Roma Locuta Est

April 14, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Benepapism, the mistaken belief that the resignation of Benedict XVI was invalid, is something of zombie controversy.  It’s dead but its adherents don’t want to believe it, demanding more sequels. The latest news on which the Benepapists are likely to pin their hopes is found in a recent LifeSiteNews article titled EXCLUSIVE: Vatican court confirms ongoing investigation into validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation.

A brief summary

On June 6, 2024, Andrea Cionci – the Benepapist who wrote the Ratzinger Code[1] – submitted materials to the Office of the Promoter of Justice at the Vatican which Signor Cionci believes proves the resignation of Benedict XVI was null and invalid. This apparently also involved an interview with the same Vatican office. Again in 2025, Cionci submitted additional materials to the Vatican office on February 13, 2025.

Then on March 26, 2026, Cionci’s lawyer sent a letter to the Promoter of Justice requesting “formal access” to the case. Presumably to review the file materials and or get an update on progress of the matter. However, on March 30, 2026, the Promoter of Justice, Alessandro Diddi, rejected this request.  A photo copy of his reply in Italian may be seen in the aforementioned LifeSiteNews article. An English translation follows:

Subject: Request for Access to Records and Information

The Promoter of Justice,

–  Having reviewed the request filed on March 26, 2025, by Attorney Robert Tieghi, acting in the name and on behalf of Dr. Andrea Cionci;

and considering

–   that the right to access the case file is not provided for during the investigative phase;

and further considering that

–  this Office is currently conducting investigations and that, at this stage, it is not possible to foresee when they will be concluded;

the request is rejected at this stage.

So, the Promoter of Justice has had the file open for nearly two years. This should be instructive as to what is really going on. Yet, the LifeSiteNews article wants to make a big thing out of this story. For example, the article claims (bold added):

“This is the first time the Vatican’s criminal investigative office has put in writing that Cionci’s multi-year claims have triggered an active investigation file on the validity of Benedict’s renunciation. Even if the investigation ultimately concludes without public findings, the mere existence of an open criminal case file marks a significant development in the ongoing debate over the 2013 resignation.”

So, LifeSite’s “exclusive” story is that the Vatican has an active investigation file, and “open criminal case file” related to the validity of Benedict’s renunciation of the papacy.  Does that really mean anything?

Much ado about nothing

Given I have written quite a bit on refuting Benepapism — including a book (Valid? The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI), a compendium of articles (HERE), a series of videos (HERE), and even detailed interviews (e.g., HERE); it should not be surprising I would comment on this latest story.

So, what to make of it? At the outset, I would state I am not very familiar with how the Vatican Office of the Promoter of Justice operates. A general outline of its background and authority may be found in canon law. However, my initial take is this, that whenever someone alleges some sort of wrongdoing to this Office, the Office will of necessity open a file. A decision to keep it open, or to close involves a preliminary investigation. This “investigation” says nothing of the inherent credibility of the case, nor the amount of effort — if any — that will go into the investigation.

In my view, it is not probable that the office will devote time and budget going line by line through Cionci’s material, following up and investigating each thread. The Church has already moved on from this controversy in a teacup.  Benedict resigned freely (see HERE). Benedict was not held captive. Benedict literally said in the Declaratio the see of Rome would be vacant, and the election of a “new Supreme Pontiff” would be necessary. Benedict literally said he would no longer be the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church (see HERE). Benedict has said that the title “Emeritus” meant he had “totally given up the office” (see HERE). Benedict, by giving up the ministerium, necessarily gave up the office (see HERE); something he also affirmed in 2014 to Msgr Bux (see HERE).

The answer is obvious. Benedict’s renunciation was valid.

However, we all know, quite well, the leading Benepapists will never accept any answer from the Vatican’s Office of the Promoter of Justice which rules that Benedict’s resignation was valid. Cionci knows this. The Benepapists know this.

What’s more, Cionci and the leading Benepapists are now also neo-sedevacantists. They deny not only that Francis was a true pope, but they also deny Leo XIV is a true pope. Given they reject the authority of Leo XIV as pope, no one expects the Benepapists would ever accept a finding by the Promoter of Justice – who ultimately serves under the pope – that declares the renunciation was valid.  For these folks neither Francis or Leo is a true pope. The Benepapists deny the basis of the authority behind any conclusion the Promoter of Justice might reach!  Thus, I find LifeSite’s “exclusive” article and breathless analysis, and Cionci’s case submission, etc., to all be performative.

Given the above, I don’t think it probable the Vatican Office will devote the energy and budget to bother writing up a detailed rejection of Cionci’s claim. Afterall, if they were to publicly reject Cionci’s case, and affirm the validity of the renunciation, this would only call down a firestorm of Benepapist ire and claims of new “conspiracy”, and provide Cionci and the Benepapists more material for Benepapist books, articles, and podcasts. In other words, more grifting.

The fact the Office of the Promoter has had Cionci’s material in hand for nearly two years during the “investigation” phase, and it has not yet been concluded, should give us a clear hint as to what is really going on. My hunch is, Signor Cionci’s case and his “evidence” have been placed in the Promoter of Justice’s “things we will never ultimately get to” file.

Thus, the Promoter of Justice’s rejection Cionci’s access request amounts to something of a “domani” reply, as the Italians might say, or a “tomorrow” reply. The rejection of access is, in the Italian way of doing things, a polite way of saying “no,” or of saying “we’re not touching this nonsense with a ten foot poll” without actually saying it. It’s the polite, Roman way.

That is what I think is really happening here.  In sum, it is “much ado about nothing.”

Final Thoughts

Many of the leading Benepapists have painted themselves into a corner via their pride. They’ve been making so many absolute assertions for so long, and employed ad hominems against those who disagree with them; it will take God’s grace to help them back down and admit their error.  Yet, this extreme situation in which the arch-Benepapists/neo-sedevacantists find themselves is not the case for those who have been unfortunate enough to follow them.

While I see many good reasons for the Promoter of Justice to let Cionci’s case languish in “investigation phase” oblivion forever, and I understand and sympathize with those reasons; I do strongly believe Rome should provide some sort of canonical and theological commentary defending the validity of Benedict XVI’s renunciation of the papacy. At least for those Benepapists of good will and open mind, this would be a great service, and an act of charity, to close out this controversy.

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.