Pope Benedict Resigning

[Nihil Obstat]

We've been blessed with a recent string of very good popes.  It's easy to overlook the fact that a bad pope is a real, albeit unlikely, possibility.

It does bear mentioning that Pope Benedict created many cardinals during his pontificate, and they do seem to be very good appointments. We have at times had reason to doubt many of the bishops and cardinals picked by John Paul II, despite his many good points... but that is neither here nor there.

Anyway, that is one of the reasons I do not think a very bad pope is likely this time. Of course it is possible. There are several men being given odds as papabile that I think would make fairly bad choices. But at the end of the day I think it is important to trust Benedict's many appointments to the College since 2005.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I will be very worried if the name I hear is "Maradiaga", "Hummes", "Shoenborn", or "Bertone". :P Turkson too, if I am being honest with myself.

[Era Might]

It does bear mentioning that Pope Benedict created many cardinals during his pontificate, and they do seem to be very good appointments. We have at times had reason to doubt many of the bishops and cardinals picked by John Paul II, despite his many good points... but that is neither here nor there.

Anyway, that is one of the reasons I do not think a very bad pope is likely this time. Of course it is possible. There are several men being given odds as papabile that I think would make fairly bad choices. But at the end of the day I think it is important to trust Benedict's many appointments to the College since 2005.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I will be very worried if the name I hear is "Maradiaga", "Hummes", "Shoenborn", or "Bertone". :P Turkson too, if I am being honest with myself.

 

Viva Honduras!

[franciscanheart]

Pope Benedict has appointed about 55% of the Cardinals eligible for voting. With a 2/3 majority needed, I don't believe we have reason to be too concerned. Also: I trust the Holy Spirit.

HS: Do what you do. Amen.

[Nihil Obstat]

A minority of of the extremely radical traditionalists with whom I occasionally correspond worry that, with this full month to prepare, the modernists and liberals within the College will collaborate and potentially form a sort of liberal voting bloc.

Personally I think it is rather unlikely, and fairly conspiracy-ish. Also, if a liberal bloc is a possibility, a traditionalist bloc is just as likely. But anyway, that is one concern I have heard raised.

[ithinkjesusiscool]

When you watch videos from the last conclave it really looks like the people knew when to be in the vatic. Or are you saying that they just happened to be there this day? Those lucky people B-)

[Nihil Obstat]

When you watch videos from the last conclave it really looks like the people knew when to be in the vatic. Or are you saying that they just happened to be there this day? Those lucky people B-)

I do not 'know' this, but I think it is reasonable that people know generally when the two ballots are held each day, so the square fills up around those particular times.

[Aloysius]

the Holy Spirit doesn't directly pick the pope, we have had bad popes in the past, horrid sinful popes, in fact.  The Holy Spirit is involved, especially if the cardinals pray and look to Him for guidance, but I think it's safe to say that this is a very human process and we are not guaranteed to have good results from it, though I am optimistic it won't be bad (and no matter how bad it gets the Holy Spirit ensures that the Faith is preserved and protected in spite of who our leaders are, not because of them)

 

I think the idea that this gives them a month to create a voting bloc is a little ridiculous, because honestly they've had 8 years to be working out a voting block, courting new cardinals to their voting bloc as they come in, the only uncertainty would be knowing that not every member of your voting bloc will still be under 80 by the time of the next conclave.  I don't think that they usually operate like that, but they'd be just as likely to be doing it this month as they'd have been likely to have been doing it all along.  Considering how wide open the field is, I'll bet that the first few ballots go through with 3 or 4 candidates each getting portions of the vote, and eventually those 3 or 4 candidates will all get tossed aside in favor of an alternative candidate that no one had become too attached to or too opposed to.  If I'm right, those that go in as popes will come out as cardinals, and we'll be introduced to a surprising choice on the balcony.  I could be wrong, but I think due to the lack of a clear force like Ratzinger was in the last conclave, it might be wise to expect the unexpected this time around.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think the idea that this gives them a month to create a voting bloc is a little ridiculous, because honestly they've had 8 years to be working out a voting block, courting new cardinals to their voting bloc as they come in, the only uncertainty would be knowing that not every member of your voting bloc will still be under 80 by the time of the next conclave.  I don't think that they usually operate like that, but they'd be just as likely to be doing it this month as they'd have been likely to have been doing it all along.  Considering how wide open the field is, I'll bet that the first few ballots go through with 3 or 4 candidates each getting portions of the vote, and eventually those 3 or 4 candidates will all get tossed aside in favor of an alternative candidate that no one had become too attached to or too opposed to.  If I'm right, those that go in as popes will come out as cardinals, and we'll be introduced to a surprising choice on the balcony.  I could be wrong, but I think due to the lack of a clear force like Ratzinger was in the last conclave, it might be wise to expect the unexpected this time around.

Mostly agreed. But I would not be surprised if over the next several days, Ouellet emerges as a very clear 'favourite'. I think the smart money is on him right now, though maybe not quite to the extent that it was for Joseph Ratzinger.

Edited February 13, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[BG45]

After Turkson's interview the other day, I doubt he'll get many votes.

[Nihil Obstat]

After Turkson's interview the other day, I doubt he'll get many votes.

:smile3: Link? I have not seen that anywhere yet.

I would not be particularly fussed if he is quietly forgotten about over the next month.

[BG45]

:smile3: Link? I have not seen that anywhere yet.

