And now for something completely different.

I want to begin this post with a disclaimer and an admission. Some days, when I’m not overhearing other people’s conversations or writing inane lists, I have serious thoughts about serious things. Mostly I just add those thoughts to an inane list and ramble in person about it to anyone who foolishly gives me an opportunity to do so. Today is a little different, because today people were asking for my thoughts before I’d thought about them. As per, I’ve been out flouncing around art galleries all day, so (and here’s the first part of that disclaimer) I am writing this on my phone, on the tube, with only a cursory glance at the headlines and half an hour of BBC news videos as evidence. Next the admission: people wanted my thoughts today because as well as being a young woman, I am also a Catholic and a theologian by trade. I think that’s probably given away the news in question, but let me add the second part of my disclaimer before I begin: this is incredibly reactionary. I realise that what I have to say will cause some people to tell me I’m a bad feminist and/or a bad Catholic, but I don’t profess to be very good at either. I do try my best to be a decent human in general though, so hopefully you can cut me a little slack. I don’t have all the answers – I don’t even have all the questions – and if you ask me again tomorrow I might have changed my mind. If you are still reading at this point, I salute you. If you don’t want to hear my thoughts about the resignation of the Pope, now is your cue to leave – I’ll write you a silly list soon. For the rest of you, excuse the seriousness and let’s cue the titles.

Papal Audience, 2009

This morning news broke that at 8pm on 28th February, Pope Benedict XVI will resign from his office at the head of the Roman Catholic Church. This is the first time this has happened for 600 years and, understandably, the ripple of reaction has spread around the world. This particular drop in the ocean of response is inherently personal but carries with it whatever insight is afforded by being a young catholic, a feminist and (in education at least) a theologian. It will almost certainly be at odds with the views of some Catholics, some feminists and some young people, but it is an honest attempt to provide an initial response from a personal point of view, and to answer the five questions that have been put to me repeatedly today.

On the practical implications:

After 8pm on 28th February, the current Pope will no longer be referred to as His Holiness and will be known again as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. It is expected that he will take some time away at the summer residence while his successor is appointed. Though as a cardinal he ought to attend conclave, his age precludes him from voting. After this, he will live elsewhere in the Vatican. The implications of the current Pope living in close proximity to the newly elected Pope seem widely assumed to be negative. This is not necessarily the case. Cormac Murphy O’Connor commented today “Who would want to be Pope?” –  I wonder whether the answer might be ‘someone who has the voice of experience close at hand’ (This might be particularly relevant for one of his potential successors, as we will see).

There has been some debate regarding the resignation in general – given John Paul II’s stoic sense of the papacy as a life-long duty in particular, but also simply in terms of whether the office is ‘just a job’. I think the Pope has more than addressed this in his speech, which you can read here. ‘Resignation’ is our language, but put simply, the Pope has been entitled to renounce his office for the best part of 800 years. Our sensationalist tendencies will no doubt draw out countless dramatic comparisons with the last Pope to do so, Gregory XII, who stood down in 1415 at an incredibly difficult time in the Church’s history. I would suggest a better comparison might be with Celestine V, the Pope who passed the decree which made it possible in 1294. A Benedictine, he too was considered old at his succession, and stepped down after five months in office citing his waning physical strength amongst his reasons for doing so. At the top of Celestine V’s list, however, was the desire for humility, and I think that same humility is characteristic of  Benedict XVI’s decision too.

Today’s news left me sad, but also deeply encouraged – I cannot even begin to imagine the pressure that he must have felt and the personal anguish that coming to this decision must have caused. Yet it was a decision taken entirely in private, away from the external pressures that (until now) have characterised his papacy, and with a focus solely upon the best way to lead the Church in accordance with God’s will. I struggle to call to mind a better example in modern times of the courage and humility required to set aside self-interest for the sake of the Church. In purely practical terms, it is an action that is, literally, crucially Christian.

