Roma Locuta Est

October 5, 2023 (Steven O’Reilly) – Over the weekend, Archbishop Viganò released a video and transcript called Vitium Consensus. I was already thinking of commenting in some way on the video after working on my recent Dubia article (see my article, A New Set of Dubia: This time, a different Outcome?).  My decision to do so was confirmed when I received an email request, asking that I comment on Archbishop’s Viganò’s video.

So, I will give a brief recap, and then make a few comments on what I see as the strengths and weaknesses of his thesis. This article will assume the reader has read and or seen Viganò’s Vitium Consensus.

Archbishop Viganò at the outset of his video states (bold added):

“In this speech I will not try to give answers, but to pose a question that can no longer be postponed, so that we Bishops, the clergy, and the faithful can look clearly at the very serious apostasy present as a completely unprecedented fact, one that cannot be resolved, in my opinion, by resorting to our usual categories of judgment and action.”

Of course, Viganò is speaking of Pope Francis.  Indeed, his pontificate has raised many questions, and caused great confusion. So we certainly do agree with Viganò there is “evidence of a Bergoglio problem,” and that is to put it mildly. Viganò says his remarks are not an attempt to give answers, but to “pose a question that can no longer be postponed.” We will see shortly, that Vigano does in fact give the answer.

In a section titled “The Evidence of the Bergoglio Problem,” Viganò gets straight to the point (bold added):

The proliferation of declarations and behaviors completely foreign to what is expected of a Pope – and indeed in contrast with the Faith and Morality of which the Papacy is the guardian – has led many of the faithful and an increasingly large number of Bishops to take note of something that until some time ago seemed unheard of: the Throne of Peter is occupied by a person who abuses his power, using it for the opposite purpose to that for which Our Lord instituted it.

Some say that Jorge Mario Bergoglio is manifestly heretical in doctrinal questions, others that he is tyrannical in matters of government, still others consider his election invalid because of the multiple anomalies of the resignation of Benedict XVI and the election of the one who took his place. These opinions – more or less supported by evidence or the result of speculations that cannot always be shared – nevertheless confirm a reality that is now incontestable. And it is this reality, in my opinion, that constitutes a common starting point in trying to remedy the disconcerting, scandalous presence of a Pope who presents himself with ostentatious arrogance as inimicus Ecclesiæ, and who acts and speaks as such. An enemy who, precisely because he occupies the Throne of Peter and abuses papal authority, is capable of inflicting a terrible and disastrous blow, such as no external enemy in the entire history of the Church has ever been able to cause. The worst persecutors of Christians, the fiercest adherents of the Masonic Lodges, and the most unrestrained heresiarchs have never before succeeded, in such a short time and with such effectiveness, in devastating the Lord’s vineyard, scandalizing the faithful, disgusting the Ministers, discrediting its authority and authoritativeness before the world, and demolishing the Magisterium, Faith, Morals, Liturgy, and discipline.

Roma Locuta Est is no fan of Pope Francis. For example, this blog has taken on the arguments of the “Francis-apologists” (see Confusion at Vatican Insider?; The Confusion of the Francis-Apologists; Book Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia”; Book Review: “The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia” – Part II; Summa Contra Stephen Walford). So, it is hard to fault Archbishop Vigano’s critique of Pope Francis.

This blog has taken a fair, and open-minded look at pretty much all of the “invalid conclave” theories — hoping to find a “solution” to the “problem of Bergoglio.”  However, while I reviewed all theories with an open mind, a review of the facts has led me to definitively discard some of them as untenable, such as the claim Benedict’s resignation was invalid (see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”). See also my book on the same topic of Benepapism (see Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI). I will discuss Benepapism further on in relation to Viganò’s theory.

Other theories I have found more interesting, and where there are actual facts to look at.  These are included in my compilation titled The Conclave Chronicles.  Some of these I will discuss in a bit in relation to evidence of a “campaign” or “plot” surrounding the 2013 campaign.

