Roma Locuta Est

February 27, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – This article responds to some of the recent articles and podcasts on LifeSiteNews related to the theory that Pope Benedict XVI resigned under pressure. I greatly appreciate that LifeSiteNews has published in recent months quite a few of my articles which refute various claims that Benedict’s resignation was invalid (e.g., see compilation here: LifeSiteNews Articles Debunking Benepapism). I had hoped this article below would be another contribution to the ongoing debate on LifeSiteNews where opposing viewpoints on Benedict’s resignation had been allowed for the last several months.  However, LifeSiteNews chose not to run the article below, which strongly takes issue with some of the opinions which have either expressed or echoed — in articles or podcasts — that suggest Benedict resigned under pressure. As the article makes a few important points not otherwise found in LifeSiteNews opinions or reporting, this is unfortunate.

Recently, an Open Letter dated February 20, 2025 appeared on LifeSiteNews, called for President Trump to investigate “potential involvement by the Obama Administration in the affairs of the Catholic Church.” I don’t have a problem with such an effort. Indeed, my Lilliputian blog, Roma Locuta Est, three months earlier on November 15, 2024, issued its own ‘open letter’ (see President Trump, American Catholics deserve to know – do something!), calling on the newly elected Trump to appoint a cross-agency ‘inspector general’ to look into a variety of Catholic-related issues, including any Obama/Biden activity surrounding the 2013 conclave, FBI investigations of traditionalist Catholic parishes, etc.[1]

Still, in this Roma Locuta Est ‘open letter,’ I again stated my view the evidence as argued in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI is clear. That is, Benedict resigned freely. With regard to the 2013 conclave, my view is, even if there is a “smoking gun” of US Government interference — or of any other country’s government – it seems to me certain that the doctrine of “universal acceptance” would come into play (see Bishop Schneider’s article, and my reply to Dr. Mazza) – barring an improbable ruling by a future pope to the contrary. Nevertheless, answers to certain questions are still vitally important, even if only for the historical record, and to clear the air if there are any unfounded suspicions, and or to inform precautions for future conclaves, etc.

The above said, I must disagree with various assertions or expectations recently expressed elsewhere by one or two of the LifeSiteNews ‘open letter’ signatories. First, there appears to be an undue reliance upon the former-Archbishop Viganò’s view of Benedict’s resignation. Second, the significance of the payment system shut down at the Vatican in early 2013 is grossly exaggerated. Finally, lost in the discussion of any necessary investigation is the fact that two things can be true at the same time. That is to say, even if it can be shown there was a plot against Benedict, the truth remains regardless that it can be demonstrated his resignation was validly and freely made. I will address each of these points below.

What about Viganò and a forced resignation?

In the last couple of weeks, there has been an uptick in articles and videos claiming or suggesting Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign. For example, former-Archbishop Viganò called for the new Director of the CIA to investigate Benedict XVI’s resignation. Some on LifeSiteNews have described Viganò’s call as a “bombshell.”

However, with all due respect, this really is not even news at all, let alone a supposed “bombshell.” Viganò has been calling for some sort of investigation for quite some time. Furthermore, the suggestion that Viganò might have inside information on a forced resignation is not plausible. The former-Archbishop Viganò has had the opportunity since the moment he published his Testimony back in the summer of 2018 to provide the Catholic world with any firsthand or secondhand knowledge he might have of a forced resignation. Given he has not done so after all this time, it is reasonable to conclude he is not in possession of useful information on the topic.

In fact, Viganò’s position over the years on Pope Francis has seemed vague and confusing. That aside, at least by June 2024 he was quite clear. In his response to the accusation of schism leveled against him in Rome, Viganò said that Bergoglio had a defect in consent in accepting his election. It was for this reason, according to Viganò, that Bergoglio’s election was invalid (see Viganò hops from one bad theory to another).

Then by August of 2024, only a couple of months later, in response to written questions from Taylor Marshall, Viganò offered a different theory, stating: “The resignation of Benedict XVI, due to the procedural defects and canonical monstrum that it produced [of two apparent “popes”], is certainly invalid”. [2] So, here, a “defect in consent” in Bergoglio’s acceptance is no longer the cause for the invalidity of his papacy. Rather, Viganò claimed “procedural defects and the canonical monstrum (monster)” of the position of ‘pope emeritus’ were the cause of the invalidity of Benedict’s resignation, hence making Bergoglio an anti-pope.

Consequently, in view of yet this second theory adopted in the span of a year – and perhaps now the adoption of yet a third (a forced resignation), one cannot be faulted for concluding that Viganò is only adding to the confusion in the Church and among the faithful. Viganò is undoubtedly an erudite man with a long career of excellent and faithful service to the Church. While his opinion should be welcomed and consulted on many subjects – it should be clear by now, the validity or invalidity of Benedict’s resignation is not one of them.

What about the Vatican ATMs, etc.?

Over the years, it has been suggested by some that Pope Benedict XVI was forced to resign by the St. Gallen mafia – a group of prelates known to have opposed him. Some have suggested financial pressure may have been brought to bear against Pope Benedict XVI [3] while others have suggested there were death threats.[4] However, these theorists have produced no “smoking gun” to prove his resignation was forced. All they have done is pose speculations and questions, and unfortunately, some Catholics have raised these to the level of established facts.

For example, the LifeSite “Open Letter,” among other questions, asks: “Why were international monetary transactions resumed on February 12, 2013, the day after Benedict XVI announced his resignation? Was this pure coincidence?” In a subsequent LifeSite article, we find the following statement by John-Henry Westen: “Right before Benedict retired, the Swiss banking system shut down. Right after he resigned, ‘Oh, it started working again.’” [5]

These questions reference the Bank of Italy’s shut down of the Vatican’s ATM and payment systems between January 1, 2013, and February 12, 2013. The questions as posed raise the doubt that perhaps Benedict resigned because of this ATM shut down. However, first, and notably, there is no indication in the many Seewald interviews conducted after Benedict’s resignation that this shutdown played any role whatsoever in Benedict XVI’s resignation. Second, the question itself ignores the available context which puts to rest the thought of an unjustified action or conspiracy in this shutdown.

Consider, this shutdown needs to be understood in the context of the long-standing problems and issues facing the scandal and corruption-ridden IOR (the Vatican bank), which has long had a tarnished reputation. For example, in 2010 Vatican bank funds totaling 23 million Euros were frozen “in Italian banks as part of a money laundering investigation.” [6] As another example of some of the issues, four priests were arrested in February 2012 and were “under investigation by Italian prosecutors on charges of money laundering related to accounts they allegedly held at the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR), better known as the “Vatican Bank.”. [7] Furthermore, even after Benedict’s resignation, the money laundering scandals continued. [8] In other words, it was not a onetime event. Even the Wikipedia article on the Vatican bank or IOR has several or more paragraphs on various money laundering investigations between 2010 and 2018! [9]

At the core of the ATM/payment system issue in early 2013 was Vatican compliance, or rather noncompliance, with international anti-money laundering standards, norms, and procedures. The Vatican under Benedict XVI had been trying to bring IOR into compliance with financial crime and money laundering prevention standards, dating back to at least 2010. [10] In June 2012 the Vatican was awaiting a report by a committee of the Council of Europe, i.e. MONEYVAL, on Vatican compliance with norms for preventing money laundering. [11] MONEYVAL is “the Council of Europe’s primary monitoring arm in anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism.” [12] It is important to note that it was the Vatican that wanted to be subject to the evaluation of this committee. This report, issued in July 2012 still found the Vatican only met 9 of 16 core recommendations. [13]

Come December 2012, there were still issues with the Vatican’s standards, which led the Bank of Italy to refuse authorization for Deutsche Bank Italia (DBI), which serviced the Vatican’s card transactions at the time (bold added):

“It is understood that Deutsche Bank Italia (DBI), which has handled bank card payments on Vatican soil until now, was refused authorisation by the Bank of Italy (BoI) to continue its activities due to concerns over the city state’s status concerning international banking regulations.

