Roma Locuta Est

April 5, 2024 (Steven O’Reilly) – Pope Francis has recently made some odd comments about the 2005 papal conclave which elected Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI. In that conclave, reporting has long suggested that Francis, as then Cardinal Bergoglio had received the second largest number of votes in the conclave, at one point reaching as high as 40 votes.

In a new autobiography, Francis claims he was “used” in the 2005 conclave to try to block Cardinal Ratzinger’s election.  Michael Haynes in a recent article for LifeSiteNews (see Was Pope Francis ‘used’ by liberal cardinals in attempt to thwart Benedict XVI’s election?) quoted Francis from his book as saying, “In that conclave – the data is known – they used me.” In Haynes’s words, and then quoting Francis (emphasis added):

The Argentine Pontiff continued, expanding on his statement that he was “used” by certain unnamed cardinals during the 2005 conclave to ruin the chances of a Ratzinger election: 

The move was to put my name on it, block Ratzinger’s election, and then negotiate a different third candidate. They told me later that they did not want a pope ‘foreigner’…

The idea was to block the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. They used me, but behind they were already thinking of proposing another cardinal. They still disagreed on who, but were already about to release a name.

This idea that Bergoglio was “used” by others in the conclave is apparently not new. George Weigel reported the very same theory as far back as March 14, 2013. In a Weigel article from that date for National Review, oddly titled “The First American Pope“, all the elements of what Francis has recently said about being “used,” knowing who used him, supporting Benedict’s election, etc., were all there. Therefore, it’s clear this recent Francis narrative about the 2005 conclave is not new. The question of course is: is what Francis said true?

Neither New Nor True

The source for the information appearing in Weigel’s March 2013 article was none other, it seems, than Cardinal Bergoglio. In his article, Weigel stated that he met Bergoglio in May 2012 (“the hour I spent with the archbishop of Buenos Aires and future pope last May…”). Weigel writes “Cardinal Bergoglio was used in 2005; he knows precisely who used him and why.” Weigel goes on to explain how Bergoglio says he was used (emphasis added):

“Then, when Ratzinger blew past Martini with almost 50 percent of the vote on what was assumed to be the “courtesy” first ballot (where some votes are cast as gestures of friendship, esteem, etc.), and subsequently went over 50 percent the following morning, the panic intensified. Martini was summarily abandoned (or may have told his supporters to forget it). The progressives then tried to advance Cardinal Bergoglio — who was very much part of the pro-Ratzinger coalition; who embodied “dynamic orthodoxy,” just like John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger; who had been persecuted by his more theologically and politically left-leaning Jesuit brethren after his term as Jesuit provincial in Argentina (they exiled him to northern Argentina, where he taught high-school chemistry until rescued by John Paul II and eventually made archbishop of Buenos Aires); and who was doubtless appalled by the whole exercise on his putative behalf.

It was a last-ditch blocking move, perhaps constructed around the idea that a Third World candidate like Bergoglio would peel off votes from Ratzinger. In any event, it was a complete misreading of the 2005 conclave’s dynamics and a cynical use of Bergoglio, who would almost certainly have been abandoned had the stratagem worked — and it failed miserably.

Thus it may be safely assumed that the coalition that quickly solidified and swiftly elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in 2013 had little or nothing to do with the eminent cabal that tried to use him in 2005. Pope Francis was elected for who he is, not for taking the silver medal eight years ago.”

There are several gems in Weigel’s commentary above.  First, is the last bit about it being “safely assumed that the coalition that quickly solidified and swiftly elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope in 2013 had little or nothing to do with the eminent cabal that tried to use him in 2005“!!!!   With all due respect to Weigel,  this comment is laughable. I am sure there are many readers of this article who just spit out their coffee onto their computer screens upon reading this.

