Roma Locuta Est

April 29, 2025 (Steven O’Reilly) – [Updated 5/1/2024] The other day on Tim Gordon‘s podcast, he and Dr. Edmund Mazza discussed Dr. Mazza’s suggestion that a few conservative cardinals should get together secretly and elect a traditional pope. Dr. Mazza suggested the papal election of 1130 AD serves as a precedent for his idea.  I won’t rehash this nonsensical idea here again.  One can find my critique of Dr. Mazza’s suggestion in my recent article titled Dr. Mazza’s latest idea: “maneuver” or manure?

Tim Gordon returned again to the topic of the potential invalidity of the 2013 conclave on his show on Monday (See LiVE: Was Pope Francis’s Election Illegal?), and suggested that a small group of conservative cardinals should review the evidence from the 2013 conclave, in particular, a seeming violation of UDG 81; and, depending on their findings, proceed to elect a pope on their own, excluding any cardinals appointed by Pope Francis.   

Was Pope Francis’s Election Illegal? 

So, as the title of Mr. Gordon’s podcast asks, “Was Pope Francis’s Election Illegal?” Were there violations of the provisions of Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) provisions?  I certainly think that is likely there were violations.  This blog, Roma Locuta Est, has looked at a number of questions surrounding the conclave over several years (see The Conclave Chronicles), and identified some areas in need of more investigation.  Also, after the US presidential election, last November, Roma Locuta Est published something of an ‘open letter’ to President Trump, asking him to examine whether the Obama/Biden Administration made any attempts to influence the 2013 conclave or even the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI (See HERE).  The point here, I am not for closing one’s eyes to what may or may not have happened in the 2013 conclave.

I think the answers to the above are important, but by this point in time, we can neither reasonably hope nor expect that any result would or could nullify the 2013 conclave, and thus “un-pope” Francis.  This result is not possible. Pope Francis was universally accepted as pope — and thus we can be infallibly certain he was a valid pope (see, for example, Dr. Mazza, PH.D., and Universal Acceptance: Another Failed Argument). With regard to Benedict’s resignation, the Benepapists have neglected to consider that two things can be true; that outside forces attempted to include Benedict’s resignation (or the conclave), and that Benedict still resigned freely (see Pope Benedict XVI Resigned Freely).

So, why then would I favor an investigation?  Because if there was a plot by whomever (St. Gallen mafia, Obama administration, etc.) and smoking gun evidence of it is uncovered, this information would help the Church (1) punish any of its members involved in such a plot, and even more importantly, (2) this information may help the Church formulate potential safeguards to protect future conclaves.  Further, with regard to the suggested investigation of any Obama Administration activities related to the conclave, this would provide transparency for Americans, and also help guide political and intelligence reforms to keep the US government out of any potential future meddling in the affairs and government of the Catholic Church.

Were there violations of UDG 81?

The argument made by Mr. Gordon on his podcast and his recent X posts — but also made by many others over the years– is that the St. Gallen mafia cardinals plotted, and campaigned before and during the conclave to elect Pope Francis, and that Bergoglio himself consented to this effort. The evidence for this may be found in the first edition of Austin Ivereigh’s book on Pope Francis, the Great Reformer (see HERE). A second edition was required to edit out some very suspicious, indeed damning revelations.

I will not go into that evidence, as the point here is to address the argument by granting the accusation is true.  And if it were true, such activity by the St. Gallen mafia and Cardinal Bergoglio appears to run afoul of the provisions of the papal conclave rules, Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) . Specifically, such a plot appears to violate UDG 81, which reads:

81. The Cardinal electors shall further abstain from any form of pact, agreement, promise or other commitment of any kind which could oblige them to give or deny their vote to a person or persons. If this were in fact done, even under oath, I decree that such a commitment shall be null and void and that no one shall be bound to observe it; and I hereby impose the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae upon those who violate this prohibition. It is not my intention however to forbid, during the period in which the See is vacant, the exchange of views concerning the election.

Mr. Gordon argues that if the allegation is true, all the perpetrators of this violation would be excommunicated latae sententiae, and therefore their votes – and the election of Cardinal Bergoglio as an excommunicated conspirator – would be invalid. In other words, per this theory, Cardinal Bergoglio was never truly the pope, and thus all of his appointments of cardinals would be invalidated. In which case, the remaining cardinals who had been appointed by Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI could meet in their ‘own’ conclave and elect a pope without the Francis-cardinals being involved.

But, Is Mr. Gordon correct?

The short answer is “no.”

First, it is true that those guilty of violating UDG 81 incur an excommunication latae sententiae. However, that does not mean the subsequent election would be invalid. Consider, UDG 78 discusses the crime of simony in relation to a papal election.  This provision reads as follows (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.

There a couple of things that should immediately standout.  First, all those guilty of the crime of simony in a papal election all incur the penalty of excommunication latae sententiae.  So, that would include any man elected “pope” who engaged in this crime. But note, even so, UDG 78 explicitly says “the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged.”

