“Bombshell Quote of the Day”
As frustrated as the pope may be about the continuing debate, at least one Vatican insider thinks Benedict may even consider turning in his resignation. Father Eberhard von Gemmingen, head of the German language staff at Radio Vatican, said the pope “has his back to the wall,” in comments to German radio. “As I know the pope,” he said, “then it is certainly possible that he has thought to himself: ‘At some point I might have to step down so that the papacy is respected.’”
And that last quote is your bombshell of the day.
That really took my breath away–horrifying, actually. I certainly hope he doesn’t do that. I don’t think that will help the Church. He’s not an elected official. He’s not the head of a corporation. He’s the Pope. He can’t resign.
I can’t think of anyone who would be a better Pope, in toto .
I think the Vatican needs to find someone who can help them deal with the Age of Instantaneous Information.
And maybe we’d all better start praying more for him too. What a huge cross that job must be. He’s over eighty.
Cathy,
Horrifying is when children are abused and the poor do not have the gospel preached to them.
We should feel for all that are in pain. But too much pain has come from this peritus turned dogmatist. Nobody wanted the job more than Joe R. The truth is he has been very heartless with many in the church. Over orthodoxy not orthopraxy. He is finding there is more accountability as pope. No more wondering whether it is he or John Paul.
I find it something how you believe he is the best for the job. Maybe all of us long consciously to re-enter the womb of the hierarchy.
He should resign and let the bishops be bishops of the people. Not automotons of Rome.
No Resignation, No Bombshell.
Fr. von Gemmingen was misinterpreted: http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/ted/Articolo.asp?c=263891 (in German)
Unfortunately my year of German is now well behind me. In any case, in a very charged and, for some, highly draining time, it is not surprising to find what may be unanchored comments being put out on various sites and in various journals. It is humanly impossible to keep up with it all just now. I am grateful for the clarification above. I have to say that before I saw it, my reaction was already sceptical or “non ci credo.” I hope an English translation of Father von Gemmingen’s actual remarks will soon be available.
The German of Fr. von Gemmingen is simple and straightforward. In sum, he believes that Benedict, unlike his predecessor, would in principle consider resigning for the good of the Petrine Office; he says, however, that the Pope is not considering resignation in the present circumstances and would not consider it right to resign simply to pass unsolved problems to a successor. I trust a literal translation will soon be forthcoming. There is nothing in the text to indicate that Benddict is considering resignation now.
German’s not my language, and I’m sure any one with a nodding acquaintance with the language could do far better than I, but here’s what I make out of the link cited above by German reader. No doubt some will correct it.
Even in the unlikely event that my translation is more or less accurate, how many questions does it answer?
From the German department of Vatican Radio
A clarification from the editorial staff:
In these days our editor in chief Pater Eberhard von Gemmingen took part in (and takes part in) dozens of German speaking discussions and questions about the debate over the lifting of excommunication for the bishops of the Pius Brotherhood. Several media outlets have distorted a statement of P. Gemmingen. So, for instance, the Suddeutsche Zeitung writes in the subtitle of an article: “During the pope’s annoyed reaction at the open criticism in Germany, a leader of Vatican Radio even suspected Benedict of thinking of stepping down.” This subtitle interpreted a press release of the NDR Kultur (North German Radio Culture (program?) which had interviewed P. Gemmingen. In this conversation, our editor in chief talked about the question of whether in actual fact a resignation of the Pope might be possible, and we quote him:
“As far as I know the pope, he has possibly thought in his heart, ‘At some point I should perhaps step down, in order that the Petrine office should be well perceived.’ But I also believe that he lives and thinks like his predecssor, who said a pope does not step down, and Benedict is less mystical and more theological and he says, Peter must be able to function. In this sense I believe that he, to all intents and purposes, has not excluded a resignation. However, I don’t believe that he would contemplate a resignation in order to avoid a problem, or to say this is too difficult for me, I’m to old to solve it. Thus I don’t believe he’d do it, because he says that he doesn’t want to hand on this kind of a problem to his successor.
NDR Kultur (North German Radio Culture) cites in its press release the sentence of P. Gemmingen that the Pope has not shut out a retirement. P. Gemmingen, however, makes it clear that he was referring to the question of a resignation on grounds of health.
Thr interpretation in the subtitle of the Suddeutsche Zeitung suggested, however, that Benedict XVI was considering — according to the appraisal of P. Gemmingen — a resignation on the grounds oof a political debate. This is an invalid interpretation.
