March 2013 (UTC)

Well it is clear that my position on what is proper to cover in this article does not fit with the vocal majority here.
I maintain that the article, in its current form, reads like a sanitized Vatican press release.  Even if all of the arguments I've presented here are seen to carry no weight, I fail to see how the wealth of reliable sources that I've sited have been so readily dismissed as irrelevant, giving not so much as a single mention within the body of the article.  And aside from the one's I had highlighted, there were plenty of reliable sources reporting on the December VatiLeaks Dossier, with that document's connection to the resignation decision.  I find it shocking to see so many editors here to not want a single mention of any of that.  So the decision for now is to continue presenting an article on Benedict's resignation as though there was absolutely no connection to any of the scandals, and to pretend that all of the reliable sources that do point to such connections don't exist.  Very curious.  15:20, 7