A source at the BoI, who did not want to be named, told the Guardian it had been decided in December that neither DBI nor any other Italian-registered bank should be granted permission to work on Vatican territory because of its failure to meet certain “preconditions” concerning, among other things, efforts to crack down on money laundering.

Electronic payments will continue to be suspended until the Vatican finds a bank to replace DBI – a task the Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said was already under way. He declined to comment on the reported cause of the suspension, saying only that he expected it to be “brief”.”

(Source: Vatican City tourists’ card payments stopped by higher power, The Guardian, Lizza Davies, January 3, 2013)

So, we see that the Bank of Italy had concerns over the Vatican bank’s compliance with money laundering regulations and standards. The truth is any institution partnering with another institution tainted by money laundering opens itself to regulatory review, investigation, and potentially serious fines and or criminal penalties. [14] As reported by Inside the Vatican in February of 2013:

“In a statement explaining its decision last month, the Bank of Italy said EU law prevented EU banks from operating in non-EU states unless they had an adequate supervisory system or were deemed “equivalent” for anti-money laundering purposes. The Vatican failed on both counts, it said.” [15]

The Vatican already knew of the impending shutdown in December of 2012, and was already working on finding a replacement service-provider. Indeed, the Vatican spokesman of the time said they expected the suspension to be “brief.” And indeed, it was. After six weeks, the system was turned on again. The Vatican had found another service provider from Switzerland – a company named Aduno – which did not require Bank of Italy approval because it was outside of the EU. [16]

The key thing to note is the following. It was the Vatican, undoubtedly with Pope Benedict XVI’s knowledge and approval, which found and contracted with Aduno to resume services at the earliest possible moment. In other words, there was nothing sinister in the resumption of services on February 12^th, precisely because the Vatican worked with its new service provider in regard to both the resumption of services, and the timing of this resumption. Consequently, this was not a pontificate-threatening crisis.

Two things can be true at the same time

We must be realistic as to the outcome of any official investigation, papal or Trumpian, should one be launched. It may very well be the case that an investigation finds “there was no plot against Benedict XVI” at all. In which case, we may reasonably suspect that diehard Benepapists would fall back on their default position Benedict XVI’s resignation was flawed for other reasons. Given we’ve addressed those arguments elsewhere [17], I will not do so again here.

However, given the subject of this article is focused on whether Benedict’s resignation was forced or not, let us consider the following propositions:

Proposition 1: There was a plot to force Benedict XVI’s resignation.

Proposition 2: Benedict XVI resigned freely.

Readers hoping to find proof that Francis was not validly elected pope might consider the statements above to necessarily be either-or propositions. However, this is not the case. Two things can be true at the same time.

It could potentially be true that the Obama/Biden Administration and or the St. Gallen mafia and or others acted covertly and maliciously; and wanted, hoped and tried to get Benedict XVI to resign. However, it could also be true at the same time that despite their ‘best’ efforts, Benedict XVI’s resignation was not the result of anything they did, and thus, was freely made.

Consequently, the Benepapists must not only prove Proposition 1 is definitely true – i.e., there was definitely a plot; but also, that Benedict’s resignation was the result to this plot, and was not the result of some other reason. In other words, proving Proposition 1 is true is not enough in itself to prove Proposition 2 (“Benedict resigned freely”) is false.

Here is why. For the sake of argument, let us grant the Benepapists’ speculations and assumptions that there definitely were third parties monitoring communications, that there were governmental actors, and or “deep Church” actors, etc., wanting and plotting Benedict XVI’s resignation. Yet, even granting this, there remains the insurmountable hurdle of incontrovertible evidence that Benedict resigned “freely.”

