A great pope is about to abdicate

"The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable."  (Lord Macaulay)

I cried when Pope Paul VI died. Pope John Paul II's slow death was terribly moving but I was too old and too wicked to weep. Now, when I met friends for lunch in Victoria, they told me the astonishing news that Pope Benedict XVI has announced that he will abdicate at the end of this month.


Astonishing news and yet not really surprising and exactly the right decision, of a piece with the humility of the man. I remember him at some time pointing out that Catholic Church is the only institution where its leader continues until death. 

      

The present Pope is the most intelligent and also (not the same thing at all) the best for centuries. When was there so intelligent a head of state? And he has coped well with the huge forces of malice and hatred directed at him and at the throne of St. Peter. He took some steps towards admitting the terrible crimes of wicked priests who interfered with boys and sometimes girls. He made the Tridentine Mass once more the Mass and he is responsible for the vast improvement in the liturgy in English. He sad that it is not a sin to use a condom in marriage for self-protection. He defended the historicity of the Gospels and is one of the few men clever enough to make Christianity seem intellectually respectable.

Of course the papacy, like the English monarchy and many other institutions, has been Diana-ified and the pope was not a theatrical figure like his predecessor (who had been an actor) able to use television. This made the faithful love him less than Pope John Paul II.

Dear BBC, popes do not resign, they abdicate. Or so I thought but the Vatican News Service used the word resign in its English edition. Nevertheless  the Vatican is not infallible on English usage and abdicate is much the better word. The pope used the word renuncio in Latin -  he renounced the papacy. One mistake some have made is to think that only hereditary monarchs abdicate, in which case the throne is automatically filled - the king is dead long live the king. In fact the papacy is an elective monarchy, like the old Polish monarchy.  Doges of Venice also abdicated because although Venice was a republic they were elected princes.

More of this important debate here.

A very wise comment on the abdication by Anna Arco, the Bavarian Editor at Large, at The Catholic Herald:

"I think it’s the right decision on his part as he avoids becoming a pawn in Vatican power games as he gets older, frailer and less able to defend himself. I think it’s sad because I think he was a brave strong man who faced horrible attacks and media storms and didnt grovel like most politicians but would wait to speak and usually say something different, worth listening to that would diffuse the situation.

He was not a slick media operator or a cold manager or icy prince of the church, but a genuine priest, a great theologian, a pastor who loved his flock and everything he said or did comes out of an understanding of reality and human frailty but with a belief also in the framework of the religion and is coloured by love." 
He was not a slick media operator or a cold manager or icy prince of the church, but a genuine priest, a great theologian, a pastor who loved his flock and everything he said or did comes out of an understanding of reality and human frailty but with a belief also in the framework of the religion and is coloured by love." 

Another good comment was this, that someone posted on Facebook:





By the way, I do not agree with Macaulay about the origins of the Papacy being lost in the twilight of fable. Eamon Duffy, carpingly, does not think St Clement I was Bishop of Rome but only in charge of corresponding with other churches. This it is clear he was, but St Clement was certainly one of the leading figures in the church at Rome and he sounds like he may have been its leader to me. The office of bishop was not of course in his day very defined. He lived in the 1st century and was said to have known and conversed with the Apostles. Tertullian says he was consecrated by St. Peter.