Sunday, March 3, 2013
Pope Benedict XVI
In the aftermath of Pope Benedict's resignation, there has been a lot of commentary. People have tried to evaluate his accomplishments and shortcomings and the significance of his papacy. Beyond that, there has been discussion of whether he should have resigned or not.
My friend and fellow blogger MartininBroda made a post which expresses disappointment at Benedict's decision. Others have suggested that the papacy is a lifetime calling (even though Church law allows for resignations), so that a resignation is a dereliction of duty. As some have put it, one cannot stop being a father. Others have noted the contrast between this resignation and Bl. John Paul II's continuing to death even as he became increasingly debilitated by his illness. Martin quoted me a famous line from the legend about St. Peter. The legend says the as persecution was raging in Rome, Peter decided to leave the city for his own safety. As he was walking south on the Appian Way, he encountered (had a vision of) Jesus walking in the opposite direction — into the city. Peter asked him, "Quo vadis, Domine?" ("Where are you going, Lord?") and Jesus replied, "I am going to be crucified in your place." At that, Peter turned around and went back into the city, where he was martyred.
One can also discuss the resignation on the basis of whether it will prove to be a beneficial precedent or a harmful one. On that point, I'll just say that I'm not really sure. There is the danger that people with an axe to grind will put pressure on a pope to resign because they are unhappy with his decisions on one question or another. There is the possibility that a good man will feel freer to accept election if he realizes that he can resign when he becomes physically unable to carry on. By indicating that the pope must be vigorous the resignation tends to reinforce focus on the papacy alone, to the possible retirement of appreciation of the role of the bishop in his diocese. On the other hand, the fact the a pope can resign may tend to diminish the "mystique" of the papacy and clarify that he is also a bishop: the head of the college of bishops.
But to me, the central question is whether Benedict XVI is abandoning his duty. Has he run away? My opinion is that this is not a failure to live up to his obligations. When I saw the video of his announcement and read the translation of what he said, it seemed to me that he was giving a valid reason for resigning: that he was unable to perform the duties of the office adequately. He was resigning, in other words, not for his own comfort, but for the good of the Church: because he believes that at this juncture the Church needs a more vigorous man as pope. In this respect, his leaving of the papacy is the opposite of St. Peter's leaving Rome to save his life.
Similarly, it seems to me that the argument that one does not stop being a father is not valid. In the first place, bishops are fathers of their local churches, but they are required to offer their resignation when they reach age 75. Furthermore, Benedict has made it clear that his resignation is not an abandonment of the Church, since he will continue to live, in seclusion, at the Vatican, undertaking a life of prayer — which is also service to the Church.
I'd also note that this "retirement" is very different from other retirements in that Benedict will not go off and enjoy the normal life of a retiree — traveling, enjoying concerts, operas, dinner parties, and socializing in whatever ways appeal to one. He's not going to be enjoying "the good life" in the way we normally understand the phrase. It would be different if he were retiring to a family home in Bavaria, or taking an apartment in Rome.
As for the example of John Paul II, I think he gave a very valuable witness to the world of the sacredness of human life at all stages. When people advocate for assisted suicide as "death with dignity," John Paul II shows, rather, the dignity of life. But Benedict had to consider the needs of the Church. He was able to take into account not only the very public side of John Paul's endurance to the end, but also the effect it had on the workings of the Vatican. He also could take into account how his debilitation might progress differently from that of his predecessor. So I don't think the example of John Paul II invalidates the decision of Benedict XVI.
I am grateful to Benedict XVI for his life in service to the Church and the Gospel, and I respect his decision to serve them by resigning the papacy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
As I told you already I owe you an answer now & hopefully it will be a translated one, we'll see.
I've held off responding because I thought there would be more. But obviously we're all free to participate as we like. So there's no obligation on your part to add anything on this topic.
Thanks for reading my blog.
Joe, 1st you're right, 2nd you're not. I'm thinking about the "topic" nearly every day. Now we have this broken record pope, the poor, the poor, the poor... and my flat is way too big! it's all so sad. Would it be ok for you, if I would send you an e-mail written in German?
I'm sorry but I have (!) to answer in German:
Man dürfte kaum einen menschlichen Abgrund finden, der in die Geschichte des Papsttums nicht einbeschlossen ist. Als Lutheraner sagt sich dies, scheinbar, leicht. Es hat aber über die letzten 200 Jahre (etwa), doch sehr gewonnen, das Amt.
Das Persönliche sollte hier zurückstehen, aber weichen wir einfach vom Angemessenen ab, andere tun dies schließlich auch (eine billige Ausrede, ich weiß). Ich habe diese Frage lange hin und her erwogen und wollte eigentlich nicht mehr antworten. Auch dies kann nicht endgültig sein.
Es begann mit seinem Vorgänger, ganz anders. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber er mußte nur zu sprechen beginnen und man war im Innersten getroffen. Ich habe keinerlei Voraussetzungen dafür mitgebracht, ich will die belanglosen Einzelheiten dazu nicht ausbreiten.
Ja, ich habe mich vom Rücktritt Benedikt XVI. nahezu verraten gefühlt, warum eigentlich? Ich habe viele seiner Bücher gelesen, ihn wie einen “Fels in der Brandung” empfunden, sogar Nähe zur katholischen Kirche entwickelt, alles war so einleuchtend, nachvollziehbar, richtig. Er schuf eine emotionale Sicherheit: Hier sieht jemand die Welt so, wie sie ist, und die Kirche genau in der Situation, in der sie steht. Eine Welt, die wie ein Schiff ohne Kompaß über das Meer irrt.
Die Welt mochte das nicht, und die römische Kirche war auf dieses „Nichtmögen“ wohl auch nicht gut vorbereitet.
Ist das Amt des Papstes eines wie jedes andere? Dann war sein Rücktritt vernünftig und nachvollziehbar. Ist es das? Hat die katholische Kirche nicht die Vorstellung genährt, es gäbe mit diesem Amt sozusagen eine Brücke zwischen Himmel und Erde. Der Stellvertreter Christi, wen vertritt er? Sollte der „Vertretene“ nicht doch zu ganz anderen Gedankengängen und gar Entscheidungen führen?
„Aber die Welt, die sich so schnell verändert, wird heute durch Fragen, die für das Leben des Glaubens von großer Bedeutung sind, hin- und hergeworfen. Um trotzdem das Schifflein Petri zu steuern und das Evangelium zu verkünden, ist sowohl die Kraft des Köpers als auch die Kraft des Geistes notwendig, eine Kraft, die in den vergangenen Monaten in mir derart abgenommen hat, daß ich mein Unvermögen erkennen muß, den mir anvertrauten Dienst weiter gut auszuführen.“
Die Welt wird immer hin- und hergeworfen. Aber ich sehe ein Argument, das ich gelten lassen kann. Wenn man gegenüber den eigenen geistigen Kräften mißtrauisch werden muß und in Sorge geraten, ihr Nachlassen könne Schaden anrichten. Ja, das könnte ich vielleicht gelten lassen. Das Körperliche, weniger. Gibt es nicht wunderbare Beispiele aus der Kirchengeschichte, wie der Geist in einem zerbrechenden Köper aufleuchtet. Er hätte zu so einem „geistlichen“ Papst werden können. Er wäre uns sehr nötig. Für das Praktische, Organisatorische, die Reform des Apparates etc. etc. hätten sich andere Lösungen finden lassen, da bin ich mir sicher. Von den praktischen Schwierigkeiten, die ein „Schatten-Papst“ mit sich bringen muß, schweigen wir besser ganz.
Die Vorstellung von der Stellvertreterschaft Christi klingt wie pure Anmaßung. Es sei denn, sie ist im Vertrauen auf den Heiligen Geist ausgesprochen, der über das rein Menschliche hinwegführt.
Dear Martin, thank you for this presentation of your thoughts, and for the more extensive post on your own blog, with a translation which has made it much possible to grasp some nuances which I missed when I read this comment and the German text there.
But I must apologize, because when I wrote, "I've held off responding because I thought there would be more. But obviously we're all free to participate as we like. So there's no obligation on your part to add anything on this topic," it was an explanation of my tardy response to your earlier comment. I had no idea you'd take it as insisting that you write something further. I meant it literally: you're never obligated to write anything. I have no right to insist that you do anything. I am, as I added, simply grateful for any attention you choose to give. I'm sorry you felt forced to respond contrary to your wishes.
You make it very clear how the papacy had become significant to you first as a citizen of the former GDR and then simply as a German from the time of John Paul II and continuing with Benedict XVI.
It is difficult for me to respond to your actual criticism of Benedict's decision and the implications for our understanding of the papacy without resorting to apologetics. Suffice it to say that as I see it, Pope Benedict's words remain as valid as if he were still Pope or he had died in office. It also seems to me that the Church continues to proclaim its dogmatic teachings.
I'll add that one element of the New Evangelization must be to call the world away from its slavery to mammon. People today don't even realize the extent to which they see acquiring money and things as the central component of a happy life. I'm hopeful that Pope Francis' example will help people see that money and possessions are rubbish compared to the good of knowing God and being his children.
Post a Comment