X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

Features

Sex, lies and the next Pope

The present crop of rumours at the Vatican could furnish a dozen Dan Brown novels

2 March 2013

9:00 AM

2 March 2013

9:00 AM

In a corner of the Sistine Chapel, below Michelangelo’s hell, is a door to the little chamber they call ‘the room of tears’. Some painter-decorators are in there, frantically doing the place up. That’s because, in a matter of days, a new Pope will be led into the room. According to tradition, at that moment, as he first contemplates the magnitude of his role, he will weep.

A myth, you might think. But we can be sure that the next Supreme Pontiff — whoever he is — will have plenty to sob about. Since Benedict XVI’s resignation two weeks ago, each day seems to have brought yet more bad news. Scandal is swarming around the upcoming papal conclave like a Biblical plague.

There’s the poor old Scottish cardinal Keith O’Brien, who resigned on Monday after reports of ‘inappropriate acts’ with fellow priests. There are the two American cardinals, Roger Mahoney and Timothy Dolan, facing renewed accusations that they protected paedophile priests in their dioceses.

And then the big one: the theory that the real reason Benedict resigned was not ill-health, but because he was so appalled by the findings of an investigation he commissioned into the so-called ‘Vatileaks’ affair. The Italian newspaper La Repubblica has been publishing extraordinary claims that the 300-page Vatileaks dossier proves that Benedict was forced out by an ‘underground gay network’. Whispers of sodomy and bribery abound.

[Alt-Text]


It all sounds a bit Da Vinci Code. Top-secret files, a homosexual clerical mafia, corruption, vice, rape — always, allegedly, ‘at the highest levels’. There’s enough in the papers for at least a dozen Dan Brown thrillers. And Vatican officials are quick to insist that it’s all wild speculation; secular journalists either don’t understand the church, or simply hate it. But then, almost unanimously, they add, ‘That doesn’t mean there’s not truth in it.’

In fact, some priests in Rome sound even more conspiracy mad. Traditionalists whisper of a ‘homo-heresy’ at the heart of the church: those evil gay perverts are at it again. Church liberals, meanwhile, spy an ultra-orthodox faction at work: malicious conservatives, they say, have been disappointed by Benedict’s gentility, and are hellbent on replacing him with a hammer of dissent.

The Italians call it dietrologia, the habit of looking for something sinister beneath the surface. Navigate your way through the gossip and counter-gossip, however, and a more plausible picture emerges. Benedict, being 85, probably did feel too old to go on; but it’s also likely that his decision was influenced by the Vatileaks fallout. Gay gangsters don’t run the Vatican; but there undoubtedly are corrupt figures within the church hierarchy who seem to think the strictures of the faith apply to the laity rather than to them. Long before Benedict’s election, it was widely agreed that the Roman curia — the Holy See’s equivalent of a civil service, which runs on a sort of feudal system of patronage and honour, and is often compared unfavourably to the mafia — needed to be reformed. Even pious Catholics said that John Paul II, because he was so old and sick, had given the curia too much power. Insiders blamed the then secretary of state — head of the curia — Cardinal Angelo Sodano, who they said undermined the integrity of the papacy with his canny command of power politics.

Many hoped that Pope Benedict — formerly known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the enforcer, ‘God’s Rottweiler’ — would be the right man to stop the rot. But after eight years, even his biggest admirers admit that he lacked the political skill to be an effective administrator. Maybe he was too good to be good. He kept appointing and forgiving bad eggs. Rather than removing Cardinal Sodano, he made him dean of the College of Cardinals, where he still exerted considerable influence. A bigger mistake, perhaps, was to appoint his old ally Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone as secretary of state. Rather than improving the curia, Bertone is generally thought to have made things worse. Several senior figures urged Benedict to bring in another secretary of state, but he declined. The result is that now, even if not all curial officials behave like Sopranos characters, a sense of crisis pervades in the Vatican.

What does all this mean for the next papacy? One thing is sure: the Cardinals – however much they say otherwise – will have been affected by the terrible headlines. And as they gather in Rome this month for the conclave, many of them must think that the Pope has not been well served by his officials.

Rumours that Benedict was going to give all papal electors a copy of the Vatileaks report have now been squashed. ‘The acts of this investigation,’ said a Vatican spokesman, ‘remain solely at the disposition of the new pope.’ But even if the dreaded dossier is not openly discussed, we can be sure that it will inform the discussions of the men in red hats. They will be looking to elect a man who, as well as being a great spiritual leader and theologian, also possesses enough grit to tackle the troublesome elements in the curia.

That might mean they pick an outsider to shake things up — a figure from the ‘global south’ where Catholicism is growing, rather than a European. But most of the Vatican insiders and well-connected Romans I’ve spoken to have suggested the opposite; that only an Italian would have what it takes. And the same name kept coming up, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the president of the Pontifical Council for Culture. He’s thought to know where the bodies are buried and have the right combination of personal holiness, toughness and media savvy. (He recently tweeted that he’d been listening to Amy Winehouse. ‘A quest for meaning emerges even from her distraught music and lyrics,’ he said, which makes you wonder about his grasp of English.)

It’s foolish to play predict-the-pope, though, as John O’Sullivan noted in this magazine two weeks ago. Moreover, everybody agrees that the next Vicar of Christ should not be chosen on the basis of his passport. But the Catholic church remains quite a Roman institution, even if it is universal. It’s been 35 years since the last Italian bishop of Rome, and some say that’s far too long. In that time, the curia has become more corrupt, not less. ‘If you think of the problem as a typically Italian one,’ says one English priest who’s lived in Rome for several years, ‘then maybe you need to have one of them in charge to fix it.’ Italians are all too familiar with scandals, secrets and mafia-style conspiracies. They know when to cry, too.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close