The Benedict is still pope case is starting to get more traction and is now making waves with the “professional” establishment Catholic community. And it’s not pretty. I have seen some really smart and respected commentators go completely off the rails on this issue – to the point of being embarrassing. It would be one thing if they could cobble together a rebuttal that actually made sense and addressed the arguments being made, but they just can’t seem to conjure one up.
Philosopher Edward Feser has now jumped into the fray. I hoped he was going to because after the masterful job he did picking apart the Modernist heretical attempt to change church teaching on the death penalty, I figured he would be able to see through the intellectual sewer waste that’s been thrown over this issue. Sadly, no such luck.
Feser, not unlike most professional Catholic talking heads, has arrived at the conclusion that there simply is no evidence whatsoever that Benedict could still possibly be pope and anyone who thinks that is just half-baked, silly, and schismatic—with good intentions of course.
After his initial article was posted, Patrick Coffin, well-known Catholic commentator and former host of Catholic Answers Live, who has recently admitted he finds the Benedict is Pope (Beneplentist) argument persuasive, took umbrage at the insulting tone of Feser’s article. I imagine the part where Feser accused Beneplentists of leading souls to hell didn’t go over so well. This resulted in a second article from Feser complaining that Coffin won’t engage him on the issue after he just got through telling the world the entire issue was pointless to even talk about.
Beyond that background information, I won’t go into the soap opera drama. I am going to address the attempted arguments Feser made in his initial piece on the subject entitled: Benevacantism is scandalous and pointless. I reprint the full article below. MY COMMENTS ARE IN RED:
A Response to Feser:
In his book The Plato Cult and Other Philosophical Follies, David Stove observes that an argument once given by philosopher of science Imré Lakatos “manages to be scandalous and pointless at the same time” (p. 8). He was referring to Lakatos’s having made use of certain historical examples, some of the details of which Lakatos admitted he had made up himself. The idea is that, as bad as dishonest scholarship is, worse still is defeating the whole purpose by admitting that that is what you are doing. I put aside for present purposes the question of whether Stove’s characterization of Lakatos was actually fair. What I’m interested in here is the general idea of a position that is simultaneously scandalous and pointless.
As I said, I like Feser as a philosopher. This introduction reminds us he is a philosopher and not a canon lawyer as we will plainly see in a bit.
I can’t help but think of Stove’s remark when I consider the growing fad in some conservative Catholic circles for “Benevacantism” – the theory that Benedict XVI is still pope, so that Francis is an antipope. (The word is a portmanteau derived from “Benedict” and “sedevacantism.” Which doesn’t really make much sense, given that the view does not claim that there is currently no pope, as sedevacantism does. Some people prefer other labels, such as “resignationism” or “Beneplenism,” for reasons you can google if you’d like.)
Feser at least gets the point that those who believe Benedict is still pope are NOT sedevacantists. Sedevacantists generally believe the Chair of Peter has been empty since Pope Pius XII died in 1958. So Feser’s off to a good start here except he keeps using the word Benevacantist. I will keep using the word Beneplentist because that is more accurate since the Chair of Peter is occupied – by Pope Benedict XVI since 2005.
You might think the view too silly to be worth commenting on. [Silly like a clown, silly?] But there are two reasons for doing so, namely that it is scandalous and that it is pointless. It is scandalous insofar as those promoting it are leading Catholics into the grave sin of schism, i.e. refusing due submission to the Roman Pontiff, who (like it or not) is in fact Francis. And while it is the view of only a small minority, some of them are influential. I make no judgment here about the culpability of those drawn to this error, many of whom are well-meaning people understandably troubled by the state of the Church and the world. But that it is an error, there can be no reasonable doubt.
It’s not schismatic to believe Francis is not the pope when there is solid evidence to conclude someone else is the pope. No one is denying the primacy or legitimacy of the office itself. Questioning the identity of the occupant of an office is not the same as denying the office itself. If you are going to call others schismatic, you might want to start by defining what it means to be schismatic. St. Vincent Ferrer backed an antipope for a time 600 years ago. Was St. Vincent a schismatic?
That brings me to the other reason for commenting on Benevacantism, which is that it is pointless. In particular, the view is incoherent, and indeed self-defeating, but in a way that seems to me to be philosophically interesting. To see how, let’s begin by calling to mind the motivation people have for wanting Benevacantism to be true (as contrasted with the arguments they give for it – I’ll come to those in a moment).
