Editor’s Note: John L. Allen Jr. is CNN’s senior Vatican analyst and senior correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter.
Benedict XVI not stepping down under pressure from 'gay lobby,' Allen says
Allen: Benedict is a man who prefers the life of the mind to the nuts and bolts of government
However, he says, much of the pope's time has been spent putting out fires
Suffice it to say that of all possible storylines to emerge, heading into the election of a new pope, sensational charges of a shadowy “gay lobby” (possibly linked to blackmail), whose occult influence may have been behind the resignation of Benedict XVI, would be right at the bottom of the Vatican’s wish list.
Proof of the Vatican’s irritation came with a blistering statement Saturday complaining of “unverified, unverifiable or completely false news stories,” even suggesting the media is trying to influence the papal election.
Two basic questions have to be asked about all this. First, is there really a secret dossier about a network of people inside the Vatican who are linked by their sexual orientation, as Italian newspaper reports have alleged? Second, is this really why Benedict XVI quit?
The best answers, respectively, are “maybe” and “probably not.”
It’s a matter of record that at the peak of last year’s massive Vatican leaks crisis, Benedict XVI created a commission of three cardinals to investigate the leaks. They submitted an eyes-only report to the pope in mid-December, which has not been made public.
It’s impossible to confirm whether that report looked into the possibility that people protecting secrets about their sex lives were involved with the leaks, but frankly, it would be surprising if it didn’t.
There are certainly compelling reasons to consider the hypothesis. In 2007, a Vatican official was caught by an Italian TV network on hidden camera arranging a date through a gay-oriented chat room, and then taking the young man back to his Vatican apartment. In 2010, a papal ceremonial officer was caught on a wiretap arranging liaisons through a Nigerian member of a Vatican choir. Both episodes played out in full public view, and gave the Vatican a black eye.
Get our free weekly newsletter
In that context, it would be a little odd if the cardinals didn’t at least consider the possibility that insiders leading a double life might be vulnerable to pressure to betray the pope’s confidence. That would apply not just to sex, but also potential conflicts of other sorts too, such as financial interests.
Vatican officials have said Benedict may authorize giving the report to the 116 cardinals who will elect his successor, so they can factor it into their deliberations. The most immediate fallout is that the affair is likely to strengthen the conviction among many cardinals that the next pope has to lead a serious house-cleaning inside the Vatican’s bureaucracy.
It seems a stretch, however, to suggest this is the real reason Benedict is leaving. For the most part, one should probably take the pope at his word, that old age and fatigue are the motives for his decision.
That said, it’s hard not to suspect that the meltdowns and controversies that have dogged Benedict XVI for the last eight years are in the background of why he’s so tired. In 2009, at the height of another frenzy surrounding the lifting of the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying traditionalist bishop, Benedict dispatched a plaintive letter to the bishops of the world, voicing hurt for the way he’d been attacked and apologizing for the Vatican’s mishandling of the situation.
Even if Benedict didn’t resign because of any specific crisis, including this latest one, such anguish must have taken its toll. Benedict is a teaching pope, a man who prefers the life of the mind to the nuts and bolts of government, yet an enormous share of his time and energy has been consumed trying to put out internal fires.
It’s hard to know why Benedict XVI is stepping off the stage, but I doubt it is because of a “gay lobby.”
Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.
Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of John L. Allen Jr.