We make it clear: neither P. Gemmingen nor the German department of Radio Vatican shares in any speculation about what the pope might do or allow to be done.
Cathy,
I am curious. Do you really think that a Pope should never consider resignation? It seems to me a wholesome idea that no one should presume to hold an office till death regardless of health, mental and physical.
I think Nicholas Clifford’s rendering is right and more accurate than my attempt at a precis.
It is an axiom in Washington that something becomes believable after it has been officially denied. With all these personalities wondering about each other who is watching the store? Like the “preferential option for the poor.” Such terminology, of course, needs some study because why should we acknowledge what is right in front of us like the starving children in Haiti, the sick children of Africa and Asia who lack basics.
There just has to be a study of all this and infinite time worrying about Vatican doings because the poor cannot possibly be that entertaining. That is merely last judgment material.
A papal retirement/resignation/abdication (no one is even sure what it would be called) would be a huge crisis, as big as any in the church potentially, if it is not well-considered ahead of time, prefereably by a gathering of the College of Cardinals in wide consultation. I think Benedict is, as Father Gemmingen says, very practical in these matters, unlike JP2. But whether or not it is B16, this will have to happen–by a pope’s decision or worse, by the action of a few advisers if a pontiff is incapacitated mentally or physically. Modern medicine, modern media, modern papacy. They all conspire against serving until death, I’m afraid.
Cathy-
I share your dismay and find myself praying not for “the Pope” but for “the Holy Father”. He does strike me as a very holy man but one a has a distorted view of what the Papacy is meant to be. He also strikes me as very naive about the propensity of people to lie, evan those in high places, but the several ugly episodes of this week might have taught him a great deal about that.
I pray he’ll stay and come to a realization of how the administration of the Church needs to be changed. — radically. It will take a holy and determied person such as he seems to be to do the job right.
This is a crisis and an opprtunity. God help him.
I doubt Benedict will consider resigning, but if he does, I vote for Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, SJ :)
Being a gifted theologian and having gifted leadership ability are two distinct charisms and rarely reside in the same person.
I think that a fair assessment is that Benedict XVI is a good theologian but does not possess the personal charism of leadership. That is not a criticism or an attack, just a provisional assessment.
But if you are deficient in these areas, you select people who are effective and who you can trust. I have an Asian friend who is not a Christian but studied Sun Tzu’s The Art of War in gradute school. When Benedict was elected I gave him just brief background, as he is fascinated by process and politics of all types, his read was that the mandarin now became leader. Mandarins rarely make effective leaders. Same with gifted theologians. It is a different skill set and charism and gift.
I read that JP II basically allowed the internal machinery to run itself and Ratzinger was the point man in that circle. So it was natural that the Curia turned to him.
I think that the crisis will pass but there needs to be a solid team in place. I am not heartened by what I read of Re, Hoyos, et al. and the squabbling about this.
As a discernment on leadership I am watching OBama. There is a guy who has the gift. Tight, controlled, disciplined. The glare he gave to Biden after Biden’s cheeky and sarcastic joke about Chief Justice Roberts was right on. YOu can tell that he is a guy who will eyeball to eyeball lay it straight on to his closest advisers to get with the program and watch their p’s and q’s. But, he will think long and hard about the shot before making it and he has Axelrod to advise on atmospherics and mood. I don’t know how long it will be able to sustain itself but he seems to have the gift.
I don’t think Ratzinger’s head is in building. We need a latter day St. Dominic; i.e. one who concentrates on the enitity and building it. It is said that Dominic did not leave behind lots of writings (e.g. Spiritual Exercises like an Ignatius) or a cult of personality (like a Francis); he left behind a community. That’s effective leadership.
I don’t think Pope Benedict should necessarily reactively depart but it should be part of a discernment process for the good of the Church if need be. I am not saying that it is but I applaud the fact that it is part of his horizon. He isn’t clinging on to the role nor does he have to. As Degaulle said, the graveyard is filled with indispensible men.
Nicholas Clifford,
I think you missed a negative in your translation of “Also ich glaube nicht, dass er so lebt und denkt wie sein Vorgänger, der sagte, ein Papst tritt nicht zurück, weil Benedikt weniger mystisch und mehr theologisch ist und sagt, Petrus muss funktionieren können.”
But I also believe that he lives and thinks like his predecessor, who said a pope does not step down, and Benedict is less mystical and more theological and he says, Peter must be able to function.