The reality is quite the contrary. We do know an “eminent cabal” — the St. Galen mafia — had everything to do with Bergoglio’s election in 2013, and we know they supported Bergoglio in 2005. Mr. Weigel may be forgiven for his optimistic analysis as he wrote this line back in March 2013, just after Bergoglio’s election. Mr. Weigel is a good guy…I imagine he’d cringe to read that line today, now having the benefit of hindsight,

The nugget above, was Weigel’s own analysis. However, other interesting bits in the excerpt above must be sourced to Bergoglio himself. What did Bergoglio want Weigel to believe as far back as May 2012 when they met?  Well, Bergoglio portrayed himself to Weigel as one “who was very much part of the pro-Ratzinger coalition; who embodied “dynamic orthodoxy,” just like John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger.” Again, upon hearing this, the reader may have spit out more coffee onto their screen.

Obviously, this was not the case in reality as latter events demonstrate. Many Catholics would wince upon hearing the word “orthodoxy”, dynamic or not, being used in the same sentence with the name “Bergoglio” or “Francis” in light of so many controversies over the course of his pontificate, e.g., Amoris Laetitia, Abu Dhabi, Fiducia Supplicans, Traditiones Custodes, Pachamama, “the synod on synodality”, etc.

But, the important thing to remember here is, this is what Bergoglio wanted to portray to Weigel in May 2012 — i.e., the year before his own election. So, Bergoglio was clearly trying to position himself and his candidacy for the next conclave, whenever it came. He wanted to (1) be seen as in the camp of John Paul II, and Benedict XVI; and (2) he wanted to be seen as being distant from the “cabal” that worked against Benedict’s election, i.e., Martini and what we now call the St. Gallen mafia, and (3) wanting to appear as not wanting to be pope, i.e., wanting to appear humble.

Consequently, as history has shown us, this was all an act to appear to be something of a ‘conservative’ to conservative Cardinals, i.e., one who felt used by a progressive “cabal” in 2005. Yet, at the same time, Bergoglio, through his close ties to Cardinal Daneels and the St. Gallen mafia, could count on the very same progressive cabal to support him. In a way, this recalls St. Paul‘s line, “I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible” (1 Cor. 9:19). However, in the case of Bergoglio positioning himself for the next conclave, this was turned on its head, becoming ‘I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many votes as possible.’

So, it seems, Francis is now only echoing the same story he has used since the 2005 conclave. He can’t change his story now because it has been out too long. He is now only burnishing his ‘legacy’, and the narrative of himself as the humble, “aw. shucks me?” cardinal who didn’t want to be pope, when the reporting by the likes of Henry Sire (see his book, The Dictator Pope) and elsewhere (e.g., The Conclave Chronicles) demonstrate this is simply not the case.

Did progressive cardinals use Bergoglio, or did he use them?

Michael Haynes in his aforementioned LifeSite article cites a conversation with Henry Sire, author of the excellent book The Dictator Pope. Haynes wrote (emphasis added):

But speaking to LifeSiteNews, Sire took issue with the claims made by Francis in the preview chapter of the new book. While stating that Cardinal Bergoglio did not enter the 2005 conclave with a thought of becoming pope, Sire suggested that “it is another question how he responded when a strong group began to put him forward.”

Quoting a line from his own book about the 2013 conclave, Sire stated: “‘The liberal cardinals thought that they were using Bergoglio; it is more likely that he was using them.’ The same judgment is applicable, with due adjustment, to 2005.”

Sire had done extensive research and provided a detailed look at Bergoglio in his book, The Dictator Pope, and based on that, his assessment is that while “liberal cardinals” may have thought they were using Bergoglio, “it is more likely that he was using them.” What Sire suggests certainly appears to be the case. For example, we have already seen that then-Cardinal Bergoglio’s attempted to portray himself following the 2005 conclave as having been something of Ratzingerian in the 2005 conclave; and claiming to have been ill-used in 2005 by the very same “cabal” that was instrumental in his election in 2013!  One could reasonably conclude the the then-Cardinal Bergoglio was the one using, and manipulating various factions for his own end. His election as pope.