On the timing of the decision:

Again, the timing of this announcement reflects a degree of humility in its Kantian disinterest (that is to say its setting aside of self-interest). The Pope understands first hand the pressure of succeeding a Pope who has died – the demands of leading the Church through their mourning, the potential for the suddenness of the transition and the uncharacteristic urgency that all of this adds to the office. The Pope is far from rude health and, to be practical rather than morbid, his increasing ailment and advancing years mean that, were he to continue in office, there would be the very real potential of that issue arising again. Though there have been many criticisms levelled at him, it is perhaps a product of my respect for him as a theologian that I would defy anyone who argued that he does not have an acute awareness of the needs of the Church. Hans Kung might be appalled to hear me describe Joseph Ratzinger as one of the greatest living theologians, but I truly believe that he is, and this insight has informed his papacy. He fully understands that this is, in many ways, a time of great vulnerability for the Church; he fully understands the need for the Church to play the game and not just watch from the touchlines. By affecting the transition of the papacy in this way, he is allowing his successor to keep a firm grip of the wheel, affording him as few complications as possible.

Some will argue that the Pope’s resignation heightens the urgency of this ‘crucial moment’. Perhaps so, but perhaps equally there is little point in postponing the inevitable. To labour the earlier analogy, there is no time out in this game. It seems particularly relevant that the announcement comes in the wake of the publication of The Pope’s Jews. Critics love to play on Benedict XVI’s experiences in the Hitler youth, almost as much as they enjoyed criticising the apparent inertia of the Vatican at that time of crisis. The publication of this book challenges that perception, but has a wider message that is relevant: firstly, to quote the author, Gordon Thomas, “The church thinks across centuries. If there’s a dispute for 50 years, so what?” – the priority is upon action not upon the perception of that action; secondly, public perception of the inner workings of the Vatican is not always right. My point is this – I believe it would be incredibly naive to argue that the Pope’s decision is a reaction to scandal or contemporary issues that face the Church. This is not a cowardly man running away from the moment but an astute leader ensuring that the moment does not run away from his Church.

It is also no coincidence that his resignation will take effect at the heart of Lent – what better spiritual narrative to accompany a time of testing and assert the triumph of faithfulness? The appointment of his successor should take place before Easter – what better time to begin a new chapter?

On the theological implications:

I doubt that there is enough ink in the world to satisfy the amount that could potentially be spilled debating the theological implications of this decision. Certainly the Pope appears to be setting a precedent for departure from expectation, but we must be careful to hold this in tension with a theology and a papacy that has been markedly conservative in nature. We might more accurately argue that this decision is a further expression of that which has underpinned his conservative stance, namely that acute awareness of the vulnerability of the Church. Once again, I think it helpful to bear in mind the idea that the Church thinks across centuries. It has not existed for thousands of years by being bowing to the pressures of modernity. That is not to say that it should be an institution immune to criticism or progression of thought, but to say that there is sound political and theological underpinning to cautious conservatism. Under the weight of that responsibility Cormac Murphy O’Connor’s words today once again loom large.

The Guardian today published a list of pressing issues that it believes await the new Pope when he is elected. You can read that list here. Are all of these issues immediately thrown wide open with the succession of a new Pope? In short, I think the answer is no – as we have seen, the Church’s conservative stance is the product of more than papal opinion. In theological terms, I see most scope for potential flexibility in terms of the Church’s position on contraception and homosexuality, when addressed in terms of the dignity of the person, but the repercussions of that line of reasoning leave little room for a change of perspective regarding abortion and the role of women in the clergy. I am perhaps in a minority of feminists who would not see this as a bad thing – I do not see abortion as the absolute right of a liberated woman and I do not see a male priesthood solely as an arbitrary reinforcement of the history of patriarchy. I am less clear of the extent to which I am in a minority of Catholics by seeing room for a revisitation of the former two issues. Perhaps conversely with this line of theological reasoning, I do not expect to see much engagement with the issue of equal marriage – that cautious conservatism that has preserved the Church’s longevity will presumably encourage the new Pope to watch as that issue unfolds in the Church of England first.