Viganò’s ‘Mens Rea’ Thesis

At the beginning of his commentary, Viganò tells us it is not his intent to give answers, but to pose the question — though he does actually do both. The question alluded to earlier is not expressly stated; but it is whether the election of Francis was invalidated by a “lack of consent.”  Viganò says (emphasis in bold, added):

“…we must ask ourselves if the 2013 election was in some way invalidated by a lack of consent; that is, if the one elected wanted to become Pope of the Catholic Church or rather head of what he calls “our synodal church” – which has nothing to do with the Church of Christ precisely because it stands as something other than it. In my opinion, this lack of consent can also be seen in Bergoglio’s behavior, which is ostentatiously and consistently anti-Catholic and heterogeneous with respect to the very essence of the Papacy. There is no action of this man that does not blatantly have the air of rupture with respect to the practice and the Magisterium of the Church, and to this are added the positions taken that are anything but inclusive towards the faithful who do not intend to accept arbitrary innovations, or worse, full-blown heresies.”

Viganò asks whether the election of Bergoglio was “in some way invalidated by a lack of consent.” Viganò poses the question, and then answers it in the affirmative. Cardinal Bergoglio’s “…mens rea in infiltrating the Hierarchy and ascending its ranks is evident, just as it is evident that the plans of the ultra-progressive faction could not stop in the fact of Benedict XVI, whom they considered too conservative, and whom they hated above all because he dared to promulgate the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.”

Viganò proceeds to outline the plan of the deep church (bold added):

The fundamental question hinges on understanding the subversive plan of the deep church, which, using the methods denounced at the time by St. Pius X with regard to the Modernists, has organized itself to carry out a coup d’état within the Church and bring the prophet of the Antichrist to the Throne of Peter. The mens rea in infiltrating the Hierarchy and ascending its ranks is evident, just as it is evident that the plans of the ultra-progressive faction could not stop in the fact of Benedict XVI, whom they considered too conservative, and whom they hated above all because he dared to promulgate the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. And so Benedict XVI was pressured to resign, and immediately there was ready the unknown Archbishop of Buenos Aires. On October 11, 2013, in a conference at Villanova University (here), then-Cardinal McCarrick, Bergoglio’s longtime friend, revealed that Bergoglio’s election was strongly desired by a “very influential Italian gentleman,” an emissary of the deep state to the deep church: those who work in the Curia know well who is called “the gentleman” par excellence and what his links are with the power on both sides of the Tiber [the Vatican and the Italian Government], and they also know his embarrassing penchants that explain his close connections to the Vatican homosexual lobby. It is also significant that McCarrick said he was convinced that Bergoglio would “change the Papacy within four years,” confirming the malicious intention to tamper with the divine and unreformable institution of the Church.

Viganò’s thesis here is interesting. It does seem, to me at least, to be a slight variation of the question of whether a heretic can be validly elected pope. This is certainly a question that some raise in relation to Pope Paul IV’s Cum ex apostolatus officio, which would make the election of someone who had previously fallen into heresy invalid, even to the papacy (cf Cum ex apostolatus officio, 6).

I will not enter into a discussion here of whether this document is still in force, or whether it in fact applies. But, if it were to be successfully argued it was still in force, the question is, what about Cardinal Bergoglio? Assuming arguendo the relevance and validity of Cum Ex Apostolatus to this question, could it be shown Jorge Bergoglio was a heretic prior to his elevation to the papacy?  Again, that I leave to the proper authorities.

