Benedict XVI to resign?

Either a lot of big-name news organizations have been fooled or Pope Benedict really is going to resign on February 28.

https://twitter.com/cnnmornings/status/300921632950714368

This isn't a dogmatic surprise. Popes can resign, and Benedict himself said that, under certain conditions—very bad health?—he might have the duty to. It's somewhat characteristic of him to reach back to the theology of the thing—that pope's can resign—and disregard recent tradition.

Update: Official statement http://www.bnowire.com/inbox/?id=1478

"I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is."

My hopeful take: It was a humble move by a smart conservative, whose ecclesiology included a earlier understanding of the Papacy, before it became a cult of personality.

Some of the UK media's take on it:

Pope Benedict XVI in shock resignation (BBC)

Pope Benedict XVI resigns due to age and declining health (Guardian)

There's a lot of speculation that he was elected as a compromise candidate, and perhaps one who wasn't expected to live for too long. My wife met him years ago and her overwhelming impression of him was "frail", even then (2006).

But I tend to agree with you, Tim. Although at one level he appeared to be just a continuation of John Paul II's "conservative" and centralising tendencies, he is an intellectual and a theologian and I do think he has both humility and integrity. All of this challenges the "conservative" stereotype.

There is also a bit of speculation floating around as to whether he is recognising that the centre of gravity of the Catholic Church (and indeed Christianity in general) has shifted from Europe and north America to the southern hemisphere. He appointed more "global" cardinals just a few months ago, and it might be that now is the time for a pope from the wider world. Turkson is being mentioned as a front-runner, although conclaves often surprise anyone who tries to make predictions.

Ladbrokes is the second bookmaker to make Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana the favourite to be the next Pope, with odds of 5/2. - BBC

First papal resignation since 1415 (Gregory XII), I see from Wikipedia. My first thoughts on hearing the news were (a) wow! and (b) I bet LibraryThing will be buzzing!

>5 MyopicBookworm: My first thoughts on hearing the news were (a) wow! and (b) I bet LibraryThing will be buzzing!

Ditto!

Interesting little informational article from NCR: Can a pope resign?

My thoughts are still swirling, as this whole thing as a little dizzying. (And it means the article I was just about to submit to a journal on the relationship between Hildegard of Bingen and Benedict's ecclesiology is going to have to be put on hold / wholly reworked. Curse words ensue.)

Some historical tidbits: while everybody keeps floating around the trivia that the last resignation was Gregory XII in 1415, I think that the parallel is less than enlightening. Gregory resigned (or was forced to resign, depending on how you interpret Conciliarism -- see Brian Tierney's still fundamental Foundations of the Conciliar Theory) in order to bring the Great Schism to an end -- hardly a similar case.

Much more illuminating is the only other resignation I can think of, of Celestine V in 1294. After the death of Nicholas IV in 1292, the cardinals were deadlocked for more than two years. They finally went and plucked a hermit from the hills of Italy by the name of Pietro da Morrone and made him Pope. Celestine reigned for all of 9 months before he and everybody else realized that, though he was one of the holiest men to hold the job in quite awhile, he had no idea what he was doing in an office that for nearly two centuries had been stocked with canon lawyers running what was essentially the world's first multinational corporation. Celestine resigned and was succeeded by Boniface VIII, who goes down in history as one of the more ruthlessly wicked men to hold the Throne of St. Peter.

The stark contrast between the "celestial" Celestine and the brutal Boniface revived what had been an obscure set of apocalyptic prophecies about the last two holders of the Bishopric of Rome: a saintly "angelic" Pope and a papal Antichrist.

In the "Let's Talk Religion" version of this thread, Tim posed the question (>2 timspalding:): "Does the Pope get to return to being a cardinal?"

Rastaphrog's answer is in line with what will probably happen -- either he'll retire to a monastery (traditional) or (more likely) live with his brother.

But there's simply no precedent for this in the modern era, so who knows? Benedict obviously will try to disappear completely from public view, but media are so leaky these days that one can easily see someone eavesdropping and letting loose a wry comment here or there from the ex-pontiff, which could create massive headaches for his successor.

On the other hand, it's probably best to start developing procedures for this, as the combination of a modern papacy that's physically, mentally, and spiritually demanding to the point of exhaustion with medical technology keeping men hale into their eighties, will probably lead to more papal resignations in the future.

>3 John5918: "her overwhelming impression of him was "frail", even then (2006)."

Gosh, I never considered his physical self. His writing and his personality are so strong. As one who had misgivings about his ascendancy, I have been mostly favorably impressed by this pontiff. This move makes me respect him more.

(And it means the article I was just about to submit to a journal on the relationship between Hildegard of Bingen and Benedict's ecclesiology is going to have to be put on hold / wholly reworked. Curse words ensue.)

Oh, no! When I was in law school, I was finishing up a paper on school desegregation when the U.S. Supreme Court came down with a decision that required a whole rewrite. Those being the days before the Internet, it took a day or so to get a copy of the opinion. Fortunately, my professor was understanding and gave me an extension.

Analysis from the excellent Michael Sean Winters: http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/unprecedented-resignation-benedic...

(My favorite funny line: "Quick question: Who is the person most upset with the decision? Queen Elizabeth II. You can bet that she took a call from Prince Charles this morning asking if she was watching the telly!")

I like your funny line nathaniel. I've decided that instead of the boy who would be king, someone needs to write a book entitled the old man who would be king on charles behalf.

>11 nathanielcampbell: In many ways I think Queen Elizabeth II ("Gawd bless 'er") was probably even more pissed off with Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands who abdicated in favour of her son a few days ago.

Yeah, here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/02/11/pope-benedict-xvi-to-resign-at-end-febru...

"Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody, former Vatican bureau chief for Time magazine, told Fox News Channel that Pope Benedict showed courage by accepting that the rigors of the papacy had become too much for him.

"I think it is one of the bravest things I’ve ever heard of," said Moody, who is author of a 1996 biography of Pope John Paul II. "Nobody gives up power willingly. Nobody gives up power without forethought. For this man, who really the world hasn’t gotten to know very well, despite the fact that he’s been around as pope for seven years, to do this speaks volumes about the kind of man he is and the kind of leader of the church that he insisted on being."

Analysis from Fr. Martin at America Magazine: http://americamagazine.org/content/all-things/popes-legacy

A few tidbits I had forgotten: Dante consigned Celestine V to the Inferno for his "Great Refusal"; and another papal resignation was of Benedict IX in 1045, who was essentially forced / bribed to step down after a wickedly corrupt papacy by the imprecations of Emperor Henry III, who took a keen interest to reform the papacy. He would be succeed by a series of reforming popes, leading up to Pope Gregory VII, who would butt heads with Henry's successor, Henry IV, over just who was the boss of Christendom.

A point I'm hearing from a number of commentators is that Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, saw at first hand how John Paul II's debilitating illness in his latter years affected the papacy, and that he is determined not to repeat that.

He was essentially John Paul II's right hand man during that time, and it could be that he did not want to go through what JP2 went through.

I hear he can be a cardinal but since he is older than 80 he cannot vote for the next pope.

Like many others I would like to think this is an act of humility and wisdom on his part.

> 14. "Fox News Executive Vice President John Moody ...

Now that Fox has fired Dick Morris, I wonder if they did that to make room for Benedict? They're certainly in need of a conservative pundit with a good track record of making predictions.

Though it is still early, one idea that does seem to be emerging (e.g. in this post at America or this one from Daily Theology) is that this act is one of profound humility made out of respect for the office more than for the person. That is, Benedict's choice affirms what may perhaps be considered the very "liberal" notion (though really, it is quite conservative) that the Papacy should not be measured by the merits of its holder but by its office, its duty and place within the Church. Those duties are more important than the personality of the man who is subject to them -- and the danger of the centralized papacy is that it becomes more a cult of personality than a ministry of the Church.

This final act of his papacy sets a seal on Benedict's vision of it as ministry rather than monarchy: his goal is, I think, to rehabilitate for the Chair of St. Peter an ancient definition that placed itself in service to the Church rather than ruling over it.

(Heavens, I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job of articulating this, but there you go...)

In some ways, then, it seems to me that this in many ways reflects a return for Ratzinger to an earlier stage in his ecclesiology, for it fits perfectly with the reformed vision of the Church's future that he sketched in his 1969 radio address, "What Will the Church Look Like in 2000?" (published in the book Faith and the Future). This post-conciliar vision of reform (which I analyzed last year in connection to his raising St. Hildegard of Bingen to the altar) saw times of both crisis and renewal ahead for the Church, which would issue in a smaller yet holier institution. It would be a Church that shed its arrogant and palmy claims to worldly greatness in the pursuit of a humility born of the meeting with Christ at its heart and soul:

From the crisis of today the Church of tomorrow will emerge—a Church that has lost much. It will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning. It will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices it built in its palmy days. As the number of its adherents diminishes, so will it lose many of its social privileges. In contrast to an earlier age, it will be seen much more as a voluntary society, entered only by free decision. As a small society it will make much bigger demands on the initiative of its individual members. Undoubtedly it will discover new forms of ministry, and will ordain to the priesthood approved Christians who pursue some profession. In many smaller congregations or in self-contained social groups, pastoral care will normally be provided in this fashion. Alongside this, the full-time ministry of the priesthood will be indispensable as formerly. But in all of the changes at which one might guess, the Church will find its essence afresh and with all conviction in that which was always at its center: faith in the triune God, in Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, in the presence of the spirit until the end of the world. (…)

The Church will be a more spiritualized Church, not presuming upon a political mantle, flirting as little with the Left as with the Right. It will be hard going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost it much valuable energy. It will make it poor and cause it to become the Church of the meek. The process will be all the more arduous, for sectarian narrow-mindedness as well as pompous self-will will have to be shed. One may predict that all of this will take time. The process will be long and wearisome (…). But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. People in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already (…), but the Church of faith. It may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that it was until recently; but it will enjoy a fresh blossoming, and be seen as humanity’s home where they will find life and hope beyond death. (Faith and the Future, pp. 103-106)

>19 nathanielcampbell: Thanks, Nathaniel. You are very clear. And thanks particularly for that quote from Ratzinger's earlier work.

