The Resignation of Benedict Revisited

Mr Pofiri reexamines Pope Benedict's resignation, pointing out that he himself denied that he had resigned the ministerium, but not the munus, as touted by Ann Barnhardt and others.

From One Peter Five

By Aurelio Porfiri

I believe there are certain historical events in our lifetime for which everyone remembers exactly where they were when they happened. For example, I remember exactly where I was when the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 took place: I was in St. Peter’s Basilica, playing for Mass. Another historic event I clearly recall is the resignation of Benedict XVI. On that occasion as well, I remember being in the archives of the Biblioteca Angelica here in Rome, studying some documents of the Arcadia, a sort of association—or rather, a literary Academy of artists—founded in the late Baroque period. I recall that my first reaction to the news was disbelief. Then I had to surrender to the evidence of the facts.

In the years following 2013, that decision of Benedict XVI became the subject of much discussion, especially due to certain interpretations that attempted to probe the real motivations behind it. A particular highlight was the book by Roman journalist Andrea Cionci, titled Codice Ratzinger, a work that attracted much attention and became a publishing success, translated into several languages. According to the thesis presented by Cionci, Benedict XVI resigned from the Petrine ministerium, but not from the Petrine munus, thereby remaining the true Pontiff in a situation of impeded see (sede impedita). These ideas circulated in various circles, convincing several intellectuals and priests, and taking shape in a group—with international branches—that recognizes the leadership of former priest Alessandro Minutella, who has been excommunicated several times. Various works have been written to refute Cionci’s theses, such as those by Federico Michielan in Italy or Steven O’Reilly in the United States. Naturally, there is also a body of literature that supports Cionci’s position, likewise published in multiple languages. In Italy, for instance, the former Argentine priest Fernando Maria Cornet has authored several books endorsing the theses presented in Codice Ratzinger. But there are other texts on this subject as well.

The issue of Benedict XVI’s resignation has engaged canonists in many discussions, since it is a rare legislative event. Canonist Valerio Gigliotti, Professor of Medieval and Modern Law at the University of Turin, in a 2016 study draws an obvious comparison with the resignation of Celestine V (1294):

Indeed, the traits that outline and connect the two resignations are numerous and particularly significant: from the textual tenor of the declaratio, to the pronouncement made in consistory in the presence of the cardinals, to the cause of the resignation alleged (debilitas corporis, advanced age)—all elements that confirm, with a seal of authenticity, the perfect adherence to the canonical tradition, which in this study one has attempted to illustrate, of this latter resignation.

These conditions of validity are, of course, contested by supporters of the impeded see thesis, who argue above all—as previously noted—that it was Benedict XVI’s specific intention to renounce his active ministry while not renouncing the munus. This assertion is certainly not without difficulties, even from a strictly canonical perspective.

A recent work by liturgist Msgr. Nicola Bux (written with Vito Palmiotti), a personal friend of Benedict XVI, may help bring some clarity to this apparently intricate question. The book, Realtà e Utopia nella Chiesa, contains a correspondence Bux held with Benedict XVI himself one year after his resignation. In this 2014 exchange, Benedict XVI directly addresses the theses of those who claim that his resignation was invalid. He writes:

To say that in my resignation I would have left ‘only the exercise of the ministry but not also the munus’ is contrary to clear dogmatic-canonical doctrine.

These statements by the then-Pope emeritus should decisively eliminate the speculations that followed Benedict XVI’s resignation, a resignation that nevertheless raises certain questions even beyond the “impeded see” thesis. Journalist Riccardo Cascioli, commenting on Bux’s book, writes:

This letter of Benedict XVI, whose existence was known but which had never been published by Msgr. Bux in order to prevent it from becoming merely another instrument of fierce and useless polemics, is of fundamental historical importance because it allows us to understand the mens of the Pope emeritus regarding his resignation and the institution of the emeritus pontificate, but also more generally his theological vision of the papacy. Moreover, it obviously closes the discussion about who in past years was the ‘true Pope,’ a controversy which, for reasonable people, always appeared detached from reality but which unfortunately drew many toward ‘false prophets.’

Certainly, even apart from the “impeded see” thesis, it is not wrong to reflect on the reasons for a resignation that had major consequences for the life of the Church. One such issue is that of the “Pope emeritus,” which has caused no small amount of difficulty even among experts. Canonist Geraldina Boni, in a 2016 study, cites a passage from a book written by the postulator of John Paul II’s cause for canonization, Slawomir Oder (with the assistance of journalist Saverio Gaeta), in which reference is made to the Polish Pope’s consideration of resignation when he was already ill—a thought from which he was dissuaded precisely because of the problems that would arise from having a Pope emeritus. I believe this is an important issue, brought to the forefront by Benedict XVI’s disruptive gesture.

