Who gains from the violation of the conclave’s vow of secrecy?

Source: FSSPX News


In an article in the Italian review Limes of September 23, 2005 entitled “How we elected Pope Ratzinger”, the journalist Lucio Brunelli published the account of the two days of the conclave (April 18 & 19) from the diary of a nameless cardinal. Limes is a bi-monthly geopolitical review with center-left tendencies.

This anonymous cardinal affirmed that on the first ballot, the evening of April 18, 2005, Joseph Ratzinger obtained 47 votes, the Archbishop of Buenos Aires Jorge Mario Bergoglio received 10, 9 went to the Archbishop-emeritus of Milan Carlo Maria Martini, 6 to the Cardinal Vicar of Rome Camillo Ruini, 4 to the Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, 3 to the Honduran Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, and 2 to the Archbishop of Milan, Dionigi Tettamanzi.

On the second ballot, the morning of April 19, Joseph Ratzinger was supposed to have received 65 votes to Jorge Mario Bergoglio’s 35. This majority was insufficient to meet the required two-third’s or 77 votes. The Italian Cardinal Angelo Sodano was to have received 4 votes and 11 votes were distributed among several other cardinals.

On the third ballot, the second morning vote of April 19, Cardinal Ratzinger’s votes rose to 72, 40 for Cardinal Bergoglio, plus three votes for others. It was the fourth vote, in the afternoon, which was decisive. This time, Joseph Ratzinger received 84 votes to Bergoglio’s 26 and five votes for others. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger thus received only 7 votes above the necessary majority of 77 votes.

Let us recall that, in the Sistine Chapel, on April 18, before a worldwide television audience, the 115 cardinal-participants at the conclave pronounced an oath binding them to strict secrecy concerning the vote. Then each of the cardinals swore individually, their right hand on the Book of the Gospels, pronouncing out loud the following formula: “And I, N. Cardinal N., do promise, vow and swear this. May God aid me in this as well as the Holy Gospels that I touch with my hand”.

One wonders about the identity of the perjuring cardinal and the accuracy of the figures given, which are unverifiable because in principle no cardinal can confirm them due to the oath. But the truly important questions are the following: who profits from this perjury? What is to be gained by these revelations?

From a Roman source, it seems that certain prelates wanted to remind Benedict XVI that he must acknowledge the electors who gave him their votes even though they do not agree with him doctrinally, which is the same as telling him: “Who made you pope?” Their very specific goal would seem to be to exercise pressure on the sovereign pontiff to obtain a Secretary of State of radical progressive tendencies. Is it by accident that in the article from Limes the name of Cardinal Attilio Nicora crops up several times? The ultra-progressive review Golias said he carried “considerable weight behind the scenes”, and placed him in the enlightened (sic) Martini/Silvestrini line, adding that he is convinced of the positive aspects of a certain secularization, which he does not demonize”. This artisan of the disastrous reform of the Italian concordat has accorded a certain authority to himself with his current project of reforming the Roman Curia. A Vatican-watcher confided in hushed tones: Casaroli genuit Silvestrini, Silvestrini genuit Nicora… Basta!