{"id":62622,"date":"2026-04-21T02:30:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T00:30:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/?p=62622"},"modified":"2026-04-21T02:30:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T00:30:22","slug":"ratzingers-resignation-vatican-inquiry-is-merely-a-routine-procedure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.uccronline.it\/eng\/2026\/04\/21\/ratzingers-resignation-vatican-inquiry-is-merely-a-routine-procedure\/","title":{"rendered":"Ratzinger\u2019s Resignation: Vatican Inquiry Is Merely a Routine Procedure"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ratzinger<\/p>\n

The Promoter of Justice confirms a case file on Andrea Cionci<\/strong>\u2019s petition regarding the resignation of Benedict XVI<\/strong>. A routine step is being framed as a turning point.<\/i><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

The Vatican tribunal<\/strong> confirms the existence of a file concerning the validity of the resignation of Benedict XVI<\/strong><\/mark>.<\/p>\n

The news, circulated by an American outlet, has been welcomed by some as an epochal turning point<\/strong>. In reality, it is something far more ordinary, predictable<\/strong>, and routine.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Cionci and the petition in the Vatican<\/h2>\n

It all began with a petition<\/strong> submitted on June 6, 2024, by the Italian tenor and art critic Andrea Cionci<\/strong> to the Vatican Tribunal.<\/p>\n

The document\u2014drafted with the support of attorney Roberto Tieghi\u2014was accompanied by numerous signatures and requested verification of the validity<\/strong> of Benedict XVI\u2019s resignation.<\/p>\n

The origin of the complaint lies in the bizarre theory<\/strong> that the author of the petition has been promoting continuously for about seven years, namely that Pope Francis is an illegitimate antipope <\/strong>because Benedict XVI allegedly only pretended to renounce the papacy.<\/p>\n

Perhaps inspired by the famous fairy tale “Tom Thumb”<\/i>, Pope Ratzinger allegedly scattered<\/strong> throughout his speeches and documents a kind of enigmatic \u201csecret code\u201d<\/strong> to communicate this message to anyone clever enough to decipher it. That is, no one\u2014except Cionci himself.<\/p>\n

The result is a fanciful religious psycho-thriller<\/strong> built on attributing intentions to Benedict XVI, in which every statement is surgically dissected<\/strong> and twisted into a clue, every syllable magically becomes evidence, and every denial turns into further confirmation.<\/p>\n

An unassailable system<\/strong>: if something does not add up, it is because the \u201ccode\u201d is even deeper.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Vatican, the file, and the spin<\/h2>\n

John-Henry Westen<\/strong>, director of “LifeSiteNews”<\/i> and ghostwriter for the excommunicated former nuncio Carlo Maria Vigan\u00f2<\/strong>, reported yesterday that the Office of the Promoter of Justice of the Vatican has formally confirmed<\/strong> the existence of a file regarding Cionci\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

In a letter dated March 30, 2026, the Promoter of Justice Alessandro Diddi<\/strong> rejected attorney Tieghi\u2019s request (dated March 26) for access to the documents, stating that \u00abthe Office is conducting investigations<\/strong> and it is not, at present, possible to foresee when they will be concluded\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Westen commented that \u00abthe rejection was made solely<\/strong> for procedural reasons within the framework of an ongoing investigation, not because<\/strong> the petition was considered unfounded\u00bb<\/i>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"cionci<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A routine act: judicial practice<\/h2>\n

Westen\u2019s words reveal a misleading attempt<\/strong> to portray the mere opening of a file as recognition by the Vatican of the strength and validity<\/strong> of Cionci\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

Yet even the most basic principles of criminal procedure show that denying access to documents is not a favorable act<\/strong> for the applicant\u2019s claims, but rather what normally occurs in any preliminary investigation: as long as the file is in the investigative phase, access is restricted.<\/p>\n

The fact that the Promoter of Justice states that he is \u201cconducting investigations\u201d does not in any way imply<\/strong> that the hypothesis is well-founded or worthy of substantive examination.<\/p>\n

It simply means that the complaint has been formally received as a mandatory step<\/strong>, and that it is being assessed to determine whether there are minimal grounds to proceed further.<\/p>\n

The competent authority is required<\/strong> to register and open a file when a formal complaint is submitted, especially if supported by a significant number of signatures. This is standard procedure, even in the Vatican.<\/p>\n

The document is handled by the Promoter of Justice<\/strong>\u2014the equivalent of a public prosecutor\u2014whose task is to evaluate its content, carry out inquiries through questioning (as happened with Cionci himself), and determine whether sufficient elements exist to proceed.<\/p>\n

In the vast majority of cases, especially when complaints are based on imaginative interpretations<\/strong> or theses already discredited in theological and canonical scholarship, the outcome is dismissal<\/strong> due to manifest lack of foundation.<\/p>\n

This is standard practice and it is what will happen<\/strong> with the investigation in question.<\/p>\n

\n

Stay updated by subscribing<\/strong> to our new channels:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n

No doubts about Ratzinger\u2019s resignation<\/h2>\n

Moreover, no recognized scholar of canon law doubts that “Declaratio”<\/i> of Benedict XVI<\/strong> meets the legal requirements, particularly the freedom of the act and its proper manifestation.<\/p>\n

Even the public statements of the Pope Emeritus himself, up until his death in 2022, confirmed<\/strong> his intention to renounce the Petrine ministry and to recognize his successor as valid.<\/p>\n

This tedious controversy<\/strong> over the alleged invalidity of his resignation emerged belatedly as an attack on the pontificate of Pope Francis<\/strong>, exploiting Ratzinger\u2019s unprecedented gesture as a tool to delegitimize Bergoglio.<\/p>\n

To canon lawyers<\/strong> who, by professional duty, examined its contents, it appeared less a serious investigation than a poorly told joke, earning it hardly academic judgments<\/strong> (to put it mildly).<\/p>\n