Antipope Bergoglio (Francis) continues to deny basic, fundamental tenets of the faith that all Catholics must accept, and completely gets a pass from mainstream Catholic media and even some traditional Catholics. Yet, even among these folks, they intuitively sense something is seriously not right in the Vatican and are looking for answers. What seems to get lost in all of this chaos is trying to uncover and determine, you know, the TRUTH!
Yet again, we must turn back to canon law and recall that:
“All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by the obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.” Canon 748 §1
So then, HOW do we go about uncovering the truth? That is what I want to focus on in this article, and I will use a recent email exchange I had on the topic of Beneplentistism (Benedict is Pope) as an example.
I was pleasantly surprised to have recently engaged in a very cordial and professional discussion via email with Steven O’Reilly over the topic of Pope Benedict’s incomplete resignation—the “Beneplentist” position.
I am reproducing the entirety of the email exchange below without any content edits, although I did make some formatting changes to make it easier to follow the course of the conversation. I also added the text colors. Mr. O’Reilly’s comments are in BLACK and mine are in RED. I let Mr. O’Reilly have the last word in the email exchange, but I will make some final comments at the conclusion of this post about the use of evidence and “proving” a fact when searching for the truth. I think you will find the following discussion interesting for its substance, and instructive as to how evidence should properly be used to uncover the truth.
An Exchange with Steven O’Reilly:
[O’Reilly:] Hi…I see you accept the Ann Barnhardt theory regarding Benedict’s resignation. I am on the other side, and have written about it on my blog, www.RomaLocutaEst.com. I believe the resignation was valid. I make the case against Benepapism by looking at the key documents associated with the debate in The Case against those who believe Benedict is still pope.
One of the arguments advanced *for* Benepapism is the Miller dissertation. However, I find this line of reasoning curious. Just read your summation of the Miller dissertation, thanks for pulling that together. Well done.
At the conclusion of your summation, you say: “Benedict, along with the Nouvelle théologie, do not look at the Papacy the same way most Catholics do.”
However, I note you do not provide a single quote from Ratzinger that suggests he agrees with any of the views of the likes of Kung, etc. What proof do you have, based on the Miller dissertation, that Ratzinger himself held any erroneous view of the papacy? What direct quotes from Ratzinger can you provide to prove your conclusion, based on the Miller Dissertation alone, that Ratzinger ‘does not look at the papacy the same way most Catholics do’?
[Veritas:] Thanks for the email. I appreciate you reviewing my article. Several others have suggested I read your work and I promise I will do so, and I may respond it.
To answer your question, I think you are looking for theological treatise quotes from Ratzinger. I understand why you would want this. It is somewhat difficult because his works in this area are all in German and to my knowledge there have been no official translations, which always makes me nervous about citing them.
But here is what I can tell you. Miller himself in the dissertation cited Ratzinger several times. Here are all his citations for Ratzinger:
Ratzinger, Joseph. “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes.” Dienst an der Einheit: Zum Wesen und Auftrag des Petrusamnts. Ed. Joseph Ratzinger. Dusseldorf: Patmost, 1978—“prognostics sur l’avenir de l’oecumenisme.” Proeche-Orient Chetien 26 (1976) 209-219
Ratzinger, Joseph. Dienst an der Einheit: Zum Wesen und Auftrag des Petrusamts. Dusseldorf: Patmost, 1978.
Miller went on to write a book based on his dissertation called the Shepherd and the Rock. In the book, which has updated information, he quotes from Ratzinger’s 1992 letter LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION. Key there is paragraph 18 where Ratzinger says in speaking about the context of ecumenism and the Papacy:
“In this ecumenical commitment, important priorities are prayer, penance, study, dialogue and collaboration, so that, through a new conversion to the Lord, all may be enabled to recognize the continuity of the Primacy of Peter in his successors, the Bishops of Rome, and to see the Petrine ministry fulfilled, in the manner intended by the Lord, as a worldwide apostolic service, which is present in all the Churches from within, and which, while preserving its substance as a divine institution, can find expression in various ways according to the different circumstances of time and place, as history has shown.” https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html
But beyond all of that, I was comfortable in making that statement you referenced above for several reasons. Beyond the text of the resignation which I break down in my article, the February 27, 2013 audience statement is crystal clear:
“The ‘always’ is also a ‘for ever‘ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this. I do not return to private life, to a life of travel, meetings, receptions, conferences, and so on. I am not abandoning the cross, but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to speak, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”
Everything Ratzinger says there is consistent with the Miller dissertation. How is it not? I hope this helps. I look forward to readings your articles.