And now for the second conclusion: he’s going to tell us our motivations, which of course are going to be completely pointless motivations. I’m sure he has interviewed several Beneplentists who told them their motivations and that I am sure have nothing to do with wanting to know—you know—the truth.
It is not news that Pope Francis has, over the years, made a number of theologically problematic statements (about Holy Communion for those living in adulterous relationships, capital punishment, and other matters) and done a number of problematic things (such as reversing Benedict’s motu proprio on the Latin Mass). I’ve addressed these controversies many times before and am not going to rehash it all here. The point to emphasize for present purposes is that Benevacantists suppose that the problem posed by Francis’s questionable statements and actions can be dissolved if it were to turn out that Benedict is still pope. For in that case, the problematic statements were not made by a true pope, so that there is no need to explain how a pope could commit such errors.
Yes, “problematic statements”—also known as heresy of some of the worst kind. But it’s very important to avoid the “H” word because if Feser admitted Francis was a wretched material heretic at best, it would certainly undermine this article and his credibility in the eyes of other professional Catholics. Francis’ heretical statements are not why Beneplentists believe Benedict is still pope. John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict—all these popes made “problematic statements.” Remember the whole death penalty and the 1992 Catechism from JPII thing, Mr. Feser? Yet, Beneplentists still believe John XXIII, Paul VI, JPII and Benedict were validly elected popes despite their “problematic statements.” This is why Beneplentists often get crossways with the sedevacantists.
Now, one problem here is that this “solution” is simply unnecessary. The Church has always acknowledged that popes can err when not speaking ex cathedra, and whatever else one thinks of Francis’s controversial statements and actions, they all would, if erroneous, fall into the category of possible papal error. Francis may have said and done more theologically dubious things than the best-known popes of the past who have done so (such as Honorius and John XXII), but they are dubious statements and actions of the same basic kind. The problem is extremely serious, but again, it’s within the boundaries of what the Church and her faithful theologians have always acknowledged could happen, consistent with the clearly defined conditions for papal teaching being infallible. (I’ve addressed this issue in detail elsewhere, such as here and here.)
Again, Feser is beating a straw man. No one is saying Francis is not pope because he is a heretic. Oh, that’s right…he is telling us about our motivations. Sorry. Back to the text.
But that’s not primarily what I’m talking about when I say that Benevacantism is pointless. To understand that we need to understand the arguments for the view. In 2016, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, personal secretary to Benedict XVI, gave a now-famous speech wherein he said that the pope’s resignation had created an “expanded” Petrine office with two members, an “active” one and a “contemplative” one. The Petrine “munus” – which can mean “ministry” or “service, duty, guide or gift” – is, the archbishop said, therefore something Benedict still participates in even after resigning. Indeed, his acceptance of the office of the papacy in 2005 was “irrevocable.” This, Gänswein said, is why it is appropriate that he retains his papal name, still wears papal white garments, and remains within the Vatican.
Oh good, finally some substance and not speculation. Yes, Ganswein said all those things and it serves as just one, albeit a powerful, piece of evidence that Benedict never intended to resign the papal office in its entirety.
Given how close Gänswein is to Benedict, these remarks were widely understood to reflect the Pope Emeritus’s own views. And it is completely unsurprising that they raised everyone’s eyebrows – and, as it happens, a few people’s hopes. For they seem to imply that, despite his resignation, Benedict may in some sense think of himself as still holding the papal office, at least in part. And this has given rise to at least two different versions of Benevacantism, which rest on two different theories about how the views conveyed by Gänswein purportedly cast doubt on the validity of Benedict’s resignation. They go as follows:
Notice how Feser just threw in the “Emeritus” title? Where did that come from? Oh wait, Benedict made that up because he thinks he still participates in some way in the office of the Papacy. And these statements don’t imply that Benedict may in some sense think of himself as holding papal office, it expressly states that.
Theory 1: Benedict didn’t really intend to resign. According to this theory, Benedict distinguishes the munus of the papacy (in the sense of the office itself and its duties), from the ministerium or actual exercise of the powers of the office. What Benedict renounced, according to this theory, is only the latter and not the former. That is to say, he retains the munus of the papacy, but decided to turn the ministerium over to another, who ended up being Francis. Francis, for this reason, is said by Gänswein to be the “active” member of this expanded papal office. But Benedict, who now retains only a “contemplative” role, is still the one who in the strict sense holds the munus and thus the papacy.
