BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Fr. Giovanni Scalese is an Italian Barnabite priest who calls himself Querculanus (Latin for oak) on his blog, which in the early years of Benedict XVI's Pontificate was always distinguished by clear, fair and objective analyses of Church events, especially of Vatican II, and later of Summorum Pontificum and the Lefebvrian question. But since he returned from four years of missionary work in the Philippines, he has hardly been heard from, as he explains below. This is the first of two recent blogs which are consistent with Fr. Scalese's approach which is always dispassionate in its analysis but committed in its conclusions. The second blog, which I will post as soon as I have translated it is his commentary on the universal euphoria of having a new Pope... The title of his blog comes from an expression that is also used in Spanish, which means speaking out plainly ('without hair on the tongue').

Why 'Pope emeritus':
Benedict XVI continues
his Petrine service in prayer
Translated from

March 7, 2013

After 20 months of lethargy, the errant oak (who for almost three years has been 'sedentarized') returns to speak out, even if perhaps only this time and in a more assiduous way). Why, you might ask. If nothing that has taken place in the past two years had awakened me from sleep, why am I stirring now?

We are living a truly historical time in the life of the Church with the renunciation of Benedict XVI, and now, with the mechanisms that have been set in motion to elect a new Pope. So much has been written in the past month about these events - much of it interesting, others not. In any case, there has been, and there continues to be a vigorous debate. What need is there, then, to add another voice to the already numerous chorus that has been exhibiting itself these days?

If I do intervene, it is merely to add some reflections which, I believe, have not been made so far. The problem I wish to confront is whether the renunciation of Benedict XVI - certainly a novelty, an unicum in the history of the Church (its precedents, it has been noted, cannot in any way be compared to this case) - constitutes a 'revolutionary' act, a radical turn, a rupture with the tradition of the Church. Or is it rather something - despite its objective novelty - that is in continuity with the past, being something that has always been possible even if it had never happened till now.

Of course, one can question the 'expedience' of a gesture like this. Each of us sees things from our own point of view and have therefore expressed an opinion about whether or not it was 'expedient' for Benedict to have renounced the Pontificate. [The Italian word he uses is 'opportunita' one of whose senses in Italian is expedience or convenience, that also connotes an element of timeliness.]

But one must admit that on this level, one can name infinite motivations for his decision, pro or con. I will limit myself only to two of them, both valid, that could justify its expedience or lack thereof.

Among the many reasons that have been cited to justify Benedict XVI's action, the most interesting to me - in its down-to-earth 'banality' - was that expressed by Cardinal Georges Cottier: "Today, man lives much longer... But that does not bring with it more vigor and lucidity". [Which is exactly the implication of what Benedict XVI said in his Feb. 11 declaratio: "...my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry". I do not know why we need to find any other reason than that which he said and which is a fact that is most obvious.]

On the other hand, the most serious problem about the renunciation, it seems to me, is the risk of relativism that is inherent in the resignation of a Pope. But, please understand that if we take this road, we will still find numberless arguments for and against the action without ever finding a resolution.

So we must be able to accept, with absolute respect, the choice that Benedict XVI made before God. None of us can enter the conscience of a man, certainly not that of a Pope. It is completely out of place to express judgments on his decision, much less extreme ones, whether positive ("A courageous act") or negative ('An act of cowardice").

But if we go from the level of expedience to that of legitimacy, the discourse changes completely. If we ask if the action is legitimate - namely, juridically possible - I don't think there can be any doubt: It is all (and I underline 'all', inclusive of details) totally legitimate.

The possibility of a Pope's resignation is provided for in Canon 332, Section 2, of the Code of Canon Law: "Should it happen that the Roman Pontiff resigns from his office, it is required for validity that the resignation be freely made and properly manifested, but it is not necessary that it be accepted by anyone."

[This would seem to be the best answer to those who believe it is unthinkable for any Pope to resign. The fact that the Code of Canon Law, last updated in the 1980s, provides for it by actually defining how it should be done, means it was not at all unthinkable for the experts who draft, review and update canon law. In all the welter of opinion, learned or un-, that was unleashed after February 11, I do not believe I have come across any explanation for why the provision was ever thought of, to begin with, nor how far back into canon law history is there such a provision. So the statement attributed to John Paul II, telling his doctor he was not going to quit at all "because there is no place in the Church for an emeritus Pope" is either apocryphal, or simply a rhetorical device he used for emphasis, because it is unlikely he would not have been aware of the canon on resignation.]

One must note that the provision does not in any way set limitations to the possibility, nor does it require, as in other cases of ecclesiastical resignations, "serious reasons" for the resignation. The only conditions required for the action to be valid is that it is made in full freedom and that it is properly manifested - both conditions were fully respected in this case, in the Pope's announcement of his decision.

This should reassure us and free us completely of the concern that the next Conclave could lead to the election of an 'anti-Pope'.

If there can be no question about the juridical legitimacy of Benedict XVI's resignation, an event that is expressly provided for in canon law, can we say the same of the practical consequences of the resignation - consequences that are not provided for in law, and which have to do with a situation that is totally new?

I refer to the fact that Benedict XVI decided that he will continue to use his papal name, to use the previously inexistent title of 'emeritus Pope' or 'emeritus Roman 'Pontiff', to continue to be addressed as 'His Holiness' and to continue using a white cassock. Even if there are no objective reference points for these aspects, I think that these too have been decided with complete juridical correctness.

The central issue seems to be that of the title 'emeritus Pope', contested by many with the surprising reason that - there can be no emeritus Pope: either one is Pope or not at all. But an 'emeritus Pope' is no longer Pope - he is only a Pope emeritus.

