Why is Taylor Marshall now saying there is No Possibility that Benedict Resigned because of Duress thus Possibly making it Invalid?
Dr. Taylor Marshall in his new book says:
"My response to... Benedict resigned under duress or fear. He claims that he did not and without knowing anything more, we cannot claim it to be so."
(Infiltration, Page 237)
As we shall see Marshall does "know... more."
Marshall, who apparently has no legal background, seems to think because Benedict XVI "claims that he did not" resign under duress there is not a case to be made that a elderly person could have been under pressure despite claiming that he wasn't under duress.
Marshall made this same claim in one of his YouTube TnT shows about a month ago to his co-host Timothy Gordon who went to law school. Gordon explained that under the law a person could have been under duress despite claiming he wasn't under duress.
Strangely enough when I went to the YouTube playlist so I could quote the show it appears to be listed as "Deleted video."
It is possible I could be wrong, but all the other videos within the same time frame don't cover this subject.
This back and forth in the video stuck to my memory because of the emotion I saw when Gordon contradicted Marshall's claim explaining that under the law someone could be under duress despite claiming not to have been.
Marshall at that moment had a displeased look that appeared to be anger for a moment and then recovered his poker face when his co-host showed it was possible Benedict resigned because of pressure despite claiming otherwise.
The strange thing is that Marshall himself narrated the duress or pressure that Benedict was in at the time in his August 27, 2018 YouTube video "Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity":
"[T]hose three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired with financial irregularity."
"This is what moves the pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on Jan 1, 2013."
Why is Marshall now saying there is no possibility that Benedict resigned because of pressure or duress thus possibly making it invalid?
Even pro-Francis Cardinal Walter Kasper and canon law expert Nicholas Cafardi say that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church is trying to force it."
(Reuters, "Can the pope's accusers force him to resign?", September 3018 and LifeSiteNews, Cdl. Kasper: A 'forced resignation' of Pope Francis would be invalid," January 30, 2019)
Finally, one related example of what Gordon was talking about is "undue influence" in "will-making." Mary Randolph, JD, wrote:
"People who knew the will-maker well.... may be called to testify about what they know about the... undue influence."
(Nolo.com, "Undue Influence in Estate Planning," By Mary Randolph JD)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
"My response to... Benedict resigned under duress or fear. He claims that he did not and without knowing anything more, we cannot claim it to be so."
(Infiltration, Page 237)
As we shall see Marshall does "know... more."
Marshall, who apparently has no legal background, seems to think because Benedict XVI "claims that he did not" resign under duress there is not a case to be made that a elderly person could have been under pressure despite claiming that he wasn't under duress.
Marshall made this same claim in one of his YouTube TnT shows about a month ago to his co-host Timothy Gordon who went to law school. Gordon explained that under the law a person could have been under duress despite claiming he wasn't under duress.
Strangely enough when I went to the YouTube playlist so I could quote the show it appears to be listed as "Deleted video."
It is possible I could be wrong, but all the other videos within the same time frame don't cover this subject.
This back and forth in the video stuck to my memory because of the emotion I saw when Gordon contradicted Marshall's claim explaining that under the law someone could be under duress despite claiming not to have been.
Marshall at that moment had a displeased look that appeared to be anger for a moment and then recovered his poker face when his co-host showed it was possible Benedict resigned because of pressure despite claiming otherwise.
The strange thing is that Marshall himself narrated the duress or pressure that Benedict was in at the time in his August 27, 2018 YouTube video "Dr. Taylor Marshall ties together Vatican financial scandal with homosexual activity":
"[T]hose three cardinals expose moral rot, sexual deviancy, that is paired with financial irregularity."
"This is what moves the pope to resignation. And just to make sure there is enough pressure on him to do it and do it quick something funny goes on with the Vatican Bank beginning on Jan 1, 2013."
Why is Marshall now saying there is no possibility that Benedict resigned because of pressure or duress thus possibly making it invalid?
Even pro-Francis Cardinal Walter Kasper and canon law expert Nicholas Cafardi say that it is "difficult, if not impossible" for a pope to resign "if a political faction in the Church is trying to force it."
(Reuters, "Can the pope's accusers force him to resign?", September 3018 and LifeSiteNews, Cdl. Kasper: A 'forced resignation' of Pope Francis would be invalid," January 30, 2019)
Finally, one related example of what Gordon was talking about is "undue influence" in "will-making." Mary Randolph, JD, wrote:
"People who knew the will-maker well.... may be called to testify about what they know about the... undue influence."
(Nolo.com, "Undue Influence in Estate Planning," By Mary Randolph JD)
Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.
Comments
For a smart guy, Taylor has a shockingly hard time grasping the simple concept that a man with a gun to his head cannot always be taken at his word.