[O’Reilly:] Mr. Veritas,
Thank you so much for your reply. I appreciate that you are in pursuit of the truth. In that spirit as well, I’d like to make a few comments in response to your email. I ask you consider it prayerfully.
[1.] First, my question was focused on the Miller dissertation, and what direct, and definitive evidence it supplies that Ratzinger held erroneous opinions of the papacy, as alleged by Ms. Barnhardt and others. It appears to me your response does not supply that evidence. The Millers dissertation provides no such evidence, and your response essentially admits that.
The point of referring back to the Miller Dissertation is to show how modernists view the now-called “Petrine Ministry.” They view the Papacy in a totally and completely different way than that of the Council Fathers at Vatican I. And one of the ways it is different is that they believe the Petrine Ministry is quasi-sacramental in nature and not just a juridical/administrative office. Once part of the Petrine Ministry that is “always and forever” but because this “Petrine Ministry” is much broader than the juridical office it need not be exercised by a single individual in the same way. Benedict’s statements and actions are completely consistent with this modernist notion of the Papacy.
[O’Reilly replies:] The Miller Dissertation is brought forward by Barnhardt, et al, as evidence Benedict was in “substantial error.” However, if one clears away the smoke of the rhetoric of the claim, the stark reality is, the Miller Dissertation does NOT prove that Ratzinger as a theologian, or Ratzinger later as pope EVER believed any modernist theory related to the Petrine ministry. Again, I ask you…produce a quote from that dissertation where Ratzinger gives an opinion of his own on the Petrine ministry which is in error.
To say some, or even many Germans theologians held an erroneous view of the Petrine ministry is assuredly NOT a proof Ratzinger specifically held such an opinion, and or that it somehow impacted the validity of his resignation. It is fallacious reasoning to say many believed X, therefore Ratzinger believed X. No. That is not a proof.
Now, I know Dr. Mazza has attempted to show Ratzinger believed the “papacy is a sacrament.” To do this, in his interview with Patrick Coffin, he pulls quotes from a couple of Ratzinger’s books. I examined closely Dr. Mazza’s interpretation of Ratzinger. Please take a look at my articles on the subject which provides fuller citations of the Ratzinger quotes. It will be ABUNDANTLY clear Ratzinger is NOT saying what Dr. Mazza interprets him to say. Dr. Mazza has misread Ratzinger. In my view, given the stakes, he should retract the analysis of the quotes he gave on Mr. Coffin’s show.
For an analysis and rebuttal of Dr. Mazza on these points, see https://romalocutaest.com/2022/04/22/a-closer-look-at-mr-coffins-evidence-dr-mazzas-thesis-3-0/ and or https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/ . If you want to defend Dr. Mazza’s use of these Ratzinger quotes…have at it. But, I am confident you will agree with my assessment. If you take a look at the articles, email me as I would be interested in what you think.
With regard to the “always and forever,” it is clear that the arch-Benepapists have grossly misinterpreted this phrase. In my prior response to you, I explained why this is definitely the case. This phrase simply does NOT mean ANYTHING of what the arch-Benepapists claim.
Here’s an article which addresses their erroneous interpretations of “Always and Forever”. See: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/27/regarding-benedicts-last-audience/
[2.] Second, you provide German citations, but you haven’t provided proof. It seems you don’t know the German substantiates Barnhardt’s position or not. With regard to “Der Primat des Papstes und die Einheit des Gottesvolkes,” the full document may be found here, translated into English. The full document may be found here (https://www.communio-icr.com/articles/view/the-primacy-of-the-pope). If you have any difficulty downloading the document, I’d be happy to send it along to you. Ms. Barnhardt had cited a portion of this document, and I provided a reply to her here: https://romalocutaest.com/2019/01/15/benedict-is-still-not-pope-and-other-errors/. I expand upon this in my forthcoming book, but, essentially, Ms. Barnhardt unfairly attributes the thoughts of OTHERS to Ratzinger. Again…that is no proof of substantial error.
