The pope's cousin is a JW

by loosie 45 Replies latest social current

aqwsed12345
@+
The claim that Stefanie Brzakovic was Pope Benedict XVI’s second cousin collapses under basic scrutiny — not because of ideology or bias, but because it lacks factual and genealogical coherence. The suggestion that the Pope had a Jehovah’s Witness cousin in Australia who received a personal call and papal praise is not supported by the family records, by the documented lineage of either side, or by any credible institutional trace.
Let’s deal first with the mistaken assumption repeated in your message: the cousin named in the inheritance and civil suit context was not Stefanie Brzakovic. That was Erika Kopp, a confirmed blood relative of Pope Benedict XVI. Her link to the Ratzinger family is well-documented and undisputed — unlike Brzakovic’s. It was Erika who was contacted by the estate administrator after the Pope's death, not Brzakovic. Brzakovic died in 2013 — a full decade before Benedict’s passing — and had no legal or genealogical claim to his inheritance. The fact that people confuse these women only illustrates how carelessly the narrative around Brzakovic has been handled.
Now to the geography. The argument that 1930s Bavaria was easily traversable due to early autobahns ignores several realities. Yes, Germany began developing high-quality roads early in the 20th century — but this doesn’t mean that rural families were driving across the state for casual visits. Car ownership was rare outside urban elites. In 1930, Germany had roughly 279,000 registered cars — in a country of over 65 million people. The vast majority of rural Bavarian families, including the Ratzingers, lived modestly and relied on foot, train, or local transport. Joseph Ratzinger Sr., the father of Pope Benedict XVI, was a Bavarian police officer who lived during a time when private car ownership in Germany was relatively uncommon, especially among civil servants. Given the economic conditions of the era and the nature of his profession, it's unlikely that Ratzinger Sr. owned a personal automobile. Furthermore, his son, Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), never obtained a driver's license and did not drive, even as a cardinal. This suggests that the family did not prioritize or perhaps could not afford private vehicle ownership. Their lifestyle appeared modest, with values centered around faith and public service rather than material possessions. While definitive records of Joseph Ratzinger Sr.'s vehicle ownership are not readily available, the historical and socioeconomic context indicates that he likely did not own a car. The suggestion that weekly 100 km joyrides from Traunstein to Weilheim were a common family routine is historically naive and logistically improbable. More importantly, there is no documentation, whether parish, school, civil registry, or family correspondence, placing the Ratzinger and Berger/Bartl families in overlapping communities or events.
As for the idea that Steffie Brzakovic was the Pope’s second cousin: this requires one of her parents to be the sibling of one of his. But her mother, Katharina Berger, was born in Garmisch in 1894, to Johann Berger and Barbara Bartl — neither of whom appear anywhere in the Pope’s maternal or paternal family tree, which is extremely well preserved. His mother, Maria Peintner-Rieger, was born a decade earlier in Oberaudorf, the daughter of Isidor Rieger (an only child) and Maria Tauber-Peintner, whose ancestry goes back to the Peintner, Rieger, Tauber, and Reiss families — not a single Berger or Bartl among them. You simply cannot be “second cousins” without sharing great-grandparents. That requirement is not met. The genealogical link is nonexistent.
The press articles you cited (Krone, Bild, News.at) merely rehash the original 2005 anecdote, adding no new documentation. They reflect the typical lifecycle of an appealing human-interest story: a charming, unverifiable quote, repeated without verification because it flatters a readership. But repeating a claim does not strengthen it. No article provided family charts, archival evidence, or Vatican confirmation. Every detail ultimately traces back to one witness: Brzakovic herself. That’s not proof. That’s a press echo chamber.
Finally, about the nickname “Pepi.” Yes, names cross borders — but their regional usage signals social origin. In Upper Bavaria, where Joseph Ratzinger was raised, boys named Joseph are almost universally called Sepp or Sepperl. This is attested by all his relatives, by local dialect studies, and by his own published recollections. “Pepi” is a Viennese/Austrian variant, common in Vienna or Lower Austria — not among rural Bavarian Catholics in the early 20th century. The sudden appearance of “Ratzinger Pepi” in one story — told decades after the alleged childhood encounters, by someone who didn’t grow up in his region, and whose claimed closeness is unsubstantiated — should raise immediate red flags. Linguistic details matter. They are often the most revealing clues in assessing the plausibility of oral history.
In sum: this isn’t a smear against Brzakovic as a person. She may have genuinely believed what she said, or remembered fragments of family lore through the distortions of time and faith. But belief is not evidence, and memory is not proof. The burden of establishing kinship, especially with someone as scrutinized as a Pope, lies with the claimant. That burden has not been met. No shared ancestry, no traceable link, no Vatican confirmation, no credible overlap in geography or naming patterns — and every detail of the quote fits existing Watchtower literary tropes far too perfectly. This is not about cynicism. It is about critical rigor. And on every measurable front, this story fails to hold up.

@slimboyfat
The claim that Stefanie Brzakovic was Pope Benedict XVI’s cousin is not simply a case of a newspaper getting minor details wrong; it’s a foundational error—an entire narrative built on a non-existent genealogical connection. Yes, media outlets often misreport facts, but that does not mean every published human-interest story is immune from critical scrutiny. In this case, what we are dealing with isn’t a simple misspelling or mistaken date; it’s an extraordinary family claim without a single verifiable document to support it. No matter how sincerely someone believes a memory, sincerity doesn’t convert a myth into fact.
The idea that Brzakovic's public identification as the Pope’s cousin proves the story's authenticity ignores well-documented psychological and sociological phenomena—pseudologia fantastica being one of them. This condition, often seen in otherwise functional individuals, involves compulsive lying not necessarily for malicious reasons but for attention, significance, or emotional reinforcement. There is also the phenomenon of confabulation, where memory gaps are unconsciously filled in with fabrications that feel entirely real to the speaker. Especially in advanced age, the boundary between fact and sentimental fiction can blur dramatically. In a moment of papal election euphoria, it's not hard to imagine a well-meaning elderly woman recalling youthful impressions with embellished clarity, then being swept up in the moment by a local journalist eager for a charming scoop. Maybe she just wanted her 15 minutes of fame.
The presence of a convention badge in a photograph or the sincerity of a smile does not authenticate blood relations. What authenticates such claims is genealogical documentation. And that documentation simply does not exist in this case. The Pope’s maternal family tree has been meticulously researched, and it includes no trace—none—of the Berger or Bartl lines. Without a shared set of grandparents, or even great-grandparents, the term "first cousin" or even "second cousin" collapses entirely. This isn’t just speculation; it's genealogical fact. A century's worth of Bavarian and Tyrolean parish records make the connection genealogically impossible.
Moreover, the Vatican's complete silence speaks volumes. When popes have relatives—however distant—protocol generally ensures some kind of private audience, especially during state visits like the 2008 Australian papal trip. No such meeting was recorded. Not even a private acknowledgment. In a Vatican system where even sixth cousins can receive discreet recognition, the omission here isn’t oversight—it’s tacit denial.
Even more damning is the fact that The Watchtower never publicized this anecdote. That’s not a coincidence. Their editorial team, known for meticulously scanning global media for material favorable to their message, would certainly have noticed this claim. The silence is strategic. They likely saw that the story couldn’t survive even minimal fact-checking—something that could cause more embarrassment than inspiration. So it was left to circulate unofficially, whispered in congregational corners where emotional appeal outweighs evidentiary rigor.
The quote attributed to the Pope—praising Jehovah’s Witnesses for doing the work Catholics should be doing—neatly mirrors decades of Watchtower folklore. It’s a stock motif used repeatedly to legitimize the Witnesses’ mission by imagining admiration from outsiders, especially clergy. That alone should trigger caution. When a quote fits a long-standing propaganda template too perfectly, it’s probably not real. It’s a device—designed to inspire, not to inform.
So no, this isn’t about dismissing an old woman’s sincerity or questioning a newspaper’s intentions. It’s about evaluating the claim on the strength of evidence. And when every thread—genealogical, geographical, linguistic, institutional—unravels under scrutiny, we’re not left with a plausible story. We’re left with a sentimental fiction, perhaps unconsciously constructed or amplified for a fleeting moment in the spotlight. It’s not cruelty to say so—it’s the pursuit of historical clarity. And that pursuit doesn’t bend to charm, nostalgia, or wishful thinking.
slimboyfat

For crying out loud give it a rest.
Earnest

+ : Wobei die Cousine die Zeugin Jehovas war, 2013 verstarb (siehe das Foto mit dem Grabstein).
Good point. So it was not referring to Steffie Brzakovic .
+

Als man in Deutschland die Post schon mit Raketen verschickte und Düsenflugzeuge baute schmierten die Engländer ihre Maschinen noch mit Butter.
„Ich glaube, Bielefeld gibt es gar nicht.“
Anony Mous

@slimboyfat
I mean I wouldn’t totally put it past some newspapers to be as wrong as that, but they are usually wrong on the details rather than the entire framing.
Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years? This was as others said, and I said in the other thread - a local interest story about someone who had a family legend they were related to a (in)famous cardinal who later became pope. Could as well be, hey here is a picture of a train that stopped by our village and he got some ice cream here. Newspapers will hang onto any gossip, remember Carter Paige, turns out to be their source was a drunk British embassy employee talking too much at a bar in DC or something like that and they blew it up into a full congressional investigation without any evidence and proof was never found. Or JFK/MLK/Area 51, thousands of opinion articles have been written which are then sourced as evidence for some theory, the Zapruder film was coined by the media as the only video evidence to the point the official investigations ignored literally any other source, until 1978, by the early 2000s the original footage of various sources had seen no interest and many have since been lost or sold into private collections.

My wife’s family has a legend of being related to Native American, DNA says otherwise, although great grandpa was not related to grandpa either and they both took that ‘secret’ to their grave.
TTWSYF

That’s like me saying “my cousin is a Mormon “
I don’t think anyone really gives a flying F$&@.
or, at least, no Catholic does.
ttwsyf
slimboyfat

Anony Mous you give a reasonable scenario of a family legend that got out of hand and perhaps, by the time the papers got involved, it was too late to back down. It would require however that old JW woman lied specifically about the phone call and ran the risk of being exposed as a liar. That is not impossible but I still think on a balance of probabilities it’s more likely she was telling the truth, because the details of the pope having a cousin who became a JW, him contacting her, and the general comments he made seem ordinary and plausible enough. JWs are capable of not telling the truth like anyone else of course, so we can’t be certain.
One weakness in the legend scenario is the following:
a family legend they were related to a (in)famous cardinal who later became pope.
The story broke immediately after Ratzinger became pope, so there would not have been time for a family legend around him becoming pope in particular; a prominent cardinal perhaps. Although how many cardinals can your average JW name? Even at a time when cardinals have been in the news for weeks, I can only name a handful myself. Ratzinger was a very prominent and important cardinal before he became pope, but I still don’t think I’d heard of him before the conclave when John Paul II died. If a legend grew up about her being related to Ratzinger before he became pope isn’t it more likely that the reason it grew up was because it was based in fact? Otherwise why choose this cardinal in particular to build a legend around?
+

