BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Joseph Ratzinger, the reformer whose decision
to resign goes back to the origins of the Papacy
Those who criticize Pope Francis for alleged 'discontinuity' with Benedict XVI
forget the historical importance of the latter's renunciation of the Papacy
by ANDREA TORNIELLI
Translated from the Italian service of


Since yesterday, the Vatican has two Popes who live a few hundred meters apart within the same territory, that of the smallest state in the world. [It is really not responsible for someone like Tornielli to say there are 'two Popes', because only one of them is Pope, and the whole world, especially Catholics, knows that!]

The Bishop of Rome Francis and his predecessor now live aide by side, the first in the fullness of the powers vested upon him after he was elected Pope on March 13, the latter, an emeritus Pope, who will spend the remaining time of his life, praying and meditating, 'hidden from the world'.

For as long as the emeritus Pope was residing in Castel Gandolfo after he left the Vatican on February 28, his last day as Pope, the question was hardly raised. [That's not true. It has been a staple leitmotif of the news reports and commentary that the unprecedented 'coexistence of two Popes' would cause problems regarding the former Pope's possible interference or influence in current affairs of the Church.]

Indeed, the presence of Joseph Ratzinger, discreet as he has always been, was not noticed [More accurate to say, his very existence was virtually ignored, especially after his successor was elected], and only resurfaced on March 23, when his successor visited him in Castel Gandolfo.

But since yesterday, when he returned to the Vatican to reside permanently at the Mater Ecclesiae convent, which was renovated to accommodate him and his small 'family' of assistants, Benedict XVI has once again become a presence, a reference point,
within 'the enclosure of St. Peter'.

It was more than understandable that he did not wish any video of his return to be released, agreeing to a couple of photos that could serve to reassure those who have been fearful about the state of his health (though it must be remembered that it was his increasing physical disability with advancing age that made him decide to give up the Papacy).

But even if he will not be seen or heard, he will continue to be a presence. In addition to the reigning Pope, there is also the emeritus Pope, the title chosen by Benedict XVI himself, choosing the canonical category of 'emeritus' which allows him to retain many of the outward signs of a retired bishop, in this case, the retired Bishop of Rome.

The situation has no precedent in the history of the Church. Nor has any Pope before Benedict XVI retired because of the limitations of advanced age.

But the humility and discretion of Joseph Ratzinger guarantee that he will never be an encumbrance to his successor, and he will not allow himself to be made a reference point, without wanting to be, for those who disapprove of the new Pontificate.

It is known that some 'traditionalist' circles have publicly criticized some personal choices made by Pope Francis, whom they reproach for not following certain papal traditions and for his choice in liturgical vestments.

Worse, some have accused him of undermining the Petrine primacy itself by insisting on being 'Bishop of Rome' - which is, after all, the first and oldest title of the Successor of Peter [a term, moreover, that was punctiliously used by Benedict XVI in announcing his renunciation on February 11, 2013, of "the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on April 19, 2005"], and for having named a group of eight cardinals to advise him on the governance of the Church, and whom he has assigned to study how to reform the Roman Curia.

The critics, underscoring Francis's alleged 'discontinity' with Benedict XVI, claim to fear the diminution of the papacy itself and a reduction in the 'sacredness' of the Pope's figure.

They seem to ignore that far more than the superficial preferences manifested by Pope Francis, the true action that 'de-sacralized' the figure of the Pope was Benedict XVI's renunciation. [Which, however, was not meant to 'desacralize' the figure of the Pope itself, but to underscore that every Pope is also a human being subject to mortal disabilities, and it was in his capacity as an individual human being no longer able to give the Papacy everything it deserves that he was giving it up so that someone more able could take over.]

Benedict's renunciation, which also meant the automatic termination of all Curial appointments (which have since been renewed by the new Pope 'until further provisions are made'), led to the election of a new Pope. And so, we have this unprecedented situation of 'two Popes'.

But it would be wrong to see Benedict XVI's decision, historically unprecedented as it was, as a discontinuity itself. [I don't think anyone considered it a 'discontinuity' at all, since its first implication was that a successor would have to be elected immediately in order to 'continue' the uninterrupted apostolic succession from St. Peter.]

In fact, with his decision, Joseph Ratzinger has contributed to bringing the office of Bishop of Rome closer to its origins and its essential nature: The Pope is the successor of Peter, Pastor of the Church which presides in charity over all the other Churches, and guardian of the 'treasure' which does not belong to him - that 'deposit of faith' which it is his duty to pass on.

He is not an emperor for life nor the Church's super-administrator. [But the latter erroneous concept appeared to have dominated the mindset of the cardinals in electing a new Pope, even if they did elect someone who was, first of all, a holy man, and not just for his presumed administrative abilities.]

Some historical practices that were also historically justified, with a 'sacralizing' effect on the figure of the Pope, went beyond the essence of the origins. But Benedict XVI's decision to detach himself voluntarily from the office, to consider that he was no longer adequate to its enormous responsibility in the current situation, does not undermine the Papacy in any way. [Obviously not. It was a decision applicable specifically to himself, not a rule he was establishing. Even if it has created a precedent, future Popes are not bound to follow it unless they decide to.]