The error is based on what Ratzinger attempted to do on Feb. 13, 2013 not what he may or may not have said in theological treatises. The primary “proof” is his own words at the time, in later statements, and his actions. He told everyone what he did. He did not resign the Papal office. He resigned the active and administrative/governing component of this modernist notion of the Petrine Ministry while remaining in a new passive role within this Petrine Ministry. That’s not possible if you accept what the Church always taught about the Papacy. The Miller Dissertation and other modernist works simply indicate that what Benedict was doing here, while completely erroneous, did not come out of thin air.
[O’Reilly replies:] So, it seems you are tarring Ratzinger with collective guilt.
“Many German Theologians believed X.
Ratzinger is a German theologian.
Therefore, Ratzinger believed X.”
That is a fallacious argument; as the conclusion does not necessarily follow.
If you want to begin with your interpretation of the Declaratio suggesting Benedict was in error, I challenge your interpretation. The Miller Dissertation is again irrelevant since your interpretation of Declaratio, as you say, rests on what HE said in February 2013.
I discuss the Declaratio here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/21/regarding-benedicts-declaratio/
I go into even greater detail on the munus vs ministerium dispute, as well as other Benepapist Declaratio-based arguments in the upcoming book, Valid? The Resignation of Benedict XVI (The Case against the Benepapists).
[3.] Third, you reference Miller quoting from Ratzinger’s 1992 letter LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF THE CHURCH UNDERSTOOD AS COMMUNION. The problem is, the actual quote does not prove Benedict holds *ANY* error regarding the papacy, let alone one that would invalidate his renunciation. To say the Papacy may find “expression in various ways” is assuredly NOT an admission. Ratzinger cites history for unnamed examples, not nutty German theologians of the 1960s and 1970s. It is clearly the case the papacy has been exercised or expressed in various ways in history. What might he mean? For one example, the papacy didn’t always assert the right to name bishops for every diocese in Christendom. That was a later development. There is no reason why the papacy might allow the former situation to return, while even at the same time retaining it does have the power to name them. That is the sort of thing Ratzinger is talking about. It is quite a leap in logic to say he means a “synodal papacy” or a “papal diarchy” etc. In sum, the quote you cite simply proves nothing of Barnhardt’s thesis.
Surely, you do not deny Ratzinger was very much part of that nutty German theological school of the 1960s even if he gravitated away from some of those ideas in his later years? The terminology he uses about “expression in various ways” is the type of terminology the nutty German theologians used and in the context of ecumenism, which was also the context of the Miller dissertation and something Ratzinger was always obsessed with. So again, that letter just provides more context to what he actually was attempting to do on Feb. 13, 2013.
[O’Reilly replies:]
“Many German theologians held nutty views on X.
Ratzinger is a German theologian.
Therefore, Ratzinger held nutty views on X.”
The conclusion to the syllogism above does not necessarily follow. It is fallacious to say it does.
Therefore, in consideration of the syllogism above, I find the question of Ratzinger’s relation to the German theological school utterly irrelevant to the validity of his resignation UNLESS or UNTIL you provide proof he formerly held erroneous opinions on matters directly related to the validity of his resignation. You have not done that. Nor has Ms. Barnhardt, et al. Thus, the Miller Dissertation is a RED HERRING. Its introduction into the debate from the very beginning was fallacious — and, frankly, a desperate distraction.
But that is the sort of argument Ms. Barnhardt seems to want her followers to accept. The Benepapists are on the verge of a schism once Francis and or Benedict pass away. Some Benepapists have already publicly declared via a Declaration and Petition they will NOT accept a future conclave if certain conditions — set by them — are not met. So, it seems to me, if one is going to suggest to others they follow such a grave course of action — or something effectively like it; then it is incumbent upon the leading Benepapists to provide definitive proof of their thesis — and not fallacious RED HERRINGS.
The Benepapists have not provided any good proof of their theory that withstands closer scrutiny. See https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/21/the-case-against-those-who-claim-benedict-is-still-pope/
[4.] Fourth, in regard to the last audience of February 27, 2013, I am glad you mention this. Unfortunately, Ms. Barnhardt, and the originators of Benepapism, never give the full context of the “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever” and the ‘private sphere.’ I suggest you look at the preceding paragraph in the last audience. Benedict is clear he is speaks of losing his privacy upon election — i.e., he no longer belongs to himself, but to others, and he to them. He gains true “sons and daughters”, etc.