However, it is interesting to note that there are reports that while Cardinal Bergoglio was Archbishop of Buenos Aires he allowed Amoris Laetitia-like exceptions for divorced and remarried couples to receive communion — and this in contradiction to the expressed will of the sovereign pontiff of that time, John Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio (see Amoris Laetitia: A history of doctrinal development or of doctrinal dissent?). According to various reports, Cardinal Bergoglio allowed the priests of his archdiocese to give communion to those whom Familiaris Consortio 84 expressly prohibited it without exception (e.g., see Sandro Magister’s article: “The Man who had to be elected pope“; and the National Catholic Reporter’s book review of Paul Vallely’s Pope Francis: Untying the Knots; and Paul Vallely’s Newsweek article “The Crisis that changed Pope Francis“). If this is the case, then in light of Canon 751 was Cardinal Bergoglio committing acts of schism, if not heresy?

As a separate aside, there is a separate theory which suggests there was a defect in Cardinal Bergoglio’s acceptance of his election. The question here is whether or not Cardinal Bergoglio, as a Jesuit, was incapable of accepting his election, granting the election was valid, in view of his Jesuit vows.  Roma Locuta Est had looked into this question after it came to our attention via Jesuit circles (see Curiouser and Curiouser: Who Dispensed Jorge Bergoglio SJ from his vows?). If anything, this is an interesting angle, as even Jesuits appeared to have had questions. But I digress.

So, below, I would like to comment on some of what I see, at this preliminary point, to be the strengths and weaknesses of Archbishop Viganò’s thesis.

Evaluating Vigano’s Thesis:  The Strengths

The strengths of Archbishop Viganò’s thesis are readily apparent. It is difficult — indeed impossible — to argue that the pontificate of Francis has not been an utter catastrophe for the Catholic Church.  There is doctrinal confusion. Doctrinal undermining.  Doctrinal error. There are financial scandals. There are sexual scandals. Ad nauseam.  Indeed, Pope Francis has not acted like one would have expected a pope to act.  He has not confirmed the brethren. He continually confuses the faithful. One cannot be faulted for concluding that this ambiguity, ten years on into this pontificate, is both intentional and malicious.

So, what of the thesis that Francis’s mens rea was to undermine the papacy and the Church. Certainly, the effect of his papacy has seemed to be pointed to this end, if it were not his goal. There is also, of course, the evidence that the St. Gallen mafia engaged in campaigning for Cardinal Bergoglio, and that he consented to their efforts.

Roma Locuta Est has also taken a serious look at various aspects of the conclave, and there are certainly ‘oddities’ or ‘mysteries’ that certainly appear suspicious. We can’t go into all of the detail in this one article, but those interested may find this blog’s collection of articles on the topic in The Conclave Chronicles.  But, I have also produced a couple articles which each summarizes some of the evidence that supports a theory that there was some sort of plot; including one on Roma Locuta Est (see Five Questions about the 2013 Conclave for the Historical Record) and one at LifeSiteNews (see There are still many unsolved mysteries surrounding the 2013 election of Cdl. Bergoglio to the papacy).

These articles outline how at least one journalist may have worked at Cardinal Bergoglio’s behest to promote his candidacy. We also examine McCarrick’s role in the pre-conclave meetings, and his admission on the night of Bergoglio’s election that “we did it!” (see McCarrick on Bergoglio’s Election: “We did it!”) — suggesting to the source that there was a campaign.

We examined the mysterious “influential Italian gentleman” (see The “Influential Italian Gentleman”), and offered a very plausible suggestion as to his identity; a man with connections to both Cardinals Bergoglio and McCarrick (see The “Influential Italian Gentleman”: A Sant’Egidio Connection?). As a side note, the wording of Vigano’s Vitium Consensus appears to suggest, to me at least, that Vigano may know the identity of the “influential Italian Gentleman.” If so, I don’t see why Viganò should not reveal his identity, as this would only potentially help continued research and investigation of the events surrounding the conclave.

On the subject of McCarrick, we know the “influential Italian gentleman” had asked McCarrick to “talk up Bergoglio.” It was Roma Locuta Est that first discovered documentary evidence demonstrating that McCarrick had in fact “touted” Bergoglio prior to the conclave (see The Influential Italian Gentleman: McCarrick “touted the praises” of Bergoglio Prior to the Conclave).  Roma Locuta Est also first reported an eyewitness statement that McCarrick has exclaimed “we did it” when learning of Bergoglio’s election the night of the conclave (see McCarrick on Bergoglio’s Election: “We did it!”) — giving the source the impression there had been a ‘campaign.’

