At the risk of sounding like I’m criticizing the Holy Spirit, I raise the following question:

Could Pope Benedict XVI have been pressured to resign (either by others or by his own sense of and sensitivity to continuity) because of the “dynamic” footsteps he was following - namely, those of John Paul II? I realize that John Paul II’s globetrotting and youth-oriented approach as an “active” “dynamic” pope was much needed - and no doubt still is. But not every pope has the same charism. Certainly it is not Benedict XVI’s forte (his is liturgy - which, oddly enough, was dedicedly NOT JPII’s forte).

Of course, it could be argued, JPII’s last days were more heartbreakingly decrepit than B16’s, so clearly B16 has an “out” by going the way of his predecessor if he wishes. But he doesn’t wish to, so therefore it must be something else. But I would gently contend that even JPII’s last days fit well the “drama” of the JPII papacy - a drama which is as far from B16’s style as Bob Dylan appearing on stage with JPII at a well-attended media event is from B16 playing pitch-perfect Mozart sonatas in private on his grand piano.

I raise the question as a way of figuring out why Benedict felt the need to “go away” before he died. The popes of the past, apparenly, were perfectly content to live out their days - even their deathbed days - by remaining pope, even if somewhat invisible to the world. So, perhaps asked another way, my question is this: Did the high visibility of JPII so shape the papacy that we can’t expect popes in the future to maintain their office if they show signs of slowing down?

Also, as a corollary question, is it possible to resign as bishop of Rome and remain pope? Would that be a credible “middle way” that relieves the pope of administrative duties while allowing him to maintain his moral and spiritual authority as pontiff?

At any rate, there it is, let the faggots be piled at my feet and lit as they might…

JOB

How about this, then?  Setting aside all consideration of ecclesiastical rank, in prudential matters where I have to just the judgment of another, I will trust the judgment of Joseph Ratzinger before that of Pat Archbold.  I would say the same if he had never been elected Pope.  Don’t feel bad, though; I would trust the personal, prudential judgment of Joseph Ratzinger over that of just about anyone else.  As for the “papa bull”, I have no idea what you mean by that.  He’s still pope until the end of the month, and “papa” and “pope” are both synonyms and cognates.

Sorry, I’ve got the flu, and I’ll blame the typo on that.  I “have to trust” not I “have to just”.

Howard
Way to miss the entire point.  Did I question the Pope’s judgement? No. I did not.

Pat - not so sure about this.
Our Bishop, a mult-lingual canon lawyer, no mental or thological slouch, spoke in a Homily to the faithful within hours of the resignation wherin he stated that “The Lord already knows who the next Holy Father is. He’s already chosen him. It’s already decided. It’s for us to pray for the man the Lord has already chosen.”

Sounds like the Holy Spirit to me.

That the Holy Spirit surely knows who will be chosen is different than the Holy Spirit choosing him.

Toby, with all respect, this is totally wrong.

Love you man.  There is no room for superstition or magic here.  There have been plenty of Popes who have been simply awful for the Church and we have corrupt men to thank for it.  Pray for good leaders, sure, but work like hell to promote good men and even try being one yourself.

Thank you Heather.

To answer Job’s question, the office of the papacy simply is the office of the bishop of Rome - he is Pope by virtue of being the successor of Peter as bishop of Rome. The two are not separable.

I really appreciate this. I think the errors you’re pointing out are similar to the errors that Protestants make about the authorship of the Bible. Each book of the Bible has two authors: God and the human author. It’s tempting to think that God is actually the “real” author of the Bible, and that the human writers are just sort of automatons—just as it’s tempting to think that Christ is “really” only Divine, and that His human nature is just a shell. But to think that way is to give less respect to the freedom of human beings than God does.
.
The cardinals will pray to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will inspire them. But God meant it when He gave us free will, and He will work with the choices we make. We believe in Providence, not fate.

Saying the Lord has chosen him and the Lord knows who he is are two quite different things, are they not? It seems to me, and perhaps I’m wrong, but it seems that allowing for our freedom of choice means that the College can actually elect a bad pope, as has been seen over the centuries. The Cardinals are free to vote for whomever they choose, and this freedom allows them to pick a Pope that, as has been said, the Holy Spirit wouldn’t have necessarily chosen. The Lord did not arbitrarily choose, for example, that World War II was going to happen, although he knew it was to be so. But through this war he brought about the good that was the example of the faith of St Maximilian Kolbe among many other examples we could cite. This doesn’t mean, as Pat has said, that the terrible events were any less terrible, only that, as the Pope said, “the thing cannot be totally ruined,” the key word being totally. I think the Holy Father is saying that the Lord can bring great good out of even the worst evil. This situation certainly raises interesting questions about notions of free will, and the great need for prayer in the days ahead.

