The resignation
“Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made & properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone.” (Canon 332, §2)
It does not really matter how one feels about such things: they are as they are. Those of us who are Catholic, or by tendency orthodox Christians, must orient ourselves to the largest of facts. The battle will be won, with or without us. Christ will ultimately prevail. This is the startling original for the rather cheap Trotskyite notion of being “on the right side of history.” The right side can look very much like the losing side, perhaps for centuries at a time. But a thousand years may be as one day, in the sight of God; & one day as a thousand years. In the light of Eternity, we must endeavour to avoid short-term thinking.
The news of Pope Benedict’s resignation was so stunning that I noticed the first media reports were straightforward, & without comment or insinuations. The reporters & editors must scratch their heads to think how this may be made into another scandal for the Church. As an old media hack myself, I grimace. Yet we may fairly ignore what is said, here today & gone tomorrow.
It has been about six centuries since the last Pope resigned — Gregory XII in 1415, as his part of an arrangement to end a schism in which there were two Popes & two Colleges of Cardinals. These were quite different circumstances from those of today; & indeed a reminder that things can get worse than we are likely to imagine. But, too, what seems impossible may be suddenly resolved, when men put higher interests above their own, & let Christ do His work.
Last before Gregory, I think, was Pope Celestine V, who resigned in 1294 after making a decree which clarified on what terms resignation was possible. (We do not say “abdicated” because the Pope is not a worldly monarch.) There had been a number of papal resignations before that, going back to the first centuries. The precise number depends on historical speculations. But the possibility of resigning has been consistently acknowledged throughout Church history. Pope John Paul II left a letter of resignation in the hands of the Dean of the College of Cardinals to be acted upon should he become incapacitated in any of several ways. Pope Pius XII, during World War II, made provisions for his resignation to be published in the event of his imprisonment by the Nazis, & for the College of Cardinals to meet in neutral Portugal to choose a successor. This is the world, & prudence has always required such measures.
Our own Pope Benedict XVI — God keep this beloved man — gave the reasons for his resignation clearly. He is becoming enfeebled by age. He states the obvious, that “in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes & shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter & proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind & body are necessary.”
Something more is read between such lines, by this idle observer. The Vatican bureaucracy has been, in recent times, & perhaps inevitably, infiltrated by the very “progressive” forces it exists to fight. The Pope must be entirely on his toes in such an environment. A man of extraordinary humility but also astute, Benedict would be aware of the danger that members of this bureaucracy would exploit his mental & physical decline.
This has become, to my mind, the key practical issue for the Church to face in her immediate future. The Pope & his Bishops have real canonical power, but with the proliferation of bureaucracy within the Church herself, they are required to exert it forcefully. In the Church as in mundane government, the bureaucracies take their own lead. They become too large for detailed supervision; & through the normal operation of organizational politics — a fact of nature — they acquire their own internal directors & directions. Bureaucracy is in itself an evil I have long tried to oppose: it is by its very nature self-serving, & ruthlessly inhumane. I have often compared it to a cancer.
So much is published & taught & done, with Church resources today, that accords far better with contemporary “liberal” ideals than with Church teaching; which twists & compromises the most essential doctrines founded on the teaching of Christ. An impression of authority can be given when heretical statements are left unchallenged, that seem to bear the imprimatur of the Church. But those under holy vows, with the legitimate authority, get their hands so full of trouble they want to avoid “yet another scene.” Cowardice has many arguments; & exhaustion has some more.
At every level, from the parish priest up, the government of the Church must be taken back by those under holy vows, from those who are not, & never were nor will be. The Church must speak with one voice on behalf of Catholic doctrine, or the laity are left in great confusion, with terrible consequences to souls. We need great clarity about what is Catholic & what is not. Then people may decide with clarity whether they are Catholics or not, to live & act accordingly.
It is naturally with foreboding that I look to this immediate future, & to the inevitable tasks of the Church in cultures that are now de-Christianized, & increasingly, sometimes virulently, anti-Christian. I am confident that what must be done will eventually be done, one way or another; confident that in the end Christ will reign. I considered the election of Benedict himself a kind of miracle; the answer to very earnest prayers. And rather than belabour, let me now merely cite the old Catholic prayer during papal elections:
“Lord, do not send us the Pope we deserve.”
Hmm. Looks like a betting opportunity. My favorite, Cardinal Dinardo of Galveston-Houston (who recently presided at my niece’s confirmation) is at 100 to 1 — too much of a long shot for this gambler. What about the Canadian? I need inside information, please.
LONDON (AP) — Bookmakers have been quick to offer odds on candidates to replace Pope Benedict XVI, with cardinals from Ghana, Nigeria and Canada among the early favorites.
Ghana’s Cardinal Peter Turkson, Canada’s Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria lead in betting with Britain’s major bookmakers.
William Hill made Turkson — one of the highest-ranking African cardinals at the Vatican — its 3/1 favorite Monday, followed by Ouellet at 7/2 and Arinze at 4/1. Ladbrokes also had Turkson as favorite, followed by Arinze and Ouellet.
Pope Benedict XVI showed backbone when he recalled that the Tridentine Mass had never been abrogated, and again when he did away with the canonical sanctions against a certain group of traditional bishops. This subjected the Holy Father to a great deal of unfair and harsh treatment, but he stayed firm; may God reward him for it.
> The Vatican bureaucracy has been, in recent times, & perhaps inevitably, infiltrated by the very “progressive” forces it exists to fight.