Basically, it does not matter what kind of miter the Pope wears, whether he decides to revive the papal fanon or not, what kind of staff he chooses to use, or whether he uses thronelike chairs from previous Papacies or not. These are all visible signs of the sacredness, the uniqueness and the universality that characterize the Petrine ministry. [Signs which, Tornielli implies, need not be followed uniformly by every Pope, without detracting from the fundamental characteristics of his ministry.]

But with his renunciation, Benedict XVI demonstrated that he was not attached to the prerogatives nor even the 'sacredness' of being the reigning Pope. He retired as other bishops retire normally for reasons of age [Except in their case, an age limit is specified, 75, or if the Pope allows it, they can serve up to age 80 if they are in the Curia. It never made contemporary sense that a bishop can be considered too old to continue active ministry when he reaches 75, or 80, while a Pope - who is Bishop of Rome - is considered to be in office for life. However, the lifetime papal tenure is the result of centuries of tradition, whereas the age limit for bishops is a fairly recent provision in the latest version of the Code of Canon Law. Benedict XVI did what was considered unthinkable in the modern era, especially for someone who was always reviled as a 'traditionalis't = to break an unwritten rule that two of his immediate predecessors, Paul VI and John Paul II, had considered as an option but decided against. It must be noted, however, that the current Code of Canon Law does have an actual provision for the resignation of a Pope - the article that Benedict XVI cited in his renunciation - so, even as late as the 1980s, it was not unthinkable at all, and the canonists who revised the Code allowed specifically for the possibility of a papal resignation.]

In retiring as he did, Benedict XVI brought the figure of the Pope closer to that of other bishops, without in any way undermining the essence nor the prerogatives of the Petrine primacy.

There is, therefore, an evident continuity, a profound consonance, and a common vision that unites Papa Ratzinger, emeritus, and Papa Bergoglio, gloriously reigning.

It is the outlook of faith and the awareness that it is the Lord who leads the Church, not the Pope.

"The Church is not mine, she is not ours, she belongs to the Lord who will never allow her to sink. It is he who leads her..." Benedict XVI said in his last General Audience on February 27.

That is precisely what is demonstrated by the exceptional 'normality' of a Pope who resigns because of advanced age and who has decided to live 'hidden from the world' but 'in the vicinity of St. Peter' and of his successor.

I think too much has been made, and quite unnecessarily, of the 'continuuity-discontinuity' meme, because the only discontinuity that would matter is if a Pope, any Pope, deviated from the deposit of faith and the universal magisterium. Pope Francis, for all his unorthodox (some perhaps even questionable) external manifestations, has kept to the faith he is dutybound to uphold, preserve and defend.

And I am glad Mr. Tornielli has emerged long enough from his Francis-cocoon to provide a valid perspective on Benedict XVI's renunciation, even if his ulterior motive may have been to defend Pope Francis from accusations of discontinuity (which frankly, have been negligible and also almost absurd).

A second commentary from the Italian media today has a rather misleading title - it is most inconsiderate to Pope Francis and misrepresents the spirit of Benedict XVI's resignation - but is really a tribute to Benedict XVI and an appreciation of his Pontificate...

The era of 'two Popes' begins
by Antonio Sanfrancesco
Translated from

May 3, 2013

Benedict XVI is in the last phase of his earthly journey. He has returned to live within the walls of the Vatican, 'in the enclosure of Peter', to use his own words, when he said his last words as Pope at sunset on a Thursday in Lent on February 28.

He now resides in the Mater Ecclesiae convent which, since 1986, had been the 'praying heart; of the Vatican, where grain and chaff are inextricably mixed as they are in normal life.

"The specific purpose of this community," according to the statutes whereby John Paul II established Mater Ecclesiae, "is the ministry of prayer, of adoration, of praise, and of reparation, in order to be a continuing prayer in silence and solitude to support the Holy Father in his daily solicitude for the entire Church". [And now, that the sisters are gone, their place has been fittingly taken by a former Vicar of Christ who has taken on their service in his decision to dedicate the rest of his life to prayer and meditation for the good of the Church.]

He also begun an unprecedented coexistence of a former Pope with his successor, within this territory built on the blood of Peter and which is the beating heart of that Christianity which for centuries has irradiated the West with her culture and art, her charity and thought, with churches and universities, but which in the past few decades seems to have reached a low point.

Perhaps the two will be seeing each other often but discreetly, to speak to each other intimately and to pray together about the serious task of 'confirming in the faith' those who have been entrusted to the Successor of Peter. Francis through his active Pontificate, and Benedict through prayer. Certainly, precious balsam for believers, and not less useful to heal the wounds of a Church that has lost much of its grip on the hearts of men suffering from 'fatigue of faith'.

