Roma Locuta Est

August 19, 2026 (Steven O’Reilly) – Benepapism, the erroneous belief that the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI was invalid, has flatlined. However, that doesn’t stop various Benepapist, Benepapist sympathizing podcast hosts from shouting “stand clear!” as they attempt to apply “defibrillator paddles” in the form of “EXCLUSIVE” reports to try to shock the dead theory back to life.

Consider, in April 2026 there came word of an existing “criminal investigation” file opened by the Vatican’s Promoter of Justice related to the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation. Basically, the Promoter of Justice, essentially a Vatican prosecutor, opened up a file on the claims originally submitted to his office by Andrea Cionci, an Italian Benepapist, in 2024.  Cionci’s recent request for an update on his submission resulted in the Promoter of Justice sending a simple notification that a file was open, and that he could not share its contents. That was the apparent “exclusive” big news back then.  Yawn.

The truth is, the opening of the file was a standard, necessary response to a claim being filed at all.  Back in April, I reported on this in a Roma Locuta Est article titled Vatican’s Criminal Probe of Renunciation: Much ado about nothing. That the opening of the file was standard procedure – and not indicative of a credible claim – was confirmed by Zenit report on this news.

“In Vatican law, as in most legal systems, the filing of a formal complaint—especially one supported by multiple signatories—automatically triggers the opening of a dossier. This step does not imply endorsement of the claims; it merely initiates a preliminary assessment. During this phase, access to the acts is routinely restricted, precisely to safeguard the integrity of the inquiry. The Promoter of Justice, functionally equivalent to a public prosecutor, is tasked with evaluating whether the submission meets the minimum threshold to proceed further. In the overwhelming majority of cases lacking substantive merit, the outcome is dismissal.”

Is the Vatican investigating the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation? The truth behind a confirmation by the Vatican Tribunal | ZENIT – English

The latest update, the latest “exclusive” from John-Henry Westen, was released in an August 19, 2026 video (see Vatican Probe Into Benedict’s Resignation Still Live: Cionci Faces Second Hearing).  While this may be the first time the story is out in English, but it has been out since early August (see Cionci in Italian, HERE). Mr. Weston’s update is that Signor Cionci was invited to speak with the Promoter of Justice on August 3, 2026. Mr. Westen reports as follows (bold added):

“…Cionci told Lifesight News that the latest meeting lasted approximately 2 hours and took place in a noticeably more relaxed atmosphere than the first one did back in April of 2025. During the sessions, he formally filed an additional petition of roughly 50 pages containing newly gathered material. Everything he told us was placed on the official record. The promoter of justice, Professor Diddi, is reported to have reiterated his intention to close the investigations in the relatively near future and to treat the matter with the utmost seriousness, which is language consistent with what he said earlier to the Italian site UCCCR. Cionci’s original 100 page criminal petition was lodged on June 6th, 2024…”

At this meeting, Signor Cionci dropped off another tranche of documents, a “third supplement of roughly 50 pages.” This in addition to his prior document dumps. The latest update is not a surprise or indicative of anything, other than required procedure. This is all really a non-story. Thank heaven though, the Promoter of Justice did reveal again his “intention to close the investigation in the relatively near future.”

Mr. Westen Airs a neo-sedevacantist theory 

I suppose the real story here is that Mr. Westen goes on to raise another topic of his conversation with Cionci. It seems one of the other documents submitted by Signor Cionci is a study by a Professor Angelo Giorgianni. The professor’s study apparently raises an alleged violation of the conclave rules that would supposedly call into question the validity of Leo XIV’s papacy. Mr. Weston explains in his video:

“The study from professor Giorgianni focuses on the 2025 conclave that elected Robert Francis Prevost as Leo the 14th. Giorgiani examines the irregularities against the norms of the apostolic constitution which is sort of the rule book for the election of popes which was put out by Pope St. John Paul II. It’s called UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS.

The first irregularity professor Giorgianni pointed out was the number of cardinal electors and that point is actually firmly established in the public record. Wikipedia entries on the cardinal electors in the 2025 conclave and the 2025 papal conclave both state that the 20 that 252 cardinals were there at the time of Pope Francis’s death. 135 were eligible electors under the age of 80 and two did not attend for health reasons, leaving 133 participants. ABC News in its May 8th, 2025 report said, and I quote,

“Pope Leo the 14th conclave by the numbers and it explicitly called 133 the number of cardinal electors, the most ever,” it said.

Even the Guardian described the same day as the largest conclave to date. This was the first conclave in which the number exceeded the maximum of 120 set by UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS paragraph number 33. Okay. So if you look on the Vatican website however you will find a document from April 30th 2025 issued by the general congregation of cardinals stating that Pope Francis had created more than 120 electors and had thereby dispensed from the numerical limit in the exercise of his supreme legislative power.