That is what the “always” is referring to. His point in the second paragraph is to say this “always” (defined in the preceding paragraph of the last audience) is also a “forever” — i.e., he cannot go back to the ‘private sphere’ he already spoke of because of his relationship to his sons and daughters. He is speaking of bond of charity, not an indelible mark of the papacy. In fact, he says he says his resignation does “not revoke THIS,” i.e., does not revoke this bond of charity.
I go into detail on this question in my article: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/02/27/regarding-benedicts-last-audience/. I might also add, this was not the first time Benedict used this allusion to the “private sphere” or “privacy” as an allusion to “belonging to others.” Please check out his homily after the death of Pope Paul VI when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. See: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/transfiguration-1723. I discuss this also in my upcoming book on the topic.
So, in sum, with regard to the last audience, and as you will see in my linked article above, it is quite apparent that the last audience has been misinterpreted because the “always and forever” is taken out of context to refer to an indelible mark of the papacy. Instead, BXVI is speaking ultimately of a bond of charity (“belonging”) formed between he and faithful when he became pope. BXVI was assuring us, that though he is resigning, his resignation does not revoke “this” bond of charity he has toward us…i.e., he still loves us, and thus, will continue to pray for us. It is a beautiful reflection that has unfortunately been lost in this controversy.
If we dissect each and every word and sentence like I would with the U.S. Tax Code to make a case, I understand your argument. The problem is that I think you are missing the forest for the trees. When you consider this frequent use of “remaining” and “always and forever” with the text of the actual resignation, in addition to Ganswein’s statements, on top of the fact he still lives in Rome, wears white, gives Apostolic blessings, uses his Papal name, and then accept that the notion of expanding the Petrine Ministry has been in the Modernist theological literature for decades, the bigger picture is quite clear (I guess just in my mind) what Benedict is trying to do here.
[O’REILLY Replies:] “If we dissect each and every word and sentence like I would with the US Tax Code to make a case, I understand your argument.” That is a curious thing to say. “If we dissect…”? If you and other Benepapists like Ann Barnhardt, Mark Docherty, Estefania Acosta, et al, are going to use the “always and forever” as an essential part of the “Benedict is still pope” argument — then it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to understand if their interpretation here is correct. We must “dissect” the meaning! It will not do to seemingly brush it away like it was an archaic question found in some dusty old volume of the Tax Code!
What you cannot do is seemingly claim a deep-dive into “always and forever” is perhaps a pointless exercise like a dissection of the Tax Code! No…the Benepapists have made the meaning of “always and forever” one of their central proofs.
So, defend it by explaining why the Benepapist interpretation is undoubtedly correct, and explain how the one I offer is undoubtedly wrong. But keep in mind, I examined the “always and forever” and “belonging” in the wider context of the last audience, AND what Cardinal Ratzinger said on the occasion of the death of Pope Paul VI.
One cannot say the question does not matter. However, if you want to NOW say “always and forever” does NOT mean what the arch-Benepapists have been saying it does, fine. On the other hand, if you dispute my interpretation…fine…BUT explain in detail why you think you’re right and I am wrong. I haven’t really seen that to date from the arch-Benepapists. What I have seen are empty claims that the Benepapist interpretation is the “plain meaning”, and that to reject this “plain meaning”, one must be “fundamentally dishonest” or a ‘liar’ (see https://romalocutaest.com/2021/02/28/on-the-8th-anniversary-of-the-resignation-of-pope-benedict-xvi/). These are ad hominem arguments. Again, my upcoming book, Valid? will also examine the “Always and Forever” as well.
As to the other questions, like Ganswein, Apostolic Blessings, wearing white; if you’re interested in my take on them, I address these issues here: https://romalocutaest.com/2022/03/19/regarding-gansweins-speech/ — and in my upcoming book, I hope, due out end of September 2022.
Thanks again for the discussion, Marcus. Feel free to email me if you have any follow up questions.
[END DISCUSSION]
Understanding Evidence and Burdens of Proof
I appreciate the back-and-forth exchange I had with Mr. O’Reilly above because these are exactly the types of discussions we all should be having concerning the state of the Church as it is. Sadly, there are some out there who refuse to even engage in the discussion or resort to name calling, which is why I was more than happy to reproduce this exchange and include Mr. O’Reilly’s links with his permission. The reader should read his content and consider it. But when doing so, keep the following points in mind.
