Danneels Confesses to Forcing Out Benedict! Francis is False Pope!

As Francis’ spectacularly successful visit drives reactionaries into shrieks of hysterics beyond the pitch of human hearing, St. Blogs is ringing with disinterred rumors that a Sinister Liberal Conspiracy forced Benedict out and replaced him with the invalidly elected antipope Francis.

This is the latest buzz from the Conspiracy Theorists of St. Blogs and the not-at-all crazy Right Wing Noise Machine.  A New Hope is kindled! Francis haters around St. Blogs from One Peter Five to Roarhate Daily are abuzz with excitement and helpfully suggesting that it’s a whole new ball game! Francis may well be an antipope (they hopefully offer without having the stones to come out and say it) and we can ignore him (which they are already trying to do anyway), the Church is saved from him, etc.

Yeah. Here’s the thing: Benedict has already schooled the Conspiracy Theorists on this:

“There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry,” Benedict, 86, who now has the title “pope emeritus,” said in a letter to the Italian website Vatican Insider published on Wednesday.

“The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculation regarding its validity is simply absurd,” he wrote in answer to a request by the website for comment on recent Italian media reports.

What’s hilarious is that the Always Obviously Wrong Charism of Discernment of the Reactionaries manages to ignore the plainly truthful Benedict while somehow managing to make the person they themselves declare to be a Deceiver the fount of all truth–and all on the say-so of two guys hawking a book. The spectacular ability of Reactionaries to be wrong about everything, and to believe whatever their itching ears want to hear, is just breathtaking.

And it’s amazingly postmodern. What matters is not facts, but how it hits Francis Haters in the feels. Facts are unimportant. What matters is truthiness.

Sorry guys. Francis really is the Pope. Deal with it.

UPDATE: Ed Peters, Actual Canon Lawyer, schools people playing canon lawyer on the interwebz:

“Once again, some are questioning the validity of the election of Pope Francis. Once again, it is all nonsense. The latest manifestation of this theory holds that because some figures seem to have agreed in advance of the conclave to push Cdl. Bergoglio’s candidacy, they might have incurred latae sententiae excommunication (Universi 81) and therefore—therefore what?—therefore the election of Francis is invalid? Where does conclave or canon law say THAT? I tell you where: Nowhere.

Such reprehensible agreements are themselves null (as in, they do not bind in conscience those who might have entered into them), they might result in serious criminal sanctions (and if we would ever get rid of automatic censures, we would have actually to face such hard questions, instead of dodging them each time they come up, as we currently do), but any ballots cast in a conclave in accord with such evil pacts are valid. Period. End of discussion.

Francis is pope.”

The moon landings really happened too.

"Satire for sure, but not a bad idea. The president has shown over and over ..."

Babylon Bee Just Keeps Nailing It
"Well-written article. There is absolutely no doubt that the religious right essentially sold its collective ..."

Michael Gerson on the appalling idolatry ..."
"57 percent of white Catholics voted for Trump according to the American National Election Study, ..."

Today’s Trumpian Assault on Common Human ..."
"When you say, "Sometimes, on occasions now so rare that there is no point in ..."

The Sheer Orwellianism of Crisis

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Marco

    Note that Cardinal Danneels isn’t considered a reactionary by anyone in Europe. On the contrary, he is known to be very progressist on issues that divide the Church nowadays (Gay relationships for example).
    It is really weird to see the Catholic press pointing at “reactionaries” as a reaction to the disclosure of behind the scene maneuvers by the most modernist in the hierarchy ( Danneels, Kasper, Martini,…).
    The authors of Danneels “official” biography certainly didn’t want or expect to create such a mess. They have already tried to reinterprete Danneels statement on the ” Saint Gallen Mafia”.
    It is embarrassing ? So what ? It is about time people realise popes are not elected through a ” mystical process “.
    The story is used by ” reactionaries ” ? So what ?
    A party wasn’t happy and sought to change things ? The other party isn’t happy and seeks revenge trying to regain power ?
    It is politics, Church politics. It is about time people realise (…)

    • Alma Peregrina

      «It is about time people realise popes are not elected through a “mystical process”»

      If that is so (to paraphrase Flannery O’Connor) to hell with it. To offer me mere politics, the secular world suffices.

      • Marco

        You’re welcome !

        • Alma Peregrina

          Yeah, I didn’t thank you. Nor acknowledged you were right.

    • Joseph

      Dude, nobody cares in Europe. I live here. Nobody even knows who Danneels is! The Catholics in Europe don’t even really know what Catholicism is. They are pretty much all cultural Catholics who have gone through the motions all of their life. Hell, there’s a pretty large percentage of Irish Catholics who don’t even know the Three Persons of the Blessed Trinity are!
      .
      And Kasper? They don’t even know who Kasper the Friendly Ghost is, let alone the Cardinal. Europeans, at this point in time, are pretty much disinterested in Catholicism in general, unless it’s to set up a strawman to attack or blame their personal problems on.
      .
      Indifference does not mean consensus.

