31 May 2019, The Tablet
Rome cannot be home to two popes
Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to
resign as Pope on 13 February 2013 and to live silently in the Vatican
thereafter is beginning to cause problems. Opponents of Pope Francis’
reforms have begun to treat Benedict as the true Pope, suggesting the
papacy of Francis is somehow invalid. There is even a popular T-shirt
with a slogan “Benedict is my Pope”, which Matteo Salvini, Italy’s
far-right interior minister, has been seen wearing.
Benedict’s resignation was an act of humility, one undertaken freely for the good of the Church and in harmony with Catholic tradition and canon law. Popes have resigned before, and most likely will do so in the future. But his continued presence in the Vatican, his continuing to wear white, even his use of the term “Pope Emeritus”, have created a sense of split loyalties and division he can never have intended.
For some Catholics, Benedict’s resignation led to a deep sense of grief. This turned to anger when they saw that the papacy of Francis was not on the same trajectory as that of his predecessor. No doubt against his will, Benedict was pulled into the controversy over ex-nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s letter to the Pope calling on him to resign.
Then, just before Easter, the Pope Emeritus issued a 6,000-word essay for Klerusblatt, a Bavarian Catholic journal, in which he blamed the 1960s sexual revolution for the clerical child abuse crisis. It was a sincere effort to be helpful by providing a historical context, and it contained flashes of Benedict’s theological clarity. But it was weak in its analysis, flawed in its history, and failed to convince. Some of the arguments he used were bizarre. He nevertheless gave encouragement to those conservative Catholics who blame homosexuality among the clergy for child abuse, contradicting Francis’ approach to the scandal, which he diagnoses as being rooted in clericalism.
The decision by the Pope Emeritus to intervene in this way was a misjudgement, as was the decision to distribute his essay without the knowledge of the Holy See’s press office. An English translation of the text was sent exclusively to Catholic media not known for their sympathy with this pontificate. All this has created a sense of a “parallel magisterium” out of step with the current holder of the Chair of St Peter. Benedict’s intervention also runs counter to his 2013 pledge to live out his retirement in prayer and “hidden from the world”. An upright and honest man, there is no reason to believe he wishes to go back on that promise. But aged 92, and increasingly frail, some around the Emeritus Pope have a different view. And they are ready to misuse the theological legacy of Benedict to frustrate the papacy of Francis.
Thanks to Francis’ magnanimity and to Benedict’s sanctity, the situation has been made workable. But structural safeguards, even changes in canon law, are needed to remind the Church there is only one Pope. The next successor of St Peter to retire should, in keeping with earlier historical precedents, renounce all symbols of office and use the title “Bishop Emeritus of Rome”. The symbolism of two men in the Vatican wearing white and calling themselves Pope – albeit one as Emeritus – is confusing. It was an invitation to make mischief, and mischief has indeed been made.
Benedict’s resignation was an act of humility, one undertaken freely for the good of the Church and in harmony with Catholic tradition and canon law. Popes have resigned before, and most likely will do so in the future. But his continued presence in the Vatican, his continuing to wear white, even his use of the term “Pope Emeritus”, have created a sense of split loyalties and division he can never have intended.
For some Catholics, Benedict’s resignation led to a deep sense of grief. This turned to anger when they saw that the papacy of Francis was not on the same trajectory as that of his predecessor. No doubt against his will, Benedict was pulled into the controversy over ex-nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s letter to the Pope calling on him to resign.
Then, just before Easter, the Pope Emeritus issued a 6,000-word essay for Klerusblatt, a Bavarian Catholic journal, in which he blamed the 1960s sexual revolution for the clerical child abuse crisis. It was a sincere effort to be helpful by providing a historical context, and it contained flashes of Benedict’s theological clarity. But it was weak in its analysis, flawed in its history, and failed to convince. Some of the arguments he used were bizarre. He nevertheless gave encouragement to those conservative Catholics who blame homosexuality among the clergy for child abuse, contradicting Francis’ approach to the scandal, which he diagnoses as being rooted in clericalism.
The decision by the Pope Emeritus to intervene in this way was a misjudgement, as was the decision to distribute his essay without the knowledge of the Holy See’s press office. An English translation of the text was sent exclusively to Catholic media not known for their sympathy with this pontificate. All this has created a sense of a “parallel magisterium” out of step with the current holder of the Chair of St Peter. Benedict’s intervention also runs counter to his 2013 pledge to live out his retirement in prayer and “hidden from the world”. An upright and honest man, there is no reason to believe he wishes to go back on that promise. But aged 92, and increasingly frail, some around the Emeritus Pope have a different view. And they are ready to misuse the theological legacy of Benedict to frustrate the papacy of Francis.
Thanks to Francis’ magnanimity and to Benedict’s sanctity, the situation has been made workable. But structural safeguards, even changes in canon law, are needed to remind the Church there is only one Pope. The next successor of St Peter to retire should, in keeping with earlier historical precedents, renounce all symbols of office and use the title “Bishop Emeritus of Rome”. The symbolism of two men in the Vatican wearing white and calling themselves Pope – albeit one as Emeritus – is confusing. It was an invitation to make mischief, and mischief has indeed been made.
No comments:
Post a Comment