In re #15. Nathaniel, you are getting something of a reputation for your long, mostly scholarly-sounding posts. I must take issue with you, however -- trained historian to trained historian -- over your flip comment "over just who was the head of Christendom." In that particular struggle, there was no question as to who was the head of the Church on Earth. Henry IV's claim was for the right -- very important, and money-connected to be sure -- to name Bishops in the Empire. To look at it any other way is to impose modern interpretations based on different situations, for instance the struggle between Philip "the Fair" and the Lord Boniface PP VIII, who, as one chronicler claimed, came in like a wolf, ruled like a lion, and died like a dog. Pax, -- Godeharius

To all and sundry (and sun-dried, like our friend in Kenya). I am astonished at the turn this discussion has taken. Ecclesiology is just fine I suppose, but I wonder how many Roman Catholics, let alone Chrisian of other persuasions really know or care about it. I can't help but recall Erasmus' immortal remark on a related matter. Asked who was his favourite saint, he replied at-once, Saint Dismas (the "good thief" on Calvary) -- BECAUSE HE WAS SAVED WITH SO LITTLE THEOLOGY. Amen. -- Goddard

>22 HarryMacDonald: Wish I was sun-dried - I'm currently on sabbatical in the USA and it's rather cold and snowy!

On who cares, I recall that I attended an Anglican service the Sunday after John Paul II's election was announced. The homily we got from the high Anglo-Catholic priest welcoming the new pope was more effusive than anything I ever heard from a Roman Catholic priest.

>21 HarryMacDonald:: You are, of course, completely right -- I was myself being flip as well as trying to sum up in one sentence what the Investiture Controversy was all about! My apologies for choosing succinctness over precision.

On the other hand, to reduce the "Drang nach Canossa" to merely a dispute over episcopal and abbatial investiture is to miss the larger picture of just how complex and evolving the relationship was between Emperor and Pope from the time of Charles Martel through the 12th century. As I am sure you are aware, regnal and especially imperial coronations had for much of that period a quasi-sacramental character (and if you'rr the monarch of England, they still do) that made the King/Emperor an alter Christus in his regnal character, in parallel but distinct from the priesthood's role as alter Christus in his sacerdotal character (see Kantorowicz's The King's Two Bodies, esp. chap. 3). Thus, the specific fight over investiture must be understood in the larger context of the determination of just who represented Christ in the governance of Christendom--for crucially, Christendom means not only the Church as an ecclesiastical structure but also the people of God as a political body. The Gregorian reformation / revolution was all about developing the Pope's authority as supreme in both spheres, a supremacy that Henry would not brook.

>22 HarryMacDonald:: "To all and sundry (and sun-dried, like our friend in Kenya). I am astonished at the turn this discussion has taken. Ecclesiology is just fine I suppose, but I wonder how many Roman Catholics, let alone Chrisian of other persuasions really know or care about it."

You'll have to forgive me, then, as I am mostly to blame. What I am of an historian is an historical theologian, so there you go.

In re #24. Let us keep-up this friendly discussion, even if the digital floors be litttered with the dead and the dying (just joking). Here are the twin-reasons, beyond the obvious ones, that I refuse to indulge in what I regard as hyper-interpretation: the many other Church-jurisdictions were never in doubt at this time, and the various kingdoms (under which head we will include the Empire) -- please correct me if I am wrong -- showed not the slightest interest in this, feeling, if not content, then at-least stable in the relations between what Dante would later call "the two swords." If we must look at history backwards, let us consider the characteristic slef-interest of saecular monarchs: if they had something to win or lose, they would have been into this rannyagzoo with both feet (or however many they had). I cannot, with checking my library, recall any evidence of this. There were, to be sure, saecular ruler who took an interest in the whole thing, but they weren't monarchs: they were the German princes who were delighted at a weakened Empire. Pax, -- "Godeharius, Dux Merovingiorum"

Pope Benedict resigns: Faith leaders and politicians pay tribute (BBC)

Heavens, I'm not sure I'm doing a very good job of articulating this, but there you go

I said it shorter, but you said it better. I doubt the Vatican Press Office is going to use the phrase "cult of personality," but that's exactly what this counteracts.

As a recent example, check out the website for the "Year of Faith" and the "New Evangelization":


Year of faith? Year of Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope, Pope! It's crazy. It's positively North Korean!

In that context, Benedict's resignation is a breath of fresh air.

There's much to ponder in Benedict's paragraphs, but I've always feared he's too eager for that small society. The fact is that the church isn't only getting smaller because it's lost its social prestige and state support. (That applies somewhat to Europe, and not at all to the US.) It's also getting small because it is increasingly out of step with modern society. Whether that's entirely society's problem or also the church's is, of course, a logically separate question.

I doubt that the current college would elect someone likely to move the church far doctrinally, but we can, I think, hope for someone more optimistic.

As a final note I bet the real pain for him will not be giving up the power. I don't think he's power-hungry, nor does he enjoy administration per se. Rather, I bet he would like nothing more than to retire to book-writing. Maybe he will do so, but his statements seem to imply that he will not, and although he's been careful to note that his Jesus books are not in any ways magisterial acts, continuing to write about theology as an ex-pope presents certain problems.

>28 timspalding: the church isn't only getting smaller because it's lost its social prestige and state support

I don't have the statistics and no doubt someone knows how/where to find them on the internet, but is the Church really getting smaller, or is its growth in Africa and Asia balancing out its losses in Europe and the Americas? I don't know the answer, but certainly where I live it doesn't feel as if the Church is getting smaller.

>29 John5918:

I believe John Allen's numbers show it's growing and percentage-wise about the same or a slight fall. While the rise in Africa is important, the fall in the developed world ought to be understood as a leading indicator.

>30 timspalding: Plenty of Google hits, but the Vatican itself claims that it is still growing.

Vatican statistics show Catholic growth

Vatican statistics on global Catholics has some surprises

Why should the fall in the developed world be understood as a leading indicator? Unless you're suggesting that the developing world will blindly ape all the mistakes of the developed world? I do hope not.

I've always read Pope Benedict's statement about a smaller Church as descriptive, not prescriptive -- he was describing what he thinks will happen, not what he desires. After all, if he wanted a smaller Church, why the emphasis on the New Evangelization?

Why should the fall in the developed world be understood as a leading indicator? Unless you're suggesting that the developing world will blindly ape all the mistakes of the developed world? I do hope not.

It may not blindly ape them, but it will almost certainly follow them. There is a very string correlation between development and a loss of religiosity—a correlation that spans continents, cultures and has been noticed for at least a century. The US is a partial exception this—although state-by-state the correlation holds up, the overall level is out-of-whack with the rest of the world. The Gulf is another, but they didn't so much develop as have a big bag of Gucci fall on them.

See Pew, for example: http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-i... (and see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_10/012346.php for state-by-state numbers)

In short, turn South Sudan from what it is now into a country where 50% go to college, nobody worries about war and few worry about their next meal. where everyone is crazy busy and people rarely live where they grew up, and so forth, and you will see a huge decline in religiosity.

But I digress…

>33 timspalding: Well, maybe. But Africa is a very religious continent, regardless of whether that religiosity be Christian, Muslim or traditional religions. It is a deep part of many of the local cultures. While it is true that globalisation tends to crush indigenous culture, there are many within Africa who wish to embrace the best of western culture whilst maintaining the best of their own culture. Whether they will succeed in the face of overwhelming odds remains to be seen.

I think you err in making it about indigenous culture—falsely externalizing the threat. It isn't about globalization. Europe didn't give up religion because it lost its indigenous culture. America didn't retain its religion—to a large extent—by holding onto its indigenous culture, whatever that would be. There is some of that effect. But the phenomenon is much broader.

Maybe, but I think one has to take into account cultures which are very different from that of modern USA and Europe. In societies which are more communal and less individualistic than modern western nations, culture will continue to be a significant factor. Might be worth watching India too, a fast developing nation, yet Wikipedia tells me that over 93% of Indians are religious.

>32 sullijo:: "After all, if he wanted a smaller Church, why the emphasis on the New Evangelization?"

I think you're not understanding two factors: (1) what it is in Ratzinger's description that makes the Church "smaller" and (2) what the New Evangelization is all about.

(1): What Ratzinger (correctly) foresaw was that the Church would lose ground as an inherited part of the traditional culture of most of the western world. The numbers for both Europe and North America bear this out to a tee: the percentages of people who no longer practice the faith of their parents are staggering. This is a demographic crisis that in many ways is necessary and inevitable, for what is being shed is a Christianity that was ossified, frozen in the assumptions of cultural hegemony that no longer apply.

(2): The New Evangelization is about the renewal that he foresaw after the demographic crisis: it's about making the faith a voluntary choice rather than an assumed tradition -- a faith that is active rather than passive. Indeed, the following chunk from the passage I quoted sums up the goals of the New Evangelization quite succinctly:

But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. People in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

To say that Ratzinger described a "smaller" Church is to say that he foresaw one that was also holier (recall the mustard seed).

