The suggestion that a photograph of a woman wearing a convention badge constitutes compelling evidence of kinship with Pope Benedict XVI borders on the absurd. Common sense, invoked so confidently, is only as reliable as the information it is based on. A name tag and a smile in a newspaper do not establish genealogical fact—no more than standing in front of the Eiffel Tower makes one Parisian. This argument confuses superficial optics with documented historical truth. The entire claim hinges not on substantiated records but on anecdote, emotional projection, and a deep misunderstanding of how historical validation works. That someone could imagine a scenario in which the story is true is not evidence that it is true.
More to the point, invoking Hans Küng—a prominent Catholic theologian with a decades-long public friendship and documented academic history with Joseph Ratzinger—as a comparison is wildly misplaced. Hans Küng and Ratzinger shared decades of academic discourse, intense theological disagreement, and personal correspondence. That is not equivalent to a supposed second cousin with no demonstrable blood connection, no shared family documents, and no traceable intersection of family lines. It is frankly bizarre to pretend that those two relationships are comparable. One is backed by thousands of pages of correspondence and institutional history; the other, by a convention badge and a warm anecdote passed down by word of mouth.
To vienne—I am well aware this is an open forum, and I welcome critique grounded in substance. What I do not entertain is the pious hand-wringing of people who mistake calm condescension for argument and equate a rebuke of sloppy reasoning with emotional instability. I don’t require your unsolicited psychoanalysis, nor your presumption about my internal beliefs. That’s an evasion of the core issue. This is not about “negativity,” it is about intellectual integrity and factual accuracy. If you are so impressed by “slimboyfat” stating that a photo and a hunch are good enough, then by all means, follow that standard—but don’t pretend you are engaging in a serious discussion of historical claims.
And most of all, I don't want to see any more comments from this guy on my post where the term "AI" or "ChatGPT" is mentioned at all, either focus on the content or let him leave me alone. I contacted the archivists and the parish, and this guy is blatantly accusing me of fabricating the information, even though he did no research on this matter. I researched it, published the information here, and all he can do is take offense. And yet you - his fellow anti-Catholic - applaud this abusive attitude. It's disgusting.
The genealogical record of Joseph Ratzinger is not an obscure mystery. It is public, detailed, and corroborated by civil and ecclesiastical sources across Bavaria and South Tyrol. No connection to the Brzakovic or Blabst families appears in any of those sources. To believe otherwise without such documentation is not open-mindedness—it is credulity. And to conflate skepticism of an unverified anecdote with some kind of emotional turmoil is not only lazy but tellingly defensive. If you cannot distinguish between respectful scrutiny and a “temper tantrum,” perhaps it is your own need for emotional comfort—not mine—that is guiding your response.
So yes, this is an open forum, and in such a forum, I will continue to insist that serious claims demand serious evidence, and that sentimental narratives—no matter how charming—are not a substitute for documented truth. Would you care to engage with the genealogical data, or are you more comfortable staying in the realm of unverifiable anecdotes and pop psychology?