On succession:

On the subject of the new Pope, I am entirely in agreement with Patrick Kelly, who told a BBC reporter today that there was no point in playing a guessing game. Understandably, this will not discourage the world from speculating, presumably by the same logic that encourages people to take gambling odds from Paddy Power on Bono or Father Dougal Maguire as the next in line of apostolic succession.

The media will probably be excited by four or five main candidates. Peter Turkson of Ghana, Fracis Arinze of Nigeria and Leonardo Sandri of Argentina will doubtless appear at the top of many lists with good reason. As well as their individual merits, there is a real unifying value in electing a Pope who has a direct engagement with theologies of liberation, as all of these men have –  that said, we might argue that the young Joseph Ratzinger’s experiences in Germany went some way towards that. I think however, there is a particular challenge to be addressed by the Church in Africa and South America at present, which needs strong leadership in an immediate capacity. There is much ground to be covered in establishing a truly universal church and a sense in which the leadership of a ‘liberation Pope’ in Rome might still be too countercultural to be productive. Slow progress perhaps, but there is a theological argument for it yet. Similarly, timing might go against another media favourite, Timothy Dolan from New York. The presence of America in the current socio-political climate might be of detriment to the effectiveness of the papacy; as much could be said for any potential ‘super-power Pope.’

At present, there are three potential candidates who seem most likely. Canadian Marc Oullet has all of the cosmopolitan appeal of Timothy Dolan whilst remaining theologically close to the current Pope. On the surface he seems to fit with the potential theological trajectory outlined above, but it is difficult to tell how deeply his conservatism runs – he is best know for his strong stance on abortion, but that is hardly indicative. Age is also on his side – he is not yet 70. Another strong candidate is Angelo Bagnasco, the current Archbishop of Genoa. He is intellectually well respected, multi-lingual and has spoken prominently (and critically) of Italian culture and the negative role models provided by Silvio Berlusconi and other key figures. He is regarded as the Pope’s lieutenant in Italy, and seems to have a good sense of the interplay between secular issues and theology.

The most obvious candidate to me, however, is Gianfranco Ravasi who heads the Pontifical Council for Culture. As such he is acutely aware of all of the theological issues that are currently prominent, as well as of the importance of dialogue and interplay between the Church and other cultures. He is a renowned Biblical scholar based in Rome, and combines a natural charisma with a keen intellect and media awareness. His main weakness is the fact that he has never been bishop of a large archdiocese, so his pastoral credentials are somewhat unproven. However, given his strengths in all other areas, and with the unprecedented presence of a former Pope living in the Vatican, he seems the ideal candidate. As mentioned previously, this circumnavigates the potential difficulties of the presence of a ‘dowager-Pope’, who instead becomes an invaluable source of support without undermining papal authority. It is a scenario that is unprecedented, but by no means impossible.

On conspiracy theories:

The internet will undoubtedly explode with a wealth of conspiracy theories, including plenty which will compensate for the underwhelming Mayan Apocalypse we experienced in December. Dan Brown is unlikely to be seen for weeks. Nevertheless, there is probably enough intellectual stimulation in the facts alone to keep the rest of us from concerning ourselves with wild speculation.

Ultimately, today’s news will, I hope, become this Pope’s legacy for the right reasons. His approach to the gravity of the decision is a testament to his character as a man and as a Christian, and a brilliant example of his theological insight. It shows a reverence for the authority of the see prioritised above the holder, and so rightly orientated towards God, but also shows an awareness of the contemporary world and the importance of stability in transition. It is a heartbreaking decision that is incredibly brave and demonstrates both wisdom and humility. It is an example to all, and inspirationally encouraging in faith.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

95 thoughts on “And now for something completely different.

  1. quietchange says:

    Great writing indeed and well thought out! The next month or so will be critical to the future of the Catholic Church.

  2. sksameer527 says:

    a well researched article…..very gud

  3. Interesting piece. Guess i’ts time for him to move on. An amazing turn of events I i figure and one that will have the world watching the space far as future is concerned on the precedence its set.