Grüße aus der dunklen Sozialistenhölle.
Auch wenn man es sich in Deutschland nicht selbst eingestehen will.
Der Grund warum in Deutschland zeitnah gleich mehrere bedeutende Wachtturmkritische Foren ihre Tore schlossen ist, weil es in Deutschland keine Meinungsfreiheit mehr gibt.
Das erzähle ich ausgerechnet den Amerikanern, die uns 1945 von den NationalSOZIALISTEN und 1989 von der SOZIALISTISCHENEinheitspartei befreiten.
Aber in den letzten Jahren krochen in Deutschland plötzlich die ganzen Blockwartratten wieder aus ihren Löchern.
Leider glauben auch, einstmals geschätzte User in den deutschen Foren sich dem linksgrün versifften Lynchmopp anschließen zu müssen.
Forenbetreiber standen und stehen in Deutschland mehr und mehr in der Gefahr das man an ihnen ein Exempel statuiert.
In Deutschland wird ständig Maos Zitat „Bestrafe einen erziehe hunderte“ bemüht.
Komme ich bei dem Verfassungsschutz mit seiner Gedankenpolizei in die Schusslinie werden mir europaweit die Bankkonten gekündigt, wird dafür gesorgt das ich am Arbeitsplatz gekündigt werden, sorgt man dafür das ich in meinem sozialen Umfeld, das ich zur Persona non grata werde, verliere ich mein Mietobjekt, fliege aus meinem Bildungsplatz, werde ich öffentlich mit Bild und Namen an den Pranger gestellt, wird man in der Verwandtschaft verleugnet usw. usw.
Genauso wie damals, als die Juden ihren gelben Stern und ihr Armband mit dem Wort „Jude“ bezahlen mussten, muss ich heute 220,32 € jährlich an den Stasistaatsfunk bezahlen, um mich von ihm anlügen, diffamieren, bespitzeln, denunzieren und den öffentlichen Pranger stellen lassen zu müssen.
Die Folge ist ziviler Ungehorsam im inneren.
Zwei Beispiele dazu:
Die Grünen führten den festgebundenen Kunststoffdeckel auf Kunststofftrinkflaschen in Deutschland ein.
Der Grund war das Metalldeckel auf Glasflaschen in der Natur rumflogen.
Kunststoffdeckel waren so gut wie kein Thema.
Nun hat sich die Menge der herumfliegenden Deckel mehr als verdreifacht.
Weil die Bürger, aus zivilem Ungehorsam, den Kunststoffdeckel, den sie früher aus purer Vernunft wieder aufschraubten, gerade mit Fleiß abreißen und in die Natur werfen.
Oder ein zweites Beispiel.
Der Teppichhersteller Objekt Carpet kam auf die Idee einen Monoblock-Teppich herzustellen.
Ein Teppich besteht aus etwa 40 Materialien und kann deswegen nicht recycelt werden.
Objekt Carpet entwickelte deswegen einen Teppich, der nur aus einem Material besteht – 100% Polyester.
Nur ist in Deutschland das Wort „Grün“ und „Recycling“ zu einem Hasswort geworden.
Niemand kaufte den Teppich – schon allein, weil er „Grün“ war.
Warum gab es von Honecker keine Briefmarken?
Weil die Leute immer auf die falsche Seite der Briefmarke spuckten.
Das haben wir heute wieder.
Deutschland wird seit Jahren von der Einheitspartei Bündnis-90-die-Schwachköpfe (CDU/CSU/SPD/FDP/Grüne/Linke/BSW) Regiert.
Und wer glaubt das es mit der einzigen Oppositionspartei eines Tages mal besser wird, der glaubt auch das Zitronenfalter Zitronen falten.
Lobbyorganisationen, Justiz, Polizei, Öffentlich-Rechtliche Einheitspresse und die lauschenden Blockwarte hinter ihren Mietwohnungstüren, sorgen schon dafür, dass die Partei immer Recht hat.
Vorwerts immer! Rückwerts nimmer!
Heute ist Freitag.
Auf dem Heimweg fahre ich heute an einer Parolen skalierenden NGO Antifa Demo vorbei.
NGO (Nichtregierungsorganisationen) die von der Regierung mit hunderten von Millionen meiner Steuergelder finanziert werden, um meine Meinungsfreiheit zu unterdrücken.
Eine Regierung die Meinungsfreiheit hasst.
Wie die Wachtturmgesellschaft 1953 den Gemeinschaftsentzug erfand, weil ihre eigenen Mitglieder die Wachttumgesellschaft auslachten, so werden die Repressalien der sozialistischen Einheitspartei Bündnis-90-die-Schwachköpfe immer regressiver.
So nachdem ich euch das schreibe ermuntere ich euch eure Gemeinschaft in Freiheit, die ihr hier in dem Forum habt zu genießen.
Ich gebe zu das mir das immer spaß gemacht hat - Von 2006 bis 2024 genoss ich es in den Foren mich offen mit den Usern pro und Contra Jehovas Zeugen auszutauschen.
Freiheit ist etwas herrliches - Nehmt das nicht selbstverständlich.
Wenn vor eurem Balkon der erste Antifa-Lynchmob der Regierungsparteien parteibuchwinkend parolengrölend vorbei skaliert, wisst ihr das auch bei euch die Stasi zurück ist.
Nutzt eure Freiheit und nehmt sich nicht auf die leichte Schulter.
So - Ich geh jetzt meinen Bademantel bügeln.
aqwsed12345