>37 nathanielcampbell: It reminds me a little of the "mission v maintenance" discussion which was in vogue when I was in the seminary 30-odd years ago. Much of the Church structure in Europe and north America seemed to be devoted to "maintenance" of the Church (both institution and people). Even then the term re-evangelisation was being used in the context of "mission", or the idea of evangelisation rather than sacramentalisation, the "active rather than passive" of which you speak.

And on the lighter side....

And have you seen the video footage of "God's reaction?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/feb/12/lightning-vatican-peter-basili...

>37 nathanielcampbell:

The problem I have is that whether Ratzinger himself approves or not--and I think he very much approves--this all ties into the idea that shriveling to a "faithful core" is okay, or even a good thing.

Thus you get "mainstream" conservative blowhards like Bill Donohue and less mainstream ones like Michael Vorris, who positively delight in telling everyone to the left of them to go become Protestants, and eagerly await a far smaller "remnant" church of "faithful Catholics," purged of every trace of "cafeteria Catholicism" or "modernism."

The very European phenomenon Ratzinger predicted has its place in this. The fact is that the "voluntary society" has been helped along—culturally-rooted Catholicism has been pushed. Remember that Austrian parish in the Tyrols where the kids were getting first communion? The priest berrated the parents with all the people who shouldn't present themselves for communion--divorced people, people who didn't come to church every week, etc.--and, literally no one came forward? How long will that community remain Catholic? Isn't that a problem?

I'm all for a holier church. But the church is for sinners. It can never get rid of them by getting smaller. Rather, sometimes it seems the more you boil the mix the nastier the residuum. Maybe the most spiritually advanced can simultaneously be filled with charitas for all and want the state to prevent gays from adopting needy children. But stands like that lose a lot of the most loving people, and spares those whose anti-gay stances come less from a deep appreciation of Pope John Paul's "theology of the body" and more from being simple bigots.

And, in the modern world more than ever, a church without disagreement is dead.

>40 2wonderY: Thanks, 2wonderY. I was looking for that online ever since I saw it on CNN. Ironically when I first open the link I get some sort of laundry advertisement with a bloke holding a girl's bright yellow panties. I wonder if that is also part of God's reaction?!

>41 timspalding:

Everything good comes from God.

>41 timspalding:: "I'm all for a holier church. But the church is for sinners. It can never get rid of them by getting smaller. Rather, sometimes it seems the more you boil the mix the nastier the residuum. And, in the modern world more than ever, a church without disagreement is dead."

I don't think that Ratzinger wanted the Church to get smaller -- what he wanted was for the branches of it that had gone to sleep, as it were, to wake back up. Culturally-rooted Catholicism is now a minority phenomenon -- and for those who are born in to the Church, there needs to be a concerted effort to keep them in the Church actively rather than passively. But more and more, an active evangelization of the unchurched is also necessary.

In that sense, a church with disagreement is an active church, because it means its members care enough about their faith to put in the effort of disagreement. On the other hand, the church must always be focused and centered on Christ. The opposite danger of a sleepy, passive cultural Catholicism is a one that takes its cues, not from Christ but from the world.

That's the fundamental problem with a lot of the secular media coverage right now: it thinks that the Church is like a modern democracy, where the next guy in the White House Vatican can simply overturn his predecessor's ideas with the stroke of a pen. The Church doesn't work that way -- and if the secular media thinks that the next pope is going to start blessing gay marriages, encouraging premarital sex, declaring other religions equally valid to Christianity, and ordaining women, then they're simply deluded!

>44 nathanielcampbell: it thinks that the Church is like a modern democracy, where the next guy in the White House Vatican can simply overturn his predecessor's ideas with the stroke of a pen

I think many outside the Church (and some within it) also fail to grasp the time frame within which the Church works. In a fast-moving ever-changing instant-gratification sound-bite world, the Church moves and changes at a different pace.

I recently came across a Grauniad article on a completely different topic which had a great quote in it: "The church thinks across centuries. If there's a dispute for 50 years, so what?"

There is a thought that takes more seriously the suggestion by Jesus that the church should be like salt or yeast. If you try to make a loaf entirely of yeast, it doesn't work. Maybe the church is supposed to be small, and it was a misunderstanding to suppose that explicit membership was required of all, or in any way necessary for salvation. Jesus didn't call everyone he met to become a disciple, and those he did, he told to baptise people in every place, not to baptise everyone.

Pope Benedict has a pacemaker, the Vatican confirms (BBC)

> 46. Maybe the church is supposed to be small, and it was a misunderstanding to suppose that explicit membership was required of all,

Maybe the church isn't supposed to exist at all. As far as I can tell, Jesus showed about zero interest in how to set up or operate a church.

It could be said that the worst thing about Christianity is the Christian church.

I understand why you say that, but it is a cheap shot, if you think about it.

People NEED a container of sorts for certain things. We can love without marriage, we can associate without associations, we can congregate without congregations, we can learn without schools. And we can certainly worship without churches. And you can make the case for each of these, that they are unneccesary or harmful. I could easily say the worst thing about education is schools. And that would be true.

However, we just do not work that way. We need structure. We cannot live without it. Had Jesus just left things without any organization behind it, Christianity would have devolved into chaos within weeks. Without universities, knowledge would turn into chaos. and so on.

>48 jburlinson:: Well, there is Matthew 18:15-20:

"If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the ekklesia; and if he refuses to listen even to the ekklesia, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

> 50. where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Well, that is a far, far cry from the vast bastions of wealth and privilege that operate with tax-exempt status in our world today, and that have colluded with monarchies and other totalitarian states throughout history.

And Jesus was fully aware of one of the first things that happen when "two or three are gathered"; they start to argue about who is "greater".

Surely you're not offering these verses as evidence that Jesus was preoccupied with building churches. When he bade farewell at the end of the Gospel of John, he didn't tell his followers to "build my church", he told them to "feed my sheep" and to "follow me".

Are you actually saying that you understand the words about binding and loosing to be about establishing a church?

> 49. Had Jesus just left things without any organization behind it, Christianity would have devolved into chaos within weeks.

What organization did he leave behind him? It seems to me that he left behind a small band of disconsolate disciples who had not only lost their guru but also their treasurer.

The simple is, we do not know. However, the church in Jerusalem was pretty stable soon after his death, enough so that they could risk having someone like Paul make major changes to the faith. I doubt that the Jerusalem church would have been as strong as it was if there was no guidance from Jesus.

But my point remains: did he envisage the church as a small organization of committed disciples who would serve the people, not convert them: leaven in the dough of humanity?

The Buddha seems to have envisaged a band of monks who would aim to save all people, but not by making them all into monks.

One problem in discerning what Jesus had in mind is that he appears to have had (or left) little or no notion of what his message to non-Jews might be.

Nathaniel: Culturally-rooted Catholicism is now a minority phenomenon -- and for those who are born in to the Church, there needs to be a concerted effort to keep them in the Church actively rather than passively. But more and more, an active evangelization of the unchurched is also necessary … sleepy, passive cultural Catholicism is a one that takes its cues, not from Christ but from the world.

With negligible exceptions, people get their religion from their surroundings—from their family and the other groups they are involved in. Almost all Catholics are "cradle Catholics" in the technical sense—they were born with it, and they get its content young. This remains true even in America, where "cultural Catholicism" has hardly been replaced by a Catholicism of unmoored choice, and is certainly true in most parts of the world. 40% of Catholics are from South America. They're Catholic because their world is so, not because they're making some ab novo commitment to the faith.

Coming from outside the church myself, I've noticed that many Protestant converts have a hostility to this "cultural Catholicism." I felt that way long ago, but I've come to see that religious culture is a feature, not a bug.

First, most people aren't going to turn against their culture and "build themselves up from scratch." It's hard to that anyway, but particularly so for Catholicism. Catholicism isn't simple. Take a modern, western person without religious culture and with a full table options, and fill them with a desire to follow Christ and 99 times out of 100 they will become an evangelical Protestant. This too is a culture of sorts, but the act of commitment itself is sufficient to give you feeling of full membership, and you can pick up the culture as you go. Further, modern mental notions simply "have the same grain" as evangelical Protestantism. People today assume the primary of the individual and the equality (here, interchangeability) of persons. They distrust authority. They assume the sort of horse-sense analysis and debate that made Luther Luther. One could go on and on. My point is that because Catholicism isn't simple, because it goes against the dominant grain, people need need a robust Catholic culture—a grain of its own, as it were—to get them to a place where they can make the meaningful choice to follow Christ, and have that given an authentically Catholic shape.

Second, Catholicism's theology is highly consonant with a world in which commitment is a gradient. To the evangelical Protestant, there are the saved and the unsaved. The distinction is apparent to horse-sense. (There might be some unsaved who are lying, but if you don't know you're saved, you're not.) When God "intervenes" in the unsaved world, it is to bring people into the saved state—the only thing that "really" matters. The archetypal Protestant conversion story is someone in a terrible situation—rock bottom from alcohol, drowning in the ocean, etc.—and who knows almost nothing about God, getting down on their knees and asking Jesus into their heart. The Catholic conception—what Andrew Greeley called the "Catholic imagination"—is far less schematic. Salvation is a process. Knowledge of God is a process. The saved and unsaved mingle, and can never be told apart on earth. God's grace is present everywhere in creation, mirrored and intermediated in a million obvious and non-obvious ways. Thus a lukewarm cultural Catholic is a work in process. God works in and through him as he works in and through all of us. And, above all, sacraments exist for him as they exist for anyone—an aid and comfort, and an objective reality.

Please excuse me for wandering here. I'm trying to express something that isn't fully "cooked." You may well "get it" better than I can say it.

That's the fundamental problem with a lot of the secular media coverage right now: it thinks that the Church is like a modern democracy, where the next guy in the White House Vatican can simply overturn his predecessor's ideas with the stroke of a pen. The Church doesn't work that way -- and if the secular media thinks that the next pope is going to start blessing gay marriages, encouraging premarital sex, declaring other religions equally valid to Christianity, and ordaining women, then they're simply deluded!

Catholic change is peculiar. Big changes in the church tend to seem impossible before they happened, and then becomes inevitable. Vatican II is one obvious example. But Benedict's announcement is another. Search the news before this week and almost every mention of this or the last Pope resigning is negative, with a Catholic priest or bshop confidently stating that while it could happen, it won't, often citing Paul VI's "paternity cannot be resigned" or even Dante's Celestine. While he apparently considered it, Pope John Paul's regulations for the next conclave simply assume a funeral.

Now, every bishop in the world is stumbling over themselves to commend the decision, and absorb it as if it weren't absolutely stunning. About the only people publicly unhappy are the super-traditionalists. As "Father Z" put it, "Liberals have been howling that Benedict is an ultra-conservative throwback, which was absurd on the face of it. How risible is that claim now?"

Now, I certainly don't expect to see the next Pope change fundamental Catholic teachings. But it's likely that teachings will continue to evolve—with "evolution" including what people outside the church see as simple "change"—and more or less "administrative affairs" may well change more radically. The church made some major changes since Pope John Paul took office, and even the last few years of a cautious and conservative Pope saw:

1. The Pope effectively allowed Anglicans who accept the Pope as leader of the church to become Catholics, keeping virtually all their liturgical texts, not to mention their priests' wives—an inaugurating an effectively novel theological/administrative structure. Serious discussion is being held at the CDF about a similar program for Lutherans (!).

2. Big liturgical stirrings. The pope stripped from Bishops the decision whether to allow the pre-Tridentine mass, which is now merely a perfectly licit "extraordinary" form of the Latin rite. The pope also lifted the excommunication on the SPPX bishops and came very close to readmitting them fully, despite their clear unwillingness to accept the councils of the church.

3. The Pope resigned—and the world kept spinning just fine.

What will the future bring? I don't know, but I don't think we should so quickly underestimate it.

>55 timspalding: Thanks, Tim. As a cradle Catholic, I think you have put that very well. Also, thanks for understanding it. Cradle Catholics are often a bit suspicious of protestants who convert to Catholicism, not because we don't welcome them, but because we find they often don't understand nor accept the culture nor the "work in process", and appear quite fanatical in their attention to intellectual assertions about the faith. Two former LT members who were both suspended and who shall remain nameless were extreme but not untypical examples of that.

Pope Benedict says he is standing down 'for good of the church' (Guardian)

Benedict XVI makes first public appearance in the Vatican since shock announcement that he is to step down

Pope Benedict thanks public for 'love and prayers' (BBC)

Pope Benedict XVI has thanked the public for their "love and prayers", as he made his first public appearance since announcing his resignation

Catholic church ready for non- European pope, says Ghanaian cardinal (Guardian)

>54 MyopicBookworm:: "But my point remains: did he envisage the church as a small organization of committed disciples who would serve the people, not convert them: leaven in the dough of humanity?"

My answer to this is going to tie-in to Tim's contrast between Protestant culture/ecclesiology (broadly defined) and Catholic culture/ecclesiology in post 56, by way of the question I posed to my students today: "How does grace work?"

Amongst the basic theological controversies faced by the early Church in the fourth and fifth centuries (most of which touched on the Trinity and Christology) was the issue of the relationship between grace and free will. (I'm simplifying a bunch here, but just run with it...) There were two basic approaches:

(1) The aristocratic, "Roman" approach to virtue as a cultivated habit: This was best represented by a charismatic British layman named Pelagius, who understood God’s grace to consist in the creation of human nature itself in "the image and likeness of God", in such a way that humans possessed the free will by which they could follow the will of God. This free will had become vitiated by the layers of filth glomed onto it by sin -- but that hindrance of sin was washed away in the rebirth of baptism. Thereafter, every Christian was both able and obliged to strive towards moral perfection, in accordance with the renewed "image and likeness" within them. For Pelagius, the individual baptized (or "saved", to use modern evangelical terminology) Christian was the "master and commander" of his her own soul. This reflected the characteristically Roman view that virtue was a habit and could be cultivated by the divinely inspired soul in each human being.

Under the Pelagian approach, the Church is called to be a society of virtuous, perfect heroes -- and those who fail in that perfection are just not trying hard enough. It has its modern-day reflection in the evangelical view that "being saved" is a light-switch: you go from being unsaved to being saved in a single, irrevocable moment, and that single moment is all that matters.

(2) The egalitarian, "Augustinian" view of continually necessary grace: Augustine developed an overpowering sense in the Confessions of God-given agency as the key to the Christian life. He understood the convert to emerge from conversion to God and baptism sheathed in the gracious will of God. In the fifth century, he fought a hard and bitter battle against the Pelagians because he saw grace as much more than just the green light, the initial charge to the battery that left the human to run on his own. No, for Augustine, human beings could not simply make themselves good, when they pleased, by their own free will. Even after the stain of original sin has been wiped away by baptism, the weight of sin still remains; and we depend intimately on God’s continual grace for constant inspiration and support.

Augustine's theory of grace embraced a far wider net of believers than the narrowly perfected line of Pelagian super-heroes. It recognized that the Church of the early fifth century had come to contain both the saints at one end but also the large masses of mediocre sinners at the other. His flock in Hippo was full of people who tried hard but continually failed, just he himself had so long tried and yet constantly failed in his battle for certain virtues. Augustine's theory of grace leveled playing field by making every Christian equally and wholly dependent upon the grace of God for every step of their lives of faith. All were equal in sin, and yet all were equal under the grace of God.

This highly egalitarian view thus recognizes the Christian life of grace as a continual process of steps forward and back, reliant for progress not on the sinner's own will but upon the grace of God that animates it.

As usual, the excellent John Allen offers keen insight: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/why-resignation-may-mean-conclave-open-chan...

As the dust has settled, however, a different consensus has begun to emerge. The new conventional wisdom holds that Benedict's resignation may actually set the stage for a conclave more inclined to take the church in a different direction for at least three reasons.

First and most basically, Benedict's decision amounts to a dramatic departure from business as usual. It's a reminder that even a hidebound institution devoted to tradition is occasionally capable of surprises. In that sense, Benedict's example may inspire some cardinals to think outside the box, to be willing to risk taking a new step.

Second, the resignation carries within itself the logic that the church needs a new start. After all, there is no immediate health crisis around Benedict, and by all accounts he could have carried on for a while. If the diagnosis had been that all is well, perhaps that would have been enough.

However, by saying he lacks the necessary strength to grapple with "questions of deep relevance for the life of faith" posed by a rapidly changing world, Benedict in effect has signaled that a new direction is needed.

Third, Benedict's decision to separate the end of his papacy from the end of his life means that the run-up to the conclave will not be dominated by the elegiac tributes that always flow when any major global celebrity dies, which tend to exaggerate that person's virtues and play down their defects.

I don't think I had noticed until just now what kind of tenor that phrase in the renunciation speech ("in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith") could strike: one of grave recognition that the path on which the Church has been needs to be reconsidered.

This renunciation may be even more radical than I had at first thought...

>60 nathanielcampbell: Could Benedict XVI be the second "compromise" "safe pair of hands" "interim" "continuity" pope in my lifetime to surprise everybody with radical change? Will history one day be speaking of him in the same breath as the saintly John XXIII?

>61 John5918:: Most of the commentators have been saying that the last time a Pope so thoroughly surprised everybody, including the cardinals, it was John's announcement of Vatican II. So....

>61 John5918:

Some liberals venerate John XXIII, but I think he's basically forgotten elsewhere in the church.

Anyway, time to watch Shoes of the Fisherman again. Also Habemus Papam. The latter's on Netflix, but it's in Italian, so I have to watch it straight, not while doing other stuff.

>63 timspalding: Some liberals venerate John XXIII, but I think he's basically forgotten elsewhere in the church.

Methinks you understate his case. There are many who recognise the importance of Vatican II without succumbing to the label "liberal", which is a fairly meaningless label anyway outside north American and Europe. I've spoken often of how in Africa you will find bishops who are theologically "conservative" but pastorally very progressive, being great exponents of Catholic Social Teaching, justice and peace, fighting poverty and HIV/AIDS, and other pinko commie "liberal" ideals.

>64 John5918:

Proof! :)

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Pope+John+XXIII%2CPope+Paul+VI%2CPo...

>65 timspalding:: Yeah, but how much of Paul VI's lead over John XXIII is because they named the audience hall after him? :-)

>65 timspalding: Not sure that proves anything except that three popes are pretty close and John Paul II is an unusual phenomenon!

>54 MyopicBookworm: I don't think it's clear that Jesus thought he was establishing a Church at all. He was the Jewish Messiah, sent to save Israel. It looks to me as if it is far more likely that he was trying to establish a new Jewish sect/movement/school of thought and based on the Gospels, one which was in competition, if not direct conflict, with Pharisaic Judaism.

Paul appears to be the first to think of going outside the Synagogue when his preaching to Jews wasn't gaining him a lot of converts.

>29 John5918:-36 Just read this quote in Daniel Philpott's Just and Unjust Peace, written in 2012:

Defying the erstwhile dominance of the secularization thesis amongst Western intellectuals, religion not only has failed to decline over the past generation but has grown in political influence among all of the major religions and regions of the globe, even in western Europe, long thought to be the ground zero of secularization. (p8)

OK, he's not talking specifically about the number of religious adherents, but rather the influence of religion. In true academic style he gives a footnote leading to "a more extended treatment of these claims".

Vatican may bring forward conclave for next pope (BBC)

I'll be disappointed if they hold it too early as Cardinal Turkson is due to speak here at the beginning of March but he won't make it if the conclave is brought forward!

As Africa rises, Europe loses grip on Catholic power base (Guardian)

After the resignation of Pope Benedict, African and Latin American cardinals could emerge as candidates to succeed him. Catholicism's European power base is under threat and the election of a new pope could be a historic moment for the church...

"Here in Africa, we centre everything on God. This was always in our African culture...

Catholicism Inc. (NYT)

Can't say I'm too impressed with this marketing approach to Church.

Edited to add: I've now seen this response to it:

The Church as Global Corporation?

>72 John5918:: As has been documented over at "Get Religion" (a blog devoted to the ways in which the media (mis)handle religion), the NYT, along with most other secular media, has been on a streak these last two weeks to see just how much ignorance it can display about Christianity and the Catholic Church.

>73 nathanielcampbell: Although Nicholas Kristoff has apparently recently tweeted a reminder of his excellent 2010 NYT piece Who Can Mock This Church?, to which I have referred in several LT threads over the last couple of years.

>74 John5918:: Kristoff is the one shining exception to the rule -- a Catholic who, despite his disagreements on some political matters, actually understands what his Church teaches and believes.

#72: Once again, Pope Benedict uses historical precedent to illustrate the present misperception, in this case his master class with the priests and clergy of the Diocese of Rome, and in his personal recollections of Vatican II. The last point, in particular, well illustrates the divergence between the actual Council of the Fathers and the "council of the media". I think it it is (and will prove to be) very pertinent to the coverage on the upcoming conclave:

Address here: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/02/14/pope_benedict%27s_last_great_master_c...

From it:

"The media saw the Council as a political struggle, a struggle for power between different currents within the Church. It was obvious that the media would take the side of whatever faction best suited their world. There were those who sought a decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops and then, through the Word for the "people of God", the power of the people, the laity. There was this triple issue: the power of the Pope, then transferred to the power of the bishops and then the power of all ... popular sovereignty. Naturally they saw this as the part to be approved, to promulgate, to help. "

Why The Next Pope Should Be African (African Arguments)

Well worth reading!

#77: certainly the Africans have brought a tremendous renewal of faith in our church in Portland, ME. And, yes, their faith is very much as I imagine the faith of Europeans and their progeny of just one or two generation ago (although my daughter who lived in Spain for a time insists that European faith is still far more devout than American ever has been). My son spent the better part of his summer working in an AIDS orphanage and says that everything in Africa has the intensity of the authentic - including, and especially faith. An African Pope would indeed be a blessing to the Catholic Church - but more importantly, I think, is a Pope who, like the religion he leads, transcends identity or geography, and appeals to and reflects the universality of the Gospel.

The latest pastoral letter (on Governance, the Common Good, and Democratic Transitions in Africa) released over the weekend by the Symposium of Episcopal Conferences of Africa and Madagascar (SECAM) might be of interest - link.

>76 enevada:

His talk had much to recommend it. But I think he overplays his points. Now that Benedict has won, he can rewrite history and make it seem as if the majority at the council—or, heck, even a minority, although that's false to the history of the thing—never intended anything more than Benedict's (current) interpretation of the council. That's just not intellectually honest.

It's not just the media. As a matter of simple fact, the council was a struggle between factions, with the larger faction being usefully discussed as "progressive," and the smaller faction being—mutatis mutandis—the predecessors of Ratzinger's interpretation. Of course the media often mischaracterized that struggle—casting it in familiar political terms, for example. But was there a struggle? Again, it's simply not honest to say otherwise. We're not talking about Nicaea here. We have excellent sources!

For what it's worth—and John don't hit me—I don't think the time's right for an African Pope. The African church is vibrant, but it's also too young and therefore different from the rest of the church. A moment's thought will reveal that Africa is not growing because the African clergy are doing everything right, but because of a totally different—and fundamentally non-reproduceable—cultural configuration.

#80: On Benedict's "win": I'll assume you all have read the Apostolic letter issued Motu Proprio, in November:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xvi...

Seems to me, we're at the top of first. But maybe I'm missing something here.

>80 timspalding: Tim, how could I hit you after just reading an apostolic letter on charity?! Actually I don't disagree with you that there are cultural factors involved in the vibrancy and growth of the African Church, as my friend Richard Dowden says in the article linked in >77 John5918:. However I don't think that disqualifies an African pope. Effectively you are saying that the majority of the Church (in the Global South) is different from the rest (ie the minority) of the Church therefore the time is not right for a pope from the majority area. I don't think that makes a lot of sense, to be honest. One could equally say that the time is not right for a pope from Europe or north America because the Church in that minority is too different from the rest of the Church. But don't worry, the likely African candidates such as Arinze and Turkson have been well and truly Romanised!

>81 enevada: That particular apostolic letter can also be interpreted as part of the struggle by Cor Unum to take over Caritas Internationalis.

>82 John5918:

Yes, but you're assuming that the "global south"—a "lumping" term somehow about discrimination and privilege—is a useful analytic category here. I'm not sure that's true. South America, for instance, has completely different issues than Africa. The church there is in or in serious danger of "Europe-ization"—a rapid decline into secularism, with attendant losses to Protestantism. See the recent NYT article on the church in Brazil http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/world/americas/in-brazil-growing-threats-to-ca...

While I think it's been healthy for Benedict to make secularization and decline the topic of his papacy, his solutions have not been helpful. To put it simply, Benedict's approach to Catholic decline seems to me to consist of (1) romanticizing a smaller, more "faithful" church, (2) trying to reverse the cultural, liturgical and theological clock to when things were healthier, (3) misconstruing a broad cultural problem as an intellectual one—something about faith and reason.

Disregarding my wish list elsewhere, what the church really needs is to stop screwing around and get serious about the challenges it faces. I think that means a young, vigorous and charismatic pope. I fully expect this fellow will be a "conservative"—and yes, the term has meaning. But so was Pope John Paul, and his papacy had notable successes—and especially so if you cut off the last bit. Benedict has done the church a great service by sparing us a long slide into debility and administrative drift, and licensing future popes to skip that as well.

Wherever he comes from, I hope he has strong pastoral background, and not just theology. I was impressed by story about the (Italian?) cardinal, who stood with his flock in Iraq through dangerous times.

Speaking of favorite sons, CBC skit last night used Canadian stereotypes to illustrate what the Church would endure should it select Cardinal Marc Ouellette (sp?). I DID read somewhere that he gave a less than inspiring sermon to gathering of cardinals. Surely, though, Tim Horton's would not be catering Mass??!

>83 timspalding: Fair comment about the Global South. It is not homogeneous and has different dynamics and concerns. But I still don't see why anyone would object to having a pope from one of the larger and more vibrant parts of the Church rather than from the small and declining part.

>84 margd: I agree on the need for a pastoral pope.

And a cardinal who has served as a missionary might answer calls for both a European and a "Global South" pope!

larger and more vibrant parts of the Church rather than from the small and declining part

In fairness, however, Africa has some 177m Catholics, versus 277m in Europe and 483m in Latin America. It's growing, but it's not that large http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/02/11/world/europe/the-catholic-church-s...

We're all in agreement on "pastoral," I think. I love Benedict for his bookishness. But I don't think it's what the church needs now.

>85 John5918: And a cardinal who has served as a missionary might answer calls for both a European and a "Global South" pope!

Well, that settles it for me. When they ask for my vote, it'll be for you, John. I guess we have to elevate you to cardinal first, though, so we better get crackin'. Funny, though...I've not received my invite to the conclave, yet. Hmm...

Os.

>86 timspalding: It's growing, but it's not that large

Yes, you're right, of course. I was slipping back into "Global South" rather than Africa when I spoke of larger and more vibrant.

What about Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras, currently head of Caritas Internationalis? I heard him speak last year at a Caritas conference on global hunger and sustainable food security in Vienna.

>87 Osbaldistone: No comment!

>87 Osbaldistone: On the other hand...

Pope Benedict studying edict to change conclave rules (BBC)

>87 Osbaldistone:

John's an American now.

>90 timspalding:
Really? Well, I'm sure it's not too late for an annullment. First, we gotta get him away from that Irish-Catholic football school. ;-)

Os.

>91 Osbaldistone: I'm learning that I'm expected to say, "Go Irish!" from time to time, and we now know about winning one for the Gipper. An interesting cultural experience!

>92 John5918:: But have you met the imaginary girlfriend yet?

>93 nathanielcampbell: They're keeping very quiet about that here, although we had seen it on the news before we got here.

When Picking A Pope Was A Perilous Affair (WSJ)

Why I Should Be Pope (America) by James Martin SJ

Would be interesting to get a Pope who wasn't already a cardinal. Apparently Martini got votes before he became one.

Luis Tagle of Manila
From John Allen's wonderful series "Papabile of the Day: The Men Who Could Be Pope"
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-3

Behaves as a bishop should:

"In the Imus diocese, Tagle was famous for not owning a car and taking the bus to work every day, describing it as a way to combat the isolation that sometimes comes with high office. He was also known for inviting beggars outside the cathedral to come in and eat with him. One woman was quoted describing a time she went looking for her blind, out-of-work, alcoholic husband, suspecting she might track him down in a local bar, only to find that he was lunching with the bishop."

Not a theological neanderthal:

"Tagle's doctoral dissertation at Catholic University, written under Fr. Joseph Komonchak, was a favorable treatment of the development of episcopal collegiality at the Second Vatican Council. Moreover, Tagle served for 15 years on the editorial board of the Bologna, Italy-based "History of Vatican II" project founded by Giuseppe Alberigo, criticized by some conservatives for an overly progressive reading of the council."

The best choice for pope? A nun. (WSJ)

Almost certainly not connected with this:

Pub owner fined after Irish 'nuns' are caught drinking illegally (BBC)

> 99

Perhaps they were just taste-testing the sacramental wine.

>98 timspalding:
"Tagle was famous for not owning a car and taking the bus to work every day"

I think it was Peggy Noonan who relates advising U.S. bishops to do this, as well as selling the mansions and moving into the same neighborhood that their housekeepers can afford. She was met with complete blankness.
Wouldn't that be a stirring example? I bet it would get a lot of critics to take a second look. Perhaps even gather flocks more effectively.

I've seen some bishops in some countries living in very simple accommodation. Some of our bishops in South Sudan lived in thatched mud houses for years. But I've also seen a few palaces in my time.

Right. And those are the most vibrant Sees, I'll bet.

>101 2wonderY:

It's not too uncommon. But bishops who sell their mansions generally live with other priests, not alone. That's probably best for all involved, as the priesthood is becoming a lot lonelier.

Difficult path to papal conclave as Rome prepares for new era (Guardian)

As Catholic cardinals prepare to elect a new pope, the conclave may be overshadowed by a host of contentious issues

Pope Benedict gives last Sunday blessing at Vatican (BBC)

104: the priesthood is becoming a lot lonelier

There's an obvious solution to that one (which might also help with some other current issues in the priesthood)...

Allow Catholic priests to marry, urges Cardinal Keith O'Brien

>105 John5918: It's been said that Benedict's retirement might make it possible for others. Here's one... all these revelations are so discouraging.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien resigns amid claims of inappropriate behaviour: Pope accepts resignation of UK's most senior Catholic cleric, who has been accused of "inappropriate acts" against priests
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/25/cardinal-keith-obrien-resigns

>107 margd: I think this is a good example of the Church's new professional standards protocols being followed. When serious allegations are made against a cleric, he is suspended; in this case he was only a month away from retirement as archbishop so he has brought his retirement forward, and will also not carry out his duties as a cardinal. He has denied the allegations and a full investigation will take place. In this case presumably it won't be a criminal investigation as the allegations do not involve crimes but "inappropriate" approaches and/or acts with adults. It should be remembered that when allegations were made against Cardinal George Pell a few years back he too stood down until the allegations were investigated and shown to be baseless.

Here's BBC's report on the same story

and, also BBC, a different story on the conclave, Pope Benedict XVI amends Roman Catholic conclave law

Pope Benedict XVI has amended Roman Catholic church law so that the conclave selecting his successor can be brought forward

The men were seminarians at the time, so I assume O'Brien was in position of authority. In the secular world, the crime would be one of sexual harassment, which is not a fun experience. We also see in the secular world that those who are most outspoken about morality and homosexuality often prove to be hypocrites. At least he had decency to excuse himself from Conclave...

I'm going to come to O'Brien's tentative defense. Four contested allegations of unwelcome but not illegal advances by a grown man against grown men is of a totally different moral order than moving dangerous, serial child rapists around to avoid discovery—and even out of the country to avoid the law.

Perhaps it's just the tip of the iceberg, but if every lonely man who made unwelcome advances(1) on subordinates while drunk were treated this way, a substantial percentage of the top people in government and business would be affected. I would like cardinals to adhere to a higher moral standard than other men in power, but it simply doesn't compare with what Mahoney and many others did. The former is boorish, morally slack and somewhat sad; the latter is diabolical.

Just who can or should vote in conclaves is a tricky business. On the one hand, it would be nice if all cardinals were spotless, but cardinals are also rather like tenured faculty, and for the same reason—freedom. If the media gets to veto cardinals, well, I'd rather we got back to giving that power to the King of France.

---

1. It's not entirely clear from the reports if the advances were merely unwelcome, unwelcome and shocking because the priest or seminarian was disgusted that a cardinal would be gay, or truly harassing. If we are to pillory every boss who asked someone they work with out on a date, we'd really be in a pickle.

>110 timspalding::"If the media gets to veto cardinals, well, I'd rather we got back to giving that power to the King of France."

From what I understand, England's got a monarch (the head of the Church, to boot!) whose record's probably more immaculate than any cardinal in the bunch.

(Though there might be some problems raised by the effaced tomb of a certain Archbishop of Canterbury who was killed when one of her predecessors rashly voiced aloud his frustration with his former Chancellor.)

>110 timspalding: I tend to agree with Tim.

It's not clear to me whether all of the four allegations involve seminarians - one clearly does, but the other three don't specify whether it was a seminarian or a priest.

While abuse of power is wrong, I don't think we should exaggerate the power of a bishop. It's not as uncommon as you might think for priests to tell their bishop to fuck off (sometimes in those exact words), and generally priests spend a lot of time finding ways of ignoring what their bishops tell them to do.

Does a single unwanted romantic advance in the work place constitute "sexual harassment"? Many relationships begin at work between colleagues, and often one of those is senior to the other. Doesn't it only becomes "harassment" if there is an element of pressure, and/or if it continues after the first approach has been rebuffed, or if there are other aggravating circumstances? But anyway, it is now in the public domain and the complainants and the police can pursue criminal action if they deem it appropriate. Nobody is trying to hide or cover up a crime. And it is nowhere near the same level as child rape.

On voting in the conclave, though, I disagree with Tim, not because I expect all cardinals to be perfect, but simply because most national bishops' conferences now have a clear policy that a cleric who is accused is suspended from official functions until the matter is cleared up. Cardinal O'Brien has been accused, voting in the conclave is an official function, and thus he should be suspended from that function until the matter has been investigated, whether he is eventually found to be guilty or innocent.

On voting in the conclave, though, I disagree with Tim, not because I expect all cardinals to be perfect, but simply because most national bishops' conferences now have a clear policy that a cleric who is accused is suspended from official functions until the matter is cleared up. Cardinal O'Brien has been accused, voting in the conclave is an official function, and thus he should be suspended from that function until the matter has been investigated, whether he is eventually found to be guilty or innocent.

You don't want to license anyone with a grievance to change the outcome of a papal election by bringing accusations a few weeks before a conclave.

In this case, the timing is suspicious. Yes, the charge was apparently first made before Benedict's resignation, but I think we have every reason to guess that it's appearing in the press now in order to force O'Brian out of the conclave. That may have been done out of a pure horror at the man—either as a harasser or as a homosexual—not to affect the vote. But it's exactly the sort of thing that a Cardinal's "tenure-like" status should prevent. As I understand it, canon law gives extreme health problems as the only way out, and that must be agreed to by the conclave. Commit murder, be a manifest heretic—it's irrelevant. Again, a lot of people are baying for O'Brian's blood now who would made the opposite arguments about Clinton or would make them about the rights of tenured faculty.

>113 timspalding:: "be a manifest heretic"

But there's nothing stopping another good bishop from punching you in the face for it, right?

>113 timspalding: Yes, you're right that there is that danger, but I think in the interest of transparency and integrity, suspension should mean suspension and not have loopholes. Parish priests are routinely suspended in the face of accusations. So are teachers, police and other professionals. Cardinals should be no different. Cardinal George Pell stepped down from official duties a couple of years ago when he was accused of abusing someone, an accusation which was subsequently proved to be false. And it shouldn't depend on whether or not the mass media has got hold of the story. The suspension should happen as soon as Church authorities become aware of the accusation. Personally I think O'Brien has done the right thing in stepping down regardless of whether or not he has been officially suspended and regardless of whether or not he will eventually be found innocent or guilty.

Edited to add: I don't think using Clinton as an analogy is relevant. National bishops' conferences all over the world have come up with a policy that their clerics should be suspended from official duties after an accusation. That's the rule. Cardinals should not be exempt; indeed they should take the lead in setting an example, which I think O'Brien has done in this case.

>115 John5918:

Okay, but the actual rule rule is that cardinals are immune not only from the rulings of bishop's conferences and such, but even from curial departments, like the Holy Office.

Contra this, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/02/can-a-voting-cardinal-skip-the-pap...

>116 timspalding:: Dr. Peters dealt with this one today at his Canon Law blog: http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/lets-dispatch-one-nagging-question/

>118 John5918: Yes, but I think that the spirit of transparency and integrity sometimes demands more than the letter of Canon Law!

Apropos of nothing, I have discovered that some people are taking the Pope's resignation as a sign that the end times are night. Apparently there is some set of bizarre prophecies that they are pointing to saying that the next Pope will be the last Pope.

And Obama is the antiChrist, and he will depose the Pope somehow. So that should tell you how sane they are.

Cardinal O'Brien and the church's sexual confusion (Guardian)

No chance, I suppose, that in the last hours of his papacy, Benedict will ordinate (ETA: ordain, I mean!) a woman and a married man? A deaconess?

ETA: "Questions are being raised about backroom tactics at the Vatican after Britain’s highest-ranking cleric, in the wake of abuse allegations, decided not to attend the conclave to elect the next pope."

