The last pope to resign did so more than seven hundred years ago, which is a long time even by church standards. The controversy surrounding Celestine V’s abdication and the succession of Boniface VIII did not recommend the practice to later popes, and while canon law admitted the possibility a pope could resign, there were many who thought that, like those old disputes about what the church can do if a pope becomes a heretic, it was best consigned to ancient history, no longer applicable. This view was confirmed by a very modern theology and even mystique of the papacy that so identified the pope with Christ as to suggest that for him to resign would be to betray Christ. It seems that Pope Paul VI gave some thought to resigning, but a close adviser said that he wouldn’t because “he cannot come down from his cross.” Similar words were applied to Pope John Paul II as the church watched him fade away: “You don’t come down from the cross,” his former secretary said just the other day. It is not surprising, then, that many Catholics were stunned by Pope Benedict XVI’s act: “Can a pope resign?” one of my sisters telephoned to ask me.
There is potentially great significance in Benedict’s action, and it may be that his resignation will be his greatest contribution to ecclesiology. He has so subordinated his person to the office that he could renounce it. His frank admission that he no longer had the strength of mind and body needed for the Petrine ministry not only humanizes the pope himself but helps bring the papacy back within the church, down from what Hans Urs von Balthasar called its “pyramid-like isolation.” All those unique titles that seemed to place the papal office above and beyond all other offices and ministries in the church suddenly have to yield to what their occupants all have in common: a fragile, sinful, and mortal humanity. The pope—and not just this one—loses something of his sacral apartness. He rejoins the rest of us.
Benedict’s action also suggests the thought that if a pope can resign for reasons of health or of age, he might resign for other reasons too. There could come a pope who agrees with what John Henry Newman wrote in 1870, during the longest pontificate in church history: “It is not good for a pope to live twenty years. It is anomaly and bears no good fruit; he becomes a god, has no one to contradict him, does not know facts, does cruel things without meaning it.” In other words, even though no term limits may be assigned to the papal office, a pope can have his own term limits in mind, and say to himself, and to the church, “Basta!” If papal resignations were to become something normal (that is, more frequent than every seven hundred years), then there might be less reluctance to elect someone younger and still energetic without worrying that he will fall victim to the tendency Newman feared.
Advertisement
Benedict visited at least twice the basilica where Celestine V is buried and prayed at his tomb. Paul VI had done so beforehand, and I wonder whether Benedict might have remembered his predecessor’s explanation of why Celestine resigned: “After a few months he understood that he was being deceived by people around him who were profiting from his inexperience.” That’s when Celestine’s holiness shone out, Pope Paul said: “As he had accepted the supreme pontificate out of duty, so out of duty he renounced it—not out of cowardice, as Dante wrote (if his words really do refer to him), but out of heroic virtue, out of a sense of duty.” Perhaps Benedict also felt betrayed by people around him and recognized that he was not up to dealing with it.
One didn’t have the impression that Joseph Ratzinger enjoyed being pope. He was the second pope in a row not to take much interest in administration, but whereas John Paul II seemed always on the road, exhibiting the most personalized papacy in church history, Pope Benedict retreated into his study, where he composed not only his official homilies, speeches, and encyclicals, but also three books, which he explicitly exempted from official authority. The result of this approach to the office—call it the two “vacancies” of papal responsibility—has been not only the sort of unedifying spectacle of curial rivalries we saw in the “Vatileaks” scandal, but a return to, and even heightening of, the centralized theory and practice that many had hoped Vatican II would bring to an end. Instead, after modest efforts at institutionalizing the council’s ecclesiology, we have seen over the past forty years the atrophying of structures for co-responsibility and cooperation at every level of church life.
A certain paradox is visible in the events now unfolding. The very act that humanizes the papacy also produces the hullabaloo over the upcoming conclave, which tends to reconfirm the inflated notion of the Petrine office that has developed over the past two hundred and fifty years, and the impression is given, once again, that the future of the church hinges on the choice of a successor to the See of Peter. One can hear it from both sides: from traditionalists who want still-tighter disciplinary control over doctrine, worship, and practice; and from progressives who want a pope who will loosen things up in all those areas. They both want something from Rome; they want the new pope to do something about what they each perceive as critical points. But the church is not the pope, and the pope is not the church, and perhaps what we most need is a pope who will encourage and allow the laity, the religious, the clergy, and the hierarchy to assume their responsibilities for the difference the church is supposed to make in the world. Benedict’s resignation was a self-denying act of personal humility. What we need now in Rome are acts of institutional humility and self-denial.
The “essence” of the Catholic Church is Jesus Christ. An excellent point, Patricia. This should indeed be an aha moment this morning, for this is something upon which we all on this comment stream could surely agree.
The question then remains, of what does that essence consist? Is the essence of Jesus’ teaching the saving of one’s soul? I don’t remember that in the Gospels. I remember more about challenging those in religious power to act with justice; challenging those with means to share their means with the poor. I remember more about the acceptance of the anawim, the socially untouchable, the ritually unclean, the morally (to them) repugnant.