All eligible electors therefore retain the right to vote under UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS number 36. Giorgio argues that the cardinals have no authority to do that and therefore that raises questions of validity. We’ll get to that. He bases his claims on the very document that constitution by John Paul II on electing a pope UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS  number 33. And I’ll read it for you. It says, and I quote,

“The maximum number of cardinal electors must not exceed 120.” End quote.

That document is not amended. You can go look it up right now. It’s still there. It still says that at number 33. In addition and more importantly, UNIVERSI DOMINICI GREGIS again the rule book for the election of popes says at number four and I quote during the vacancy of the apostolic see that means the time when after a pope dies laws issued by the Roman pontiffs that means by popes can in no way be corrected or modified nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a past a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the supreme pontiff, i.e. the pope. And then he adds, indeed, should anything be  done or even attempted against this prescription by my supreme authority, I declare it null and void. End quote.”

The argument referenced by Mr. Westen above, is summarized by me as follows:

Pope John Paul II in  Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) lays down the rules for papal conclaves. In UDG 33, John Paul II sets the limit on the number of cardinal electors at 120. However, under Pope Francis, the number of cardinal electors rose above the 120 limit. In fact, at the conclave there were 133 cardinals, 13 more than allowed by UDG. Given UDG 4 states in part that “During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted…“; the cardinals had no right to allow 133 cardinals in the conclave, given the limit set by John Paul II at 120. Therefore, given the number of cardinal-electors exceed 120 in contravention of UDG 33, the election of Leo XIV is null and void. He is not a true pope.

That is the argument made in this particular theory, held by those who are now neo-sedevacantists as of the reigns of Francis (after the death of Benedict XVI), and of Leo XIV.

We respond below.

A Reply to the Neo-Sedevacantist Claim

It is true that the conclave rules of John Paul II in UDG 33 set a limit on the number of cardinal electors at 120 (bold added).

33. The right to elect the Roman Pontiff belongs exclusively to the Cardinals of Holy Roman Church, with the exception of those who have reached their eightieth birthday before the day of the Roman Pontiff’s death or the day when the Apostolic See becomes vacant. The maximum number of Cardinal electors must not exceed one hundred and twenty. The right of active election by any other ecclesiastical dignitary or the intervention of any lay power of whatsoever grade or order is absolutely excluded.

And, as the neo-sedevacantists point out, UDG 4 says with regard to election procedures, “…should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription” the conclave would be “null and void.” See UDG 4 below (bold added):

4. During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, laws issued by the Roman Pontiffs can in no way be corrected or modified, nor can anything be added or subtracted, nor a dispensation be given even from a part of them, especially with regard to the procedures governing the election of the Supreme Pontiff. Indeed, should anything be done or even attempted against this prescription, by my supreme authority I declare it null and void.

Given the above, Mr. Westen’s presentation of the conclave rules cited earlier, it would appear on first glance that the neo-sedevacantist claim is a solid one. However, in truth, this is not the case.

The neo-sedevacantists are gravely mistaken. While they cite UDG 4, they neglect to consider UDG 5 which gives discretion to the College of Cardinals when doubts arise regarding the prescriptions of UDG, or with regard to putting them into effect.  See UDG 5 below (bold added):

5. Should doubts arise concerning the prescriptions contained in this Constitution, or concerning the manner of putting them into effect, I decree that all power of issuing a judgment in this regard belongs to the College of Cardinals, to which I grant the faculty of interpreting doubtful or controverted points. I also establish that should it be necessary to discuss these or other similar questions, except the act of election, it suffices that the majority of the Cardinals present should concur in the same opinion.

In UDG 5, we see John Paul II wisely made provision for instances where doubts may arise about the prescriptions, or their execution. He did so by giving power to the College of Cardinals to interpret “doubtful or controverted points.” So, going into the 2025 conclave, there was a clear question to be resolved. John Paul II had set the limit on cardinal electors at 120, but Francis had gone above that limit. Surely, this is a doubtful or controverted point which the cardinals needed to resolve before the conclave.

Per this provision (UDG 5), the cardinals met and decided to allow all 133 cardinal electors to participate in the conclave.  They did so based on the following.  First, they observed that Francis by allowing a number of cardinals over the 120 limit had in fact implicitly dispensed with the limitation rule. Second, they observed per UDG 36 that anyone named a cardinal, and of the proper age (UDG 33), is eligible to vote in the conclave — and indeed has a “right to vote” (see HERE). See UDG below (italics, bold and underline added):

36. A Cardinal of Holy Roman Church who has been created and published before the College of Cardinals thereby has the right to elect the Pope, in accordance with the norm of No. 33 of the present Constitution, even if he has not yet received the red hat or the ring, or sworn the oath. On the other hand, Cardinals who have been canonically deposed or who with the consent of the Roman Pontiff have renounced the cardinal- ate do not have this right. Moreover, during the period of vacancy the College of Cardinals cannot readmit or rehabilitate them.