Benedict obviously intended to give up something, the issue is WHAT Benedict intended to accomplish? He clearly wasn’t resigning from all aspects of his Papal office based on what Ganswein said—he intended to expand the Petrine Office and then only resign from the active ministry of that office.
Theory 2: Benedict did intend to resign, but failed. According to this alternative theory, Benedict did indeed intend flatly to resign the papacy. But since he holds the views reported by Gänswein, he did not succeed in validly doing so. The reason is that the functions of the papal office simply cannot be divided in the way Benedict, according to the theory, supposes they can be. Hence his resignation was predicated on a false understanding of what he was doing, and that invalidates it. He is therefore still pope.
This is confusing the issue. There really are not two different theories. It’s just that Feser doesn’t either understand the argument or is intentionally muddying up the waters. Based on the evidence, Benedict did intend to resign the active ministry of his papal office, while not intending to completely give up the office itself. Ergo, he did not resign the office of the papacy.
Now, I don’t think either of these theories is plausible for a moment. But let’s pretend they were. Would they solve the problem they are intended to solve – that is to say, the problem of having to deal with a genuine pope who says and does theologically highly problematic things? Not in the least, which is why I say Benevacantism is pointless.
Unfortunately, Feser is back to his false base premise, which actually makes HIS entire article pointless. Let’s repeat: Francis’ heretical statements have nothing to do with the reason why Francis is not the pope. It certainly tends to support the argument since it is unlikely a valid pope would deny the faith and make heretical statements on a daily basis, but that has nothing to do with the reason WHY he is not pope, at least according to the Beneplentist position.
Suppose theory 1 were true. Then Francis would be something like Benedict’s viceroy, acting on his behalf and with his authority. His words and actions would have whatever authority they had precisely insofar as he acts in Benedict’s name, and in effect would therefore be Benedict’s words and actions, especially if Benedict did nothing to correct them. (Call to mind here Aquinas’s teaching in Summa Theologiae II-II.182 that the active life “serves rather than commands” the contemplative, which is superior to it. Hence, if the papacy really were divided into “contemplative” and “active” members, the latter would be the instrument of the former.)
Yes, the entire notion of expanding the Papacy is non-sensical, which is why he couldn’t do what he attempted to do. Perhaps, Feser should ask Benedict what he thinks about that. I would pay to hear that answer.
Surely the difficulty here is obvious. It would follow that Francis’s problematic words and actions too would, in effect, be Benedict’s problematic words and actions. Hence this first version of Benevacantism would do nothing at all to solve the problem of how a pope could say and do the problematic things Francis has done. [There’s the straw man again.] It would merely relocate responsibility for these problematic words and actions from Francis to Benedict. Indeed, it would make the situation worse, because you would not only have a pope who is ultimately responsible for the problematic words and actions in question, but one who also, on top of that, allows the faithful to be confused about who exactly the pope really is. Benevacantists think of Benedict as a better pope than Francis, but in fact this first version of their theory would entail that he is a worse pope.
All of this may be true, but Feser is just arguing against his false base premise, the straw man that he constructed at the beginning of the article. Repeat again: the Beneplentist position has nothing to do with whether Francis is a heretic. When you don’t get the base premise correct, all you do is waste space, time and don’t convince anyone. To avoid this, you MUST accurately understand what your opponent’s position is. This is a common mistake new lawyers make, and it can be very costly in the end.
Suppose instead we went with theory 2. This is hardly better; indeed, it may even be worse still. For one thing, on this scenario too, Benedict does not turn out to be a better defender of orthodoxy than Francis is. Rather, the theory would make him out to be such an incompetent and unreliable defender of orthodoxy that he would not even understand the nature of the papacy itself, which is supposed to be the ultimate bulwark of orthodoxy.
No one said validly elected popes can’t be in error or even substantial error, as Canon 188 so plainly contemplates when it says: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.” Obviously, Benedict was in error to the extent he tried to expand the Petrine office and then divide it into active and passive ministries and only resign from the active component. The nouvelle théologie Modernists back in the 1970s and 80s were pushing this error and Benedict was one of its main supporters, even back then. So, as ridiculous as it may sound, Benedict himself has been teaching this stuff for many years in addition to other Modernists who don’t like the hierarchical/monarchical nature of the Papal office. But I digress.
