Roma Locuta Est

April 24, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – LifeSiteNews published an opinion piece by Catholic writer Liz Yore, titled “Here’s what the cardinals must do to cleanse the Church after Pope Francis’ death.” I am an admirer of the work Ms. Yore has done over her career as an international child advocate attorney who has investigated numerous clergy abuse and human trafficking cases over her career.

That said, I believe the call of her article to be very much over the top, and quite unhelpful in this moment of history. Ms. Yore writes about the pontificate of Pope Francis, saying in part (bold added):

“Where is the outrage? The time is long overdue for the tables to be turned on Bergoglio and his mitered minions.

Crack the whip and chase out the sexual predators, their protectors, the heretics, the freemasons, and modernists in the Bergoglio St. Gallen Mafia.

Bergoglio’s infamous “hagan lio” (make a mess) managerial and doctrinal style leaves behind a Church in utter chaos, corruption, bankruptcy and doctrinal shambles.

Exhume this disastrous regime by root and branch, expose every cover up, unearth every damnable apostate, purge every predator, and reveal every secret buried in the ruins of this cataclysmic regime.

Before the first vote of the next conclave is cast, the Church must judge Jorge “Who am I to Judge” Bergoglio.

The cardinals must tighten their cinctures, steel their spines, break out their breviaries, and reclaim their muzzled and frightened voices, and turn over the tables in the temple.”

Unfortunately, Ms. Yore’s article is long on venting but short on making a case for any realistic recommendation with any plausible chance of being adopted by a single cardinal, let alone a whole conclave, or the episcopate. In the end, her article will more likely serve to only further rile the passions of those Catholics already excited to near schism by the purveyors of Benepapist and other “Francis is an anti-pope” claims. We have seen too much of this, and other sedevacantist tendencies. For example, on X this evening, I saw one Catholic writer suggest ‘maybe now is the time’ Catholics should (bold added) “…reject whoever emerges from this upcoming conclave so long as they adhere to the errors of Vatican II. No peaceful acceptance = not the pope.”

Among some of the claims Ms. Yore hints at in her article, and elsewhere in LifeSiteNews videos, is that Benedict XVI did not resign freely. We recently addressed such claims again in a recent article (see Pope Benedict XVI Resigned Freely).[1]  We’ve addressed other Benepapist claims as well on this blog (see  Benedict XVI’s Resignation: FAQ, Intellectual Honesty and the End of Benepapism and The Case against those who claim “Benedict is (still) pope”), and in my book (Here). 

But ultimately, that Pope Francis was a valid pope – however odd any circumstance around the conclave may have been – is clear from the Church’s universal acceptance of him as pope (see HERE).  Consequently, Ms. Yore’s demand that the Church or the coming conclave “must” judge Pope Francis before a new pope can be elected is, to say the least, mistaken and extreme. Indeed, Ms. Yore elsewhere recently appeared to even suggest that Catholics should ‘deadlock’ the conclave (see HERE)!

All of this is ridiculous, not least of which because most of the cardinals were appointed by Pope Francis. Aside from having to gain their agreement for such a sweeping investigation; they would likely be the ones running it! Surely that is a recipe for more controversy, doubt, and suspicion! That aside, such an investigation would, undoubtedly, take a great deal of time.  All the while, the Church would be without a pope at an important, crisis moment in history. Utter nonsense. 

Regardless, the cardinals and bishops have no authority to pause or delay plans for a conclave in order to judge the pontificate of a dead Roman Pontiff — something reserved to a new Supreme Pontiff.  The rules for papal conclaves are quite clear on what authority the College of Cardinals has following the death of a pope (bold added):

“During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the College of Cardinals has no power or jurisdiction in matters which pertain to the Supreme Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office; such matters are to be reserved completely and exclusively to the future Pope. I therefore declare null and void any act of power or jurisdiction pertaining to the Roman Pontiff during his lifetime or in the exercise of his office which the College of Cardinals might see fit to exercise, beyond the limits expressly permitted in this Constitution.” (Universi Dominici Gregis, 1:1)

Consequently, the election of a new Supreme Pontiff is the first order of business. Only then can any official, Church-initiated inquiry begin into the sorts of things demanded by Ms. Yore, but even then, only at the expressed will of the new Roman Pontiff.

But until then, at no time should we act as lawless laity making such demands –nor create the impression that we can; nor suggesting the “deadlocking” of a conclave under the pretense of combatting a lawless pope.  

Now, by no means, do I wish to defend the pontificate of Pope Francis. Readers of this wee humble, Lilliputian blog, Roma Locuta Est, know where we have stood with respect to the pontificate of Pope Francis, and the many controversies that have arisen during the course of it, e.g., the debate over Amoris Laetitia (e.g., Summa Contra the Francis-Apologists), answers to various dubia (e.g., A New Set of Dubia: This time, a different Outcome?; Dubium: ‘Are you a heretic, yes or no?’), the Scalfari interviews (e.g., Why blame Scalfari?), the Abu Dhabi document, capital punishment (e.g., More Papal Confusion: Footnoting Francis throws his predecessors under the bus), etc. 

But my point is only: we cannot clean up Bergoglio’s hagan lio “mess” by making one of our own. Catholics will need to exhibit far more patience than evidenced in Ms. Yore’s article.  As I have pointed out before, many times, that forty years elapsed, and nine popes reigned between the death of Pope Honorius until Pope St. Leo II’s ‘correction’ of Honorius. So, a great deal of patience may yet be required of us. The Church and the hierarchy was instituted by Christ. We must ultimately trust the Lord.

In the meantime, relax. Be patient. Pray for a worthy successor of St. Peter.

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. Ms. Yore and others penned and signed an Open Letter dated February 20, 2025 which appeared on LifeSiteNews. This letter called for President Trump to investigate “potential involvement by the Obama Administration in the affairs of the Catholic Church.” I do not disagree with this suggestion. In fact, three months before this Open Letter, this blog, Roma Locuta Est, on November 15, 2024, published its own ‘open letter’ calling for that very thing (see President Trump, American Catholics Deserve to know – do something!). Again…three months BEFORE the LifeSiteNews “open letter.” My article paid homage to the original “open letter” – dated back to January of 2017 – which also called for Trump to investigate such matters. Ms. Yore, 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 this Lilliputian blog, Roma Locuta Est, helped provide the spark for the current “open letter.” However, even so, it is important to note, the point of my request of Trump was transparency. It was not my position any revelation could overturn Benedict’s resignation or overturn the 2013 conclave. Rather, the goal of my request was that any real revelation might inform safeguards against such interference for the future, both in the US, and in the Church. As I argue in another article (see Pope Benedict XVI Resigned Freely), two things can be true, i.e., (1) the Obama/Biden administration wanted and tried to influence the resignation of Benedict, and (2) that regardless of such attempts, Benedict’s resignation was still free. This latter article demonstrates why Benedict’s resignation was free even if there might have been plans to force his resignation.