Roma Locuta Est also reported how the McCarrick Report appeared to cover up McCarrick’s role at the conclave (see Glaring Omission in McCarrick Report: What about the “Influential Italian Gentleman?”). Also, the same report did not discuss McCarrick’s meeting with Archbishop Becciu upon the former’s arrival in Rome for the conclave (see also The Rehabilitation of Cardinal Becciu: what’s up with that?; What does Cardinal Becciu know about Francis?; Becciu claims Francis wants him dead!). Roma Locuta Est finds this relationship between Becciu and Francis very strange.  We cannot help but say of Becciu in relation to the Francis pontificate, like Gandalf said of Gollum, “My heart tells me that Gollum has some part to play in it, for good or evil, before this is over.”

Then there is the curious case of Cardinal Scola,which is another “unsolved mystery” of the conclave as noted in my LifeSiteNews article. Scola was a close friend of Benedict XVI.  The Cardinal was considered the leading papabile going into the 2013 conclave. However, pre-dawn mafia police raised on the morning of the conclave was to begin splashed news headlines that could only have hurt Cardinal Scola’s chances in the conclave.  Was this just a coincidence?  (see The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ of the 2013 Conclave; The Forgotten ‘October Surprise’ (Part II): Cui Bono?).

So, the well known accusations of “campaigning,” coupled with the examples briefly listed above, certainly appear to point to a coordinated effort to advance and elect Cardinal Bergoglio. Whether these particular incidents, events, or happenings are simply innocent, or more than just coincidences, or rise to a level sufficient to prove, or contribute to a definitive proof of mens rea of an actual plot; that we leave to those in authority in the Church to ponder and decide. However, while each is odd, or suspicious in its own right, they do not in my opinion, either individually or collectively demonstrate the conclave was invalid.  In the section below, we’ll look at what I think are the weaknesses of Viganò’s thesis in more detail.

 Evaluating Vigano’s Thesis:  The Weaknesses

Above we have looked at evidence of things that Roma Locuta Est find odd about the conclave, or events or people surrounding it.  We looked at the strengths of Viganò’s thesis. Now, let’s take a look at the weaknesses.

[1] What does the 1378 Case of Urban VI and Clement VII Really Prove?

First and foremost, the doctrine of Universal Acceptance is a significant hurdle for theories claiming the election of Pope Francis was invalid. This argument would hold that even if there were any defects in the election of Pope Francis, that these would be healed by the peaceful and universal acceptance of his election by the Church. This has been put forward by many, including Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

However, Archbishop Viganò objected to the application of Universal Acceptance, at least in the case of Pope Francis.  Viganò commented on this in his video, saying (bold added):

Bishop Athanasius Schneider maintains that any irregularities that may have occurred in the 2013 Conclave have in any case been healed in radice by the fact that Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been recognized as Pope by the Cardinal Electors, by the Episcopate, and by the majority of the faithful. Practically speaking. The argument is that, regardless of the events that may have led to the election of a pope – with or without external meddling in it – the Church, practically speaking, places a time limit beyond which it is not possible to challenge an election if the person elected is accepted by the Christian people. But this thesis is called into question by historical precedent.

As the last line above indicates, Archbishop Viganò attempts to refute Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s argument of universal acceptance by citing the election of Pope Urban VI in 1378.  Months after Pope Urban VI’s election, it seems the great majority of cardinals regretted their choice.  Pleading they had voted for him under threat of the mob, they then proceeded to elect Clement VII, who is now reckoned an anti-pope.  Vigano’s point is, if Universal Acceptance is always valid without exception, then Clement VII should have been recognized as the actual true pope, and not Urban VI. As Viganò argues (bold added):

If universal consensus were an indefectibly valid argument for a pope’s legitimacy, Clement would have had the right to be considered the true pope, rather than Urban. Antipope Clement was defeated by Urban VI’s army in the battle of Marino in 1379 and transferred his See to Avignon, leading to the Western Schism, which lasted thirty-nine years. Thus we see that the universal acceptance argument does not withstand the test of history.