@slimboyfat
I think you simply misunderstand how myths and personal narratives often form — especially in religious or insular communities like Jehovah’s Witnesses. It doesn’t require a deliberate lie, nor a highly specific pre-existing obsession with Cardinal Ratzinger. It just requires a plausible-seeming connection that gets passed along and gradually shaped by memory, affection, or community reinforcement until it hardens into a personal truth. In fact, the claim didn’t need to be constructed with any grand design. “I had a cousin in Germany” can, over decades, become “I had a cousin who became a big priest,” and finally, “My cousin was the Pope.” This kind of retrospective elevation is common and well-documented — especially in aging individuals with deep spiritual investment and a close-knit religious environment that values anecdotal proof of divine favor or recognition.
It’s also not the case that “being caught in a lie” would be a major deterrent. People frequently recount stories that aren’t technically true but which they believe deeply. This isn’t malicious — it’s confabulation, a normal human cognitive process. Particularly in the JW community, where anecdotes are routinely used to edify and reinforce faith narratives, stories of validation from outsiders — even powerful religious figures — serve a very functional role. The quote ascribed to Ratzinger aligns too neatly with a longstanding JW literary motif of “respectful acknowledgment from clergy.” That’s not just a coincidence. It’s a sign that the story fulfills an internal ideological need far more than it stands up to critical examination.
In 2005, the internet was not nearly as pervasive or interconnected as it is today. A story published in a local newspaper would have seemed relatively low-risk in terms of exposure or verification. Someone making a sentimental or embellished claim — especially an elderly woman with a compelling personal narrative — would have had little reason to think that genealogists, skeptics, or digital sleuths would one day comb through parish records or cross-reference archival family trees. The assumption back then was that local stories stayed local, and personal anecdotes were unlikely to face rigorous fact-checking on a global scale. It simply wasn’t as easy to investigate such claims, nor did people expect that one day they could be publicly dissected by anyone with internet access and a bit of curiosity.
As for the idea that it’s unlikely someone would fabricate a connection to that cardinal specifically — that overestimates how these associations work. Ratzinger had been a globally recognized theological figure since at least the 1980s, especially in Europe. His name would have been familiar to any German-speaking JW, especially if they were alert to religious news. The fact that he later became pope simply gave the story a massive boost in narrative weight, allowing a fuzzy or unsubstantiated claim to feel suddenly momentous. Media then amplified it, not because they verified it, but because it made a good headline. And good headlines have a funny way of validating personal memories — even false ones.
At bottom, the story persists not because of strong evidence, but because it feels true to those who want it to be. But feeling is not fact. In communities where ideological narratives and personal faith often blur the boundaries of critical scrutiny, stories like this thrive — until someone asks for documentation. And in this case, every checkable fact collapses under examination. That's not a weakness of the skeptical view. It's the strength of evidence-based thinking.
slimboyfat

Yeah all that might be what happened at a stretch, it’s not impossible. Or she could simply be the cousin of the pope, which is a perfectly ordinary and everyday thing to happen in this world. Given the number of JWs (around 1 in 400 in Christian countries) it’s reasonably likely that one or other pope has had a JW relative. Why not this one? Why are you so determined that it could not possibly be true? It’s not like she was claiming something incredible or supernatural, like her wine turned to blood or something like that.

The pope's cousin is a JW

Share this