But there are other hints of manipulation by Bergoglio in the 2013 conclave, such as his meeting with vaticanisti journalists, such as Andrea Tornielli, on his first night in Rome when he arrived for Benedict’s last audience; followed closely by the appearance of a favorable article written by Tornielli on Bergoglio’s candidacy, just in time for all the cardinals to read (see HERE). There is also his likely hand in sending the “Influential Italian Gentleman” to convince the influential, now ex-Cardinal McCarrick to campaign for him in the pre-conclave meetings (see Here, HERE, HERE, and HERE).  Also see my article on the mysteries of the 2013 conclave in an article I did for LifeSiteNews on various unsolved ‘mysteries’ of the 2013 conclave.

The Vote Tally Mystery of the 2005 Conclave

One mystery about the 2005 conclave involves reports that Cardinal Martini — a founding member of the St. Gallen mafia, the purpose of which was to oppose Cardinal Ratzinger — actually threw his own support and the votes supporting him to back Cardinal Ratzinger’s election.  Apparently the story is that Martini, wanting to prevent an unacceptable third party “curial cardinal” candidate from defeating both he and Ratzinger, hoped to reach a tacit agreement with the future Pope Benedict XVI.

It has been reported that Martini offered Ratzinger his support. In return, Martini suggested to then Cardinal Ratzinger that if Ratzinger failed to reform the curia as pope, then Benedict should resign at some future point. According to reporting based on the account of Fr. Silvano Fausti, a close associate of Cardinal Martini (Emphasis added):

…Martini apparently handed his votes over to Ratzinger in order to avoid “foul play” which attempted to eliminate both in order to elect “a thoroughly obsequious member of the Curia, who didn’t make it”. According to Fausti, Ratzinger and Martini “had more votes, Martini a few more” than Ratzinger. There had apparently been a scheme to elect a Curia cardinal. “Once the ploy had been unveiled, Martini went to Ratzinger in the evening and said to him: tomorrow, you agree to become Pope with my votes… He said to him: you accept, you have been in the Curia for 30 years and you are intelligent and honest: if you manage to reform the Curia great, if not, you step down.” (Source: La Stampa, July 18, 2015, Martini: Benedict XVI’s resignation and the 2005 Conclave)

If the above is true, we see that Cardinal Martini offered a tacit agreement, suggesting in effect that ‘I will throw my support to your election as pope on the condition you reform the corrupt curia…but if you fail, you are to resign.’

However, the vote tally in Fausti’s account seems to suggest this meeting occurred on the evening of day one of the conclave, following the first ballot. This is so because some reporting suggests Martini had more votes than Ratzinger on the first ballot. According to a report in the Italian newspaper Il Messagero, Cardinal Martini received 40 votes on the first ballot, while Ratzinger obtained 38 votes (see HERE, and HERE).  The only other time that makes sense for this meeting would have been on the evening of day two, following the third ballot. This would have been the moment Martini offered to throw the election to Ratzinger. But if that is the case, surely Martini’s vote tally could not be what Fausti suggests, only one ballot away from a victory by Cardinal Ratzinger.

To complicate things, there is another account of the progress of the voting in the 2005 conclave.  This other account is based on a supposed diary of an unnamed cardinal that was discovered after the conclave (see HERE). For example, one account suggests that on the first ballot, Ratzinger received 47 votes, while Martini was third with 9; while Bergoglio received 10 votes (see HERE). Weigel’s account discussed above, probably based on this diary, is consistent with this tally.

Let’s take a look at the voting tallies based on the diary.  I put together the table below based on data found in wikipedia’s article on the 2005 conclave (see HERE; HERE).

As a point of clarification.  Pope John Paul II’s conclave rules (Universi Dominici Gregis) required a two thirds majority to elect a pope (UDG 70).  This would require any candidate to reach 77 votes.  However, if the conclave went on for a long period without reaching the required two thirds, the rule allowed for a pope to be elected by a simple majority (UDG 75). The point here is, if a faction had secured support of a simple majority for its candidate, the faction could adopt a strategy of just waiting for the conditions of UDG 75 to kick in, which would then allow them to elect their candidate as pope with their simple majority

The above is an important point when we consider both Bergoglio’s and the Martini’s (via Fausti) accounts. Assuming the unnamed cardinal’s diary is bona fide and his tally accurate; as the table indicates, although Ratzinger had not achieved the required two-thirds majority on the second ballot, he had surpassed the simple majority needed to eventually win the papacy– all his supporters needed to do was to hold on (cf UDG 75).