Yesterday Sandro Magister in Rome published news of a book about to be released. Penned by Professor Enrico Maria Radaelli, the book includes passages taken from the unpublished diaries of Fr. Divo Barsotti (1914-2006). Fr. Barsotti, a traditional cleric in full communion with Rome who preached the Lenten exercises to the pope and to the Roman curia in 1971, openly criticized the problems with Vatican II. He wrote:
“I am perplexed with regard to the Council: the plethora of documents, their length, often their language, these frightened me. They are documents that bear witness to a purely human assurance more than to a simple firmness of faith. But above all I am outraged by the behavior of the theologians.”
“The Council is the supreme exercise of the magisterium, and is justified only by a supreme necessity. Could not the fearful gravity of the present situation of the Church stem precisely from the foolishness of having wanted to provoke and tempt the Lord? Was there the desire, perhaps, to constrain God to speak when there was not this supreme necessity? Is that the way it is? In order to justify a Council that presumed to renew all things, it had to be affirmed that everything was going poorly, something that is done constantly, if not by the episcopate then by the theologians.”
“Nothing seems to me more grave, contrary to the holiness of God, than the presumption of clerics who believe, with a pride that is purely diabolical, that they can manipulate the truth, who presume to renew the Church and to save the world without renewing themselves. In all the history of the Church nothing is comparable to the latest Council, at which the Catholic episcopate believed that it could renew all things by obeying nothing other than its own pride, without the effort of holiness, in such open opposition to the law of the gospel that it requires us to believe how the humanity of Christ was the instrument of the omnipotence of the love that saves, in his death.”
May the next Pope work faithfully to resist the liberal onslaught within the walls of Holy Mother Church.
CTC’s reference reminds me of the questionable taste shown by those who publicly speculate on who is and is not papabile. I don’t recall the names of the persons involved, but I once read of a Curia member’s response to a journalist’s question about whether a certain cleric was a candidate for the Papacy. “I’m sure his mother thinks so,” was the deadpan reply.
“Lord, do not send us the Pope we deserve.”
To that I say the most resonant “Amen!”. Otiosus may or may not publish what follows. I admit it is a bit creepy but it came to me this morning as I read the news.
Like many of you, I awoke today to the news of the resignation of our beloved Holy Father, Benedict XVI. He has announced today, February 11, 2013 on the day of Our Lady of Lourdes, that effective February 28, 2013 at 8 p.m. he will leave vacant the See of Peter. A conclave will be called at some time and a new Pope will be ascending to the ancient throne of the fisherman.
In total, Benedict would have reigned 2813 days since his ascension in April 19, 2005 all the way to the end of the papal work day of February 13, 2013. That is not an ordinary number of days:
70 x 40 + 13 = 2813
This is for those of you acquainted with biblical numbers. I will not assign any meaning to that. I have no idea why I pick these coincidences or what they mean.
Since I took on the devotion of Our Lady of Fatima I observed that the number 13 seems to have an important function in communicating Marian messages, and otherwise in the life of the Church.
Thirteen is indicative of the Holy Trinity, One God in Three Persons. It also reminds us of Jesus and the 12 Apostles, or Mary and the 12 Apostles. Our Lady of Fatima appeared on the 13th day of the month from May 13 to October 13, 1917. Our Blessed Mother appeared one more time to Sr Lucia, one of the seers of Fatima who died February 13, 2005. Sr Lucia declared to have been told by the Virgin Mary that she would see the beginnings of the End of Time.
We are in 2013, the Year of Faith. This year coincidentally, our Season of Lent, when we symbolically “die to the world” begins on February 13. Resurrection Sunday, most remarkably comes on March 31. That seems to form a symbolic death-life “bookend” 13-31 back to back opening and closing the Lenten and Paschal Season.
Since Benedict is resigning his functions in the eve of March 1st once again we can observe that the date reproduces the number: 3-1-13 on the first day that the See of Peter will be vacant.
There is a lot more but I think that suffices to qualify as a curious coincidence. I have no interpretation or meaning to assign. I am as befuddled as any of you.
We are not eager to turn this website into a casino (as the Province of Ontario has been doing with everything else in the Greater Parkdale Area), even at the instigation of our Chief Texas Correspondent, but since the question is asked:
The Canadian Cardinal, Marc Ouellet (born 8 June 1944, La Motte, Quebec), is currently Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops & concurrently President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America. Previously Archbishop of Quebec, & thus Primate of Canada. He was elevated to the cardinalate by Pope John Paul II, in 2003. He is fluent in English, French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, & German. He was personally consecrated as Archbishop by Pope John Paul II, & incidentally co-consecrated by Cardinal Angelo Sodano, current Dean of the College of Cardinals & former Cardinal Secretary of State, who was elected on 27 April 2005 to succeed Benedict XVI as Dean of the College of Cardinals by his fellow Cardinal Bishops. Also by Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, his predecessor as Prefect, & still voting in the conclave.
A good man generally, but it must be allowed that he failed to re-Christianize Quebec.
This sudden, shocking resignation of the pope raises questions. Was Benedict forced to resign by the powerful and numerous modernists in the hierarchy?
Although I believe he has had his faults, our current pope was a hindrance to those who would wish to establish the church of man on earth, rather than conform to the real Church of God established by Jesus Christ. Benedict described Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Mass as a break with tradition. He also ordered the change to the corruption of the words of the Consecration of the Wine (“pro omnibus” was being used instead of the correct “pro multis.”)