There is a significant difference between evidence and meeting a burden of proof. Evidence is defined as:
Evidence: “Something (including testimony, documents, tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of alleged fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th Ed.
There are different types of evidence as well. For example, there is direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. These terms are defined as follows:
Direct Evidence: “Evidence that is based on personal knowledge or observation and that, if true, proves a fact without inference or presumption.”
Circumstantial Evidence: “Evidence based on inference and not on personal knowledge or observation.” Ibid.
Finally, we need to define “proof”:
Proof: “The establishment or refutation of an alleged fact by evidence; the persuasive effect of evidence in the mind of a fact-finder.” Ibid.
With these definitions in mind, let’s see how these concepts work together to discover and ascertain the truth. Admittedly, I come at this from a legal background and not a theological one, but I do know something about how evidence works. Allow me to give an example.
Assume the USA Bank was robbed at 11:00AM. If I wish to prove that Tom robbed the USA Bank at 11:00AM, I gather some evidence, and this is what I find:
- Tom confesses to robbing the bank. That is very good evidence and would be considered direct evidence because Tom has firsthand knowledge of his own actions at the time and location where the bank was robbed.
- Additionally, maybe there was a parking lot security camera that captured Tom on video running out of the bank at break-neck speed at 11:02AM carrying a large bag of money. This is good circumstantial evidence because the camera did not directly record Tom robbing the bank.
- Finally, I find out that Tom did rob the Ukrainian bank one week before and has a long criminal history. This is also circumstantial evidence because it tends to show Tom has the know-how and lack of moral character to rob banks.
Now, ask yourself, do any of the above pieces of evidence necessarily PROVE by themselves that Tom robbed the bank? The answer is no. Even Tom’s own confession does not necessarily (as in 2+2 always equals 4) require one to conclude he robbed the bank. Perhaps Tom has a mental disease that causes him to remember things that did not actually occur. Or, perhaps Tom was coerced into making an untrue confession. The point is that evidence is not the same thing as meeting a burden of proof.
The way to find the truth is to synthesize all the available evidence, in its proper context, to create a bigger picture and ascertain the truth as best as reasonably possible given all of the factual inputs.
Bringing this back to the Beneplentist debate, what’s the best evidence of what Benedict was attempting to do in February 2013? His own words, right? Those words are direct evidence of both his intent and actions. Arguments can be made over the isolated technical meaning of his words, I understand that. But, nevertheless, they still constitute good, direct evidence especially when considered in context.
What about the Miller dissertation and the fact Benedict calls himself a Pope (emeritus), dresses like the Pope, lives in the Vatican like the Pope, and gives apostolic blessings like only a Pope can do? This is circumstantial evidence, but still, very good evidence. Now add that to Benedict’s own words in the text of the February 2013 resignation, his secretary Ganswein’s press conference, and his Papal audience on February 28, 2013, and we have a much more detailed and convincing picture, don’t we? All the pieces fit!
Like the example of Tom robbing the bank, even though each individual point in itself may not meet the burden of proof, when you put the data points together, there is a very strong case, beyond a reasonable doubt in my opinion, that Benedict never resigned the Papacy and therefore remains the current and only remaining Pope to this day.
Could Pope Benedict have validly resigned the Papacy and still wear the Papal white? Sure, that’s possible. Could he have ignored his own German theological background and fully intended to resign the Papacy without any conditions or novelties? Sure, it is possible. But what we must do, is consider and synthesize all these points of evidence together to create a bigger picture. “To see the forest for the trees,” so to speak. To fit the pieces together to create an entire picture. And that is how we can arrive at the truth with a high degree of certainty.
I think that was the core of Mr. O’Reilly’s frustration with my arguments and also his error. He was looking for one smoking gun piece of evidence that would undoubtedly prove by itself (with no other possibilities) that Pope Benedict did not validly resign the Papacy. That is the equivalent of requiring me to produce HD quality bank video lobby footage with audio of Tom robbing the USA bank teller before he can be convinced. While that certainly would be nice to have, we are simply left to work with what we actually do have. So, we must simply continue to search for the truth with the evidence that is available.
I hope this exposition was helpful. And remember, canon law requires us to seek out the truth with regard to God and His Church.