Indeed, he would be so incompetent and unreliable that he would not even know who the pope really is, and that it is precisely he himself who is still pope. He would, in effect, be in schism from himself, and guilty of subordinating himself and the rest of the faithful to an antipope!
That’s why it is an error. Of course, you can’t do what Benedict attempted to do!
This would be a superior guardian of orthodoxy than Francis? Seriously?
Umm no, Benedict is not a shining example or guardian of orthodoxy.
But it gets worse. [I’m shaking in my boots.] Suppose one of these two versions of Benevacantism were true. What is the Church supposed to do? Presumably, on the best case scenario, Benedict himself would publicly endorse some version of the theory. [He did endorse this. Before he was elected Pope and afterwards, time and time again. Do your research. Read and listen to Dr. Edmund Mazza who spent hours discovering all of this. It’s called doing the hard work to get evidence.] But that would be a disaster. [Correct.] If he endorsed theory 1, he would in effect be saying that he has silently allowed the Church to be gravely misled and misgoverned for almost a decade [Correct—not good.] – that he has been pope all along but has failed to carry out his duties as pope, and done so on the basis of a novel theological theory that has no ground or precedent in the historical teaching of the Church. [YES!!! You ARE catching on!]
Why, in that case, should any Catholic trust him or his magisterium ever again? [Trust him as much as you trust Francis to teach you about the death penalty, Mr. Feser.] And of course, millions of Catholics would not trust him, nor would they accept this shocking claim, and would continue to recognize Francis as pope. This would entail a schism unprecedented in Church history, with no clear means of resolution.
Why would this be schism? It would just be Benedict explaining how he grievously erred and asking for forgiveness. If faithful Catholics still erroneously thought Francis was Pope that doesn’t necessarily make them schismatic. You know we have had many antipopes before Mr. Feser. You DO know that, right? Dr. Mazza taught several courses on the history of antipopes. Check it out.
Suppose instead that Benedict came to endorse theory 2, and made an announcement to that effect: “Hey, listen up everyone, it turns out I am still pope after all! No one is more surprised about this than I am, but there it is. I hereby immediately resume my duties and command Francis to step aside.” Why should anyone regard this judgment as any more sound than the earlier judgment he made to the effect that he was no longer pope? [Because the evidence would support what is saying.] In which case, again, why should any Catholic ever trust him or his magisterium again? [Do you trust Francis after his “teaching” on the death penalty?] And here too, millions of Catholics would not accept this announcement, but would judge that he had gone crazy and continue to follow Francis. Again, we’d be stuck with an unprecedented and irresolvable schism. [See comment in paragraph above about schism.]
Or suppose – as, it goes without saying is the far more likely scenario – that Benedict goes to his grave without endorsing any version of Benevacantism. What then? [Popes die all the time. You call a conclave.] If he dies before Francis, how are we ever supposed to get a validly elected pope ever again, given that so many of the current cardinals have been appointed by Francis, whom Benevacantists claim to be an antipope?
Call a conclave. There may be a fight over whether the wretched Cardinals that Francis appointed should vote or not, but this question has nothing do with whether Benedict resigned the office of the Papacy in 2013. None of this is relevant to the underlying issue that the point of Feser’s article was supposed to be about, by the way.
We would be stuck with all the problems facing sedevacantism. [No, there are definitely still valid Cardinals who can elect a new Pope and will be even after Francis dies.] And things would hardly be any better if Francis dies before Benedict while Benedict continues to maintain that he is no longer pope.
Benedict doesn’t claim he is no longer Pope, he claims he no longer participates in the active ministry of the papal office. Stop assuming facts not in evidence.
To call Benevacantism half-baked would be too generous. [Gee- I can’t imagine why Patrick Coffin would take offense at your article.] It is a complete theological mess. It offers no solution whatsoever to the problems posed by Pope Francis’s controversial words and actions [straw man again], and in fact makes things much worse. And on top of that it leads Catholics into the grave sin of schism. [And there’s schism again. Again, Feser might want to explain why contesting the identity of the Pope is a rejection of the office of the Papacy itself. There have been many antipopes before.] Hence, as I say, it is both scandalous and pointless at the same time. [Just like Feser’s arguments.]
It is also a non-starter even apart from all that, because there can be no reasonable doubt that Benedict validly resigned. Canon 332 §2 of the Code of Canon Law tells us:
If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.