Some raise doubts about the fact that Msgr. Bux waited so long to publish this text. Journalist Marco Tosatti, on his widely followed blog Stilum Curiae, observes:

The fundamental question, in our very modest opinion, is this: why has such an important and decisive letter, absolutely conclusive, only come to light now, eleven years after it was written? We do not agree with the thesis, reported by Cascioli, that its concealment was due to the desire to prevent the letter from becoming ‘another instrument of fierce and useless polemics.’ The authority of the writer would have had, in our view, a totally opposite effect. Silence, lack of clarity, allowed confusion and unreal theses to flourish and spread.

Echoing him on the same blog is historian Massimo Viglione, who makes this observation:

We are witnessing a veritable rush to claim ‘I told you so!’—and thus to forcibly normalize ten years of decisions and behaviors on the part of Benedict XVI that were anything but normal, from February 11, 2013 until his death. This letter is the perfect whitewash, intended not only to quell any pretextual controversy, but also any legitimate reflection and questioning; but above all, meant to save from any accusation the one who, at all costs, must be saved—namely, Benedict XVI himself.

This intervention confirms what has been said: that perhaps this matter was not handled in the best way from the very beginning.

Thus the question becomes ever more pressing: why this letter now? I was able to put this question directly to Msgr. Bux, with whom I have had a cordial relationship for many years. He noted that he had not considered publishing this correspondence earlier because it had a private character, and he felt he should wait for the death of both Popes, Benedict XVI and Francis, before making it public.

I would like to make a broader consideration. In recent decades, the Church has been immersed in a profound crisis, which also touches upon her Catholic identity. This crisis, as one might expect, has left many people in deep confusion. Some have chosen to resolve this confusion by simply abandoning religious practice and seeking refuge in the seemingly comfortable shelter of indifference. Indifference, not atheism, is the true tragedy of the modern age. Others, wishing to remain in some form of religious framework, have sought different solutions to fill a void of meaning they cannot help but feel. Thus we find those who take refuge in apparizionismo (fixation on alleged Marian apparitions), pestering the Blessed Virgin with countless supposed manifestations. Others seek in various theses, born of the inexhaustible arsenal of conspiracy theories, an explanation for the malaise they feel deep in their hearts. I want to say, in all seriousness, that I understand the suffering of these people, which in a sense is also my own. But for me, the solution to this malaise is very complex, and the truth is not served by retreating into easy solutions.

Personally, I believe that Benedict XVI could no longer bear the burden of the papacy because it was not a role in which he ever felt fully at ease. In the book Last Conversations, he clearly said he was grateful not to have to bear the responsibility of the papacy any longer, that he was no longer able to endure it. He stated plainly that he had vacated the pontifical throne and judged as absurd the theses that appeared in newspapers about blackmail and conspiracy. He also admitted openly that he lacked leadership ability, a problem that seems to have been present even during his episcopal service in Munich, and one of the reasons he was called back to Rome by John Paul II. Moreover, his health was poor and he suffered from insomnia, which made it very difficult to carry out a demanding job like that of the Pope.

I knew Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and had a few brief conversations with him. I remember a very courteous and shy man, whose very physical posture suggested discomfort when he had to perform functions different from those of the scholar—which, in the end, was his true vocation. If the man I knew said he could no longer bear the weight of such a grave responsibility, despite the serious problems caused by his 2013 decision (which I certainly do not deny), I can only believe him.

Bibliography

• BENEDICT XVI, with Peter Seewald (2016). Last Conversations. Milan: Garzanti
• BONI, Geraldina (2016). Rinuncia del Sommo Pontefice al munus petrinum, sedes romana vacans aut prorsus impedita, tra ius conditum e ius condendum, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, year 56 no.1. Venice: Marcianum Press
• BUX, Nicola; PALMIOTTI, Vito (2025). Realtà e Utopia nella Chiesa. Monza: I libri della Bussola
• CASCIOLI, Riccardo (2025). La lettera inedita di Benedetto XVI: la mia rinuncia è piena e valida. La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana
• CIONCI, Andrea (2022). Codice Ratzinger. Milan: ByoBlu Edizioni
• CORNET, Fernando Maria (2023). Habemus Antipapam? Trento: Edizioni del Faro
• GIGLIOTTI, Valerio (2016). Un soglio da cui non si scende? Aspetti della Renuntiatio Papae nella storia giuridica medievale, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, year 56 no.1. Venice: Marcianum Press
• MICHIELAN, Federico (2023). Non era più lui. Verona: Fede & Cultura
• O’REILLY, Steven (2022). Valid? Atlanta/Woodstock (GA): Hartwell Publishing Company
• ODER, Slawomir, with Saverio Gaeta (2011). Perché è santo. Milan: Rizzoli