Thus, we clearly see, an excommunication latae sententiae does not negate the validity of the election, even of a candidate who has incurred an excommunication latae sententiae. I would also point out that Church historian Dr. Roberto de Mattei recently wrote that violations of UDG 81 would not invalidate the election of Pope Francis.  Writing on Rorate-Caeli, Dr. de Mattei wrote (bold added):

“…in the constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, of Feb. 22, 1996, while not prohibiting that during the Sede Vacante there may be exchanges of ideas about the election, stipulates that the cardinal electors are to refrain “from any form of pacts, agreements, promises, or other commitments of any sort, which might compel them to give or withhold their vote to one or some. If this in fact were done, even if under oath,” it decrees ‘that such a commitment is null and void and that no one is bound to observe it’ and commits ‘excommunication latae sententiae to violators of this prohibition’ (nos. 81-82). The constitution defines the agreements as invalid, but not the election that followed them. The election remains valid even if illicit pacts were made, unless a very serious substantial defect emerges that compromises the freedom of the conclave.” 

[Source: “CONCLAVE: “For the Honor of the Church“, by Roberto de Mattei]

Apart from Dr. de Mattei’s view, the second thing to note is that the sort of violation described in UDG 78 (i.e., the crime of simony) is more heinous than that described in UDG 81 (i.e., campaigning, etc).  However, to engage in simony would also require the involved parties to engage in the same or similar sort of forbidden activities described in UDG 81, e.g., forming of pacts, agreements, promises or other commitments which could oblige someone to give or deny their vote to a person or persons.  These would be necessary to facilitate the simony. The point is, if essentially campaigning by ‘bribing’ one’s way to the chair of St. Peter does not nullify the validity of such an election, certainly the ‘lesser’ crime of campaigning without simony would not invalidate the election either.

But what of Canon 171?

Mr. Gordon in one of his X posts also cites Canon 171 to try to strengthen his argument.  This canon is as follows:

Can. 171 §1. The following are effected to vote:

1/ a person incapable of a human act;

2/ a person who lacks active voice;

3/ a person under a penalty of excommunication whether through a judicial sentence or through a decree by which a penalty is imposed or declared;

4/ a person who has defected notoriously from the communion of the Church.

§2. If one of the above is admitted, the person’s vote is null, but the election is valid unless it is evident that, with that vote subtracted, the one elected did not receive the required number of votes.

[Source: HERE] 

Canon 171 indicates in Section 1.3 that one of the categories of persons whose vote is effected are those “under a penalty of excommunication whether through a judicial sentence or through a decree by which a penalty is imposed or declared.”  Further, Mr. Gordon in his X post (see HERE) underlines Section 2 where it says “the election is valid unless it is evident that, with that vote subtracted, the one elected did not receive the required number of votes.”

Obviously, Mr. Gordon cites this canon and underlines what he does to make the point that those excommunicated latae sententiae in UDG 81 for ‘campaigning’, etc. were ineligible to vote in the conclave of 2013.  Consequently, the reasoning goes, if it could be shown that by subtracting these ‘excommunicated’ votes from Cardinal Bergoglio’s vote total in the conclave he would not have won the election otherwise, then Bergoglio’s election would not be valid. Such is the argument.

However, there is problem with the above analysis. The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (Beal) regarding Canon 171 and excommunication says: 

“…if it is incurred latae sententiae and has not been declared, the person is eligible to vote. Only when it has been properly declared or imposed does it render one ineligible…”[1]

This is a key point. While any violators of UDG 81 would have incurred an excommunication latae sententiae, these excommunications have not been “declared.”  And as the commentary states, “Only when it has been properly declared or imposed does it render one ineligible.” A declaration now would not retroactively make the election invalid.  Bottom line, even if we grant there were violations of UDG 81, and that latae sententiae excommunications were incurred as a result — including by Cardinal Bergoglio — all the guilty parties would  have still been eligible to vote.  Therefore, the validity of the election cannot be challenged on this ground. QED.

Final Thoughts

We understand the inclination to look into suspicious activities and or violations surrounding the conclave of 2013 to undo a pontificate that will go down as one, if not the worst in Church history.  This blog, Roma Locuta Est, has devoted a number of articles to researching the conclave (see The Conclave Chronicles). However, while our research has turned up things which seem quite odd, no smoking gun has yet turned up.

With regard to Benedict’s resignation, I originally began my research hoping the likes of Ann Barnhardt were on to something; however, it became immediately clear that she and other Benepapists were misreading the source documents, and making unreasonable and illogical conclusions.  Again, while I initially hoped there was something “there” regarding Benedict, my research led me to the opposite conclusion, as detailed in my articles (see HERE), my videos (see HERE), and my book Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI.

In sum, while I do believe we should look into the oddities around the 2013 conclave, we should not expect smoking gun discoveries to undo the election of Pope Francis. Rather, the more realistic view is to hope that any discoveries might prove useful in reforming rules for future conclaves. 

Aside from this, at this point, I do not believe it is helpful to continue trying to un-pope Francis. It is  not spiritually helpful, and encourages a schismatic spirit.  Plus, it’s not going to happen. The Universal Acceptance of the Church has “spoken.”  One is not helping Cardinal Burke and other conservative cardinals by publicly suggesting they elect their own pope in a small, secret conclave, or that Catholics try to “deadlock” the conclave.  To the extent these voices are ‘heard’ in Rome, it can only serve to undermine the good cardinals, making their supports appears “fringe.”

We cannot clean up Bergoglio’s hagan lio “mess” by making one of our own. Catholics will need to exhibit far more patience than seen in the recent suggestions of Liz Yore (see HERE), or Dr. Mazza (see HERE).  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] Beal, John P., James A. Coriden, Thomas J. Green, eds. New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, Commissioned by the Canon Law Society of America, New York NY/Mahwah NJ: Paulist Press, 2000. (p. 214-215)