Now, Benedict publicly and freely resigned his office, and has publicly reaffirmed that his decision was taken freely, in answer to those who have speculated otherwise. He has also explicitly acknowledged that there is only one pope and that it is Francis [Nope, he never actually said those words.] His resignation thus clearly meets the criteria for validity set out by canon law. End of story.
Well, that’s the end of the story unless you actually consider all of canon law and the evidence presented that indicates otherwise and actually address the arguments that Beneplentists make. But other than that, yes, end of story. Oh wait, I guess it’s not the end of the story….
Some have suggested that the resignation cannot have been made freely because, they say, it was done under the influence of an erroneous theory of the papacy, namely the one described by Gänswein.
No, you’re mixing up two different arguments. Whether Benedict freely resigned the office of the Papacy is different than whether he was in substantial error by attempting to expand the Papacy. Two possibilities, but not the same.
But this is a non sequitur, as any Catholic should know who is familiar with the conditions for a sin to be mortal – grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. [No one said anything about sin.] My point isn’t that Benedict’s resignation was sinful [oh, good], but rather that these conditions illustrate the general point that the Church distinguishes acting with full knowledge and acting with deliberate consent or freely. And canon law makes only the latter, and not the former, a condition for the validity of a papal resignation. Hence, even if Benedict’s resignation was made under the influence of an erroneous theological theory about the papacy, that would be irrelevant to its having been made freely and thus validly.
Read BOTH Canon 332§2 AND Canon 188 again. If an attempted resignation of the office was not done freely than it is not valid. If he wasn’t resigning the office than it doesn’t matter what he did freely because it would not have been effective due to substantial error.
Some will nevertheless insist that Benedict did not act freely, because they speculate that he was being blackmailed or otherwise acting in fear. But he has publicly denied this, and after nine years no one has offered any evidence that it is true.
Yes, that is another theory out there, but a different one. Not the primary Beneplentist argument being made. I can see why Feser may be confused by all this, but it’s because he doesn’t appear to fully understand the Beneplentist arguments.
Note also that canon law says that it is not necessary that a resignation be “accepted by anyone” in order for it to be valid. Hence neither Benedict nor anyone else is under any obligation to prove to the satisfaction of Benevacantists that his resignation was valid in order for it actually to be valid.
Correct, he doesn’t have to prove anything. If his resignation was invalid, it was invalid by operation of canon law. Void ab initio, as a lawyer might say.
But what about the views reported by Gänswein? If they really are Benedict’s, don’t they cast at least some doubt on his resignation? [Yes.] No, not at all. [Really, not AT ALL?] They are merely the personal opinions of a man [who happens to be the personal secretary of Benedict since 2005 and who literally is near Benedict every day and has been for years and knows him probably better than anyone else on this planet] who is now just a private theologian, who apparently believes that his novel office of “Pope Emeritus” is in some respects analogous to, and even inherits some of the dignity and functions of, the separate office of the papacy – an office he no longer holds, and which he has acknowledged he no longer holds. One might accept his theory about the nature of the office of “Pope Emeritus” or reject it, but that is irrelevant to whether Benedict validly resigned.
So, let me get this straight, Benedict still referring to himself as Pope is totally irrelevant with respect to what Benedict intended?
And it remains irrelevant even if Benedict believed this theory prior to resigning, for then too it would have been nothing more than Benedict’s private theological opinion rather than an official teaching of the Church.
Soo…he would have been in substantial error then? Hello canon 188 (see above).
Francis, and Francis alone, is the pope. You may lament this, but it is reality. And the first step in dealing with some reality you don’t like is to face it, rather than retreating into fantasy.
This is called gaslighting. It’s all fantasy, half-baked, a fad, silly, scandalous and pointless we are told. It might help to understand the actual arguments being made first, however. For someone who did such a good job exposing Francis’ death penalty heresies, this article was really disappointing and vacuous. For those interested in understanding the real arguments, see these sources below. That goes for you too, Mr. Feser!
Beneplentist (Benedict is Pope) Sources:
For the real arguments on why Benedict is Pope: Dr. Edmund Mazza’s interview with Patrick Coffin to get the basics and his website along with Ann Barnhardt’s videos or the Non Veni Pacem blog to get a deeper dive. If you’re really into canon law, read Benedict XVI: Pope “Emeritus” written by canon lawyer Estefanía Acosta to see the legal proofs. Also check out my previous post: Francis Intends to Make a Different Church and Isn’t the Pope.