Shouldn’t it read “Therefore, I do not believe, that he lives and thinks as his predecessor, who said that a Pope should not resign, since Bendedict is less a mystic and more a theologian and thinks, Peter has to be able to function?”
Does he not first contrast Benedict’s view on papal resignation to JP II’s and then add his own speculation as to why he does not think in the end that Benedict will resign? He goes onto say in the next sentence: “In this sense I do not thank that Benedict has completely excluded resignation”: “In diesem Sinn glaube ich, dass er durchaus den Rücktritt nicht ausschließt.” He then goes on to express his own opinion: “Certainly I do not think that he would consider resignation in order to get rid of the problem or to claim that it is ‘too complicated for me, or I am too old to solve it.”
Curious is Gemmigen’c claim that Benedict has not completely ruled out resignation. He provides his reasons why he thinks Benedict would not resign, which extend beyond just health, but does not tell us why he would. Why would he open that door?
Cathleen -
Your reaction and response shows that you are a person of charity and kindness. God has blessed Benedict with such a person as you to support him with your love and prayers.
God bless us all, we’re in this together.
He is 80+
He is a gifted theologian.
He appears to not have the charism of leadership.
Was it good for the church for JPII to hang on in his obvious dotage?
It is good for the church to be led by one without the necessary leadership skills?
Why CAN’T he resign? He is a bishop and bishops resign all the time.
There is a first time for everything.
What is this post implying? Of course the Pope is elected and of course he can resign.
The meltdown of the thirty-one year-old restorationist regime seems to me to be inevitable — a veritable implosion, such as we have seen with the Bush regime.
The idea of papal resignation has floated into many minds in recent days. Now it has been floated in the Vatican itself…
He should spend his years in retirement repenting for the damage he has done the Church.
The latest posts have convinced me to take a long break from reading this blog. It is truly disenchanting–the posts from many readers are of little encouragement and many times negative. I really have appreciated the posts from Ms. Kaveny and Frs. Imbelli and Komonchak, even when I disagreed with you, for the discussion was kept civil and charitable. However, too many posts like the ones immediately following my post are quite disheartening. I pray the best for you all.
“I think the Vatican needs to find someone who can help them deal with the Age of Instantaneous Information.”
I’ve been thinking the same thing, Cathleen. Can we all agree that reception of Holy Orders does not make one a media expert? They need to bring in outside help for communications consulting; or, if they’re already getting outside help, fire the incumbent and bring in someone else.
The “latest posts” are hardly the worst of the blogosphere. Nobody is called a bad name; only acts and ideologies are criticized. There are facts, experiences, and analysis behind these admittedly hard words. Commitment to the Truth would seem to demand we attend to the realities of “damage” or a lack of the “charism of leadership.”
The Vatican has rejected outright the notion of competence in the curia. They have said no less. When things go badly wrong, they are stunned. The fans of Rome trend toward denial. The critics leap in with glee. And most of the faithful in the middle–laity and clergy both–see a Barque adrift. The laity especially must answer to our non-Catholic peers who want to know what the heck is going on in our Church. Who has an answer to give them? I sure don’t.
I was willing to give this papacy the benefit of the doubt. To the degree the Holy Spirit may be ushering in significant changes from this meltdown, maybe in the long run, it was a good thing.
For Cardinal Ratzinger to shepherd a group of his peers after the death of a beloved pope: there may have been true leadership there, or he may have risen to a heroic occasion. But leaders are not about doing. George is right: we need a Dominic in Peter’s chair. Meanwhile, I think we’ve just reached Pope Benedict’s “Parkinson’s” threshhold. Everything will be downhill from here, whether he actually resigns next week or next month, or this drags out for another ten years or so.
Thank you, Alan Mitchell. I did indeed miss a negative, and one so obvious that even freshmen with two weeks of German under their belts, would not have overlooked.
On the subject of papal resignations: there is, of course, a precedent in Celestine V, whose “gran rifiuto” (as the non-admiring Dante called it) opened the way to Boniface VIII (worse luck).
And Dante stuck him in the Inferno (or was it Purgatorio?), while Boniface simply had the poor old hermit chucked into a cell till he croaked. Understandable, in a way–popes are so potent you don’t want to have an extra one hanging about.
Cathy, per se the Pope can resign.
If he can, this one could.
What is horrifying about that? If he were struck with rapidly increasing dementia or whatever or like Fidel had a debilitating illness, shouldn’t he step aside?
Is the issue here that he shouldn’t step aside because his missteps have caused a great deal of pain?
It might be worth debating that.