I, personally, don’t exclude there might be exceptions or conditions to Universal Acceptance that might yet need to be defined by the magisterium, but I leave that to the theologians to debate if even that is possibly the case with Francis. Still, there is something to remember here, which is: the whole Church did not accept Clement VII as Viganò clearly suggests. The claims the cardinals acted only under threat, apparently made months later, are certainly dubious — seemingly more of a case of buyer’s remorse, than canonical scruples.

But we need not even debate that.  The truth is, Christendom was divided between the two “popes,” as different blocs of countries supported the claims of the two men. Thus, one cannot argue Universal Acceptance in this case favored Clement VII over the true pope, Urban VI.  There was no obvious or apparent “universal acceptance.”  In fact, I don’t believe there is any such historical example to which one can point to support Archbishop Vigano’s claim.

There have certainly been many example of multiple papal claimants at one time — once as many as three.  However, no one is arguing that Universal Acceptance would mean antipopes might not or could not have parts, even substantial parts of Christendom and Catholic populations who would accept them as pope.  The point is, absence of universal acceptance might mean one thing in the case of multiple claimants; but if we see there is universal acceptance, then that is a sure sign we are dealing with a valid pope.  The case of Clement VII does not disprove the rule; and so, the doctrine of Universal Acceptance remains a significant hurdle to the “Francis invalidists” — precisely because we do see the signs of universal acceptance of Francis.

In addition, in all the prior examples where a valid doubt might be claimed as to which claimant is the valid pope; there were always two or more claimants of the papal throne. In the case of Francis, there has only ever been one papal claimant. If one raises the question of Benedict XVI, it is clear he did not claim to be pope after his resignation, nor did he contest the papacy of Francis. He left no written testament, no communication in which he claimed to have remained pope.  He left no last will or testament making such a claim, which we might rightfully expect to see had he been wrongfully deprived of the Chair of St. Peter.  It is clear Benedict XVI withdrew his will from holding the See of Peter, even as he stated in his Declaratio, i.e., that he renounced the “ministry of the Bishop of Rome” in “such a way” that the “See of Rome, the See of Peter” would be vacant, and an election of a “new supreme pontiff” would be necessary.

But, it might be objected, there might be some category of evidence that cannot be healed by an only apparent Universal Acceptance, and in such a case, the election could still be invalidated.  Personally, I would love that to be true, and for such evidence to be produced, as it would “solve” the current crisis. However, even if we were to admit the hypothetical possibility of such a category of evidence; the fact remains: that proof has not yet been found or produced, and its existence is only speculative, and hypothetical at best — and we would still need a future Roman Pontiff to adjudicate the validity of the conclave. So, regardless, and as regrettable as is the situation in which we find ourselves, we still do not have grounds to proclaim “Francis is not pope.”

[2] St. Gallen Mafia and “Campaigning”

With regard to the St. Gallen mafia, much has been written about its efforts to “campaign” for the election of then Cardinal Bergoglio. The main problem with this accusation, at least as I see it, is the fact that it does not appear to me that “campaigning” would invalidate an election, no matter how objectionable, or unlawful the acts might be.

Consider, the rules governing the papal conclave of 2013, Universi Dominici Gregis 78, which declares that even the great crime of simony would not invalidate a papal election (bold added):

78. If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.

We clearly see that a papal election is still held to be valid even though there are individuals involved who are guilty of simony and who would be automatically excommunicated for it, i.e., for essentially ‘campaigning’ with money or things, or office of value, etc.  If that is the case, how then can an election where parties “campaigned” without money, etc., be held to be invalid?  So, the point to observe here is, if campaigning with simony would not invalidate an election, how can it be argued a campaign without simony invalidate a papal election?