First, Pope Benedict XVI in his Declaratio specifically states the reasons he was renouncing the papacy, and that he was resigning “with full freedom” (bold and italics added):

“I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.

However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.

For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is…”

(Benedict XVI, Declaratio, February 11, 2013)

Benedict calls God as his witness – “…repeatedly examined my conscience before God” – and informs us that due to “advanced age” he no longer has the “strengths” suited to exercise the Petrine ministry. Again, in the second paragraph above, Benedict XVI says strength of “mind and body are necessary” to govern the Church, but he adds this strength “has deteriorated” to the extent he recognizes his “incapacity to adequately fulfill” the Petrine Ministry. Thus, having outlined his condition of weakness, he explicitly recognized the “seriousness of this act”, and explicitly stated “with full freedom” he resigns the Petrine Ministry.

Benedict gave his reason for resignation as being the lack of strength due to “an advanced age.” This was the cause of his “incapacity” to fulfill the Petrine Ministry. There is neither a mention nor a hint Benedict resigned due to pressure, coercion, threats, etc. Then, again, during a Wednesday audience on February 13, 2013 – the day after the resumption of ATM services, etc. – Benedict XVI repeated essentially the same themes, including calling God as his witness, i.e., having examined his “conscience before God,” and said he was resigning “with full freedom” due to a lack of strength. [18]

In yet another example, in an interview with Peter Seewald published in 2016 – three years after his resignation, the former pope again made it quite clear he resigned freely. Responding to a question as to whether the pressure of the Vatileaks scandal led to his resignation, Benedict told Seewald:

“No, that is not right, not at all. On the contrary, the Vatileaks controversy was completely resolved. I said while it was still happening – I believe it was to you – that one is not permitted to step back when things are going wrong, but only when things are at peace. I could resign because calm had returned to this situation. It was not a case of retreating under pressure or feeling things couldn’t be coped with.” [19]

In the quote above, Benedict is explicitly clear that he understood he could not validly resign “under pressure” or coercion. But he continued by saying he could resign because “calm had returned to the situation.”  And that is what Benedict did. In the summer of 2012, he had informed close associates, such as Archbishop Ganswein and Cardinal Bertone, of his desire to resign. However, he deferred any action until after the Vatileaks-related trial, which began in October 2012, was brought to completion, or as he said, when “calm had returned to this situation.” After the Vatileaks trial concluded, he appears to have finally set his mind on resignation by mid-December 2012. In the Seewald quote above, Benedict XVI disclaimed the thought that this was a “case of retreating under pressure.”

Moreover, during the period after his resignation, Benedict did not behave like a man who had acted under a threat or coercion, or who lived under a threat. Benedict as former pope remained in communication with old friends, colleagues, and well-wishers; and he received guests. Not one of them has ever come forward to suggest that Benedict either hinted he resigned because of a threat, or that he appeared to be living under some threat.

What seems evident, at least in retrospect, is that Benedict XVI always had in mind the thought of resigning at some point, or at least was actively open to the possibility. For example, in 2009, Benedict XVI  visited the tomb of Pope Celestine V, the only other pope, until Benedict XVI, to have resigned the papacy due to a felt ‘incapacity’ to fulfill the Petrine Ministry. Going so far as to leave his pallium – a symbol of Petrine authority — on the tomb of Celestine V, Benedict seemed to signal his intent to one day follow Celestine’s example, i.e., to give up the papacy.

And indeed, there were even earlier signs. Soon after his election, Benedict already appears to have had in mind a future resignation. Speaking of Benedict XVI, Monsignor Nicola Bux told an interviewer in 2023 (bold added):

“In February 2006, less than a year after his election, he asked the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts for an opinion on the possibility of the Pope resigning from the pontificate. Some theologians were summoned, including myself in my capacity as consultant to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Canon Law provides for resignation, provided it is done freely…”

(Ratzinger Code? Chatter, Rosa.Benigno, February 21, 2023)

So, already, less than a year after his election, Benedict was considering the possibility of his own future resignation. Furthermore, after his resignation, Benedict called theories that called the validity of his resignation into doubt “absurd.”