And we see that by the third ballot, Ratzinger’s total had grown to 72 votes, only 5 votes shy of a two-thirds majority. We see that Bergoglio reached his high-water mark of 40 votes on the 3rd ballot, but we also see Martini’s support had evaporated to zero as early as the 2nd ballot. So, if we assume the diary is real and accurate, then Fausti’s account — as far as the vote tally goes at least — is inconsistent with the diary’s tally. That is, if  Martini had met with Ratzinger, he had less voting clout than Fausti’s account suggests. That is not say that something like what Fausti suggests could not have happened; but only that it would seem Martini was offering Benedict the help to get at least the 5 extra votes needed to be elected with a two-thirds majority.

Which of these widely divergent tallies is more likely true?  Who knows. What we do know is, whatever the ultimate origin of these vote tallies, both cannot be true, and it is possible neither of them is true. That they are so widely divergent seems to suggest fabrication of at least one of the accounts at its origin; that or something got seriously garbled in the retelling. I am not suggesting anything regarding Fr. Fausti, as his understanding must have been informed by what Cardinal Martini told him. I’ll return to this further below.

My hunch is, the diary is probably closer to the mark. It was discovered in 2005. If it was wildly inaccurate, that would have probably come out in leaks from cardinals who were there, and knew better. Consequently, given this tally is probably the real one, I do wonder if there was an agenda in its “discovery”.  Certainly, there was a benefit to Bergoglio for his second place finish to be memorialized and publicized for future cardinals who would attend the next the conclave; i.e., they would know he is a credible papal candidate, having come in second at the 2005 conclave. So, given Bergoglio’s M.O., I do wonder if ultimately he was behind the leak of the diary in some way. Regardless, he certainly benefited from it, as it enhanced his credibility as a candidate going into the next conclave

Martini, Bergoglio and Manipulation

While Fausti’s account of the tallies seems to have been wrong, the core of his story which he received from Cardinal Martini was probably true. Perhaps Martini, fudged the numbers, for some reason. Perhaps to avoid breaking conclave secrecy, and or to give himself some plausible deniability? But, as reported in Julia Meloni’s book on The St. Gallen mafia, there does indeed appear reason to believe there was a discussion between Martini and Ratzinger, and it was speculated that Martini was seeking some sort of deal with Ratzinger (see p.22). But in Meloni’s reporting, one thesis is, that Martini feared Ratzinger would withdraw his candidacy if he could not obtain a two-thirds majority, not wanting to win by a simple majority; and thus Benedict might throw his support to Cardinal Ruini.  Ms. Meloni’s reporting suggested Martini feared a Ruini papacy even more than a Ratzinger papacy, and it was this fear that led him to possibly throw his support to Ratzinger (see p.22).

Now, about this “offer.” Fausti’s account suggests the Cardinal Martini offered to throw his support to Ratzinger, allegedly, to block a “scheme” to elect an unnamed “curial cardinal,” whereas as Bergoglio told Weigel, he was “used” in a scheme to block Ratzinger, and only then would the “cabal” propose a compromise candidate between Ratzinger and Bergoglio. So, here too, the accounts, taken on their face, seem contradictory. Further, Bergoglio’s account seems improbable on its face given his unbelievable self-portrayal of himself as a supposed ally of Ratzinger and John Paul II. This makes no sense. If Bergoglio was a seeming carbon copy of Ratzinger, how could the “cabal” hope to find a satisfactory progressive as a plausible compromise? It is absurd.

In this light, leaving out his seemingly inaccurate vote tallies, Fausti’s account of the conclave machinations seems the more plausible and closer to the mark, in my opinion, and it is consistent with evidence adduced in Meloni’s book on the St. Gallen mafia. Consider the following.