  4. frances c says:

    Well thought out article that avoids the usual biases and scapegoating. It also acknowldeges that the Church allows for change – personal and cultural. The current Pope was a youth in a society that was in the vice-like grip of an evil of white supremacy, bigotry, and racism. He knew what that was like. I think he understood that you cannot free a people from their role of being repressed/ opressed without freeing their repressor/ oppressor from their role as well although he didn’t say it that way; and that gave him a unique perspective on the modern world. I also believe that he has stepped down from the papicy not because he was a coward but because the move itself sets a modern day precedent for those that come after him. It is an acknowldgement that the Pope is human and subject to the same aging and health problems as all humans are. It also acknowledges that the Pope in old age is not infallible and that in order to perform the Papal duties to the church and his international congregation, the Pope needs to be in top condition to work within the best interest of the community (and beyond) , something that few have ever set their vanity or the Church’s reputation (as infallible) aside to allow for. He should be congratulated on his courage for resigning not condemned for it. And perhaps in future more will resign when they are past their peak but before they hit that performance trough in the knowldge that the world will not end if they admit that they are not infallible.

  5. hutcoffee says:

    I just can’t imagine what’s next for him..perhaps taking a long vacation in the wilderness..lol:)

  6. timbow8 says:

    You say you’re a Theologian? Where in Theology does it say we should call people who disagree with us ‘incredibly naive’? Interesting. I’ll try and lay this out for you so you can perhaps, understand my naïveté . The Pope, The Vatican and the Church are pretty sold on the ideas of:
    Tradition
    Ritual
    History
    …and it isn’t to the Church’s detriment. Change does come in the Church but the importance of ‘Appearance’ is vital to the Church and held tightly by the Church Fathers/Protectors/Administrators. If you truly believe that this Pope doesn’t realize that his decision to resign will forever ( in mortal terms) be linked to one of the most, if not THEE most corrupt Pope (Gregory XII) in the entire history of the church then I would suggest you hold tight to your Theologian Title tightly because there is no light in the Dark Ages. And a Feminist? Isn’t a Feminist a human who proposes that that one gender is worthy of promotion while the other (male) is not worthy? I’m sure you can come up with a great answer to that prejudicial ‘misunderstanding’—first; you’ll have to put away your Theologian Beret and adorne your Sociologist/Psychologist Hat—-See, it isn’t what people actually say that disturbs others…It’s how others think. You fight predjudice by being……..Predjudicial! And you defend the Church from naive ‘conspiracies’ by….That’s right! Conspiring to silence others by name-calling which is…I believe…highly Non-Scholarly. Geez, even people who have never once stepped foot inside any church understands the incredibly consequential connection that this Pope is making….Forever by linking himself with an outlaw! If this Pope doesn’t understand the connection then ALL of Vatican City will remind him. If this Pope doesn’t care about the connection then he would never gotten himself maneuvered to be Pope in the first place. For you to think otherwise….Wow! I believe, after taking numerous Theology courses in college, “It would have to take a Feminist Theologian to believe the Pope’s move to resign is a Non-Event”. I do apologize for being blunt, but people outside the Church read these posts and they must know there exists a dissenting view (this post) to your viewpoint. Thank You. Good article; it got my attention!

    • siobhanj says:

      Sincerely, be as blunt as you like – maybe I need to learn to be more blunt to make a point because either your reading or my writing has led to some miscommunication! I won’t bore you with a lengthy reply but I do want to make a couple of things clear, just to avoid being misrepresented in future:
      Feminism is not about the prioritisation of women over men; this post is not concerned with name calling, conspiring people to silence or dismissing things as a non-event; arguing for the complexity of a situation in the face of a more superficial reading is not the same as suggesting everyone who disagrees with you is naïve; suggesting a different point of comparison might be more appropriate is not the same as denying that people will more readily draw parallels with Gregory XII (which was actually my point…).
      I’m sorry if that wasn’t clear in my original writing and I hope you did not feel too prejudiced against. Thank you for taking the time to share your opinion, even if we disagree about most of what was written!