Finally, had Benedict resigned under pressure, surely, he would have left us some sort of “last testament” that spelled out what had really happened. He could have personally confided this information to someone, or perhaps secretly passed such a ‘last testament’ onto Archbishop Ganswein or one of his guests in something as small as a thumb drive. But no such testament has surfaced in the years following his death. [20] There is no such document, and there is no such statement precisely because Benedict XVI resigned “with full freedom.”

Consequently, it is clear Benedict understood he could not resign under pressure. It is also clear he said repeatedly his resignation was freely made. Consequently, even if there had been an as-yet-to-be-proven plot against Benedict, his resignation on his own testimony was offered for other reasons, and was thus truly free. In the face of this evidence, to still suggest that Benedict resigned due to pressure, coercion, etc., is to make him both a liar and a coward.

In sum, there is no evidence whatsoever that Pope Benedict XVI submitted his resignation out of fear or under threat or coercion, etc. Indeed, all the evidence we do have, as outlined above, is to the contrary. All those who insinuate the opposite can only offer pure speculative questions, and nonsensical “could-have-been” and “what-if” logic of the kind heard on TV shows like Ancient Aliens.

Final Thoughts

When I first started following the Benepapist claims back in 2017, I had hoped to find their claims of an invalid resignation were supported by evidence which could withstand scrutiny. I was not then, nor have I ever been, a ‘fan’ of Pope Francis. However, I was determined to follow the evidence where it led, and not bend to preconceived conclusions, or the passions of the moment. The track record of my research on Pope Francis and such matters (e.g., The Conclave Chronicles, Summa Contra the Francis-Apologists) shows, I believe, that I am open to honestly and fairly following the evidence. Indeed, doing so led me to the firm conclusion, expressed above, and on my blog, Roma Locuta Est, and in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI, that Benedict XVI resigned validly and freely.

As I argued above, two things can be true at the same time. That Benedict resigned validly and freely does not necessarily mean there either were or were not any conspiracies afoot. An investigation would be helpful to clear the air on this latter question. Consequently, as I publicly suggested last November, three months before the recent “open letter,” I would like to see President Trump appoint an ‘inspector general’ with cross-agency access to investigate a number of Catholic-related topics, e.g., the 2013 conclave being one, and the FBI investigations into traditionalist Catholics being among them as well.

With regard to the 2013 conclave, my view is, even if a “smoking gun” of US Government interference turns up — or of any other country – it seems to me certain at this point that the doctrine of “universal acceptance” would come into play (see Bishop Schneider’s article, and my reply to Dr. Mazza), unless a future pope improbably rules otherwise. Nevertheless, the answers are still vitally important, even if only for the historical record, and to clear the air if there are any unfounded suspicions, and or to inform precautions for future conclaves, etc.

But the danger in this discussion is the following. The leaders of the Benepapist movement have already declared that Benedict’s resignation was definitively invalid, and that Francis is definitively an anti-pope. Some Benepapists have set conditions on what the next conclave must do in terms of rules if they are to accept it! Others may reject any pope elected by the next conclave who afterwards affirms Benedict’s resignation was valid. Catholics should not trust or follow such ‘leaders’ who set any such conditions.

These leading voices of Benepapism, as we have seen, will not even wait for a judgment of the Church on the question. They have anticipated it, and are only waiting for Catholics to accept their position. Such is their pride. For that matter, they will not even temper the alleged certainty with which they assert their claims before a judgment by the Church is given. Even their public support of the recent “open letter” seems disingenuous, as they will, almost certainly, only accept investigative findings which agree with their positions, while rejecting any contrary finding as just another “deception.”