After the second ballot, Ratzinger had already achieved a simple majority, and his faction needed only to hold out for the rules of UDG to play out in order to win the papacy. By the third ballot, Benedict was only 5 votes away from an outright two-thirds majority victory.  Thus, the St. Gallen mafia, personified in Martini, could see the handwriting on the wall — they were going to lose.  Their effort to win the papacy, resulted in them holding only a lemon.  Thus, they did all that they could do in such a situation.  That is, they took their lemon, and tried to make “lemonade”, i.e., they suggested the best and only deal they could.

Thus, it makes sense that Martini would approach Ratzinger after the third ballot, when he was just short of a two-thirds majority, on the pretext of stopping the rise of a candidacy of a corrupt “curial cardinal.” Martini’s offer to support Ratzinger appears magnanimous, and seemingly motivated by the good of the Church. In return for this offer of support, Martini tried to turn Benedict into a transitional pope — just as Bergoglio said he was! — by suggesting to Ratzinger that he should “step down” if he failed to reform the curia.

Who was this unnamed “curial cardinal”?  Looking at the tallies in the chart above, there doesn’t appear to have been any credible candidate. My guess is, Martini was bluffing. Though he does not appear to have told Fausti who he had in mind as the “curial candidate”, given the context seems to have been corruption, my hunch is, he told Ratzinger that it was Cardinal Sodano, then Secretary of State–the subject of various corruption allegations. This hypothesis might have some support in the fact that Ratzinger replaced Cardinal Sodano about a year after his election. Was this part of his pact with Martini to reform the curia?

But as fate would have it, as I have written elsewhere (see HERE and HERE), the replacement of Cardinal Sodano with Cardinal Bertone may have served to undermine Benedict’s reign:

But the Bavarian pope rejected Sodano’s counsel and insisted on naming Bertone. By doing so he lost the vital support of most of the Vatican diplomats in the Roman Curia, yanked on the command of Angelo Sodano who fed the narrative that the pope had marginalized them by choosing the non-diplomat Bertone.

Just 14 months after becoming Bishop of Rome, Benedict XVI had made a major tactical blunder. From that point onwards his pontificate lurched from one major crisis to another, both inside the Vatican and on the world stage. After nearly eight agonizing years, he and his tiny circle of trusted aides were largely isolated. In the face of all this, the aging theologian-pope resigned.

(Source: Twilight time for the Vatican’s ‘Godfather’)

And when it came time for the 2013 conclave, Sodano was instrumental in supporting Bergoglio’s candidacy (see HERE). In light of the corruption in Rome now, it really is ironic that Martini and the St. Gallen mafia supposedly pushed the ‘reform of the curia.’ Was that call a real goal, or just a hammer against Benedict?

So, back to Henry Sire’s observation that “The liberal cardinals thought that they were using Bergoglio; it is more likely that he was using them.”  I believe Mr. Sire is correct.  Now, it may be that Francis’s supposed unhappiness with the ‘cabal’ that “used” him might be directed at Martini for bailing on Bergoglio’s candidacy in 2005 after the third ballot in order to make the best deal possible with Ratzinger, as suggested in Fausti’s account.

Then again, given Bergoglio’s history, one might perhaps entertain the hypothesis that Bergoglio himself saw the handwriting on the wall by the third ballot — that there was no plausible path to the papacy, this time. Thus, is it possible that Bergoglio — perhaps with the next conclave in mind — was clever and Machiavellian enough to have perhaps suggested to Martini that he offer the “Faustian” bargain with Ratzinger; that is, that Martini approach Ratzinger, and offer the IF-THEN proposition in Fausti’s account? That is, ‘I will support your election, but IF you fail to reform the corrupt curia, THEN you step down.’  And in so doing, possibly setting up a situation in which Benedict would resign at some point in the relative near future, allowing a new conclave which might elect Bergoglio.

Of course, we don’t know.  But, I wouldn’t put it past the then Cardinal Bergoglio in light of all we have seen, and learned about him.  And, as it turns out, Benedict did have problems with the curia, which was loyal to Sodano (also an ally of Bergoglio), and Cardinal Martini did go to Ratzinger by the summer of 2012, and suggested he resign (see HERE).

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).