The solution of the College of Cardinals makes perfect sense. Without it there would have been an impossible, logical conundrum. We’d be stuck.  On the one hand there is the 120 limit on the number of cardinal electors (cf UDG 33) which would seemingly force the exclusion of cardinals to comply with that limit. However, on the other hand, UDG 36 says every cardinal elector “created and published before the College of Cardinals” has the “right to elect the Pope.”  Without the solution interpreted by cardinals per UDG 5, it would not be logically possible to enforce both rules and proceed to a conclave.

That Pope Francis had the authority to dispense with the 120 limitation follows from his Petrine authority. That he did so follows from the fact that he created the cardinals that exceeded that limit, which was within his authority to do. He was not bound by his predecessors in such a matter. Granted, it would have been better if he had done so with some kind of formal statement, but it cannot be reasonably argued that he did not in fact dispense with the limitation, even if only implicitly so. The cardinals were correct in concluding Francis dispensed with the limit.

UDG 5 makes clear that John Paul II made provision for instances where doubts about the prescriptions, or their execution arose, giving power to the College of Cardinals to interpret “doubtful or controverted points.” And, surely, the question about what to do about the 133 vs. 120 limitation is a “doubtful or controverted” one. In sum, it is clear the cardinals took the only reasonable course of action they could before the 2025 conclave.

What is the Neo-Sedevacantist Solution?

The neo-sedevacantist solution would have been to exclude 13 cardinals from the conclave. Presumably, the neo-sedevacantists would have excluded the most recently named cardinals one-by-one until we got down to the 120 cardinal limit.

However, there is no prescription in the law to allow for the exclusion of valid cardinal electors. Those arguing this solution would run afoul of not only UDG 4, but also UDG 35, and 36. Consider, UDG 35 says (emphasis added):

35. No cardinal elector may be excluded from the election—whether as a voter or as a candidate—for any reason or pretext, without prejudice to the provisions of Nos. 40 and 75 of this Constitution[1]

The rule of UDG 35 above is consistent with UDG 36, i.e., a cardinal elector having a right to vote in a papal election.  These rules pose an insurmountable problem for any neo-sedevacantist solution because cardinal electors have a right to vote in a papal election, and cannot be excluded for any reason or pretext. The only way to reasonably solve the problem is to take the path the cardinals took in the end. Recognize the rights of cardinal electors, and recognize that Pope Francis implicitly dispensed with the 120 limit.

The neo-sedevacantists are stuck.  If they adhere to UDG 4 not allowing any changes of kind the Cardinals took, then they could exclude cardinals either.  But, if they appeal to UDG 5 allowing the cardinals the power to interpret, etc., then they concede the power the College of Cardinals used in 2025 to settle the problem by recognizing Francis implicitly dispensed with UDG 33. The neo-sedevacantist argument is absurd.

Conclusion

It is, perhaps, not surprising that Pope Francis, whose papacy was replete with ambiguities and confusion, would leave us this one last controversy upon his death, going into the 2025 conclave. The question posed here involves a clear, and impossible conundrum. Unless one of UDG’s rules was dispensed, no conclave could have been held.

UDG set a limit of 120 cardinal electors (cf UDG 33), the Church had 133. UDG 35 and 36 tell us electing a pope is a right of a cardinal-elector, and that no cardinal elector can be excluded for any reason or pretext. One way or another, one or more UDG rules would have to be set aside for there to be a conclave. Fortunately, UDG 5 gave the College of Cardinals the authority to address such a situation. As demonstrated above, the cardinals took the correct course of action which did the least harm to the intent of the conclave rules, i.e., not to exclude a cardinal-elector for any reason or pretext.

The neo-sedevacantist solution, presumably to exclude 13 cardinals, would have run afoul of three rules (UDG 4, 35, and 36). But just imagine! Had the College of Cardinals excluded 13 cardinals, then the neo-sedevacantists would be claiming the 2025 conclave was null and void for that reason, and as a result, Leo XIV would not be a true pope. Darned if you, darned if you don’t; it seems. Either way, the neo-sedevacantists get their “anti-pope!” But that is ultimately what they want. Clicks and grift.

Given Mr. Westen’s operating procedure is to only give air time to Benepapist and neo-sedevacantist theories, and not to their debunking, don’t expect any voices of reason to ever appear on his show on these questions.  Apparently, the goal is to promote controversy and doubts, not to address and dispel them.  The goal of the Catholic podcaster should be searching for truth, not clicks. How are the listeners served? Answer: they are not.

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] as modified by Pope Benedict XVI’s motu proprio, Normas Nonnullas.