What should concern every Catholic is the possibility that an anti-pope might appear to take charge of the Church while Benedict, the true pope, is still alive. (No false pope could ever really be the pope.) God knows that apostasy amongst the prelates is so commonplace today, and blatant evil in the world so overwhelming, that humankind deserves the very worst of chastisements. Chastisements, however, are chastisements and not the end of the world. Still, Our Lady of La Salette did say, “Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.”
The collect of St. Pius V would be a good prayer to say every day from here on in:
“O God, who for the overthrowing of the enemies of Thy Church and for restoring of the beauty of Thy worship, didst choose blessed Pius as Supreme Pontiff, grant that we may be defended by his patronage and so cleave unto Thy service, that overcoming all the snares of our enemies, we may rejoice in Thy eternal peace. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.”
What about the Africans? Too early for one of them?
I am sure that there will be some people who use this event to attack the church. But, even though I am not a catholic, I will not be one of these. Even though I disagreed with many of Benedict’s proclamations (if that is the correct term), I have gained far more respect for him and the institution because of his decision. If he feels that his mental faculties are not sufficient for the post, then he is making the most unselfish decision by stepping aside.
While acknowledging the generosity in Acartia’s remark, I should think the more likely charge against Benedict, given what I understand of the man, is that his decision to resign might be selfish. He truly did not want to be Pope, & was looking forward to a gentle retirement after many, many unpleasant years in the thick of it.
Met this man once, briefly, when he was “Joseph Ratzinger”; & have read him carefully through the years. Thought him then, & think him now, perhaps the most impressive living Catholic through my generation; perhaps also the most learned. (Of course I have not met everyone.) I know he will have done, in perfect conscience, what he thought best for the Church, regardless of any appearance of selfishness or unselfishness. Nor for a moment could I entertain the speculation that he was pushed.
It is good to actually see people with one’s own eyes. Even in their own books, something is missing that can only be supplied by direct sight: through actual sensory experience of the presence of a man or woman. It is from that I was able to assure myself there was nothing in his humility that was “posed.” He is the genuine article.
The last person I should want to see elected our next Pope, or for that matter to any office of great consequence, is a man who really, really wants the job. This ties in directly to my critique of “democracy,” & my preference for electoral arrangements more like those through the College of Cardinals. For they choose among men they have often had intimate dealings with; whom they know personally, have usually known for some time. Moreover, they are acquainted with the requirements of the job, from experience of proximity: the personal qualities needed to cope with it, & what the stakes are in painfully exacting detail.
Mr Warren, I have been reading your essays carefully for over two years now and should say that I was shocked when I woke up this morning to the news of the resignation. I myself have taken the first steps on the long road towards the Church over the last year from a mildly Protestant start. I, in fact, attended a Catholic Mass only yesterday for the first time as an adult. I didn’t know what I was doing: when to sit, stand or kneel. I did not know the Creeds.
Why was I drawn into attending Mass? Part of it was, indeed, the leadership I saw from Rome in the Pope. He stood against the atrophy and lunacy and rot of the modern West. He actively pushed back in the way that the Archbishop of Canterbury did not. I saw a man who did not think himself right for the job, but was determined to do his duty.
I, as only a young layman, even still do not know whether I should be a Catholic. I do not even know how to make that decision. I can only say that today’s resignation has brought home the fact that I cannot make this decision with my own faculties. Human strength is not enough. I think in some small way the Holy Father would agree with that assessment.
I was greatly troubled to hear of Benedict’s resignation, although, apparently, he had been hinting at it for some months. I completely understand his reasons for resigning and trust that he did of his own accord. Like David, I, too, regarded Benedict’s election as something of a miracle and rejoiced when the 2005 Conclave made its choice. I also share his opinion of bureaucracies — they are inherently diabolical, no matter how good or Godly the individual bureaucrat may be. I think David is on to something when he surmises that Benedict wanted to pre-empt any attempt by the Vatican bureaucracy to take advantage of his physical and mental decline.
Still, I am troubled. And there is also the matter of all those 13s. …
I myself am trying, however inadequately, to live the message of Our Lady of Fatima in my life.
Do not fear the number 13! As described in the Book of Esther, the 13th day of Adar was set as the date when the Jews were set to be destroyed by their enemies in Persia. They were saved by their Queen (Esther) who prayed and fasted and achieved their deliverance.
To me, he is likely the smartest man in the world in the most important position in the world. Like you, Mark, he helped to draw me to the Church.
I had a similar, perhaps naive, thought that he was leaving while he still had his faculties so that he might help manage, even if only by his existence, the transition to the next pope.
The day before the resignation, he spoke of the martyrdom that is essential to being a Christian. It helped me to understand the end of The Angelus, “may through His passion and cross be brought to the glory of His resurrection.”
Anyway, that doesn’t sound like someone who is retiring because he no longer wants to be The Pope.
But this all does kind of bring to mind the question raised by Merle Haggard, some years back, of whether we’re “rolling downhill like a snowball headed for Hell.”
I have nothing to add except to thank God for Benedict XVI and to recall his first words from the balcony:
“Dear Brothers and Sisters: After the great Pope John Paul II, the Lord Cardinals have elected me, a simple and humble worker in the vineyard of the Lord.”
Electric words. But then, he has a Holy Ghostwriter, doesn’t he?