[3] Benedict XVI’s resignation invalid? 

Finally, in terms of weaknesses in Archbishop Viganò’s Vitium Consensus, I would draw attention to his references to those theories which claim Benedict’s resignation was invalid. For example, Vigano says at one point:

“Let us not forget that the distinction between munus and ministerium is arbitrary and that there cannot be a Pope who dedicates himself to the “ministry of prayer” and another one who governs.”

In terms of his argument, this seemed to me to be an unnecessary and counterproductive inclusion. His argument is the weaker for it. Respectfully, it smacked of “throwing whatever against the wall to see what sticks.” Perhaps it was an attempt at coalition building with all parties who have problems with Francis.

I view Archbishop Viganò’s effort as sincere, and motivated by an interest to act in accord with the Church.  However, unlike Viganò, the leading Benepapists have already decided the matter for themselves. For them, there is nothing to question: Francis is definitively an anti-pope. Indeed, many of the leading Benepapists have set conditions as to what a resolution to the crisis should look like. The Benepapists are not waiting on the Church to act, as is Viganò — no, the Benepapists are waiting for the Church to catch up to them. That is hardly an attitude that is conducive to finding a way out of a crisis; hardly making them good or responsible allies in the current crisis.

Now, leaving that aside, Archbishop Viganò in his video referred at least a couple of times to Benedict being “pressured to resign” or words to that effect. While Benedict’s resignation would be invalidated per canon 332.2 if he had acted under duress, we can say definitively he did not act under duress. Benedict XVI stated explicitly in his Declaratio that he resigned freely.  He also said so in interviews. No private visitors ever suggested he ever stated he resigned under duress. He left no such testimony, although he had the opportunity over 10 years to do so, or to get out a secret message out to someone. None of his closest companions, including Archbishop Ganswein has ever suggested his resignation was not free. Therefore, unless we want to call Benedict XVI a liar, and a coward, this theory must be abandoned — once and for all.

Then, of course, there are other Benepapist theories, such as those involving either Benedict committing a “substantial error” that invalidated his resignation, or Benedict intentionally creating a situation of a “self-impeded see.” These theories do not survive close examination. I go into detail as to why this is so in various articles on my blog, e.g., check out a compilation titled The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”, and also check out my book on the subject titled Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI, and also watch my detailed video series (see HERE).  However, for a high-level critique of Benepapism see my article on One Peter Five titled Whither Benepapism?

The fact is, the Benepapists have misinterpreted Benedict’s last audience (HERE), as well as other documents. They misinterpret those document they do use, and ignore those that contradict them, such as Normas Nonnullas, or when Pope Benedict XVI said at Albano that “I will no longer be supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church” just hours before his effective resignation (see HERE).  Even an appeal to a so-called Ratzinger Code is ridiculous (see Summa Contra Andrea Cionci, Plan B, and the Ratzinger Code).

Now, with specific regard to the munus vs. the ministerium, writers such as Ryan Grant and Fr. John Rickert, FSSP, PHD have demonstrated that multiple, authoritative Latin reference works explicitly state munus and ministerium are synonyms, and or have overlapping definitions. Fr. Rickert elsewhere points out that the Latin title of the Declaratio in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis uses the word munus: “Declaratio Summi Pontificis: De Muneris Episcopi Romae, Successoris Sancti Petri Abdicatione.”  This title may be translated “Declaration of the Supreme Pontiff on the abdication of the office (munus) of the Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”  Thus, the use of munus in the title demonstrates that the text below it, which uses ministerio, is to be understood as synonymous — and thus refers to the resignation of the munus.  In addition, Lumen Gentium chapter III demonstrates that a munus is a ministerium.  Thus, in the case of the Petrine munus, if one resigns the Petine ministerium, one necessarily resigns the Petrine munus (see Lumen Gentium Destroys Benepapism in Toto).