It’s true that the 117 cardinals about to choose the next pope still have free will. They could choose whomever they want, and we can really just pray that they let themselves be guided by the Holy Spirit. But I’m not sure those who might “Pray, hope, and don’t worry” because they trust God no matter what happens, even if our next pope is a disaster, necessarily think of the Holy Spirit as a “fairy godmother.” I guess it’s a fine line. Thanks for the article.

Tina
Good point.  “Pray, hope, and don’t worry” is entirely different than the people to who I refer above.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ and the Successor to Peter. It is this office that Pope Benedict will surrender to his successor. The word “abdicate” is not good because Pope Benedict XVI now, more than ever, will enable the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of Peter; Pope Benedict XVI having experienced the office and completed his mission. Bishop of Rome, Bishop Emeritus, Bishop Auxiliary, Pope Benedict XVI is a one of a kind saint, and saints know what must be God’s will.
Also, The Holy Spirit guides the Church and Divine Providence provides for the Church. Will God, the Father, Creator, not provide for Jesus Christ’s Vicar on earth? Time for penance and reconciliation.

When Pope John Paul I was elected he said: “I am not the one, the man across the isle is the man. The man across he isle was Karol Wotyla.”

“At any rate, there it is, let the faggots be piled at my feet and lit as they might…

JOB”

JOB
I will be right there with you.
Mary

Way to write a post with no particular point.  A good writer would have worked his way up to the final sentence:  “In the meantime, cut all the papa-bull.”  A blogger ... well, hell, I guess he’s just got to get a post out every couple of days, point or no point.

‘Cut the hyperbole!’ says the man who writes “To suggest that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope is an insult to the Holy Spirit born of ignorance.”

The correct description of the Holy Spirit’s role is that he keeps the Pope from TEACHING ERROR. That’s it, that’s all he does.

And now I agree with you three times in a row. Amazing. I especially like what you wrote in a previous article : “The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error, not from catastrophe”. Indeed, this is exactly what Christ promised : that He would remain in His Church protecting from error through Peter and his successors and the Apostles and their successors AND that His Church would be striken by horrible catastrophes. Before Christ’s return and final complete victory, the Church will not promote error, but the Church will be striken by the same kind of catastrophes as she as suffered in the last 2000 years. All we can do is pray and trust God.

Only Pope Benedict XVI knows the real reasons for his resignation and we should respect his wishes and keep him in our prayers. There is so much politics within the Roman Curia and the cardinals.  Let’s just pray that they choose a new pope who will be young and healthy enough to take on the humongous resposibilities or the Church.

The question as to whether the Holy Spirit will choose the next pope cannot be answered as simply as either yes or no. To paraphrase St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I Q. 22 aa. 3-4.) God wills contingent things to happen contingently. This means that the Holy Spirit can and in fact will choose the next pope, but will do so in such a way that fully respects the deliberations of the conclave. If the Cardinals are open to the Holy Spirit they will concur in that choice. If not,  they will choose someone else and the Church will suffer and yet it will survive. All of human history follows the pattern of God commanding or proposing the best course of action in every situation, with humans sometimes saying yes to God and sometimes saying no. Why should this situation be any different? Let us all pray that like Mary the Cardinals say YES to God.

Pope Benedict is certainly capable of erring in this decision.  That said, do you really think a man as reasoned and careful as he is doing so?  Could it be that, Holy Spirit or no, the man is better capable of judging his own circumstances than are you? 

You are certainly correct in your assessment of how the conclave works and the Spirit’s role but why is your default position worry? 

I wish I could track down the quote, but Benedict himself—I think when he was still Cardinal—stated that the Holy Spirit doesn’t pick the Pope.  One would certainly like to think the Holy Spirit has a hand in the process, but there have been a lot of bad Popes.  I don’t see what the hullabaloo is over a Pope resigning, though.  Most bishops resign before dying, and the Pope is a Bishop.

Adolfo - P.A. never said or even implied that the pope has erred.  He says it is possible that he did.  He also says it is just as likely that he didn’t.  He reiterated that his point is not even whether he did or didn’t, but that the pope’s resignation should not set the standard for future popes. 

Now, Mr. Archbold might be right about this last point, or he might be wrong…

This is a good reminder every now and then to take a step back and realize that the Holy Spirit’s role in the Church is one of general protection and subtle guidance, but not necessarily a guarantee that our leaders will choose the best course of action in every case, even with regards to conclaves and councils.  Past inept popes and ineffective councils (strategically, not doctrinally) bear witness to this (and yes, I’m one of those who thinks the jury is still out on Vatican II’s place in history and whether it will be seen in a favorable light by future generations).

I’m not so sure this adoring attitude is really that problematic since it’s born of a general love and loyalty to the Church and the Holy Father, which is far better than the dissenting alternative, but I do get a wee bit uneasy at the over-the-top adulation of recent popes as if they are angelic entities whose every word and gesture is a divine stroke of genius to leave us all in awe to behold.  Like our finer bishops, they are good and holy men with far more strengths than weaknesses, but let us be careful that while we give them the respect they deserve, we aren’t overdoing things a bit.  The humility of Pope Benedict XVI should be an example for all of us.

This is a good reminder every now and then to take a step back and realize that the Holy Spirit’s role in the Church is one of general protection and subtle guidance, but not necessarily a guarantee that our leaders will choose the best course of action in every case, even with regards to conclaves and councils.  Past inept popes and ineffective councils (strategically, not doctrinally) bear witness to this (and yes, I’m one of those who thinks the jury is still out on Vatican II’s place in history and whether it will be seen in a favorable light by future generations).

I’m not so sure this adoring attitude is really that problematic since it’s born of a general love and loyalty to the Church and the Holy Father, which is far better than the dissenting alternative, but I do get a wee bit uneasy at the over-the-top adulation of recent popes as if they are angelic entities whose every word and gesture is a divine stroke of genius to leave us all in awe to behold.  Like our finer bishops, they are good and holy men with far more strengths than weaknesses, but let us be careful that while we give them the respect they deserve, we aren’t overdoing things a bit.  The humility of Pope Benedict XVI should be an example for all of us.

I agree with you Pat.  Thanks for this article.

I cannot possibly disagree with what you say. The ‘tributes’ have been nauseating. They ignore what this Pope has done or failed to do in favour of saccharine-laced panegyric. One can be forgiven for entertaining the sceptical opinion that the commentators seek to sanctify Benedict XVI, raising him to the altar while he yet lives. Papolatry taken to its logical and heretical conclusion, really. Supposed ‘holiness’ is attributed to Benedict and I would do nothing to disparage that quality, if it be true. What disturbs me is that none of the commentators truly know his spiritual status - God alone can be sure of that. That notwithstanding we shall ‘consecrate’ Vatican II by declaring Paul VI a Saint (thus covering with a mantel of sanctity some pretty awful sins, public and private and that, let me say, is one I will never believe)and reinforce the Council’s ‘sanctity’ by sanctifying its chief living architect, Benedict XVI. The lunatics will then have definitively taken control of the Madhouse - the Devil will have entered the witness box and sworn to tell the Truth, so I guess we shall have to believe him, right?

I could not agree more.  Pope Benedict’s decision is a prudential one, not an infallible one, even when taken with due consideration and prayerfully.  Popes or Cardinals are not immune to bad judgements, even saints have not always made good prudential decisions. Pope Benedict’s explanation - good teacher that he is -  for his abdication is very clear on that matter: it is his decision and no where does he mentions having received it from the Holy Spirit.  Yes, we are confident that all things work for the good in the end, but the Church is not spared bad and sometimes catastrophic events.  This idea of the Holy Spirit working directly and clearly with popes and cardinals about their decisions is not theologically catholic, but rather pentecostal in outlook

Howard Richards: It is called “flow of conscious thought”. That is all I ever do and it has to work because I know nothing else.

Maybe it’s a good thing that there are 117 Cardinal electors, then.  Maybe less of a chance that a really rotten Pope can be elected.  But then again, 435 representatives and 100 Senators haven’t been doing an awfully good job here in the US, either.

Guess we just have to keep praying for God to take a very active role so that this doesn’t get mucked up.

“In one bit of commentary I warned of the dangers of a ‘trend’ of papal abdications and advised a future pontiff to avoid it… That is not to say that the Pope is doing the wrong thing, but only that he is doing what he thinks is best. It may be, it may not be.”