"Cardinal Keith O’Brien resigned his post as Archbishop of Edinburgh, it was announced on Monday, a day after The Observer newspaper reported that four men had made complaints to the Vatican’s representative in Britain – and just a week after the influential cleric had stated that Pope Benedict’s successor should move to change the church’s law on priestly celibacy. He had also expressed his belief that the next pope should be an outsider from Africa or Asia rather than Europe or North America, a suggestion that could be seen as threatening to the influential lobby of Italian bishops and to the Curia, the powerful Vatican bureaucracy..."

"Cardinal O’Brien’s withdrawal from the conclave he was obliged to attend under church law comes at the same time that Cardinal Roger Mahony of Los Angeles is being pressured to stay away because of his reluctance to deal directly with issues of priestly abuse early on in his tenure as archbishop."

"“Are these attempts to undermine cardinals outside of Rome?” Father Reese asked...."

"Many cardinals who worked as local bishops and archbishops may have been too charitable to priestly colleagues accused of abuse in the past, since the Vatican hierarchy itself was slow to acknowledge the level of abuse or accept responsibility for it. Father Reese estimated that there were at least 20 other cardinal-electors in Cardinal Mahony’s position, which suggests that they, too, could be targeted or marginalized in the voting process...."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/cardinals-resignation-raises-vatican-c...

Benedict XVI to be known as 'pope emeritus' (BBC)

Blech. A mistake. People were assuming he'd go back to "cardinal Ratzinger" and stop wearing white. But I suppose he already telegraphed it by retiring and presuming to hang around, whereas he really should have left that to his successor to decide.

Apparently there are several advantages to having Benedict stay in the Vatican. One, (Bavaria?) won't be a pilgrimage site for those dissatisfied with next Pope. Two, he can be shielded from prosecution or from being called as a witness (per Bush and Cheney?). Three--I'll ETA if I remember the third advantage! Maybe he could be available to next Pope for consultation or prayer, if requested?

The nuns ousted from their convent while it's renovated for his use might cite their inconvenience as a disadvantage?

(I hope arrangements are made for his security--as with former presidents.)

>123 timspalding: Well, he's not a cardinal anymore, so I didn't figure on that one; I was assuming "Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop-Emeritus of Rome." Shows how much I know.

>125 sullijo: I presume he will also have the title Bishop Emeritus of Rome as well as Pope Emeritus, just as he is now Bishop of Rome as well as Pope.

He's also Pontifex Maximum emeritus and Patriarch of the West Emeritus, or would be if they hadn't dropped that. Maybe he's Patriarch of the West Abdicatus Emeritus?

We need Nathaniel to tell us when "bishop emeritus"? Do the Orthodox do it?

>125 sullijo: Come to think of it, is it true that he is not a cardinal any more? I thought the title lasted for life, even though he is not allowed to vote in conclave after a certain age. There are plenty of retired over-age cardinals still around. Or did he lose the title when he became pope?

The news was a surprise, but not the biggest surprise of my life. (And as for Benedict's original election as pope, I would have been amazed if anyone ELSE had been elected!)
Even John XXIII's election (1958) was not, at the time, a terrific surprise, though capsule accounts call it that. From a strictly secular* point of view, John Paul II's election as the first non-Italian pope in centuries was more
amazing than Benedict XVI's (the second non-Italian) resignation.
Losing the title of "Cardinal" (see 128) didn't cross my mind, even though I saw an article which
said he would not be part of the conclave choosing the new pope. A later article in the past few days, he said he would be active -- would not be retired in the sense of no longer working for the Church

*That is, if you regard the Vatican as no more and no less than a 20th-21st century nation-state.

If a Pope Emeritus makes pronouncements in the woods where no one can hear him, is he still infallible?

You should leave Berkley out of it, jburlilnson. Though not a Catholic, he was a devout Christian, forest-audibles, or no forest-audibles.

They clarified that Benedict is no longer a cardinal a few days after his announcement. In fact, he gave up his position as cardinal when he became pope. Thinking backwards you can reason it this way: all cardinals have a church in or around Rome that is their titular church. Benedict, being pope, gave up his titular church when he accepted his election and now has no such church (his church is St. John Lateran, the cathedral of Rome).

tl;dr: Once you become pope you give up being a cardinal.

>132 sullijo:

Good point. I would prefer they said he was emeritus bishop of Rome, not emeritus Pope. The very notion of a "Pope" is wrong except as a description for the Bishop of Rome anyway.

What's Italian for grandfather? He could be called that.

> 132:

"tl;dr: "

???

> 133

What's Italian for grandfather?

Nonno.

". . .Benedict is no longer a cardinal."

Now I am surprised! Having had a Catholic upbringing, I thought I knew a little about how hierarchy works. Too little, it seems.
I can understand his not being a voting cardinal at this conclave, but not his having already lost the title of cardinal. I was taught that Holy Orders makes one "a priest forever, after
the Order* of Melchizedek".
So, if the "forever" means what it says, you can't ever stop being a priest. And, to me, by the logic of a fortiori
you couldn't ever stop being anything higher than a priest.
But thanks for the clarification.

*Order: i.e. Lineage

>136 rolandperkins:

Right. But cardinals are not really "above" bishops theologically. There are only three levels of the (single) sacrament of holy orders—deacon, priest, bishop. Being a cardinal stands outside that, and indeed one may be a cardinal without being a bishop or, although not recently, a priest at all. It's unfortunate that this has gravitated upward. Having some non-bishops as cardinals would be a good way to diversify the conclave, to avoid groupthink.

> 134 tl;dr = "too long; didn't read". It's used as a shorthand to say "this is a summary if you didn't want to read the whole thing."

". . .Cardinals are not really above bishops, theologically"

Interesting; I didn't know that the cardinal rank "stands
outside of the three levels of Holy Orders".
I remember one case where
a non-CARDINAL bishop was seriously considered as one of the "papabili": Abp. Montini of Milan in the 1958 conclave.
(He became Pope Paul VI, but in 1964, not in his first round as papabile.

>139 rolandperkins:

Well, that's even another issue—one can certainly become pope without being a cardinal—or indeed a priest, although you'll get made one, then a bishop, before you do.

>132 sullijo: Once you become pope you give up being a cardinal

Thanks, Jonathan. I've learnt something new there.

(1) On Cardinals:

The term "Cardinal" designates the chief representatives of each order of ministry within the Church. There are Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons, though for practical purposes today, all Cardinal Bishops and Priests and most Cardinal Deacons have received episcopal ordination. There are canonically 10 Cardinal Bishops (the Patriarchs); Cardinal Priest is the rank given to most diocesan Bishops/Archbishops or senior curial officials (e.g. Prefects of Congregations); Cardinal Deacon is the rank given to lower-level curial officials and archpriests of the Roman clergy, the latter of whom are almost always given the honor after the age of 80, thus making them ineligible as electors.

(A handy list of Cardinal Electors, via Canonist Dr. Peters.)

I must admit to being a little surprised by the decision to revoke the Cardinalate from the Pope, as the last time this happened (albeit under the extraordinary circumstances of a Council pressuring him to step aside to end the Western Schism in 1415), Gregory XII reverted to his natural name of Angelo Corraro and returned to the College of Cardinals for the final two years of his life.

St. Celestine V, of course, was not a Cardinal at the time of his election in 1294, and neither did he enter the College after his abdication in December of that year, choosing to return instead to his hermitage (though his successor, Boniface VIII, quickly had him placed under arrest -- whether to protect him or to keep him silent is still not clear).

(2) On the title:

Technically, there is little difference between "Pope Emeritus" and "Bishop Emeritus of Rome", as "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome" are always concurrent titles. Although he will retain the white cassock, he will give up the shoulder-cape (which he's actually tried to do as often as he can -- apparently, he hates the thing and removes it in private at every possible opportunity; only the conniption fits of the Papal MC have kept him from removing it in public).

Also, it should be noted that no nuns were kicked out of the convent on the Vatican's grounds where he will live -- it had been vacant for some time.

>142 nathanielcampbell: no nuns were kicked out

That's good to hear!

ETA: Are you sure that no nuns were kicked out?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/nun-describes-simplicity-of-popes-retirem...

And I have seen it reported that the convent's organic garden is to be continued, so that he can enjoy home-grown marmalade.

A Vatican Spring? (NYT) By HANS KÜNG

> 123 retiring and presuming to hang around, whereas he really should have left that to his successor to decide

Patrick Sullivan's suspicions aside, I'm wondering about the proposed arrangement in which Benedict's secretary will serve the new Pope during the day, then retire for the night to Benedict's residence--with all his confidential knowledge of the new Pope's business. Surely the new Pope would soon choose a secretary who is loyal first to himself?

I've been watching the media hype with some amusement, and I found myself laughing a few minutes ago as CNN (which has recently been described as a tabloid news channel, especially after its sensationalist coverage of the cruise ship incident, complete with overflowing toilets), at 7.59 pm Italian time, told us with a straight face that "we are now 60 seconds from a popeless moment".

> 147

I was stuck in my doctor's waiting room this morning, and the coverage really is over the top. I now know that each cardinal spoke to the Pope for periods ranging from 10 to 30 seconds, adding up to a total of one hour and one minute. Seriously? For this a local news station sends a reporter to Rome?

>147 John5918:: "we are now 60 seconds from a popeless moment".

Priceless (he writes 35 minutes into the sede vacante)!

> 149

he writes 35 minutes into the sede vacante

Which reminds me, anyone heard from Joansknight lately?

>150 lilithcat:: A friend on Facebook has quipped that for the moment, we are ALL sedevacantists!

>151 nathanielcampbell: Yes, it feels strange to be on the same side of that fence as Joansknight!

(Rarely do ultra-trads get the hipster treatment...)

I sympathize with CNN on this one—just being allowed saying the word "Popeless" out loud on TV is enough reason for the reporter to do the story.

My diocese, Portland, Maine, currently has no bishop. I look forward to this week's intersessions, "Be pleased to confirm in faith and charity your pilgrim Church on earth, with… um… um… and moving on, people!"

Twittero vacante
https://twitter.com/pontifex

(yipes!)

>154 timspalding: Ha! I was curious about the same thing. I don't recall how it sounded the last time.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien sorry for sexual misconduct (BBC)

"I wish to take this opportunity to admit that there have been times that my sexual conduct has fallen below the standards expected of me as a priest, archbishop and cardinal.

"To those I have offended, I apologise and ask forgiveness. To the Catholic Church and people of Scotland, I also apologise.

"I will now spend the rest of my life in retirement. I will play no further part in the public life of the Catholic Church in Scotland."

Papal conclave: fault lines emerge as cardinals gather to vote (Guardian)

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor recalls the 2005 conclave (Guardian)

Apparently, Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellett has mixed support back home. He is conservative, an introverted theologian (like Benedict), and was unable to lure Quebec Catholics back to the Church. On the up side, he speaks five languages and has some South American experience, albeit teaching seminary. His "younger brother, Paul, ... was convicted in 2009 of sexual assault involving two minors". The cardinal can't be blamed for actions of others, but he himself "... has come under fire for remaining silent on the issue of sexual abuse by priests in the province" (of Quebec). I don't think he's the pastoral reformer that the Church needs.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/can-the-cardinal-who-couldnt-save-his-quebec...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-cardinal-who-could-succeed...

Just announced: Conclave will open next Tuesday, March 12.

http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2013/03/habemus-datam.html

Help Wanted: Pope (NCR)

I wonder what effect, if any, the US-based Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, or SNAP will have on selection of the next Pope. Those voting in the conclave may not want to be influenced, but someone on SNAP's list of the worst would surely lack credibility to deal with abuse problem? Too, how can electors be sure that the person they choose doesn't have dirty laundry hidden somewhere in his very lo-ong time as a Church authority?

**************************
SNAP's thinks the following are worst choices for Pope among the cardinals:
Tarsicio Bertone (Italy)
Norberto Rivera Carrera (Mexico)
Timothy Dolan (NY)
Dominik Duka (Czech Republic)
Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (Honduras)
Sean O’Malley (Boston)
Marc Oullet (Canada)
George Pell (Australia)
Leonardo Sandri (Argentina)
Angelo Scola (Milan)
Peter Turkson (Ghana)
Donald Wuerl (Washington)

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/369621/sex-abuse-victims-list-dirty-dozen-papal-can...

SNAP's finds most promising choices among the candidates for Pope:
Luis Antonio Tagle (Philippines)
Christoph Schonborn (Australia)
Diarmuid Martin (Ireland, but not a cardinal)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/03/07/can-the-cardinals-find-a-clean-...

>162 margd: While dealing with the issues of child sex abuse and cover-ups will certainly be on their mind, I doubt whether the cardinals in the conclave will be the least bit influenced by SNAP and its list.

someone on SNAP's list of the worst would surely lack credibility to deal with abuse problem?

Most of the world has never even heard of SNAP, and the child abuse scandal has only had a really high profile in a small number of countries. Move outside north America, Australia and a small number of European countries and it really isn't grabbing the attention of the cardinals or the people of most of the world.

A view from Opus Dei: The pope as CEO (BBC)

Pope Scola? (ETA: say it fast several times... :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italys-cardinal-angelo-scola-is-viewe...

Black smoke today. No new pope yet.

> 165

It was through that group that he reportedly met and tutored Silvio Berlusconi . . . on ethics in the 1970s, though it appeared not everything stuck.

Now there's an understatement.

Chemical recipe for the black and white smoke, and some other interesting technical details about the dual-stove system: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/science/vatican-reveals-recipes-for-conclave-s...

More black smoke....maybe another vote today.

How to become Pope.

white smoke
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21777494

I wonder if they elected the seagull? http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=24146

Jorge Mario Bergoglio. Taking the name Francesco. (Okay, Francis, but I'm watching Italian television!)

For Francis of Assisi or Francis Xavier or both?

"For Francis of Assissi or Francis Xavier or both?" (174)
I wondered about that, too.
I hope (and itʻs the probability, assuming heʻs an Argentine of Italian ethnicity) that itʻs
"...of Assissi" the one among the 3 St. Francises that I most admire. (The 3rd is St. Francis de Sales).

The British media are saying Xavier, as he is a Jesuit.

"saying Xavier" (176)
Thanks for the info.
And (from my point of view) too bad. Curiosity: (Who was the last Jesuit who was pope, or even aspired* to be pope?)

*leaving aside Dumasʻs fictional musketeer (in The Mann in the Iron Mask.

He is the first Jesuit pope.

(from my point of view) too bad

My (Asian) son, however, will be thrilled! It will be nice, though, if Pope Francis means to channel both Assisi and Xavier--and de Sales.

"first Jesuit pope" (178)

Thanks. Come to think of it
Latinos probably use the forename Javier (=Xavier)
more often than they use
Francisco.

As for aspiration, such a thing is surely frowned upon, but I believe that Cardinal Martini SJ was spoken of as papabile in 2005 (and might have been more so if JP II had died sooner or resigned). It might have been nice if Pope John XXIII had been succeeded by Cardinal Bea SJ, but I don't know whether he (or any non-Italian) was in the running. Before Martini, the last Italian Jesuit Cardinal was Cardinal Boetto, who would in theory have been available for election in 1939.

There have historically been 42 Jesuit cardinals, as against 87 Benedictines (13 popes) and 78 Dominicans (5 popes). The Cistercians and the various Franciscan orders have also had quite a few popes between them.

(ETA: source of figures: www.gcatholic.org)

I gather that the new pope has a master's degree in chemistry. Might his regnal name be a salute to the scientific philosopher Francis Bacon?! :-)

Both the Vatican spokesman and +Dolan have indicated that the new pope's name does, in fact, commemorate St. Francis of Assisi.

175-177
notwithstanding?>
"...the new pope's name does, in fact, commemorate St. Francis of Assissi." (183)
CHEERS for the (to me) greatest of the 3 best known St. Francises!!

101-104
So now that our Pope is clearly exemplifying a simpler life, perhaps more clergy will re-examine their own lifestyles.
In my parish, the Rectory building is a nice old four-square. It used to house two or three priests and the offices of the parish. When a new Office building was built, the second floor of the new building was fitted up as a very nice apartment for one of the nun administrators. When her position was eliminated, the pastor had his associate pastor move into the apartment so that he has the whole large house to himself. He also drives a new Jaguar - sometimes using it to arrive at the Parish Activities Center less than half a block away.
Also, our priests tend to retire to condos on the beach.

In re #185. I know you will hate me for saying this, but your remark about priests' retiring to beach condos brings up some strange thoughts derived in no small measure from Thomas "Tennessee" Williams and Thomas "You Da" Mann. Perhaps I'm the prisoner of my cradle-Protestantism and/or petty jealousy. I sure as H didn't get a retirement plan like that. Of-course, I've behaved myself.

No, and neither will I.
But I think the money comes from "patron" church members who remember the parish priest in their wills.

I'm really off on a tangent, now, but, Harry, 186 reminded me of a right-wing
article on Bertolt Brecht (National Review) which in its subtitle called him "the shrillest
Stalinist".
THe Thomas Mann connection is that my immediate thought was:
Calling Brecht a Stalinist is like callilng Mann "a Rooseveltian" or a Churchillian". Brecht must have thought ( as R ;and Ch did) that Stalin was at least the lesser of two evils, but I wouldn't consider him a
member of the Stalinist para-religion.
I didn't know, b t w , that Mann was ever called "Da Man"; and I think you're the first one I've ever seen who gives Thomas Lanier Williams his original first name.

Well, gee . . . this thread really has taken a twist, and I guess I'm at-least half-responsible for it, with my arch reaction to the Post about priests retiring to the beach. My free-associations to Mann and Williams . . . well, hI ad thought they might be self-evident, or conversely so opaque that most readers would blow past them . . . my thoughts were of DEATH IN VENICE, and Aschenbach's hanging out on the Lido obsessed by a beautiful youth, and Sebastian Venable's exploiting beach-boys and then being killed and literally devoured by them. . . . Call it "kismet" but on my TV yesterday we were alternating between the news from Rome and a screening of SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER. And yes, Roland, I'm sure that the great German novelist was never told "You da man", but somebody has to be the first. As to "Tennessee", he was actually an Illinois boy, like me, and we Prairie Staters have to stick together. In sum, it's just my way, somewhat colored by my fundamental suspicion of clergy of all religions, including my own.

"Tennesse" , , , was actually an Illinois boy/

Surpised. Because even his middle name is southern-- the surname of a once famous Georgia poet.

In re "Tennessee" Williams. I am stretching it a little: with Illinois pride I have adopted him. THE GLASS MENAGERIE was first produced in Chicago, AND it is a little known fact about A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE that the original concept was based not on Nwahlinz trolleys but on Chicago's CTA! As I say, Roland, you take me as I am, and sometimes I have astonishging elasticity. As to Sidney Lanier, yes he was a good one, also a composer, and th creator of a version of the King Arthur tales which may well be the first one encountered by you -- it certainly was mine. Sidney was also a bit of a nutter: he fought in the War Between the States, and seems to have thought of Southern independence as a kind of latter-day knightly quest. Crazy. Peace to you, brother. -- G