What does 'emeritus' mean? Canon 185 explains it: "He who loses his office for having reached the age limit or because his resignation has been accepted, can be conferred the title of 'emeritus'". This canon is not referring to bishops, for whom the appropriate provision is made in Canon 402), but of the loss of ecclesiastical office, of any ecclesiastical office. Is the Pontificate an ecclesiastical office or not? It is. Did Benedict XVI, by resigning, lose his office or not? He did. Can he take on the title of 'emeritus Pope'? According to Canon 185, he can.

The title does not mean he is still Pope, only that he was once Pope - and who can deny this common sense? [Sandro Magister and his two canonists do - attacking it as 'theologically and metaphysically impossible', whatever that means! He was Pope, now he isn't, to our infinite dismay and sorrow - what's metaphysical or theological about that?]

They have drawn an analogy with bishops, saying that an emeritus bishop continues to be a bishop. Yes, but his title is not just 'emeritus' but 'emeritus bishop of a specific see': "The Bishop, whose resignation of his office has been accepted, maintains the title bishop emeritus of his diocese" (Canon 402, section 1). In this case, the adjective 'emeritus' does not refer to the bishop himself, but to the office that he held as pastor of a diocese [actual or titular).

Someone like Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlanda in La Civiltà Cattolica had suggested that the title ought to be 'Bishop emeritus of Rome". With all due respect to the proponents of this suggestion, I ask: What is the title of the Bishop of Rome? Answer - 'Pope'. So if one can say "Bishop emeritus of Rome", why not "Pope emeritus"? And for more reason, one can use the other formulation chosen by Benedict - "Roman Pontiff emeritus" (one must note that his formulation was never "Supreme Pontiff emeritus'), since 'Romanus Pontifex' is the corresponding formal Latin expression for 'Bishop of Rome'.

But I suspect that behind these seeming canonical quibbling is an erroneous theological understanding of the Petrine ministry. One would think from some arguments made, that the Successor of Peter has a double position - that of Bishop of Rome and that of Pope, in which the word Pope is understood to be a synonym for 'Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church', almost as though any one of the two 'functions' could be exercised independently of the other.

This is all simply absurd. It is the Bishop of Rome, being such, who exercises primacy over the whole Church. The term 'Pope' does not indicate another office beyond that of being Bishop of Rome, but is simply the title that belongs only to the Bishop of Rome.[Pope Francis obviously knows this because he has so far mostly used the term Bishop of Rome to describe himself.]

Some have also questioned the continued use of the name Benedict XVI, saying he ought to return to his previous rank and title and be called Cardinal Ratzinger again. They take it for granted that a Pope who has resigned reverts back to being a cardinal. Where is that written? It is true that this has happened in the past [under very different circumstances] but this does not mean that it automatically occurs.

When Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, he ceased to be a member of the Sacred College. In order to become part of it again, he must be created a cardinal anew by his successor, which I think is something completely out of the question.

And I don't see what is the scandal if Benedict XVI continues to use his papal name after leaving office. When a king abdicates, does he lose the name under which he reigned? [Besides, contemporary chronicles and commentary will continue to refer to him anyway as 'Benedict XVI', not as "former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who was known as Benedict XVI when he was Pope"! Moreover, Popes like saints are 'timeless'. We do not say the late Saint Peter or the late Pius XII, for instance - everyone knows they are no longer on earth! And Benedict XVI is still very much alive. ]

The other two contested details (the address 'our Holiness' and the white cassock) speak for themselves. It is normal that someone who has enjoyed a certain title and address retains it even after he leaves office. In my religious order, the Superior General has the right to be called 'Reverendissimo' for the rest of his life, even after his mandate expires.

Moreover, some non-Catholic Oriental Patriarchs are addressed as 'Your Holiness" [and continue to be addressed as such even after they retire]. Why shouldn't we call the emeritus Pope 'Your Holiness'?

About the white cassock, I cannot imagine anyone could have any problem with it. When I was on mission, I wore white [because priests in the tropics wear white], and I continue to do so here in Italy because it is an experience that has marked my life.

Indeed, I would not even find it strange if, unlikely as it may be, Benedict XVI showed up at a liturgy presided by the new Pope, wearing choir dress, which is the normal custom with emeritus bishops when they appear in public in their diocese.

I wish to end with this reflection, I think that Benedict XVI's renunciation of the Pontificate constrains us to think more deeply about the role of the Pope. Benedict XVI has helped us to do this.

In his last General Audience on February 27, he said: "'Always' also means 'for always' - having been Pope, one cannot return to privacy. My decision to renounce the active exercise of the Petrine ministry does not revoke that. I am not going back into 'private life', to a life of travels, meetings, receptions, lectures, etc. I am not abandoning the Cross, but I remain with the Crucified Lord in a new way. I will no longer carry the powers to govern the Church, but in the service of prayer, I will remain, so to speak, in St. Peter's paddock [enclosure, as for animals]."

While it is true that Benedict XVI has lost any jurisdiction at all over anything, it does not mean that he is now only an ordinary Catholic, or at best, a retired bishop.

It would seem he understands that the Petrine ministry does not simply mean the exercise of authority, but that it has a spiritual dimension - the service of prayer - which continues beyond resignation and retirement.

That is what Benedict XVI wishes to express by retiring to near monastic cloisterhood, by 'ascending the mountain' in order to pray for the Church. The Church is served, yes, by governing her, but she is also served (and perhaps above all) by praying for her.

His description of the place where he will live his new life of prayer ('in St. Peter's paddock') expresses the continuity of his service before and after his resignation. Perhaps the title of Pope emeritus also expresses this continuity.