True, but the same is also the case for all Popes who stay until death and do NOT abdicate. It may be for the best, or it may not be.

I just see no point in fretting about things I have relatively little control over, and we do all know how the story is going to end. 
What you say is true, Pat, but between this and your “Pope Must Die” entry, I smell injury nursed.

What an awfully inflated article….fitting the word misinformation 3 times in the first few sentences.

Trying to sound over tough just makes your otherwise little point look even smaller.

Needs,a severe edit, with a double dose of humility.

It would be helpful if this article made reference to a magisterial document or two that readers could read and deepen their knowledge. As it is, it’s rather condescending, as it does little more than match polemics with polemics.

“all we can do is pray”

This statement…uttered so reflexively nowadays… is such a Protestant thing to say…and to do.

No.  We pray, we sacrifice, we study, we work, we deepen our own formation in the truth, so we can patiently, humbly, generously help others deepen their faith in God working in His Church, perhaps so humbly and gently they won’t even recognize our help.  We have much more to do every day with Him.  That’s the Catholic way.

Bill,
All those things you mention should integrate into our life as a form of prayer.

Kathleen, correct. If our fingers aren’t dirty, and our mind exhausted through study, we haven’t prayed enough.

Don’t you think that all these troubles can be seen as a spur to prayer. To pray as we have never prayed before? Those of us born in the middle of the last century were those who really were convulsed by the destruction wreaked upon the Church by those who hijacked Vatican II and imposed their agenda both during and after the Council. It does no harm to remember that Fr Ratzinger was a leading ‘Expert’ and a leading reformer. Fr Ratzinger only reconverted to being a (relative) doctrinal ant-liberal when he experienced first hand as a University lecturer the true nature of the genie that he and his friends had let out of the conciliar bottle. By then, of course, the damage truly had been done and the rest of his career has been a rear-guard action against former fellow-liberals. Neither as Priest nor as Theologian, Bishop, Cardinal or Pope was the poor man guaranteed any sort of infallibility so - as a human - he made mistakes.
That more than he regret them and more than he have suffered from them is a tragic necessity of his being all that he is and has been. No moral blame attaches, I think and I hope. Let us dare further, perhaps? Dare we say that his ‘personal piety’ - an attribute I have never sought to question, it being far from me to make windows into any Pope’s soul - does not render him immune from being misled or misguided. His much trumpeted theological erudition is not something I am able to quantify, qualify or contest but, then again, I would have to say the same about the intellectual capacity of a Peter Abelard or Teilhard de Chardin. Both were wrong, both erred and each had his errors condemned. Who has the right to challenge the ‘personal piety’ of either or both? Not I. Two great theologians who got it wrong. It will be more than interesting to see how the Church finally judges Benedict XVI and Paul VI. ‘Personal piety’ will not enter much into consideration when, God willing, orthodox doctrine regains its proper primacy over the ‘love changes everything’ lovey-dovey ‘dolce sentire’ nonsense to which we have had to bow the knee for the past 50 years. Before anyone shouts that Jesus is Love let me say: Yes, I know it, I believe it and I try to live with that at the front of my mind but I believe that the Doctrine of the Faith goes hand-in-glove with Love just as I believe God is as infinitely just as He is loving. “Our dear Holy Father” has always needed critical friends as much as loving admirers, let’s not forget. Had he had more of the former than the latter he may have now fewer regrets, which he assuredly does.

You know, Bill? I believe this time of trouble is a prod to prayer - we had it really good prior to the 50s and we were complacent and careless, the clergy especially. Sometime in the future this will be seen as a time of trial and penance. We really have to turn ourselves around. We have to convert, turn once more towards Christ and worship Him in the Blessed Trinity and leave and turn away from this half century’s dalliance with anthropocentric ‘religion’. Watch and pray, watch and pray. Fifteen decades every day.

it is difficult to even imagine that pope benedict is acting contrary to his conscience.  it is equally difficult to imagine that he does not possess a well-formed conscience.

it is also difficult to imagine that the vast majority of the cardinal electors will not also follow their well-formed consciences in the coming conclave.

what more can a faithful catholic desire?

‘A faithful Catholic’ does not remain silent when the Doctrine of the Faith is either being undermined or sidelined. I am sure Benedict acts in conformity with his conscience - if that conscience were skewed by a modernistic squint, what then? As for the Cardinal electors, the same applies. God send the Church a Catholic Pope. Let’s agree we must pray for that, shall we?