By Br. Alexis Bugnolo

So many lines of supposition, speculation, investigation, analysis and examination pursued theories and explanations of Pope Benedict’s actions in February 2013 and beyond, on the basis of what Georg Gänswein told us. We presumed he was telling the truth, that he was reliable, faithful, honest and expressed only what the Holy Father wanted him to say.

Now that the masque has been ripped off by multiple reports (Socci, Tosatti 1 2, Viganò, myself) the entire history of the Renunciation needs to be examined minus Gänswein, that is, without presuming he is telling the truth.

Here are some questions I propose for investigators as they reread the reports from 2005 to 2020, which talk about Pope Benedict, the opposition he faced, why he Renounced, what it all meant:

• Was Gänswein co-opted into the St. Gallen Mafia as early as the Conclave of 2005? I move this question on the basis of the testimony of Marco Tosatti’s source in the Curia, that something profoundly changed Gänswein with the election of Joseph Ratzinger as Pope.
• Is it Gänswein who put into the head of Benedict the idea that he should, could, or must renounce?
• Did Gänswein over several years psychologically condition Benedict to renounce?
• Did Gänswein encourage or foster ideas of renunciation at the request of Jorge Mario Bergoglio?
• Did Gänswein allow Pope Benedict’s letters to be stolen from his desk during the Vatileaks as a part of a plot by the St. Gallen Mafia to psychologically isolate, reduce and destroy Pope Benedict, inducing him to resign?
• Did Gänswein play a double role in the fall of 2012, so as to obtain from Benedict the elevation to Archbishop and Head of the Pontifical Household, precisely so he could serve the St Gallen Mafia as a prison warden after the Renunciation?
• Did Gänswein write the text of the Renunciation?
• Did Gänswein sign off on the concept of a renunciation of ministry, based on his recourse to the German translation of the code in canon 145 §1?
• Is Gänswein bitterly defending the validity of the Renunciation because of his role in procuring it, forming it, directing it?
• Is the presumption that the Renunciation means a renunciation of office something which Gänswein put into the head of Pope Benedict, in a weakened state, by means of gaslighting, as he tried to do with me via phone?
• Is the presumption of the Cardinals that the Renunciation is valid or means a renunciation of the papacy, based on Gänswein’s claim that this is what Benedict means and meant and wants?
• Is the refusal to clarify the questions after the Renunciation have everything to do with Gänswein and nothing to do with Benedict?
• Is Benedict BEING KEPT A VIRTUAL PRISONER AND ABUSED on a daily basis to prevent him from communicating to the world that he never intended to renounce the munus petrinum?
• Does Benedict know he is the pope and say he is the pope in private?
• Are the public statements attributed to Pope Benedict XVI after Feb. 2013 the creations of Gänswein and not at all the faithful expressions of the mind of Pope Benedict?
• Since we can now be morally certain that Benedict does NOT tell Gänswein everything, how can we be sure that Gänswein even understands or knows what Pope Benedict’s Intention was when he read out his Declaratio on Feb. 11, 2013?

These questions are devastating, but the Church and all historians who examine the Renunciation must NOW ask them and must find the answers.

 + + +