      • timbow8 says:

        Thank You. I know my post must have ruffled a feather-it was the intention. But it wasn’t meant to be attacking…I do apologize for walking unsteady on that tight-rope.

        I was reflecting on your characterization of people who may think this Pope resigning is an indication of something sinister or less-than-common as being ‘naive’. I didn’t say it…it was said in the article. And however you wish to categorize ‘Feminism’ is your business-I was simply trying to scrunch an exhaustive approach to the definition in a more practical. Pushing the word ‘Feminism’ aside; promoting a prejudice of one particular group above/beside/behind/ or beyond another based upon race, creed, color, gender or national origin is prejudice whether you believe it or not. Further, it’s sexist…unless, of course,, one happens to not be a man, then it’s called “Acceptable”. I didn’t say you are a feminist. You said you are a feminist…and as such, I only attached the baggage that conveniently gets left on the ‘Freedom Train’ by a human that, it just so happens…is not a man. Again, I didn’t say you were a feminist—you did. However you wish to categorize that characterization is none of my business…until…it is promoted in the public realm. Then it is fair-game.

        Simply: The Church is about Tradition(s). The Pope is definitely about Tradition(s). The Tradition is, for the last 600 years, “Pope’s do not resign.” The last Pope who resigned was a disgrace. The Church and the Pope understand thoroughly the current and future ramifications linking this Pope to Gregory XII and still, even against Tradition and Duty (has not been done in 600 years!), moved forward with a ‘Personality Change’ (Non-Traditional) in spite of the potentially de-stabilizing effects this decision will have on the Church. Two Points for clarity: The Council of Trent and Copernicus (Sun centered solar system). The Church does not allow these types of things to occur. This Pope has some explaining to do. To think otherwise? Well, perhaps I am more of a Shepard than I am a sheep. In any event…it is an opinion, though cemented in facts. Thank You for responding. I’m not mad or anything. Passionate…something is fishy in Denmark. That’s all I am saying. Thanks

      • siobhanj says:

        No offence taken, apart from the mildest amount at the implication that being a feminist is akin to being a racist..!

        You’re right, I am a feminist. By that, I mean that I think people are of equal worth regardless of their gender. If there is a bias in the language, it serves only as a counter to the bias of history. The logical conclusion of feminism isn’t the subordination of men – quite the opposite.

        Regarding naïveté, I think you are ignoring an important part of my point – I think it is an oversimplification to say that this decision is *only* a response to something “sinister”. As it is, I think we are probably agreed about quite how complex a matter it is.

        I read your other comment too – thank you for that and for the interesting points you’ve raised.

      • timbow8 says:

        Touche’. Perhaps I was heavy handed…but it stirred debate. And debate is what sharpens the steel. Yes, I completely agree that words and definitions are imperfect utilities that sometimes (most times) interfere with strict clarifications. I should have used my approach: “Interesting points. Feminism? What context or definition are you pouring into this word-if I might ask?” But alas, the hammer fell too quickly because, well…I suffer from an ailment that has symptoms including>>> ‘writing before thinking sometimes (most times)’. Dreadful disease and usually cured by, of all things, hopping off a Soap Box and looking in the mirror!? On the upside: I get to exercise. The downside? Well it usually causes a redness around the face! In the end, it is treatable but an often overlooked malady by many-including me! Thanks TB

    • @timbow: Feminism is NOT about promoting one gender over another–that’s patriarchy–what feminism tries to undo. I found this piece to be refreshing because it’s a different take on the legacy of the Pope and doesn’t reinforce the dominant narrative that portrays his decision in a negative light. I appreciated reading from someone who took an honest approach to sharing her thought–even though as a feminist I disagree with her position on the role of females within the Church.

  7. jozx7r says:

    The title was a favourite catch work of the inimitable Spike Milligan, he would have loved this!!

  8. Ippo says:

    I will never understand this religious ferver!