      • Julian Barkin

        Well said Joseph. The majority of the Catholic laity doesn’t hang around the hate-o-sphere. They are too busy living day to day to give a care.

  • CradleRevert

    Mark, this post is beyond dishonest.

    Neither One Peter Five nor Rorate Caeli even once suggested that the news of Daneels conspiring invalidated Pope Francis election.

    Additionally, this story was reported by Edward Pentin at the National Catholic Register…hardly a bastion of reactionary conspiracy theorizing.

    Might I suggest a bit more prayerful discretion before you make these kinds of posts. The truth is far more important than ad-revenue-generating click-baiting.

    • chezami

      I’m sure the people buzzing about this story are just making conversation and have no interest in undermining the legitimacy of this papacy or anything.

      • CradleRevert

        Or the third option…this is a legitimate story for other very serious reasons.

        1. You have a living Cardinal who is now openly admitting that he helped organize votes in favor of Cardinal Bergoglio before the conclave. This is an excommunicable act.

        2. This very Cardinal is now holding a prominent position in an upcoming synod, and is openly pushing a heterodox view on Catholic marriage and divorce.

        • Cypressclimber

          What CradleRevert said. (FWIW, I’m a revert too…)

    • chezami

      Funny. I linked Pam Geller. Why would you assume I’m referring to Skojec or Roarhate Daily?

      • CradleRevert

        Because you specifically mentioned them: “A New Hope is kindled! Francis haters around St. Blogs from One Peter Five to Roarhate Daily are abuzz with excitement and helpfully suggesting that it’s a whole new ball game! Francis may well be an antipope (they hopefully offer without having the stones to come out and say it) and we can ignore him (which they are already trying to do anyway), the Church is saved from him, etc.”

        • chezami

          Ah! I forgot about that. Well yeah, they are going on about it. And no, they are not just making conversation . They want to plant the suggestion that Francis is an antipope but, as I say, they don’t have the stones to come out and say it. I resist them to their cowardly faces.

          • bill

            Yep. Snakes in the grass.

        • Jared B.

          “no, they are not just making conversation . They want to plant the suggestion that Francis is an antipope but, as I say, they don’t have the stones to come out and say it.”

          It’s easy to presume to know someone’s motives and dismiss them out of hand.

          I found one article in 1Peter5 http://www.onepeterfive.com/vatican-conspiracy-against-pope-benedict-for-pope-francis not even a full feature just a blog post, and it “suggests” nothing more than its source (Edward Pentin) suggested, that one or more cardinals may have or possibly should have incurred excommunication, if things went down the way it was told. Nothing about an anti-pope.

          I don’t read everything from 1Peter5 or Rorate, so I can’t deny that either site contains some groundless Francis-bashing, but most of what I read consists of exactly what Shea is claiming they lack: a presentation of FACTS that form the basis of their concerns or frustrations about the current papacy. I don’t find any difficulty digging up legitimate criticisms of the “here is how I feel and here, in specifics with citations in context, is why” variety, even from sources Shea declares to be unclean.

          Mark Shea and other writers counter with other facts, such as the quotes from the Pope Emeritus and Ed Peters. That is exactly how it should be. But dismissing other voices as a priori false or even hateful—not based on facts but on assumptions about their “real” motives—is inappropriate. Francis-hating does have an equally wrong opposite.

    • Julian Barkin

      No cradle. Mark is being entirely honest in this post and telling the truth. Rotate deserves the hate post, as many of their postings are laced with hate for Pope Francis, “hidden” in fancy literary and journalistic language. They first came out when Francis was elected with “the horror.” Also there are bloggers spewing this quasi-schismatic bile out there and committing acts of Satan in misleading souls with slander and gossip.
      Seeing your title of “revert” in your name, look I get that you don’t want to be ignorant of your faith anymore. But at the same time, realize that we can’t cut down Forrests for trees, or do good from committing sin and evil, as these people are. It just foments more evil, and more division in the Churcch.

      • CradleRevert

        I have plenty of quibbles with the way that Rorate Caeli composes themselves. However, I also think that honesty is important. Mark states that RC is “suggesting” that Pope Francis is either not the pope or is an anti-pope. Looking at RC’s post on the topic, they do not imply, not even in the slightest, that this news would invalidate the current papacy. Not only that, but I’m not aware of a single time in all of RCs history in which they have implied that Pope Francis was not the legitimate pope.

        They have certainly consistently argued that he is not a very good pope (which is one of the areas in which I disagree with their editorial decisions), but never once (someone correct me if I’m wrong) have they argued that he wasn’t the legitimate pope. For Mark to suggest otherwise, whatever his beef with RC is, is grievous calumny, plain and simple.

        • bill

          And yet, despite your argument, I have zero sympathy for RC. Their crap is poisonous.

          You can ask Mark to clarify where he thinks RC insinuated these rumors, but RC isn’t a blog I’m scurrying to defend.