On another issue, Jesus’ suffering was that of an innocent man; the attacks on the Church and the suffering of Church leaders is not a sign of innocence. The attacks on the Church concerning their protection of rapists and molesters and their treatment of victims are indeed merited. As for Church leaders, Cardinal Roger Mahony writes on his blog about the suffering of Jesus and Isaiah’s Suffering Servant. Such a thinly veiled comparison to his own most deserved suffering is crass.
Hi Mona:
You asked: The question then remains, of what does that essence consist?
It's actually very simple, as Jesus Christ revealed it, consequently, it's the Dogmas of the Catholic Faith, all that HE taught, including Sacred Tradition: teachings on the Real Presence of the Eucharist, marriage, abortion, the priesthood, the 7 sacraments, to name a few.
Doctrines of course are man made and change as necessary with time and culture.
Mona are you actually suggesting that the essence of Jesus Christ was anything other than eternal salvation? Sure, He taught us the importance of love, but not love outside of His obedience, as no authentic love can possibly exists outside of Truth, Truth of course, being God and only God.
I understand that everyone is on a different place in the spiritual journey, consequently, everyone may not be able to immediately accept all truths. There is a big difference between having a heart open for all Truth, and denouncing what we have not yet been given the faith to accept or believe, especially because "our opinion" disagrees with what Christ revealed to us.
FWIW, I've been there. Only to learn the hard way that it was my lifestyle that didn't believe. Had I lived as the Church teaches, I would have avoided a lot of the self-inflicted pain in my life. Thankfully, God has an abundance of mercy.
I'm not yet an "official" Catholic, and I am entirely unqualified to tell any Catholic how they should feel about anything relating to Cathollcism. That said,
I'm trying to understand Lynn's statement about being "disappointed, betrayed, and disrespected by the church's leadership." I don't see how that statement could possibly apply to any of the non-Religious laiety (NRL). As far as I can tell, the Church leaves us NRL pretty much alone, to think our own thoughts, live our own lives, and do our own things. I haven't missed a weekly (or other obligatory) mass, since I began this particular journey 13 months ago, and I have yet to hear, in a homily, even veiled criticism (applied to us parishioners) of contraception, pre-marital co-habitation, homosexuality, or even same gender marriage. I suppose that these topics are occasionally broached, at least in some parishes and/or by some priests or bishops, but there are certainly a great many parishes where non-Religious laiety guilty of such sins may be members in ostensibly good standing, limited only by the dictates of their own consciences, and subject to little, if any, direct rebuke.
The Catholics who might feel that they have a beef would be those in religious orders, who felt called to vocation in the 1960s, by what they perceived as the paradigm-shifting promise of Vatican 2. Without going into obvious detail, I can understand why such people might feel a sense of betrayal. It's a hard thing, indeed, to labor for decades, doing what one felt called to do and not only to be unappreciated by one's hierarchal superiors, but to be actively disrespected and criticized by the same.
It would be beyond presumptuous of me to offer advice to such sisters and priests and brothers, but Chapter 6 of Matthew admonishes not to overvalue attention and rewards from other people, but to rejoice in the knowlege that you are privately pleasing God. And, surely, such sisters and priests and brothers, who devote their lives in selfless service, must be aware at how much their work continues to be valued by so many outside the Magisterial hierarchy.
- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA
It seems odd to me that Komonchak would say Benedict "retreated" into his study. Consider his travel scheule over the last eight years: Germany (2005), Poland, Spain, Germany, Turkey (2006), Brazil, Austria, (2007), US, Australia, France (2008), Cameroon, Angola, Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Czech Republic (2009), Malta, Portugal, Cyprus, UK, Spain (2010), Coatia San Marino, Spain, Germany, Benin (20011), Mexico and Cuba, Lebanon (2012). That's way more travel than my 80 year old grandmother ever did. Not to mention his numerous public appearances. Not as much overall travel as JP2, but he wasn't pope for as long either.
Let's face it, we don't really know why Benedict XVI resigned. Even his parting speech(es) is/are couched in such vague language. The one thing I hung my hat on was he declared he acted after prayer and examining his own conscience. That to me is the crucial message. His words and subsequent action restored the individual conscience to its primacy. People must not be forced to act contrary to their conscience. Nor must they be prevented from acting according to their conscience, especially in religious matters. All the bluster by dictatorial cardinals, archbishops, bishops, monsignori, priests to invade or weaken a person's most sacred core has been existentially exposed as bluff. Nothing graced Benedict's papacy more than his leaving of it.
Prayer and an examination of conscience certainly seems a more certain path to the truth than following the dubious advice of Curial "politicians." This may indeed be a moment of grace in his papacy. But I have to wonder if he could not have had a greater impact if he had remained in office and made some real changes by dismantling the Curia and removing the medieval trappings and imperial structure from the Vatican in favor of a more collegial, regional patriarchate system, perhaps.
Patricia, The essence of Jesus Christ is Love.
Yes Ronald, a 'Love" so great Jesus established the Catholic Church for the salvation of all men.