I was so upset to hear this news this morning, I don’t know if I’ll ever get over it. I’m not just a Catholic, I’m Benedict‘s Catholic — he’s the only Pope I’ve ever known. Two things brought me to conversion: John Paul II’s death and Terry Schiavo’s murder. The fact that this man was our Pope was to me like a tangible sign of the Holy Spirit’s protection: no matter how the rest of our civilization was failing and falling, the Church would still stand. Now this. I feel like I’ve been orphaned a second time. And I do feel betrayed. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep; he doesn’t just work until he’s tired then go off home at the end of the day. To me he’s like Peter, running away from Rome and leaving us behind. Oh yes, off to do more good works, no doubt, but we’re being abandoned. And now the liberals will get their way with a new pope, and it will all be over. I’m really so upset I can hardly think straight.
Sir Stephen & Melanie, the 13′s are everywhere in the Bible. The first Holy Thursday was the 13th of Nisan in the Hebrew calendar. It was allowed to Galileans to eat the Passover one day ahead of the full moon when the feast fell on Friday. In that way those who resided far from Jerusalem were not forced to violate the Sabbath. Then we have Joseph and his brothers, the day of Purim, and many other 13′s. Our Lady of Fatima brought up the number again in the 20th Century. There are other things that I chose not to mention because they are obscure and boring but I can assure you there is more to it. Thirteen years have passed (almost) since the apocalyptic events of September 11, for example. The 13th of each month is also dedicated to Our Lady, Mystical Rose.
Wanda, as a non-Catholic, I’m certainly not the best person to address your plight, but reading the statement of Sen. Marco Rubio, I thought of your remarks:
“Today Pope Benedict XVI displayed the qualities of an excellent leader and a true man of God by putting the interests of the Vatican and the Catholic Church over his own papacy. Since becoming Pope in 2005, Pope Benedict XVI has served the Church honorably, particularly through his work promoting charity across the globe. I wish him well in the future and, as a Catholic, I thank him for his service to God and the Church. I also look with optimism toward the future of the Catholic Church as it prepares to welcome a new leader and as it continues to spread God’s message of faith, hope and love to all the corners of the world.”
To Wanda, I would say: this, on the eve of Lent, is a crucial moment, when you cease to be “Benedict’s Catholic,” & become instead, “Christ’s Catholic.”
“The Vicar of Christ”, God’s emissary on earth. … However you want to refer to this position, he is still a man, elected by a bunch of other men.
I have never questioned the good intentions of the last few Popes. But no matter how you look at it, it is an elected position (I apologize for bringing up the idea of democracy), and one that only represents one half of Catholics.
And before David blames me of being Liberal, can he give me a rational reason why women are excluded from this old boys club? Arguing “tradition” is lame. A woman’s “traditional” role was to be subservient to, and “obey” her husband. Do you really propose that we go back to those days?
I am not even proposing that the church allow female priests (which is so obvious that it should be a no brainer), but they should at least allow priests to marry. Celibacy was not always a requirement, and I would be interested to hear David’s argument for continuing this “tradition”.
Oh dear, Lord Acartia. Oh dear dear dear. Surely not today.
There are lots of nice Protestant churches with female clergy. And the ancient Greeks & Romans had priestesses; to say nothing of the Egyptians & the Babylonians. And many of those Gnostics, too, & breakaway sects through all the Christian centuries. Not my fault if they keep dying out.
You must understand that the Catholic Church is not a representative institution. Or rather, it is, but it works the other way. The priest represents God to the people. He is a symbolical stand-in for Christ. So the question is for you. Which half of Christ is he not representing?
Now, Jesus had lots of women working for him, & a close examination of the Gospels will reveal that they were often better than the men. Maybe even usually. But He never made even one of them an Apostle. I should think that’s how the quaint custom got started. And it has worked fairly well these last twenty centuries.
Women can’t be Priests, but they’re allowed to become Saints. In his weekly lectures on holy men & women, the other year, I notice that Pope Benedict devoted successive Wednesdays for five solid months to discussing these Mediaeval exemplars: … Saint Hildegard of Bingen. … Saint Clare of Assisi. … Saint Matilda of Hackeborn. … Saint Gertrude the Great. … Blessed Angela of Foligno. … Saint Elizabeth of Hungary. … Saint Bridget of Sweden. … Marguerite d’Oingt. … Saint Juliana of Cornillon. … Saint Catherine of Siena. … Julian of Norwich. … Saint Catherine of Bologna. … Saint Catherine of Genoa. … Saint Joan of Arc. … Saint Teresa of Avila.
The onus probandi (burden of proof) is on the guy who wants to change the tradition, not the one who wants to keep it. (A point rather lost on many reformers.) I’m quite happy with it, myself. So are all the Trad Catholic women I know — rather fiercely particular about this quaint custom in quite a few cases. I wouldn’t want to take them on, if I were you; for they don’t take well to being confused with men.
“No brainers” are for people with no brains, incidentally. You don’t want to be one of those.
David, obviously I was trying to tweak the old cheek.
As an atheist, I don’t care whether women can become priests or not. And, unlike some of my ilk (liberal-progressive-atheist-darwinoids), I don’t think that it is a human rights or equality issue. The church is a private club. They are entitled to make whatever rule they would like, within reason. But I have yet to hear a sound argument why women are excluded from the club until after they die (and are made saints). But, again, I don’t have a horse in the race.
But you didn’t answer the question about celibacy of priests. At one time priests were allowed to be married. I have never heard a rational argument why this was discontinued other than an attempt to stem the bleeding of assets from the church (inheritance rights). Do you seriously think that the only people who can legitimately preach the gospel are those with penises that have never used them for one of the two functions that they were designed (evolved) for? Again, just trying to be provocative. But hopefully in a semi-respectful way.
Oh, so I was just wasting my time, eh? And now you want me to stay up the rest of the night wasting some more?