I don’t understand complainst about “uncharitableness” here -sounds like an excuse not to hav eadult conversation.
It just shows our idolatry when we regret that a pope is feeling bad when in fact he is leading to terrible feelings in millions of others. The good news is that Catholic bishops, not only in Germany, but in France and all over the world are quite angry over Benedict’s absurd actions.
For all my criticism of JP II, he would have never did something like this to affront Jews. In fact he was great with the Jews and wonderful in ecumenism.
On the other hand it must be noted that much of the bishops anger is prompted by their Jewish colleagues. Maybe the Jews can help us with other reforms. Maybe they should comment on Dominus Jesus. And Paul did long for the reconciliation with the Jews.
At any rate, as Todd points out above, the truth is what sets us free. Not sentimental feelings about a bungling bishop of Rome. He has uttered enough malapropisms to embarass every segment of the population.
Not commenting on Benedict himself, but I wouldn’t be surprised were he – or any Pope in the future – to resign. Didn’t John Paul II consider resigning at one point? (I remember reading about it after his death.) Contemporary medicine enables people to live longer now, and it makes sense for any Pope (or Supreme Court justice – as indeed it has happened plenty of time) to step down. The only for-life people that may not step down are constitutional monarchs, and Queen Elizabeth II will likely be queen till her death. But she and her likes don’t have real power: and we all know real power is exhausting.
Malapropisms???
In checking wikipedia to make sure I knew what it was, I ran across these great examples from the Sopranos, which might make a pleasant diversion from this unhappy discussion:
“Revenge is like serving cold cuts.”
“…my knight in white satin armor.”
“…prostate with grief.”
“Quasimodo predicted this”
“Create a little dysentery among the ranks.”
My last on this:
-I don’t think (as one old stubborn German lookin gat another) that BXVI will resign.
-I don’t think it would be “horrific” if he did.
-I don’t think he should, but he should seriously take up his early mission to reform the Curia, and, teke seriously his title of Benedict and “listen with the ear of the heart” to all his flock and not just those who agree with him.
-I don’t think that that will happen. There is already some smoothing over and we’ll lurch along til the next gaffe of the “smaller purer” Church.
How this will all play out won’t be clear til I’m gone to the big skybox and some future Fr. Komonchak writes this up in another Church History text.
It would be curious indeed if this pope were to resign, as it was he himself, in his previous office, who forbade American bishops who wished to resign in the wake of the abuse crisis from doing so. Yet I wonder if such ironies do in fact happen, and correspond in some way to God’s justice. We shouldn’t pray for Benedict’s perseverence in office. We should pray for his soul. Yesterday’s NY Times carried a story about a Nazi doctor whose bones were finally found in Cairo. Unspeakable crimes were committed by this man. My mind turned immediately to the Holocaust denial of Bishop Robinson. Benedict’s initial action toward the SSPX did cause scandal, grave scandal. We haven’t seen the end of it, either.
Historians generally consider the very brief reign of Celestine V to have been a disaster, and it would seem that the Pope shared this view. Founder of a monastic community but a hermit himself, and resembling Francis of Assisi in many ways, Pietro di Murrone had written a letter severely criticizing the cardinals for having been unable for over a year to agree on a new pope; whereupon they unanimously elected him! He had no experience in the complexities and requirements of the papal office, and five months after being elected, he resigned the papacy.
Without visible irony, the Bull of his Canonization reads: “He was a man of marvelous simplicity and inexperienced in matters concerning the governance of the universal Church, since fron his earliest years down to his old age he had devited himself to divine affairs and not to worldly matters. After wise self-reflection, he surrendered the papal office lest for the reasons stated his governance bring some disaster upon the universal Church.”
Correction: should be Williamson in my post above. Apologies!
Historyman:
Constitutional monarchs can abdicate, no? Edward VIII?
Rita Ferrone:
I know you meant Bishop Williamson (initially I kept calling him Bishop Richardson) and not Bishop Robinson, former auxiliary of Sydney. I offer the correction only because poor Bishop Robinson has been a target of people looking to pin all sorts of aberrant and abhorrent views on.
Rita Ferrone, please srike my correction. Sorry!
Why is there a discussion of the translation of someone’s musings on what the Holy Father may or may not be thinking?
Would I be so mistaken in supposing that the energy and time and effort given to this slight matter [as some Jewish commentators have noted] would be better spent on a consideration of some things closer to home?
What of Mr. Obama’s decision to further American imperialism by forcing the moral ideas of a minority of Americans [think of Mexico City and abortion] on the poor of other countries, using the power of the Yankee dollar?
What of the efforts of Mrs. Pelosi to install a eugenics policy – discouraging the poor from having children because they are a drag on the economy?
Why have Mr. Obama’s Catholics supporters been silent on these matters?
Why have COMMONWEALIANS not discussed them?
Re: popes resigning: the possibility is always there that the successor will be much worse!
I’m picturing retired Bishop Ratzinger, no longer active in the curia, wandering around Vatican City, wishing the new regime would ask his advice, while younger prelates and functionaries avoid meeting his eye as they hurry past. It seems a sad prospect.
It is interesting that the modern church has I think fallen into the Celestine “trap,” as it were, viewing popes above all else as spiritual leaders and largely ignoring their job of governance. I’d like to see a little more realism injected into the office, but that may not be what we want in a pope these days. (Ratzinger himself told his fellow cardinals in the run-up to the conclave that he was not an administrator.)
As for resignation, the problem to keep in mind is that there is no provision or process for the Bishop of Rome to resign. Canon 332.2 states only: “If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.”
Very odd. So until we resolve that problem, all other discussions are moot, IMHO
John Page: Yes, constitutional monarchs can certainly abdicate or resign. But for various reasons, they almost never. Edward was a rare case, and he was pressured at that.
Monarchs are usually killed or overthrown. But pope Damasus had over a hundred of his rivals supporters killed in the fourth century. Through the centuries there has been fierce competition for the job. Despite Ratzinger’s words he sought the job.
For those of us who do not read German here is Der Spiegel in English. The situation is worse than it seems and no one is angrier than the Germans. SSPX still seems defian.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,605945,00.html
The resignation of a pope only seems odd because of the present arrangements. Is there a compelling reason that precudes a system in which all bishops–and the pope is a bishop too– were elected for a term of years rather than for life or until one reached a certain age. This has become a common practice in the civilized world elsewhere.
More on Celestine V and Boniface VIII from the conversations of William Gladstone, British prime minister and Ignaz von Dollinger, German Catholic historian and opponent of Vatican I:
http://books.google.com/books?id=nK0VAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=dollinger+celestine+v&source=bl&ots=Uuzwj94wzQ&sig=xvMsqLBHgGAV2o-YDrMqjRfH3pE&hl=en&ei=l7-MSa_MBeCbtwfNwLiiCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA31,M1
From Edward Moore, Studies in Dante
Benedict XVI knows Dante quite well and so would be quite familar with Dante’s view of this incident.
Did not an examination of Celestine V’s bones recently show that he was poisoned?
Thanks, all for the extremely interesting comments. Here are a few responses to a few questions to me:
I do think popes should be able to resign for health/competency reasons. At the same time, I don’t want to pin down exactly when they should do so. I think John Paul II actually taught something important about human dignity by allowing himself to decline physically while in office. I don’t think he was under an obligation to do so. But I think by doing so, he publicly conveyed to the church and to the world that he knew what was at stake in all this–that it was not merely pretty, abstract words about dignity that mattered.
Now, I don’t think Benedict is physically or mentally incompetent. I don’t think he is a bad man. I think he is a good man. I don’t think he is anti-Semitic. He made a mistake in judgment, or in strategy that he is responsible for, and that he should fix. I think he needs to do so. I think he also needs to take steps to get more accurate information from disinterested people. (Maybe a cabinet of non-Catholic experts in policy, media relations, and investigative journalism–a cabinet of people who don’t want anything from him!)
I speak only somewhat facetiously here: I would suggest he get himself a computer, and an internet connection. The internet allows everyone “unmanaged” and unfiltered access to the world. He doesn’t need to travel physically outside Vatican walls to know the world. He doesn’t need to be subject to the filters of the Curia. He needs a computer and a few lessons in google.
More generally, I don’t think popes should be responsive to pressure to step down for mistakes in judgment of this sort. I think this would set a bad precedent.
And frankly, I wonder if this is his cross. As a young man, he escaped the student riots, and the nastiness by moving from the University into the Church. Now, as the highest leader in the Church, he has to face it, to bear it, and to overcome it.
Finally, Ann touched on something important –to me, at least. Benedict is the “Holy Father”–not merely the Pope. He’s not only a monarch, he is a spiritual father. Part of what he’s doing is modeling what fatherhood — parenthood too– is. Leaving, abandoning the family, not because of a real disability, but because of flack and controversy would be experienced, I think, as a real trauma by many people.
