It is a thoroughly modern idea: if you can’t hack it, quit the job — or the ministry, which is more appropriate in this case.
The Catholic world expressed shock when Pope Benedict announced the other day that he was resigning from his job. His reason was clear and fairly evident: he had become too feeble to measure up to the taxing requirements of his majestic job.
It has been many centuries since a Pope quit his job. The norm since then has been for the Pontiff to die at his post. It is a norm, not a canon.
This is a cruel norm. Recall the great Pope John Paul II exercising his duties even as he trembled involuntarily, his back hunched and his face weary. His duties should not have been inflicted on him after he ceased to be physically able to discharge them with vigor.
This is a pre-modern norm, taking after the rule that applied to the feudal aristocracy: they sat on their thrones until they died. Only after death does a succession happen. The king is dead; long live the king!
On this note, we recall talk about Britain’s Queen Elizabeth considering abdication. After nearly six decades as monarch, she must crave for some private time. One might surmise that the only thing holding her back from abdication is the unpopularity of the Crown Prince. That unpopularity could undermine the monarchy.
The norm about Popes serving until they die does not only mimic the medieval practice of the European aristocracy. I can understand that dogma might stand in the way of considering an appropriate retirement age for the Papacy. Dogma says that the successor to Peter is chosen with guidance from the Holy Spirit. One, therefore, cannot simply walk away from a Divine mandate.
Some hard thinking might be required to consider what ordinarily seems practical: age matters. There are physical limits to the capacity of any individual to go on and on discharging a challenging role.
The Pope, after all, is the CEO of the Catholic Church. He needs to travel far and wide to show the flag. He needs to contemplate hard policy questions and deliver public messages on the appropriate occasions. The post demands a tough regimen.
Pope Benedict was frail even before he ascended the Papacy. He had heart trouble many years before. Today he is even frailer. A strong mind, unfortunately, does not cause a strong body.
He has the right idea. The Church he leads may be lagging behind modernity, but it must function in a thoroughly modern world. To be thoroughly functional, it must be vigorously led.
Pope Benedict is not only frail; he is tired. His conservative convictions may be intact; but this intelligent man understands those convictions may have to be viewed through a new prism. That new prism will be the new Pope.
The world changes at a much faster pace these days. The Church changes only at a glacial pace. More frequent leadership changes might do the institution good.
There are complex issues and hard questions the Church needs to confront with a greater sense of urgency and much foresight. The Church is not just a rock that defies the test of time. It is also a vessel for the faithful mastering the tides of history.
When Cardinal Ratzinger ascended the Papacy eight years ago, the Church was buffeted by charges of sexual abuse by the clergy. As head of the commission charged with dealing with such problems, he had direct responsibility. Not everybody is happy with the way the Pope addressed the issues. He did not move decisively enough to punish the guilty and introduce new procedures that will prevent repetition.
Through his relatively brief tenure as Pope, the Vatican came under serious financial difficulties. The Pope’s own butler was charged and sentenced for leaking information about the actual state of the Vatican’s bank.
Then there are the larger issues about the vitality of the congregation itself. During Ratzinger’s years as Pope, religiosity in Europe declined dramatically — even as Catholicism drew new adherents in Africa and Asia. The demographics changed drastically: although the Church remained a staunchly European institution, majority of the flock is spread across the Third World countries.
The changed demographics challenge both doctrine and practice.
Ratzinger is a brilliant theologian, guardian of the doctrine of the faith. He spent most of his life battling the spread of the radical “theology of liberation†that once proliferated in Latin America. That typecasts him as a conservative in a Church struggling with rising demands from women and the poor, minorities and the oppressed, on issues dealing with contraceptives, divorce, homosexuality, abortion, multiculturalism and the patriarchy.
From another angle, the Church lost a significant number of adherents to fundamentalist, evangelical and charismatic sects and movements. They seem to be better capable of responding to the daily experiences of a more modern flock. The more influential these sects and movements become, the less important the traditional hierarchy will be.
De-population of the traditional Catholic flock reflects in the serious manpower shortage facing the clergy. The increasingly severe shortage of priests to man the parishes fuels discussion about opening the priesthood to women and relaxing the rules on celibacy. These are issues the generation of Church leaders to which Ratzinger belongs are distinctly unprepared to confront.
By resigning, Ratzinger not only yields to the very real limits of his own mortality. He opens the door to dramatic reforms in the institution, perhaps on the scale of Vatican II.