The celibate priesthood was not something invented recently. It was also there from the beginning. Note that Christ was a celibate.
One of the remarkable effects of a celibate clergy is that it works against ecclesiastical dynasties. Bishops cannot be succeeded by their sons. This actually was a big issue in the earliest centuries. The pagan converts preferred the monarchical principle, & Holy Church went to a lot of trouble to keep them in line. And I mean, spiritual not worldly lineage.
All these quaint customs have consequences that may not be immediately apparent to the glib “modern” view. There is far more than this to celibacy, but to understand it you have to be teachable.
The “Prophecies of St. Malachy” which purport to give brief descriptions of each Pope from his own time (the 12th century) through the end of time, have only one more pope after Benedict XVI. I make no judgment as to their authenticity. But the last Pope is called “Petrus Romanus” and the prophecy says: “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock among many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people” (from “The Prophecies of St. Malachy”, Introduction and Commentary by Peter Bander, Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., 1973, page 96).
“The battle will be won, with or without us.” In my world there is no battle, and only the rhythm of train wheels click clacking down a track to a place men can only glean from faint whispers. I wonder if Yoshida Kenko in his Tsurezuregusa, his Harvest of Leisure and his contemplation of Nicca and Anicca would find his pen expressing such bold declarations and hints of despair. What does winning look like when we’ve already won? It can only mean we’ve dispelled ignorance and thus worldly evil.
One must remember too, Mary, Mother of God, Queen of the Saints and Angels, Queen of Heaven, Seat of Wisdom, Cause of Our Joy and Salvation. In what other religion does one find a mortal woman who gave birth to the Creator of the Universe and brought Him up as her Son?
Ladies do just fine in the Roman Catholic Church.
So David, rather than explain the rationale of a celibate clergy, you chose to insult me. As the host of this blog, that is your privilege. All I mentioned was that the celibacy rules were not always the case, and that the change had to do with inheritance rights, which you have as much as admitted. These are facts.
I didn’t ask it overtly but I will now. Was the requirement for a celibate clergy a moral imperative or a political expediency? If it wasn’t considered to be essential at the beginning of the church, at a time closer to the living memory of Christ, why was it considered to be essential later? Or are you arguing that allowing clergy to marry was politically expedient at the time? in order to get more converts. Arguing that it is because of tradition is just a lazy out. There are many things that were tradition for centuries that we would all agree now are wrong.
By resigning, Pope Benedict has opened the gates to further bureaucratization of the Church. Limits, terms, tests, &c.
This unique and divine calling cannot be discarded by mere rational considerations which have always been his strength and his great weakness.
Mi rifiuto di accettare questa.
M. Pepall
Venice.
Ken Eiler, there are other prophecies that seem to apply specifically to our present age. The prophecy of St. Maelmhaedhoc Ó Morgair (Malachy) was preserved by a holy man called Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine monk. In my view it has proved its worth at the end of the reign of John Paul I, De medietate lunae. Albino Luciani. His name Albino could be translated “white” or “whitish.” His last name Luciani means only one, or first one but it has some connection to the word “light” (luce) like in moonlight. He ascended on a new moon and reigned “only one” moon, that is 33 days. He was born in the Diocese of Belluno (in the local dialect: Beautiful Moon.) When he was created Cardinal, Paul VI removed his own stole and placed him on Luciani’s shoulders. Some see in that gesture a sign of Luciani’s destiny. During his installation as Pope, the Metropolitan of Leningrad died suddenly and John Paul I prayed over him. One can read a lot in that coincidence.
I was convinced of the accuracy of Malachy’s prophecy while examining that particular line. There are others that are even more striking but that one I witness myself in my own life.
Acartia, on the matter of women and the Church, may I recommend the reading of Dawn Eden’s My Peace I Give You? The focus of the book is not women’s ordination but it was written by a woman to deal with a particular matter. Please find it and read it. The author is a convert from Judaism who experienced painfully some of the “freedoms” of the Progressive life. It is a very moving biography and in my view, a classic.
The Catholic Church has long recognized that the role of men and women in society should take seriously the nature of the individuals involved – in the modern idiom, to have nurture build on nature. In this way a father and mother work in a complementary manner to raise their children whole and entire, the father with qualities and abilities germane to his nature, the mother hers. In private and in public life the man and the woman each have their roles, responsibilities, and privileges. Thus are raised not just the children in a given family, but an entire society. For those with an interest in the subject of woman’s nature, Gertrud von le Fort’s “The Eternal Woman” is a profoundly good treatment.
The Church acknowledges that men and women are each complete in their own nature, whole and entire; it has thus rejected the pagan notion of women being incomplete men. The Christian view was the perspective by which society was organized for many centuries. In modern times a Marxist-driven feminist ideology – which fundamentally misunderstands human nature, masculine and feminine both – has subverted the order and tried to turn women into imitation men in a way that the corrupt old pagans would have relished. This has had adverse consequences for society and the social order, for marriage and families, and for the women themselves.