In summary, I don’t see why Archbishop Viganò felt compelled to bring in aspects of the Benepapist theory into a discussion of his thesis.  Doing so certainly appears superfluous to his argument. Yet, including Benepapist claims or associating himself with them, weakens his argument, and unnecessarily weighs it down with the millstone of an untenable theory.

Analysis

This article is not intended as criticism of Archbishop Viganò, and it is certainly not a defense of Pope Francis and or his pontificate. This writer has no desire to offer any such defense, as I share the concerns of many Catholics, including Archbishop Viganò, regarding the current crisis in the Church. I believe  Archbishop Viganò raises an interesting question. It is an important contribution to the debate – and is something to ponder. It will be interesting to see if any theologians, canonists, or prelates weigh in on it. I hope so. That said, I do not believe it brings us any closer to any sort of resolution of the present crisis.

I don’t exclude the possibility, albeit remote, that the conclave might have been invalid. The historical facts surrounding the conclave — outlined earlier — are certainly, in my opinion at least, suspicious, curious, odd, and even ‘mysterious.’ However, with the evidence on hand at this moment, I don’t believe it is sufficient to demonstrate the thesis, and the invalidity of the conclave.  Furthermore, as pointed out above, it is not clear how “campaigning” is any worse than simony — which includes both evil intent and evil, and criminal means.  But we know simony does not invalidate a conclave’s results. How then would a “campaign” without simony do so?

While the “mafia police raids” raise eyebrows about possible government involvement in hurting Scola’s chances (and thus helping Bergoglio?), and there is the possibility of Bergoglio using layman to assist his campaign (e.g., a journalist, and the “influential Italian gentleman); there would need to be additional evidence to prove these things are what, in fact, happened. That is, that there was actual collusion and plotting between Bergoglio/Bergoglians and government officials.

Yet, even if some of these evidential issues were overcome, we would still need to deal with the doctrine of Universal Acceptance. This doctrine remains a significant, if not an insurmountable hurdle.  Francis was elected by a conclave. There were no other papal claimants. No cardinal has publicly rejected the conclave.  No active ordinary has rejected the conclave. There is no large outcry from theologians, canonists, etc., against the validity of the election.  Despite how it might appear to many on social media, twitter, traditional podcasts, etc.; the vast majority of the laity accept Francis as pope. Indeed, as surprising as it may seem, the vast majority of Catholics are blithely unaware there is any controversy whatsoever.

The example of Pope Urban VI and anti-pope Clement VII offered by Viganò, under closer examination, does not provide a real basis to set aside the doctrine of Universal Acceptance. Even if we grant that Archbishop Viganò’s interesting thesis regarding Bergoglio’s mens rea is a possibility; that alone solves nothing.  Even if we were to admit the hypothetical possibility there is a category of evidence that might “overturn” Universal Acceptance in the case of Francis; we would still need a future Roman Pontiff to adjudicate the theory, and then the validity of the conclave. So, regardless, and as regrettable as is the situation in which we find ourselves, we still do not have grounds to publicly declare “Francis is not pope,” as some have.

Suggestions on How to Proceed

Therefore, this is how it appears to me. The case for an invalid conclave is, at best, inconclusive. However, the case that Pope Francis may have — to put it mildly and charitably — made doctrinal “errors” is more evident — it is a much stronger case. The case against him involving material “errors,” or worse would certainly be more easily documented and made than would be arguing a circumstantial case for an invalid conclave.

Thus, if some sort of action is to be taken, it should be on those grounds, the doctrinal one.  There have already been a number of dubium, and even some answers from Francis now. I think we are probably beyond the point of needing any additional dubium. If there ever were a time for a “formal correction”, it is now. What that ultimately means in terms of “warnings” or where it leads is unknown.  We’re in unchartered territory.  At the minimum, the Cardinals should develop a succinct statement or profession of faith which would be an aid to Catholics worldwide, as well as a prompt for the debate at the next conclave.

A future pope could then perhaps establish a commission of cardinals to investigate, and hear evidence on all the theories that are out there.  After that, the future pope could rule definitively on what Pope Francis really was — or was not.

All the above said, the reality is, while we have a few good, and brave Cardinals and bishops in this crisis, it does not appear that sizable numbers of other bishops and cardinals would rally to any bold action they might take. Consequently, I do have a sense that we are beyond the point where human actions or argument can recover the situation, or restore ‘normality’ to the Church. I have no special insights, but I do believe only Divine action is possible now to save the Church — and thus is on its way. We know the Lord has promised the Gates of Hell will not prevail, so His intervention is a matter of when, not if (see The Historicity of Miracles: The case of Julian the Apostate and a lesson for our time). Consequently, if this latter judgment is correct, then we are still, most likely, in the position outlined by Bishop Athanasius Schneider. That is, there is little we can do at this juncture, even in the case of a heretical pope — beyond praying, doing penance, remaining faithful, and receiving the sacraments.

Final Thoughts

We still need a future pope to set things right. Without professing any opinion on how all this will end here — though I have some views on that, there is one thing of which we can be certain; a resolution to this crisis will come in time—perhaps not in our time, but certainly in the Lord’s time.

There have certainly been times in the Church when Catholics could not imagine this or that could happen to the See of Rome. I recommend folks watch a fine homily found on the Sensus Fidelium site regarding a confusing time in the Church’s history involving the infamous “Cadaver Synod,” and the confusing back and forth at the time about the validity and invalidity of ordinations of this or that pope. It is well worth the listen, and it brings some needed historical perspective. [NB: I wrote an article on this same incident long ago for This Rock, see The Strange Case of Pope Formosus].

Then, of course, there was the case of Pope Honorius. As I’ve noted elsewhere, the case of Pope Honorius was not ultimately decided until some forty years after his death by Pope St. Leo II.[i] Furthermore, such an example, and others like it, should be a healthy reminder for Catholics that the ultimate authority within the Church to judge such matters rests with the pope. Thus, what the Church needs is prayer, patience, and prudence — and a new pope.

During the times of bad popes (Alexander VI), or erring popes (John XXII), or popes who favored heresy (Honorius), many probably wondered — like us today — how can this be?  We don’t know the limits of how far the Lord might ultimately allow things to go. We’re all confused, and bewildered by what is going on, but I think it is important to remember the Crucifixion. The disciples were bewildered by the arrest, punishment, and death of the Lord upon a cross.  Having witnessed His life and miracles first hand, and heard His words–that was not expected. It wasn’t “supposed to be this way!” they must have thought.  So, remain patient, be prayerful, and stay faithful — and await the glorious restoration of the Church.

Though a quick “out” to our present crisis would be quite welcome; my sense is, our lot is not to escape this crisis so easily. However, we were made for these times. So, by the grace of God, we have the “stuff” necessary both to long-suffer and persevere through them.

Let us pray for Pope Francis that he remembers the Lord’s words to Peter: “Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you like wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Steven O’Reilly is a graduate of the University of Dallas and the Georgia Institute of Technology. A former intelligence officer, he and his wife, Margaret, live near Atlanta. He has written apologetic articles, and is author of Book I of the Pia Fidelis trilogy, The Two Kingdoms; and of Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. (Follow on twitter at @fidelispia for updates). He asks for your prayers for his intentions.  He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com  or StevenOReilly@ProtonMail.com (or follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA or on GETTR, TruthSocial, or Gab: @StevenOReilly).

Notes:

[i] Pope Leo II in his letter of confirmation to the 6^th Ecumenical Council wrote: “We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, …and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.” See Chapman, J. (1910). Pope Honorius I. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved August 7, 2022 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm