Pope calls it quits. (1 Viewer)

[BIG E]

He's 85 and his health is failing. I actually hopes this sets a precedent and future Popes resign when they can no longer mentally or physically do their duties.

 

[St.Fury]

I heard the Pope was giving up his Papacy for lent.

 

[lades]

CNN just announced the pope is hanging up his robe. Has this ever happened before?

Since he's infallible, I'm sure it's the right thing to do.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I guess because I grew up knowing no one else but PJP, I never liked the new pope.

 

[Mojomajik9]

He's 85 and his health is failing. I actually hopes this sets a precedent and future Popes resign when they can no longer mentally or physically do their duties.

Yeah, I can kinda agree with that. Particularly with the way the world has changed in the past 50 years. It'd be nice if they elected a younger pope. One who better understands technology, social changes and one willing to really tackle the scandals that have rocked the church and punish those abusers and reconcile with those hurt by their crimes.

 

[Stealth Matrix]

Hmm... if you believe in prophecy, then we're about to see the face of Peter the Roman.

 

[FootballLady]

I'm going to miss him. I found him to be a remarkably scholarly, terrific leader for the Church after PJPII. As to his legacy, I think he will largely be remembered for his transformation (I'd call it a correction) of the Mass and his efforts at reuniting schismatics with the Church. Theologically, he has been a force for stability and clarity, which is another hallmark of his Papacy.

 

[Twenty]

He thought he'd never have to play Emperor Palpatine again and could live out his life as Pope. Then, Disney happened.

 

[E Pluribus Unum]

 

[Kurgan]

He's 85 and his health is failing. I actually hopes this sets a precedent and future Popes resign when they can no longer mentally or physically do their duties.

Hm I honestly doubt this is just about health. Or, if it is, it should be something really serious, like alzheimer. Having a pope screaming profanities in the middle of a speech would be quite a sight, but well, it wouldn't be appropriate.

The reports from the vatican say he's got nothing wrong physically (no illness and blahblah) but it's either that or something serious, really serious. I mean, Wojtyla stayed there even when it was clear to everyone he wasn't fit. Why should Ratzinger retire? It's just the 4th time in the 2000 or what years of history of the catholic church

 

[birdog]

Hmm... if you believe in prophecy, then we're about to see the face of Peter the Roman.

yep....the end is near. And there is a cardinal whose first name is Peter......Peter Turkson of Ghana. He is one of the favorites to succeed pope Benedict.

Christ will return in my lifetime after all....

 

[superchuck500]

He's 85 and his health is failing. I actually hopes this sets a precedent and future Popes resign when they can no longer mentally or physically do their duties.

Those close to him say that he saw the late years of JP2 and thought it wasn't right for the Pope to stay through infirmity.

But apparently there is clear and ample authority to support a resignation - it's just that most viewed it as a lifetime thing. Benedict apparently thinks that's a disservice to the organization to stay past your ability to handle the demands of the job.

 

[gboudx]

Hmm... if you believe in prophecy, then we're about to see the face of Peter the Roman.

Unpossible. The world ended on Dec. 21, 2012 in case you forgot. So how are we still here and typing on an interwebs message board? Are we really still here and typing on an interwebs message board? Remember, there is no spoon.

 

[PayOrPlay]

My top guess is that he is resigning while he is still in possession of his faculties and influence, in order to better assure the election of a successor that will continue his policies. The church is obviously in some turmoil, although the College of Cardinals is now full of JP2 and Benedict appointees who may be expected to toe the traditionalist line, tne more so while Benedict is still around.

Interesting WaPo article on electoral science as applied to the College of Cardinals here:

The political science of papal elections

NYU political scientist Joshua Tucker and PM at Duck of Minerva have compiled a good set of political science research into papal elections. . . . unofficially, Benedict was selected in accordance with the wishes of his predecessor, John Paul II. For most of John Paul’s tenure, papal elections were subject to a supermajority requirement, with a two-thirds majority required to finalize a selection. . . . by the middle of 1990 John Paul had already appointed two-thirds of voting cardinals. Assuming his appointees all agreed on a candidate, they could have outvoted any previous appointees from 1990 until John Paul’s death in 2005 and installed a candidate along John Paul’s preferred lines . . .

But as the above chart shows, a funny thing happened in 1996. John Paul II issued Universi Dominici Gregis, a document revising the two-thirds requirement. In filibuster parlance, he went nuclear. As the authors note, the timing here is funny. He already had a supermajority of appointees in the college. This seems to refute the notion that the change was intended to help secure a future pope who would continue John Paul-like policies.

Instead, they argue, what drove revision was a desire to prevent gridlock. There were three likely candidates for pope in 2005 (according to these authors; others disagree). There was Benedict (then Ratzinger), a Vatican insider with a reputation as a doctrinaire conservative. There was Carlo Maria Martini, a quite liberal Italian cardinal and former archbishop of Milan who died last year and supported same-sex civil unions, a right of the dying to refuse medical treatment and the distribution of condoms as a “lesser evil” to AIDS transmission. And there was Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the archbishop of Buenos Aires, who earned support from cardinals in the developing world and holds fairly mainline Catholic views. Not only did no block have a clear majority, but a “voting paradox” was at work.

Also in the WaPo, a nice summary of the other four popes who've resigned in the last 1000 years:

The bizarre stories of the four other popes to have resigned in the last 1,000 years

Pope Benedict IX, in 1045: . . . the Rome-born pope resigned so that he could get married – and to collect some cash from his godfather, also Roman, who paid Benedict IX to step down so that he might replace him, . . .

Pope Gregory VI, in 1046: The same man who had bribed and replaced his godson ended up leaving the office himself only a year later . . . when Benedict IX failed to secure the bride he’d resigned for, leading him to change his mind and return to the Vatican. . . . the increasingly despondent clergy called on the German Emperor Henry III, of the Holy Roman Empire, to invade Rome and remove them both. . . .

Pope Celestine V, in 1294: After only five months in office, the somber Sicilian pope formally decreed that popes now had the right to resign, which he immediately used . . . He became a hermit, but two years later was dragged out of solitude by his successor, who locked him up in an Italian castle. Celestine died 10 months later.

Pope Gregory XII, in 1415: . . . resigned so that a special council in Constance, which is today a German city, could excommunicate the Avignon-based [anti-]pope and start fresh with a new, single leader of the Catholic church.

 

[Optimusaint]

well i did nazi that coming...