops.”
Where silence can’t strictly be kept, word games can compartmentalize the truth. In the Vatican office of a monsignor who I’d been told might have some firsthand knowledge concerning recent gay scandals in the Church, I asked, point-blank, “Are you gay?,” and he serenely answered, “No.” I replied, “I wonder, if a priest is homosexual—but does not participate in mainstream secular gay culture—could he say that he is not ‘gay’ and still think he’s telling the truth?” “What an interesting question,” the monsignor said, immediately standing up and gesturing me to the door. “I’m afraid I don’t have any more time to talk.” - VF
I knew that.
Post script: The Vanity Fair piece - true, partly true, or not true - is a smear piece. It is 'bar talk', gay-cocktail-party talk. The major give-away is the vulgar speculation regarding Pope Benedict and Ganswein. That's simply evil. Gay priests and seminarians have always used 'drag names' for other clergy they do not like. Likewise, 'functionaries' in Rome thrive on gossip. Once again I'm sorry I posted this - but just remember, gays will be gays and history demonstrates that they come and go, much like the plague.
The Vatican’s Secret Life - Michael Joseph Gross