  9. Tough subject to address. Brave and well-researched approach. I guess its never easy to admit that you can no longer handle the strain of a job because of your age. But hopefully he will be remembered as one who left his post with as much grace as possible. Very well done article.

  10. I was a huge fan of Ratzinger even before he became Pope. He has done an incredible job steering the Church through some very difficult times in the face of an increasingly hostile media. I share your respect for him as one of the Greatest Living Theologians. He is also one of those High Ranking Cardinals who have really lived out their faith. Like JP2, and Wyszynski. And you really feel that you could aspire to live such a life.

    I disagree that the contraception question has any scope to be revisited. By the terms of the catholic faith Humanae Vitae was a binding encyclical, and such things cannot really be overturned without undermining the core teaching of the Authority of the Church to make binding statements. As the Pope pointed out, the principle of double effect may sometimes come into play, and the toleration of a lesser evil to prevent a greater, but to see this as a scope for major changes is, I think, a mistake.

    Pre-Marital sex and homosexuality (which of course should really be treated together) offer no scope for change when set against the Church’s view of marriage. In essence the christian view of marriage is directly opposed to the “zeitgiest”. One thinks marriage is about the happiness of individuals, the other thinks that it is a solemn duty and obligation which, properly discharges, may (should) bring about happiness as a by product. In what Chesterton called “the catholic imagination”, doing something because it makes you happy is essentially anathema. You do something because it is right, and proper, and your duty, and as such, is pleasing to God. If it is not all of those things, you don’t do it. :)

    If it isn’t obvious I am also a young Catholic. :)

    • oarubio says:

      Well said! Among your many good points, sexual relations outside of a valid marriage (for starters, between a man and a woman not already married to other[s]) has always been wrong. Marriage was not invented by the state, or even the Church. Therefore, neither can redefine it.

      Since the presentation of the Ten Commandments, we humans have tried many ways to rationalize breaking them. Sometimes, euphemisms are used to confuse the faithful. “Equality” is an excellent one to misuse. So is “love.” As you alluded, true love cares for the person’s well-being in this life — and the next. If it isn’t pleasing to God, it’s not a good idea to be doing it. Disordered behavior, however “well-intentioned,” will always be wrong.

      You are also correct with contraception. It can be tied to the dignity of human life (as some forms are abortifacients) and is intrinsically tied to one of the purposes of marriage (openess to life). To suggest the Church can change its position on this is not equivalent to changing a practice such as fasting and abstinence during Lent. While deliberately going against either is a serious wrong (for different reasons), the Church may change any practice so long as it does not contradict Scripture. It can’t change the Ten Commandments.

      I’m encouraged. We need more young Catholics with your understanding! — Tony

  11. Mark B. says:

    Thank you for a well thought out blog posting. I am a recent returnee to the Church after a decade or so away. I was so disappointed/sad/angry (sorry for the bipolarness) seeing JP2 so decrepit and still being “forced” to perform his duties. Kudos to Benedict for realizing his own mortality and opting to retire when he can.
    As far as a coverup is concerned… every single human event will have its conspiracy theorists. Even the Russian meteorite was thought of as a new weapon of the West (using space rocks to flatten Russian cities).

  12. we’ll miss his holiness. am not Catholic though but the office of the Pope is such conservative that even enemies of the church can’t helo but celebrate

  13. [...] via And now for something completely different.. [...]

  14. [...] And now for something completely different.. [...]

  15. ronarruejo says:

    Very nicely described; it is difficult to get a good summary of all the ‘implications’ regarding the papal resignation. I don’t yet know how I truly feel about the Pope since I don’t know about his policies in-depth, but I must imagine that it was incredibly hard to hear criticism 99% of the time from the world. I myself was particularly sad that he left the papacy.

    P.S. He won’t be going back to Cardinal Ratzinger (like you wrote in the post) but will just add the Emeritus and keep his name. Of course, we all didn’t know that at the time of his resignation.

  16. Spot on with this write-up, I really think this website needs a lot more attention. I’ll probably be back again to read more, thanks for the advice!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 255 other followers

%d bloggers like this: