The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea’s political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians’ individual preferences. According to Overton’s description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.
As the spectrum moves or expands, an idea at a given location may become more or less politically acceptable. Political commentator Joshua Treviño postulated that the degrees of acceptance of public ideas are roughly:
Overton Window expressed as a graph:
Now please keep in mind, this is an imperfect model in our case, because what we are searching for here is objective truth, not some proposed public policy. The truth has nothing to do with the popularity of an idea, much less its “political acceptability.”
The truth is the truth, whether or not it is popular.
But the point being made here, with regards to the idea of the Bergoglian Antipapacy being the blue line on this chart, is that we just passed Point “A” in the last 24 hours. Point “A” is when the idea takes off, and the chart hockey-sticks. Which means we are about to see a whole lot more focus – white hot light – on this question.
And as Rorate wrote, “Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.”
So I leave you with commentary from Br. Alexis Bugnolo at the “From Rome” blog. It should be noted that at least two admins at the “From Rome” blog have long suspected the Bergoglian Antipapacy, but more from the standpoint of the shenanigans of the 2013 Conclave rendering the election invalid, rather than Benedict’s failed partial abdication:
Recently, the noted Vatican theologian, and former member of the Congregation for the Faith, Msgr. Nichola Bux publicly opined that the validity of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI should be studied in regard to the question of what appears to be substantial error in the formula of resignation.
Msgr. Bux was not the first to raise this doubt. There was a very noteworthy thesis — if I remember correctly — which was published in 2015 or 2014 by a canonist at Rome, which raised questions regarding the validity.
On June 19, 2016, Anne Barnhardt raised specifically the question of a doubt arising from canon 188, which cites substantial error as sufficient grounds to establish the grounds for a canonical determination of invalidity in any resignation. She did this following the remarkable comments by Pope Benedict’s personal Secretary on May 20th earlier, in which he claimed that Benedict still occupied the Papal Office.
Msgr. Henry Gracida, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas, in the United States, and a former member of Opus Dei, has also sustained this same doubt and others regarding the validity of the resignation. I understand that the Bishop has written many members of the Sacred Hierarchy and Curia about these matters urging action be taken (He suggests a public declaration by 12 pre-Bergoglian Cardinals).
According to Ann Barnhart, in the following year, Attorney Chris Ferrara and Mrs. Anne Kreitzer also sustained this same doubt.
There being a number of notable Catholics sustaining this doubt, and since Msgr. Bux called for an investigation of this matter, I will add here in Scholastic Form, the arguments in favor of sustaining it, in course of which will refute all substantial arguments against it.
Whether Pope Benedict XVI by means of the act expressed in his address, “Non solum propter”, resigned the office of the Bishop of Rome?
And it seem that he did not.
1. Substantial error, in regard to an act of resignation, regards the vis verborum, or signification of the words, as they regard the form and matter of the act. But the act of renouncing a ministry regards one of the proper accidents of the office by which that ministry can be rightfully exercised. Therefore, if one renounces a ministry, he does not renounce the office. And if he believes to have renounced the office, by renouncing one of the ministries, he is in substantial error as to the signification of the words he has used. But in the text, Non Solum Propter, Benedict XVI renounces the ministrum petrinum which he received as Bishop of Rome, when he was elected. Therefore, to understand that act as a renunciation of the office is to be in substantial error as to the effect of the act. Therefore as per canon 188, the resignation is invalid.
Do go read the whole thing HERE. He lists TWELVE MORE proofs after this one.