In a blockbuster interview with Matt Gaspers of Catholic Family News (CFN), posted on 11 August 2023, Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò alleged that a member of the College of Cardinals who was present at the conclave of 2013 “witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void”. The transcript of the interview contains some eye-opening gold nuggets regarding a number of current topics in both religious and secular events.

Archbishop Viganò discusses, inter alia, Ukraine, child trafficking, Archbishop Lefebvre and Donald Trump. But perhaps the good archbishop’s most startling comments came early in the interview when Mr. Gaspers asked him about comments he had made in an interview with Aldo Maria Valli, posted last month as well on CFN. In those comments, Archbishop Viganò told Mr. Valli that “Eminent People created by Benedict XVI have proved to be completely inferior to the expectations of faithful conservatives,” and that some of them “at the last Conclave witnessed things that they do not denounce publicly.”

In response to Mr. Gaspers, Archbishop Viganò discussed the 2013 Conclave in general terms, as well as the dormant dubia,  before opining that the cardinal who witnessed the nullifying “facts” possesses a “formally legalistic mentality”. Then comes the Archbishop’s full broadside:

I find it incomprehensible that a member of the College of Cardinals can confide to friends that he has witnessed facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void, and at the same time he does not want to denounce them publicly so as not to break the Pontifical secret: the secret that he has already broken by talking about it with those who can do nothing, which forces His Eminence into silence before the Church, whose Pastors could perhaps settle the question. But here we are not talking about the Seal of Confession, but rather about matters that have reason to be reserved until this is to the detriment of the institution that brought them into force; otherwise we find ourselves like the Pharisees of the Gospel, who asked Our Lord if it was lawful to pull a donkey out of the well on the Sabbath day.

Notice that Archbishop Viganò did not couch his allegation with any qualifiers in the quote above. He does not say “could” or “might” or even “would,” (render the election null and void). To be fair, a few moments later in the interview, the Archbishop does begin an assessment of the impact with the words, “if these confidences are true”. But as you read through the transcript of the interview — which is long but certainly worthwhile — you get the sense that Archbishop Viganò gives a high amount of credibility to these reports. Indeed, it is very highly unlikely that he would have brought this up for the world (and the Vatican) to read, if he were not sure of the reliability of his sources.

Archbishop Viganò is crystal clear in the way he presents the information to Mr. Gaspers: a Prince of the Church, present at the 2013 Conclave by which Mario Bergoglio proclaimed himself Francis, saw “facts that render the election of Jorge Mario null and void”. The wording of Archbishop Viganò‘s disclosure gives us to understand that these events that occurred at the 2013 conclave were clearly recognized by the members of the College of Cardinals as “nullifying,” and that not a single one of them protested. It certainly seems that the cardinal being quoted specifically by Archbishop Viganò clearly understood that these “facts” he witnessed (and told his friends about) were actions or words that would nullify a papal election.

How long Archbishop Viganò has known this is anyone’s guess; although it is likely that he has not been in possession of this information for very long. In fact, the timing of the Valli interview (20 July) strongly suggests that after Francis announced on 9 July his intent to make nearly two dozen new cardinals at a consistory to be held in September, the cardinal in question had some conscience pangs and opened up to close friends, who then reported the information to Archbishop Viganò. This, of course, is supposition, but it is the most likely scenario, as the hard-hitting Archbishop Viganò would almost certainly have brought up this stunning disclosure before.

There are a number of other issues tied to this revelation, and the implications are enormous. For example, immediately after the above-quoted paragraph, Archbishop Viganò touches on the infamous “White Smoke” incident of October 26, 1958:

The indiscretions of these Cardinals focus on the evidence of serious irregularities, without providing further details. I am reminded of what happened in 1958, with the question of the smoke that was initially white and then turned black: it seems that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected, but then, due to the opposition of the Soviet communist regime, the Fathers were forced to elect another man as Pope, who coincidentally turned out to be the conciliatory Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli.

As an aside, Gary Giuffre has compiled a very interesting website to present the facts surrounding the mysterious events of the 1958 conclave. We are not in 100% agreement with what Mr. Giuffre writes; however, his documented evidence certainly warrants a full investigation. There are indeed all kinds of significant and disturbing canonical and ecclesiological implications that follow from Mr. Giuffre’s theories regarding the 1958 conclave “irregularities”. The same types of issues caused Archbishop Viganò, in his recent interview with Matt Gaspers, to make the following observation regarding the 2013 conclave:

If these confidences are true, I dare not think of the moral travail of those who are preparing to take the secret to the grave, when they would have had the opportunity of unmasking the intrigues and plots of the Saint Gallen Mafia. If they are not true, it would not make sense to talk about it even with the most trusted people (who, however, must have told others, since the news has leaked).

All of this leads us inexorably to the really big question, one that has been on the minds of serious and committed Catholics for over ten years: is Jorge Mario Bergoglio a legitimate successor to St. Peter? The “Recognize and Resist” (R&R) position that the “Trad, Inc.” folks have been promoting online for years has become increasingly difficult for them to maintain. They twist themselves into pretzels to try to rationalize how a Vicar of Christ could speak and behave the way Bergoglio does. Every time Francis tries to change Catholic magisterial teaching (e.g., the clarification letter to the Argentine bishops regarding the infamous Amoris Laetitia Footnote 351, which he made part of the Acta Apostolica Sedis) or whenever he pertinaciously adheres to one of his many formally heretical statements/beliefs, the R&R crowd tries to explain these away through the most convoluted logic. At one point R&R proponent Hillary White actually suggested, “Hey, guys, what if Vatican I was, well, wrong?”.

In light of Archbishop Viganò’s revelation in the most recent CFN article, there is a more reasonable and logical explanation. Could it be that Francis/Bergoglio is an anti-pope? Before you answer that question, you may want to take the time to read Antonio Socci’s excellent analysis of Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication. The book is called The Secret of Benedict XVI and is published in the United States by Angelico Press. Unfortunately, the editors at Angelico Press became a bit testy when we sent them an email asking why they changed the subtitle of the book from “Why he is still pope” (“Perché è ancora papa” in the original Italian edition) to “Is he still pope?” in the American/English edition. Their brusque answer was that it was a “marketing decision”.

We urge you to read the book and tell us what you think. The comments are wide open for you to let us know your thoughts. Is Francis a pope or an anti-pope? You tell us.