I would not be particularly fussed if he is quietly forgotten about over the next month.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9866227/Pope-resigns-Peter-Turkson-reveals-vision-for-the-Church-and-alternative-lifestyles.html

 

The parts they use, at least, sound so blatantly like political stumping...

[Nihil Obstat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9866227/Pope-resigns-Peter-Turkson-reveals-vision-for-the-Church-and-alternative-lifestyles.html
 
The parts they use, at least, sound so blatantly like political stumping...

:P Oh dear. Yeah, that will not win him any supporters among Benedict's cardinals. Maybe he will get a couple dozen votes in the first ballot, then disappear.

But yeah, that rubbed me all the wrong ways.

[Aloysius]

Mostly agreed. But I would not be surprised if over the next several days, Ouellet emerges as a very clear 'favourite'. I think the smart money is on him right now, though maybe not quite to the extent that it was for Joseph Ratzinger.

Ouellet is probably the smart money right now, but not only is he not as clearly out in front as Ratzinger was, he has to get 2/3 while Ratzinger only needed a majority.  If he gets enough in the first few ballots he'll hang on and maybe more will come to his side.  either way I think it'll take longer this time, but I could be wrong.

 

I wonder what a long stalemate would look like in the modern age.  I seem to recall a historical story (not sure if it was true) about a time when they removed the roof to force the cardinals to finally make up their minds...what would they do if it dragged on past Easter?  I know that's not going to happen, just musing... the media would probably be intolerable with speculation that some cardinals were holding out for doctrinal changes etc etc, 

[Nihil Obstat]

Ouellet is probably the smart money right now, but not only is he not as clearly out in front as Ratzinger was, he has to get 2/3 while Ratzinger only needed a majority.  If he gets enough in the first few ballots he'll hang on and maybe more will come to his side.  either way I think it'll take longer this time, but I could be wrong.

 

I wonder what a long stalemate would look like in the modern age.  I seem to recall a historical story (not sure if it was true) about a time when they removed the roof to force the cardinals to finally make up their minds...what would they do if it dragged on past Easter?  I know that's not going to happen, just musing... the media would probably be intolerable with speculation that some cardinals were holding out for doctrinal changes etc etc, 

I am familiar with that story too. I believe it is an historical fact.

I cannot imagine a modern conclave taking that long. :smile3: It certainly would be interesting though.

[KnightofChrist]

Papa Emeritus
 

            

                            

            

        
        
                        

The resignation of Benedict XVI portends no problems for Church governance.

We know exactly when the vacancy in the
Apostolic See will occur (2 pm, Eastern time, Thursday, FEB 28) and we
know what laws will govern the Church during said vacancy (ap. con. Universi Dominici Gregis).
Up until then the pope is fully the pope (c. 331), and after that, he
isn’t; most heads of Roman dicasteries will immediately cease
functioning in their offices, and canonical clocks will start ticking,
culminating in the next papal conclave in mid-March.

What canon law does not, to my
knowledge, treat of—and has not experienced for nearly 600 years—is the
status of a former pope. I’m sure Vatican protocol experts are working
on it, but my ruminations are as follows. These are, per force, first
impressions.

Resignation in canon law impacts only
the offices actually resigned. Benedict XVI is resigning the
distinguishable but inseparable offices of the papacy and the bishopric
of Rome, so, effective the evening of February 28, he will hold neither
office (nor of necessity the papal Lateran basilica).

Now, prior to his election as pope in
2005, Joseph Ratzinger was a cardinal in the Roman Church and possessed
certain rights and duties as a cardinal. I am not aware that he resigned
that office (though he vacated his suburbicarian see of
Velletri-Segni, which is now held by Cdl Arinze), so, I am thinking
that, upon resigning the papacy, Benedict XVI simply resumes his place
among the College of Cardinals, having never left it, and of course,
would be a regular member of the College of Bishops (c. 336).
 

If the pope simply resumes his status
as cardinal, a number of sticky problems are avoided: for example, he
automatically falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the next pope
(c. 1405 § 1, 2º), and he would likewise enjoy faculties for sacramental
confession everywhere (c. 967 § 1). Could we really imagine the
alternative: a former pope being subjected to the jurisdiction of
someone other than the next pope, or his needing faculties from an ordinary to hear confessions? Well, if Benedict is not
a cardinal come the evening of Feb 28—well in advance of the arrival of
new pope who could take whatever action he wished at that time—both of
those scenarios would seem to apply.

Also, upon acceptance of the office of
Bishop of Rome, I think the pope became incardinated in that local
Church (cc. 265 ff); now, I see no mechanism by which a bishop loses his
incardination upon resigning his governing office, so it seems that
Cdl. Ratzinger would remain a cleric of the Archdiocese of Rome, being
generally bound the rules applying to all such clerics. He would be the
emeritus bishop of that local Church (c. 185). An expert in Italian
canon law could tell us whether retired prelates there are voting
members of the Italian Episcopal Conference (c. 454 § 2), but, aside
from his being accountable only to future pope, I think it is clear that
Benendict intends a life of quiet prayer and study, so the question is
interesting (I think!), but quite moot.

It is customary in some places to refer
to former presidents and former ambassadors as “President” or
“Ambassador” after they have given up office. I see no problem in
referring to “His Holiness, Joseph Ratzinger, Papa Emeritus and Cardinal
of the H. R. C.”

 

http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

 

Peter the Roman, or Peter citizen of Rome sounds better and "fulfills" prophecy. :P