So say philosophy professors Pierre Dulau and Martin Steffens in a dismayed article for La Croix, the semi-official paper of French Catholicism:
Whatever may be the justifications we may give to this decision, the fact is there: this resignation by the pope is a catastrophe. It is an event that is rarely found in History, a fact that, in its symbolic violence, is a portrait of our time.
The Papacy is, in the West, the very last function of which it is commonly accepted by all that it engages the one who entered it “up until death”. This “till death” means at least two things. First, that human life is not its own goal: our life has no meaning if not linked to a greater Life to which we may, in justice, sacrifice everything—exactly as the love of the spouses, “till death” as well, takes its meaning from beyond itself, in a promise that does not cease existing.
This “till death” recalls consequently that the pope, a “pontiff”, is the arch that links Earth to Heaven, that is, by the threshold of death, finite life to infinite Life. A pope who resigns is a bridge that decides not to reach the other side where promise lies, [a destination] of which it is the assurance, and that leads there all those who left the point of departure.
To rupture this arch by way of a unilateral decision means as well to join hands with the global movement of non-commitment that strikes the entire Western symbolic order (and of which the mounting moral barbarity is the necessary flip side). Parenthood? Yes, but if we are in the mood for it, as long as we are in the mood for it. Marriage? Yes, if I can get divorced. To be in charge? Why not, if that does not deprive me of my right to happiness… There where a word is given that opens the door of life to something greater than itself, there also that word is broken, mocked, relegated as an old oddity. And even a pope should resign? A CEO or a president may resign. A pope is fired by death.
We hear everywhere, amidst the usual mockery and vulgar comments, that this decision by the pope is eminently respectable, that it shows great humility, a great interior freedom. That same individual freedom that the Pope himself never ceased denouncing, viewing it in the more generous perspective of rendered service? As for humility, does it not consist rather of accepting a responsibility that bothers our own immediate nature? The weight that he must carry is, undoubtedly, too heavy for him. But, if it were not, he would not be the pope.
What is the point, therefore, in order to justify this historic rupture, of alluding to changes that affect the world, the inhuman speed of a reality made technical even in its most intimate recesses? Christians are capable of following a sick, infirm, wounded leader, drained of his forces: they proved it in the past by following a guilty man according to the law. They proved that gentleness is invincible, and that pain is not eternal for the Just. They proved it, precisely because, at regular intervals, someone as frail as them would tell them: “Be not afraid.” . . .
Today, in fact, we are all Sedevacantists. We say it in an unreasonable fashion in order to express this dismay that the polite comments of those who wish to keep up appearances wish to shut down: after February 11, the seat of the papacy is vacant, as if to give reason to those who are most extreme in the field occupied by the Society of Saint Pius X.
Of course, Christianity has never been more needed than at those times of its own impossibility. This religion welcomes crisis as Christ welcomed the Cross. Without a Pope, as incredible as it may seem, it is in frailty that Catholicism will have to reveal its strength. But it is still necessary that this ordeal be named and recognized by those affected by it. Hope cannot ignore this cry that, today, calls out for it strongly: our pope, why have you abandoned us?
Dulau and Steffens are wrong to suggest that Benedict made his choice with any reference to his own “inner freedom.” We can be sure that Benedict felt bound to step down just as he felt bound to accept his election in the first place. Nor am I convinced that the authors of such a strongly worded article know more of humility than does Benedict. That said, their dismay and anger, their sense of abandonment, is felt by many. How can a man cease to be one’s “papa,” one’s holy father?
February 25th, 2013 | 2:30 am
The Church, in all her wisdom, has allowed for resignation by the Pope canonically (which contradicts the second paragraph’s “till death” exposition). The Church’s law is in harmony with all her other constituent parts and headed by our Supreme Pastor, Jesus Christ. It seems that the article fails to take account of this by charitably accepting the leadership of the Holy Father in his exercise of this canonical allowance; I follow the Pope no matter what…unless he resigns! I think the article would serve a better purpose by simply positing the emotional loss of such a great man from the Papacy, instead of the supposed mala fides.
February 25th, 2013 | 8:25 am
A lot of presumption is presented by these philosophers that fails to take into account a few realities. One, the Code of Canon Law makes provision for a pope to renounce the Chair of Peter. This means that there is nothing about being Pope that juridically requires a pope to die in order to leave the Seat empty. Two, the nature of the papacy means that such a decision can only be unilateral – this is a consequence of the position, not some act of arrogance. Three, calling 85 years of self-sacrifice “joining the global movement of non-commitment” by simply recognizing that he was no longer equal to the task is simply ignoring the facts of this man’s life. Lastly, Pope Benedict has not abandoned us. He remains a Bishop and Cardinal and will enter a life of prayer for the Church. If all those lamenting his renouncement would stop to think what that really means, or, if perhaps, people actually believed that prayer is efficacious, then we would welcome this focus on the part of our Pope.
February 25th, 2013 | 10:18 am
There are people in this world who are professional complainers. Ignore them.
February 25th, 2013 | 12:11 pm
“He remains a Bishop and Cardinal and will enter a life of prayer for the Church.”
He does not “remain a Cardinal,” as he ceased to be one when he was elected Pope, and he would have to be reappointed to the college by his papal successor.
February 25th, 2013 | 12:42 pm
William Tighe is right
If memory serves, Celestine V was appointed Cardinal bishop of Ostia, the titular see normally conferred on the Dean of the Sacred College.
February 25th, 2013 | 2:36 pm
There’s something I don’t understand.
Art Deco can say, “There are people in this world who are professional complainers. Ignore them.”
But twice my comment along the following lines has failed to pass moderation: “It arrogant of Pierre Dulau and Martin Steffens to believe they know better than Benedict XVI what a pope ought to do.”
Perhaps if I elaborate. Dulau and Steffens say,
This is an incredible “catch-22.” Any pope who can make the decision to resign because he is not “in full possession of his powers” proves, by that very reason, that he is in full possession of his powers. Surely the papacy demands more than being able to make a decision. We have this regarding Benedict’s health:
February 25th, 2013 | 3:38 pm
So what should be the “natural” title of Joseph Ratzinger on February 28, 20:00 local time? “Most Reverend Joseph Ratzinger, Bishop of Rome, Emeritus”?
February 25th, 2013 | 4:22 pm
If it makes you feel better, David, about half my comments are deleted by the moderators. It makes no sense.
I am not sure why it is your apparent position that I have to take this pair (or Joseph Bottum) terribly seriously. It is unusual for a Pope to abdicate, but it is in accord with canon law and hundreds of bishops retire every year. The Eastern Catholic Patriarchs retire; do Messrs. Dulau and Steffens pen a commentary of this nature each time that happens? It seems we could regard the abdication of the Patriarch of the West every 600 years or so with some equanimity.
February 25th, 2013 | 4:34 pm
The Pope has the authority to change Canon Law or make an exception to it if he so desires, so even if Canon Law were silent on the matter, or even if it explicitly did not allow for the pope to resign, the Pope could still resign:
February 26th, 2013 | 1:10 am
I am not sure why it is your apparent position that I have to take this pair (or Joseph Bottum) terribly seriously.
Art Deco,
Apologies for dragging you into it, but my point was that you and I were both saying roughly the same thing—ignore them—in different ways. I was mystified that you got to say it and I didn’t.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact