In my article “No, 133 Cardinals Cannot Participate in the Conclave,” I argued that the 2025 Conclave, which has now elected Pope Leo XIV, took place in a canonically illicit manner due to the participation of 133 Cardinals when Universi Dominici gregis
It would be interesting to do a historical study on when the idea of Benevacantism and the whole munus vs. ministerium idea began to take hold. Some of the people who were sedevacantists going back to the days of JP2 might have used it as early as 2013 though in truth none of them would likely have considered Benedict to be a valid pope anyways so maybe not. I suspect it was around the time of Amoris Laetitia or maybe the months leading up to it during the first sessions of the Synod on the Family in 2015 though I don't really remember hearing much about it until later. My point though is that I suspect that people really didn't go for this idea until Francis started doing things that they didn't like or they thought were harmful to the Faith. In other words it was more a political argument than a legal argument which is why even if there were any truth to it it never was going to go anywhere.
With the 2025 Conclave however this issue was brought up by certain parties, yourself included, before the election i.e. it was an argument saying that this was a bad and illicit way to do a conclave period. It wasn't about "we don't like the guy who was elected so we're going to invent an argument as to why this was a bad conclave", it was "you guys are doing this illicitly and it will be a stain on the papacy no matter whether I like the man who was elected or I don't like him." And it was made before the election happened. That I think makes this a very different animal than the Benevacantism nonsense.
Again you're absolutely right: this might all blow over in the sense that it may be that nobody ever calls either Leo XIV or the Cardinals out on what they did here but still... It was bad. It was a lawless act. And it was made even worse by the fact that the Congregation of Cardinals admitted in their statement of 30 April that they were violating UDG, but to justify their illicit action they put forth an idea that let's just say has a somewhat problematic relationship with the truth that Francis had somehow dispensed them from following that law, which there is absolutely no record of him doing anywhere or at anytime. That to me is the Achilles heel of this whole thing.
They didn't say that this a bad law and we are unable to follow it. They said that they were dispensed from following it which they were not.
I believe Benevacantism got started in mid-2016 with Ann Barnhardt putting forth the "substantial error" argument based on canon 188, totally disregarding the fact that this canon is meant to help a person who realizes he has resigned an office in substantial error to make the necessary argument to reclaim it. Given that Benedict never did this, even after he was directly confronted after his resignation by people asking whether he really resigned, it suffices to conclude that even if the original act were invalid (and that is a big if), he tacitly resigned at some later date anyway due to his non-action upon being confronted.
Furthermore, substantial *theological* error about the nature of an ecclesiastical office (such as Benedict allegedly separating the ministerium from the munus) is an entirely different matter from substantial error about the canonical process of resignation itself, which is really what canon 188 is addressing.
I found I was never able to actually have a discussion with people who went for this argument, because they were operating mostly on emotion, outraged over Amoris laetitia and the fallout from that. Any canonical arguments about the resignation always seemed more like post hoc rationalizations to protect their fragile sense of what the papacy or even the Church herself is than a reasoned conclusion based on an objective analysis of the facts and situation.
I think there is a way out of this juridical mess. Is to apply the moral principle “ad impossibilia nemo tenetur”. It can be applied also in juridical terms. Since you cannot apply the norm of the 120 electors and you have 133, you do not apply it because of The impossibility of doing so. And then you apply the canons of a regular election and you are not bound with the question of licitud since you cannot apply it
That's one way out of this mess, but wouldn't that approach still presuppose the idea that there were 133 true Electors in the first place? As I wrote in my original article, I don't think there really are 133 Electors, and those last 13 (or 15, really, if we count those who opted out of the Conclave) were simply appointed as non-voting members of the College. This still shows how poorly written UDG is, however, since it does not give provisions for what to do, or whom to exclude, when the number is exceeded. If 15 Electors who had been Cardinals longer than the last 15 decided to opt out, would it give the last 15 the right to vote? And honestly this whole idea of a non-voting Cardinal is ridiculous to begin with.
I love your style! Thanks for your clear explanations of canon law. I think you err, however, on one key point.
Let’s examine the key part of the key sentence in No. 76. “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void….”
The clause “should the conditions laid down here” is not subject to the limitation of its predecessor clause governing how the election proceeds, but is completely independent of the first clause. It is an either or dichotomy. Thus the “conditions must be observed”clause is of broader scope, i.e., applying to the entire process set by U. D. G. and not merely the mechanics of the election process. “Here” applies to the entire Constitution, and not merely the election procedure.
One of those broader conditions of U. D. G. is a limitation of electors to 120. As this was not observed, we have an invalid conclave, a “null and void” election. And we have therefore an invalid pope in Leo.
He is also invalid for having been elected by faux cardinals created by Francis, to whom the phrase raging apostate hardly does justice. But simply un-Catholic will serve.
Leo is thirdly an imposter because it is quite clear that U. D. G.’s prohibition against canvassing votes and organized agreements to vote for a certain candidate—Prevost in this case—has once again been violated by the Bergoglian party. As Bannon logically points out, there’s no way a dark horse and complete media-unknown comes out and wins on the first day without a well groomed plan to get him there.
We need more evidence on this point—too bad McCarrick isn’t still around (God forbid) to spill the beans as he did in his 2014 Villanova Italian Gentleman Speech on Francis the False’s faux conclave orchestrated by the St Gallen Mafia.
But the bottom line is, we have a second faux conclave (as in null) and unsurprisingly, a second Francis. A Francis 2.0, if you will.
It would be interesting to do a historical study on when the idea of Benevacantism and the whole munus vs. ministerium idea began to take hold. Some of the people who were sedevacantists going back to the days of JP2 might have used it as early as 2013 though in truth none of them would likely have considered Benedict to be a valid pope anyways so maybe not. I suspect it was around the time of Amoris Laetitia or maybe the months leading up to it during the first sessions of the Synod on the Family in 2015 though I don't really remember hearing much about it until later. My point though is that I suspect that people really didn't go for this idea until Francis started doing things that they didn't like or they thought were harmful to the Faith. In other words it was more a political argument than a legal argument which is why even if there were any truth to it it never was going to go anywhere.
With the 2025 Conclave however this issue was brought up by certain parties, yourself included, before the election i.e. it was an argument saying that this was a bad and illicit way to do a conclave period. It wasn't about "we don't like the guy who was elected so we're going to invent an argument as to why this was a bad conclave", it was "you guys are doing this illicitly and it will be a stain on the papacy no matter whether I like the man who was elected or I don't like him." And it was made before the election happened. That I think makes this a very different animal than the Benevacantism nonsense.
Again you're absolutely right: this might all blow over in the sense that it may be that nobody ever calls either Leo XIV or the Cardinals out on what they did here but still... It was bad. It was a lawless act. And it was made even worse by the fact that the Congregation of Cardinals admitted in their statement of 30 April that they were violating UDG, but to justify their illicit action they put forth an idea that let's just say has a somewhat problematic relationship with the truth that Francis had somehow dispensed them from following that law, which there is absolutely no record of him doing anywhere or at anytime. That to me is the Achilles heel of this whole thing.
They didn't say that this a bad law and we are unable to follow it. They said that they were dispensed from following it which they were not.
I believe Benevacantism got started in mid-2016 with Ann Barnhardt putting forth the "substantial error" argument based on canon 188, totally disregarding the fact that this canon is meant to help a person who realizes he has resigned an office in substantial error to make the necessary argument to reclaim it. Given that Benedict never did this, even after he was directly confronted after his resignation by people asking whether he really resigned, it suffices to conclude that even if the original act were invalid (and that is a big if), he tacitly resigned at some later date anyway due to his non-action upon being confronted.
Furthermore, substantial *theological* error about the nature of an ecclesiastical office (such as Benedict allegedly separating the ministerium from the munus) is an entirely different matter from substantial error about the canonical process of resignation itself, which is really what canon 188 is addressing.
I found I was never able to actually have a discussion with people who went for this argument, because they were operating mostly on emotion, outraged over Amoris laetitia and the fallout from that. Any canonical arguments about the resignation always seemed more like post hoc rationalizations to protect their fragile sense of what the papacy or even the Church herself is than a reasoned conclusion based on an objective analysis of the facts and situation.
Thanks for your clear and distinctive explanations.
I think there is a way out of this juridical mess. Is to apply the moral principle “ad impossibilia nemo tenetur”. It can be applied also in juridical terms. Since you cannot apply the norm of the 120 electors and you have 133, you do not apply it because of The impossibility of doing so. And then you apply the canons of a regular election and you are not bound with the question of licitud since you cannot apply it
That's one way out of this mess, but wouldn't that approach still presuppose the idea that there were 133 true Electors in the first place? As I wrote in my original article, I don't think there really are 133 Electors, and those last 13 (or 15, really, if we count those who opted out of the Conclave) were simply appointed as non-voting members of the College. This still shows how poorly written UDG is, however, since it does not give provisions for what to do, or whom to exclude, when the number is exceeded. If 15 Electors who had been Cardinals longer than the last 15 decided to opt out, would it give the last 15 the right to vote? And honestly this whole idea of a non-voting Cardinal is ridiculous to begin with.
I love your style! Thanks for your clear explanations of canon law. I think you err, however, on one key point.
Let’s examine the key part of the key sentence in No. 76. “Should the election take place in a way other than that prescribed in the present Constitution, or should the conditions laid down here not be observed, the election is for this very reason null and void….”
The clause “should the conditions laid down here” is not subject to the limitation of its predecessor clause governing how the election proceeds, but is completely independent of the first clause. It is an either or dichotomy. Thus the “conditions must be observed”clause is of broader scope, i.e., applying to the entire process set by U. D. G. and not merely the mechanics of the election process. “Here” applies to the entire Constitution, and not merely the election procedure.
One of those broader conditions of U. D. G. is a limitation of electors to 120. As this was not observed, we have an invalid conclave, a “null and void” election. And we have therefore an invalid pope in Leo.
He is also invalid for having been elected by faux cardinals created by Francis, to whom the phrase raging apostate hardly does justice. But simply un-Catholic will serve.
Leo is thirdly an imposter because it is quite clear that U. D. G.’s prohibition against canvassing votes and organized agreements to vote for a certain candidate—Prevost in this case—has once again been violated by the Bergoglian party. As Bannon logically points out, there’s no way a dark horse and complete media-unknown comes out and wins on the first day without a well groomed plan to get him there.
We need more evidence on this point—too bad McCarrick isn’t still around (God forbid) to spill the beans as he did in his 2014 Villanova Italian Gentleman Speech on Francis the False’s faux conclave orchestrated by the St Gallen Mafia.
But the bottom line is, we have a second faux conclave (as in null) and unsurprisingly, a second Francis. A Francis 2.0, if you will.
Oh no