At an Easter Vigil during his Pontificate, Papa Ratzinger spoke of how much compassion Jesus must feel about the disorientation of con temporary man. Perhaps, Pope Francis may even finish Benedict's proposed encyclical on faith, which he undertook with the profound conviction that the crisis of the Church and of Christianity today is a crisis of faith and not of structures. [I will never understand the obsession for 'structural reforms' by both progressivist dissidents and Church hierarchs who ought to know better, while seeming to ignore the crisis of the faith itself. What are they reforming structures for, if the underlying foundation is shaky or no longer holds? The 'reform-minded' seem to have no interest at all in strengthening the faithful in the essentials of the faith, because they themselves appear to think the essentials do not matter at all, so concerned are they about 'structures'... Personally I am hoping that Pope Francis undertakes his own encyclical, especially since it will be his very first. ]

To those who were vocal that he should concern himself more with managing the Vatican bureaucracy, Benedict XVI showed by words and actions that his primary task was to announce the message of Christ to the world, to show everyone that the Christian faith has a rational basis which everyone can recognize, beyond personal adherence to God who made himself man in Jesus Christ.

As those around him were involved in internal rivalries and special interests, he set forth as a pilgrim to the various deserts that comprise the contemporary world.

He told his biographer Peter Seewald, "I think that God, since he saw fit to make this professor a Pope, wished to highlight the importance of this element of reflection and speaking out for the unity of faith and reason".

And now that the new Pope is the subject of enthralled sociological analyses. of endless comparisons with his predecessor, of numbers cited every so often to 'quantify' the following for the new Pope - as though faith could be reduced only to statistics - we can better appreciate the battle, often solitary, waged by this man of God who told the world that the faith is for many, and not necessarily for all, and that the Church has never drawn large crowds when she announces the Gospel but rather small committed groups because, as the famed Marxist Ernst Bloch said, "Jesus was a man whose coming turned the values of the world upside down". It is true in the historical present. His criteria are not those of the world.

On the other hand, isn't that the destiny of Christioans? To be yeast in the dough, small mustard eeeds from which the tree of the Church grows.

If natural law can be accepted as the common ground for a dialog to build a new civilization even with non-believers - a point which Benedict XVI has insisted upon, as he virtually took upon himself the role of defensor civitatis - it was also clear that while he decried the decline of Christianity in the West, it was not the decline of Christianity itself and faith in Christ which, in varying degrees, has always renewed itself in every era.

It is a view he had as early as 1969, when he wrote words that are of extraordinary actuality today: "From the crisis today will emerge a Church which will have lost much. She will become smaller and must, more or less, start all over. She may no longer occupy the edifices she built in more prosperous times. And with a lower membership, shje will also lose many of the social privileges she once had. She will start again from small groups, from movements and a minority that places the faith at the center of experience. She will be a more spiritual Church that will not claim any political mandate by flirting now with the left, and now with the right. She will be poor and will the Church of the indigent. And thus, men will see these small flocks of Christians as something totally new: They will discover Christianity as a hope for themselves, the response that they had always secretly sought." (Joseph Ratzinger, December 24, 1969: From the concluding lecture for a radio series on Hessian state broadcasting, republished in the book Faith and the Future, by Ignatius Press)

The sound of the helicopter bringing him back to the Vatican - an iconic scene not previously imagined by any writer or director, and which we first witnessed unforgettably on February 28 - will perhaps serve to remind the Church and the world of the treasure of teachings left to us by this Pontiff, which he sealed with his gesture of renunciation.

They echo the question Christ asked of his disciples reacting to the crowds who turned away because they could not accept what he was preaching, "Would you, too, wish to turn away and leave?"

Those who think that the 'popularity' of a Pope as gauged by the media necessarily translates into a ripple effect in terms of stronger faith or even of gaining new adherents (or regaining those who had fallen away) for the Church forget that, for all of John Paul II's celebrated charisma, his immense worldwide popularity and his greatly praised evangelical globe-trotting over 27 years, the Church continued losing membership in Europe to the dominant secular culture, and in places like Brazil (world's largest Catholic country) to the appeal of evangelical sects (though this trend had stabilized midway through Benedict's Pontificate).

Of course, the Church also added millions of new converts in Africa and Asia, not primarily because the Pope was popular but because of the tireless dedicated work of missionaries) - but these new Catholics too must be assiduously and continually re-evangelized.

In other words, enthusiastic crowds around the Pope, any Pope, are not an indicator of 'success' in the work of evangelization, traditional or new, nor in advancing the mission of the Church. Meaningful change in the Church will not be measured by adulatory crowds in St. Peter's Square.

To begin with, Popes attract crowds of the faithful not primarily because of who they are but because of who they represent - the Pope is the Vicar of Christ, while non-Catholics are drawn to see the Pope perhaps because they admire him as a person (though they may oppose his positions on social issues because his positions are necessarily Catholic) but also because of the celebrity factor.

In the case of Benedict XVI, his popularity with crowds also translated into a continuing demand and excellent sales for his books and writings (even his encyclicals and apostolic exhortations were best-sellers, which was unheard of before him), which means that those who bought these books were seeking out more of what he had to say. But reading him will not necessarily translate to living the message of Christ that he transmits.