In the Catholic Church men and women have their own roles; thus the accusation that women attain merit only after they die betrays a sad ignorance of the matter. From a moral standpoint men and women are equal; at the same time, each has qualities that the other lacks. Broadly speaking, the distinction between the nature of men and women is that of the exterior and the interior. Men by their nature have many qualities that best fit them for life in the exterior sphere; women, in the interior. Neither is anything like complete in itself. Similarly, no individual is entirely exterior or entirely interior; unique qualities aside, the differences are those of proportion. By their nature men are typically better suited to the exterior; by their nature, women are typically better suited to the interior. Note that I use the terms exterior and interior, not active and passive; they are not identical or even similar: the former treat of the domain, the latter treat of the manner in which one acts in the domain. Thus, a person can be passive in exterior things (here we have examples of ineffectual and weak leaders) or active in interior things (here we have the examples of countless saints, among them many heroic women). It is part of the formally-condemned heresy of Americanism – yes, America has its own proper heresy – that treats interior things in a most derisive manner. This stupid prejudice has led to an almost insane emphasis on unthinking external activity; it is at the root of a great deal of anti-intellectualism.
I mention these few points by way of a preliminary to frame the matter under discussion, which seldom is treated well in modern discourse. The Marxist-feminist technique would have it that unless men and women have identical exterior roles in the same proportions, an injustice is inflicted on women. That the solution of these revolutionaries does violence to women in their nature – that it returns us to pagan sensibilities by making women into imitation men – appears to be completely lost on them. The confusion of the proper roles and responsibilities of men and women in their nature is at the root of modern epidemics of frequent divorce, abuse, abortion, infidelity, pornography, and the like: people are being fundamentally injured and violated by attempting to live according to perverse moral and social norms.
These points address some of the questions raised by Acartia. One could also point to issues in his logic: for instance, his assertion that an all-male hierarchy necessarily offends against women. Surely he sees that if we had women in leadership roles, then by his own reasoning men will necessarily be disenfranchised? If the present arrangement is bad for women, why would he introduce a substitute that would harm men? This argument exposes a fatal flaw in modern efforts to obliterate very real, normal, and healthy distinctions. Ironically, an era that professes to celebrate diversity would turn us into bland and generic Calvin Klein hermaphrodites.
To extend the exercise a little further: why do we stop at considerations of male and female? Who says that I have to limit my identity politics to what others select for me? The present Pope is a German; certainly citizens from all other countries across the globe should be outraged? The rationale is the same; that one is chosen as a basis for grievance over another is just an arbitrary selection of secondary criteria.
On the subject of celibate clergy: having been a Protestant, I’ve seen what married clergy are like. If we need we can go there too; suffice it to say, I’m quite glad for the Catholic arrangement.
This discussion reveals the strength and appeal of Roman Catholicism. For every question, the Catholic has an answer. Sometimes the answer is logical; at others, it is pragmatic. Or, it may be “tradition.” Or, “nature.” Or, “authority.” When those, above, are inadequate to the question, then the answer is God in one or more of His three forms. So, it appeals to those who hunger for such internal coherence.
What was offered (to Acartia) as a stray example of the sort of consideration a modern would overlook, is now taken for the keystone argument. The example, of what was done in both Eastern & Western Church to keep bishops focused on the spiritual, & off the worldly, is now characterized as “political expedience.” A cheeky response to a cheeky question becomes “an insult.” The onus probandi continues to be reversed. Et cetera.
May I recommend to him the Wikipedia article on “clerical celibacy.” It is not without flaws, but gives some elementary background on a large topic that may not yield to conclusive treatment in late night website Comments banter.
CTC: “For every question, the Catholic has an answer. Sometimes the answer is logical; at others, it is pragmatic. Or, it may be ‘tradition’. Or, ‘nature’. Or, ‘authority’. When those, above, are inadequate to the question, then the answer is God in one or more of His three forms.”
Now consider, that when we are asked logical questions, we may answer logically. When pragmatic, pragmatically. Questions about tradition are answered with explanations of the tradition, &c. But having answered each question in its kind, we are then dismissed for constantly changing the terms of debate. It is a game that cannot be won.
M. Pepall, from Venice, raises a point I have not dealt with, but which is a real source of worry. Benedict’s fear was to leave the papacy effectively vacant for a long period of time, through which the Church was under virulent attack. (What if Reagan had been elected President until death?) But by resigning, he opens the field to new attacks. He made a “judgement call” that he had (see book-length Peter Seewald interview from 2010, &c) long been considering, & long been praying on. Many will disagree with it.
But decisions have to be made. This is what popes are for.
Actually, my most recent comment was not dismissive; it was complimentary. Did you not note I was identifying the Church’s “appeal and strength”?
That’s rich: Acartia talks about the priesthood — something Catholics cherish — in derisive terms and introduces foreign and incorrect interpretations of the facts, and then complains that he’s being insulted when someone points out the absurdity of his remarks. What a thin-skinned and inconsistent chap.
The model of a celibate priesthood was present from the beginning of a Church. As David already pointed out, Christ is the model of priests, and He was celibate (Acartia neglects to acknowledge this key point, but that’s arbitrariness on his part). The historical record shows that the Apostles were either unmarried or they ceased to live as married men after they became Apostles — e.g. St. Peter had a wife, but he then gave up the married life. Even so, a celibate life was still a sufficiently new thing at the time of Christ that it was not initially made obligatory, but of counsel; for centuries it was held up as the ideal, but not of obligation. Even then a married man could become a priest, but he could not marry after becoming a priest — and no married man was made a bishop; one sees here the tendency of unmarried clergy gaining acceptance. After centuries of this custom becoming more the norm — when enough people could routinely grasp such an elevated concept — it was changed to one of obligation in the west. In the east clerics continued to be married; one should not overlook the fact, though, that in the west the Church grew, while in the east it grew only slowly if at all, and it was more readily involved in dynastic and political intrigues.
Acartia also misread David’s earlier comment: nobody but himself said that inheritance rights are why a celibate priesthood was enjoined. David, meanwhile, merely observed that unmarried clergy were spared many problems that clerics with families were obliged to give attention to.
Acartia asks, “Was the requirement for a celibate clergy a moral imperative or a political expediency?” Why must one choose between the two? That creates a false dilemma. A celibate priesthood was chiefly a religious and moral matter; political considerations were real, but secondary. St. Paul points out that an unmarried man can better devote himself entirely to the service of God; nobody seriously disputes this.
Acartia continues, “If [a celibate priesthood] wasn’t considered to be essential at the beginning of the church. …”
Rather, it was essential, but it was something the Church had to take on when it had matured. It was clearly considered preferable at the beginning — the examples of this preference are numerous — but for practical reasons it could not be made obligatory until a later time.
Acartia continues with language he will not allow anyone but himself, “Arguing that it is because of tradition is just a lazy out.”
Properly understood, no, not at all. But I suspect Acartia doesn’t mean by “tradition” the same thing Catholics do.
My apology to CTC. I am not used to receiving compliments for Holy Church from that GPS in Montgomery County. My further apology: for I then noticed I’d failed to post his Comment before replying to it. This solecism is now corrected, however.
Here I’m adding a distinction I omitted in my post of 8:22 am:
In terms of attaining individual sanctification, men and women are each complete in their own nature, whole and entire. They also have their own roles in society; in terms of raising family and other societal aspects they are incomplete and require the complementary efforts of the other.
Toma’s description above of the Marxist-feminist technique of implanting division answers Acartia’s minor hissy-fit over the equality of women. What the Marxists (and I mean the whole tribe from mild to extreme) attempt to do is corner and corral human beings by righteously demanding a one-size-fits-all egalitarian utopia. If one does not fit into the Mao-straight-jacket then one’s arms might be cut off.
Catino, I find your detailed analysis very interesting, but please be very careful about falling into a kind of Gnosticism whereby one needs to have special knowledge to understand God and the Catholic Church. A very well-educated and intelligent friend of mine got very deep into analyzing coincidences, numbers, Marian apparitions, Bible codes etc. and ultimately lost his faith. He concluded that only he and a few others who shared his views, could really understand the true teachings of Christ.
Back to Benedict, this resignation could have very serious consequences for traditional Catholics. I believe that there are few cardinals in the Church today who appreciate what the so-called “extraordinary form” of the Mass stands for. Traditionalists may once again start experiencing the global persecution that was so prevalent during the pontificate of Paul VI. Under Benedict XVI, traditional Catholics were at least safe for the time being and could grow in number.
Mi rifiuto di accettare questo.
Father Ratzinger is to Wojtyla what Spock is to Kirk. I am not inside Benedict’s head but I feel I can guess his move. Sensing his mental agility and power diminishing he was faced with two political options: he becomes an enfeebled prisoner of the Vatican bureaucracy or he passes the ball to the conclave. Guided by a Higher Power he chose the latter.
In faith some in his place could have opted for martyrdom and go on to trust the power of God to achieve things through human frailty. In that sense Benedict could be criticized for not trusting but remember Someone said a long time ago “I have prayed that your faith will not falter.” Since that prayer is one of the pillars of the papacy, let us not be quick to find a lack of faith where faith should always survive by definition.
“Knowing that they wanted to force him to be their king, He withdrew again to a mountain by himself.” The Holy Spirit is doing something right before our very eyes. We do not understand what God needs or what thoughts He puts in Benedict’s mind. The story of Celestine V elected Pope on account of his holiness and later resigning may be similar to that of Benedict. He was elected on account of his integrity, humility, and powerful intellect. We were given a good Pope, many have abused him grievously. Now we will get perhaps the Pope we deserve.
The times are wicked and enormous power lies now in the hands of evil for a short while. “I shall strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered.” We must be very attentive to the signs of the times: Cum ergo videritis abominationem desolationis stantem in loco sancto, qui legit, intellegat … ’cause life is like a box of chocolates and you never know what you are going to get.
The commonplace, party line rants about papal infallibility not existing until the 19th century, celibacy not being part of the sacred tradition from the get-go, the acceptance of slavery in the early church, and on and on, all betray a fundamental misunderstanding: the church is not a political or social structure like a parliament or a university or a nation state but is organic and is always becoming more itself over time.
CTC, you make an important and gratifying point (I thought David was referring to Acartia’s antics and not really misunderstanding you, by the way). One of the primary appeals of Catholicism is the absence of internal inconsistency that plagues most, maybe all other world views.
The resulting convergent validity is extraordinarily powerful and one reason why it is a final common pathway for so many great thinkers. The blessed John Henry Newman is supposed to have put it something like, “To go deep into history is to become Catholic.”
In Catholic doctrine “womanliness” was created as “the first of His creations of long ago,” she is Sophia the one destined to destroy evil for ever. In Catholic doctrine the first, most central, highest creation of God is a woman. She was once Mary of Nazareth who had to flee from Herod to protect her Child. Today she is a Queen so powerful one of the myriads of angels that follow her could destroy a galaxy with a snap of his wings. Do not even think of offending her. Remember that in Israel the Queen was not the consort, but the mother of the king, the Gebirah. Now that the Messiah is King, his Mom sits next to Him. And by the way, all Catholic priests, including the Pope, are nothing but her servants.
Maineman, don’t underestimate my “antics.” I like to be provocative on occasion just to stimulate discussion. And I must say that most of the responses to my comments have been thorough and well thought out, and well worth reading. I have learned many things that I did not know before. I may not agree with everything but life would be very boring if everybody thought in exactly the same way.
The role of gender in the church, and whether or not clergy must be celibate, is purely under the authority of the church. If parishioners want change, and the church shows no flexibility, the parishioners will have to make personal decisions about their own roles within the church. That is as it should be.
My comments are made purely as a spectator. My opinions are obviously not going to change the church, nor should they. People from outside the church should have no say on the policies and functioning of the church any more than the church should have any say on the policies and functioning of government. But don’t get me wrong. I am not saying that religious beliefs should not influence government policies, just that the influence should be through individual church members as citizens of the country.
It has struck me that one of the marks of the humility of this Ratzinger — this German who thought himself inferior to a Pole — may have been part of his decision to resign. Wojtyla, in the still recent past, had set an onlooking world a marvellous example of how to die like a Catholic. To the end, he had the “charism” for that. “Rise, let us be on our way.”
For the very reason that he believes himself “no Wojtyla,” Benedict thinks that repeating that performance on his part would be morbid. We would be watching a melodrama: the brilliant old man losing his grip & his marbles, making public statements that are merely embarrassing. His own (biological) family have tended to be long-lived, & while we don’t know what his doctors told him, the prospect of a decade or more of this could not possibly be good for Holy Church. There are a couple of million Brazilian & other kids waiting to see a Pope this July in Rio. We do know the doctors told him not to go there. Imagine what might happen if he went there anyway, to perform a kind of public suicide.
He is, it might be argued, an over-rational man. Why doesn’t he just trust in God to make the best of the situation? But God is not a Kantian; He does not rule by “categorical imperative”: He does not prescribe the same for men in every condition, the way Nanny State does. It seems to me not only possible, but perhaps even likely, that God would prescribe a different course for His Ratzinger than for His Wojtyla, in accord with the “genius” of each man, respectively.
For consider this: what is martyrdom in one man, could be suicide in another; yet the distinction is not slight.
The media speculation that Ratzinger will now be “the power behind the throne” is nonsense. He is genuinely enfeebled, & by his nature will retire to a life of prayer in some convent somewhere, out of public view. It may well be that those invisible prayers, & that invisible suffering in his infirmity are more agreeable to God & more valuable to the Church than a public exposition.
In any event, the decision is made. We, too, must rise & be on our way.
Ah, yes. On our way. But a little lonelier now than before.
They were quite the one-two punch, a resounding celebration of life that grew out of the devastation of the last century.
To Maineman: You never know with God. Maybe the third & knock-out punch is coming.
Just an attempt to make you smile. Very few know how John Paul II, the first non-Italian Pope in centuries, was elected. The cardinals debated for hours and they were all very tired. Seeing that there was no agreement the one presiding said: “Well, that’s enough. Let’s take a Pole!”
I think it’s funny.
I literally fell to my knees with joy and relief when Benedict was elected. We have had him for almost eight years when I feared that his heart condition might cause him a very short pontificate.
His prayers for the Church and all humanity will do us more good than we can realize. May God grant him needed rest for the remainder of the work he will do for all of us. And may he get to play the piano more now.
Gentles one and all, Papa Ben is not going to his ease. In seeking the cloister or hermitage, he is sailing out into the deep, to face far more dire spiritual battle. There be monsters, indeed. You might wish to read what Fr. George David Byers of Holy Souls Hermitage has written about that.
Acartia, the celibacy rule is not ironclad even today. In the Anglican Ordinariate and in the Eastern Catholic churches, married men can be ordained to both the permanent diaconate (as they can also in the Latin Rite) and to the priesthood. And were there sufficient reasons to do so, the Pope could get rid of the requirement again. But it’s served us pretty well, and there would have to be some sort of serious issue to remove the discipline of celibacy from the Latin Rite priesthood, and even more so to remove it from the episcopacy. And the role of gender is not purely under the authority of the Church. It is far more under the authority of Christ.
Milord Dochart, I think “procrustean” would be a far better description of the sort of utopia that Marxists propound.
Have we truly appreciated his Cross? Have we prayed enough for him? Questions gnaw.
In fact, in the west the rule of celibacy for priests is ironclad. What the Church has done with Anglican divines who convert to Catholicism is adopt a measure akin — but not identical — to what was already in place for eastern Christians. This was not a step in the direction of changing the rule of celibacy for Catholic priests as a whole, though some folks are trying to use it as such a wedge.
What we want in our priests are the best and brightest men who are capable of living a heroic life of sacrifice. They offer their lives as in propitiation to the Almighty, and they serve as a model in virtue for the rest of us. The “priest as social worker” and “priest as garçon” model of the past few decades has produced a dwindling crop of ineffectual clerics who don’t even know what a priest is. The priesthood itself has been under vicious attack — it has been incessantly denigrated, undermined, ignored, ridiculed, ostracized, and lied about. Let’s be serious about saving our souls. Let’s have real priests, men of firm character who effectively lead the troops of the Church Militant on the field of spiritual battle.
Re Ouellette: “A good man generally, but it must be allowed that he failed to re-Christianize Quebec,” says DW.
Now that’s an understatement! In my humble opinion, he was worse than clueless as the leader of the Church in Quebec. A Church whose hierarchy had long ago become French first and Catholic a distant second.
Please, please Lord! Do not allow this spineless shepherd who has completely mislaid his crook to lead our Church. I have had my complete fill of those clerics who only know how to “go along to get along.” We need more like Benedict XVI who was not afraid to face the sexual scandals head on.
We all need to pray very hard in the next few weeks for our Cardinals to make the right decision.