Cathy: You wrote: “As a young man, he escaped the student riots, and the nastiness by moving from the University into the Church.” I’m not sure what you are referring to here. If you are talking about the student riots of 1968, Ratzinger was already a priest, and his move shortly after that date was from one university to another.
Thanks, Joe. I’ll be more precise: He was a priest. He moved from the University of Tubingen, a very large, very old public university in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, with a highly ecumenical (Protestant) theology department. It was for many years the top-ranked university of Germany. He moved to the University of Regensburg –smaller (founded in 1962) newer, in more Catholic and conservative Bavaria, and with an exclusively Catholic theology department. He moved in 1968 from the oldest, most prestigious university in Germany to a six year old institution. But this seems to me a move from Harvard or Columbia to a start up Catholic college.
David Gibson knows more.
This was irresponsible journalism on the part of Whispers in the Loggia. I know the misinformation was circulating in the German press, but he should have checked his sources before fanning flames on the fire.
Rocco did post a correction to the post.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/02/communication-breakdown-vatican-edition.html
Yes. I also probably overreacted–I tend to trust Rocco.
But thanks, all for the discussion–which was valuable in itself.
I would hope before this thread dies, we could look at your notuion of the import of the “holy Father” you raise , Cathy.
Analogies always hav eproblems and I guess I feel you may hav esqueezed a bit too much juice from that title for two reasons:-the father image suggests the rest of the Church as children needing parent to hold the family together; and,-the notion of power in a goverbnace leader is quiote softened. We know that even very good men love to hang on to power, even if what they are doing is not helpful.
It’s clear that our catholic sensibilities call on a Church headed by the Vicar of Christ who is to be both a source and symbol of unity.
It’s also clear that that role is not always well played out and if we’ve become a people adrift and if (as many hav esaid here) we are deeply polarized, how well unity is being promoted is a vital question.
This raises a host of good questions including selection of and posible term limits (including a retirement age) for all Church leaders and, as well, eligibility for such roles (be it electors or evn the electees.)
I agree we need a Holy father, but one who understands we are adults, listens to all, not soime of his family and does no tabide tansgressions of justice in his family or even himself if they deeply wound the family. I guess Ifel a r4eal Holy father doesn’t try to cover up dirty laundry.
Apologies for the ugly typos in my last post.
Something came up and didn’t proofread ( a flimsy excuse if there ever was one).
Is a pope the vicar of Christ or of Peter?
I share Bob’s concern about viewing a pope as “the Holy Father.” Such a title in my view (maybe not others’) tends to reinforce the paternalistic/clerical culture of the Catholic Church, and surely we all now know the dangers inherent in this kind of mindset/arrangement!!!
The pope, as I see it, is the bishop of the Rome diocese as well as, I suppose, the archbishop of the Rome province. He should be seen as “first among equals” because of Rome’s historic association with Peter who, I believe, never saw himself as standing in the person of Jesus vis-a-vis universal church governance. The papcy as we know it was, after all, a historic development.
Benedict, as much as he might not like to do so, should either change direction and promote adherence to the ecclesiological principles of collegiality and subsidiarity — or he should step aside, yes, retire for the good of the universal church.
The LCs and SSPXers have their internal problems (as we liberals/progressives have more than abundantly noted), but too many of the rest of us continue to use traditional language without perhaps thinking of the consequences of such practice. Revelations of ecclesial abuse — financial, sexual, otherwise — should give us pause to consider the repercussions/mindsets/”taken for granteds”/unchecked assumptions of such language.
I appreciate your concerns, Bob and Joseph. I don’t know how to balance the notion, on the one hand, that we are the mystical body of Christ, one family, with the pope related to us as more than a ceo or political leader, and on the other hand, the dangers you point to.
I think the legionaries and sspx have problems for more than notion of fatherhood–or motherhood. I think think there’s a notion of obedience there that’s problematic–that’s almost blind obedience. I don’t think the two can’t be disentangled.
The title “Vicar of Peter” is an old an honorable one. It was only gradually replaced by “Vicar of Christ” on which, I believe, Innocent III insisted as more appropriate. I personally prefer “Vicar of Peter”. More generally I think JPII rightly noted that the Petrine office was a problem preventing unity. Infortunately his did little about it. Bishop Quinn’s modest proposals in response only aroused disapproval. I do not question the satus of the Bishop of Rome as defined by the Councils. But I think both decentralization and demythologization are badly needed.
Correction “Unfortunately he…”