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.

The Church, in all her wisdom, has allowed for resignation by the Pope canonically …
– Joseph Shaw

… the Code of Canon Law makes provision for a pope to renounce the Chair of Peter.
– Mark Connolly

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:

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

§2. If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone.

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.

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,

What is the point of speaking of the need of having at the helm of the Church one who is in full possession of his powers? A person who can say this demonstrates by this very fact that he is in full possession of his own means and that, unless he takes medical predictions as oracles, he still enjoys full use of his own self.

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:

Peter Seewald, a German journalist who has collaborated with Pope Benedict XVI on book-length interviews, has said that the Pontiff’s health is worsening rapidly.

Seewald told the German magazine Focus that when he met privately with the Pontiff several weeks ago, he found him exhausted. The Pope is losing his hearing, Seewald says, and appears to be blind in one eye. He also said that the Pope has lost a great deal of weight, and new sets of vestments have been needed to fit his thin frame.

If memory serves, Celestine V was appointed Cardinal bishop of Ostia, the titular see normally conferred on the Dean of the Sacred College.

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.