Sandro Magister casts doubts on conclave leak
But there are errors in the diary that a jurist cardinal should not commit . . . . This major discrepancy is enough to cast doubt upon the reliability of the 'historical rigor' of the diary.
The rest of the text suggests, rather, that the 'intention' to publish it was a much more combative one: to demonstrate that Ratzinger’s victory was not at all 'plebiscitary,' that it was in question up until the last moment, that it was unduly favored by the fact that Ratzinger was the dean of the college of cardinals, that the time is ripe for a 'new' pope, perhaps a Latin American, and that Benedict XVI should accept these as limiting factors. (more)
I'll just note, the moment I saw that story, I knew it was bunk.
# posted by Jamie : 1:11 PM