I continue to hope and pray that the Benepapists will stop confusing the faithful, and that they will depart from the schismatic path upon which they are treading, and down which they are leading others. There is still time to avert the schism to which these theories will inevitably lead.

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. He writes for Roma Locuta Est He can be contacted at StevenOReilly@AOL.com. Follow on Twitter: @S_OReilly_USA.

Notes:

[1] My article paid homage to the original “open letter” – dated back to January of 2017 – which called for Trump to investigate such matters. However, as I point out in my November article, Trump could hardly have followed through on such an investigation at the time because his administration was sidetracked by the “Russia hoax” from the outset.  Thus, I thought, given his re-election in November, this could be the right moment to pursue such an investigation. One of the signatories of the original “open letter” – and of the recent one – sent me an email in November 2024 thanking me for “resurrecting the old Trump letter” and suggesting it was thus “Time to dust off the letter, update it…”.  Consequently, it is possible the Lilliputian blog, Roma Locuta Est, helped provide the spark for the current “open letter.”

[2] See Dr. Taylor Marshall, Vigano interview, Part II.

[3] See https://www.atmmarketplace.com/news/bank-of-italy-shuts-down-vatican-atms-over-aml-issues/

[4] For reporting on such rumors, see Andrea Vogt, “‘Plot to kill pope’ sparks Italian media storm,” The Guardian, February 10, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/10/plot-kill-pope-italian-media

[5]  see WATCH: John-Henry Westen discusses Viganò claims about Benedict resignation with Steve Bannon, Liz Yore)

[6]  (https://www.reuters.com/article/world/prosecutors-consider-trial-for-ex-vatican-bank-managers-sources-idUSBRE96112L/#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20officials%20froze%2023%20million%20euros,great%20emphasis%20on%20cleaning%20up%20the%20IOR.).

[7] (see https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/roman-notebook-yet-another-vatican-financial-scandal). Just months after Benedict’s resignation, the money laundering scandals continued (see https://www.reuters.com/article/world/prosecutors-consider-trial-for-ex-vatican-bank-managers-sources-idUSBRE96112L/#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20officials%20froze%2023%20million%20euros,great%20emphasis%20on%20cleaning%20up%20the%20IOR.).

[8]  (see https://www.reuters.com/article/world/prosecutors-consider-trial-for-ex-vatican-bank-managers-sources-idUSBRE96112L/#:~:text=In%202010%2C%20officials%20froze%2023%20million%20euros,great%20emphasis%20on%20cleaning%20up%20the%20IOR.).

[9] (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion).

[10] see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eu-watchdog-gives-vatican-mixed-report-card-on-bank-cleanup-efforts/

[11] see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/28/inside-vatican-bank-silence-secrets-latin-cash-machines

[12] see https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/vatican-watch/the-moneyval-report-executive-summary-key-excerpts/

[13] see https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/03/vatican-city-tourists-card-payments

[14] see https://www.ft.com/content/3029390a-5c68-11e3-931e-00144feabdc0)

[15] see https://insidethevatican.com/news/benedict-steps-down/

[16] see https://www.finextra.com/news/fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=24545)

[17] I have addressed the Benepapist arguments in several LifeSiteNews articles, including  Why Pope Benedict’s resignation was valid: a response to Dr. Mazza; Benedict XVI did not fake his resignation: a response to Patrick Coffin; Here’s what Benedict XVI meant by ‘pope emeritus’: a second reply to Dr. Mazza; Anti-popes were never as universally and peacefully accepted as Pope Francis: Steven O’Reilly; Benedict XVI’s own words show that he really did resign the papacy; and on my Roma Locuta Est, see The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”; and in my book, Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.

[18] see  https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/audiences/2013/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20130213.html].

[19] Peter Seewald, Benedict XVI: Last Testament in his own words (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Company Plc, 2016), p. 23.

[20] see https://romalocutaest.com/2023/01/09/benedict-xvi-and-the-missing-last-testament/