Will benedict XVI revert to being a cardinal, and therefore get to vote in the conclave?

He will be a cardinal. He's too old to vote.

Godescalc, God calls different people to do different things in the same circumstances. It's none of our business to make that kind of judgment because we cannot possibly know all the factors. I can think of some circumstances in which a pope should absolutely resign because of the damage he might do if he did not.

AMDG

The act itself is not that earthshaking, though definitely unusual. Benedict XVI will be the seventh pope in Church history to voluntarily abdicate.

My reaction? I was baptized and confirmed Easter 2011; Benedict is the only pope I have ever really known. To be honest I am quite frightened by the prospect of the Church 'going back' to the way it was under John Paul II or Paul VI.

I am trying to not be fearful. I already usually ignore the establishment media on anything Catholic, so it's not the upcoming circus in the press which bothers me. But this is going to be a difficult Lent.

"the way it was under John Paul II"?!? That could use a little elucidation. Surely you don't mean to say that there was a big gap between JPII and BXVI, in their theological and ecclesiastical visions? Maybe you mean the extent to which modernism (for lack of a better word) still had the upper hand for a long time under JPII?

That's a fair request for elucidation, Mac. The two most salient things that come to my mind are the difference in bishops appointed by the two popes, and the difference in Vatican attitude towards liturgy. I admittedly wasn't there for the reign of John Paul II, but it seems like a gap was definitely there on these two questions at least.

Well, I am not enough of a Vatican-watcher to discuss those points in detail, but I don't think there is a big discontinuity. Differences, yes, but remember Benedict was Prefect of the CDF for most (all?) of JP's papacy and they were generally regarded by both admirers and detractors as being of the same mind in the most important ways. Perhaps those who follow things more closely than I do can shed some more light on this.

Right. Jesus said that He was with us always even to the end of the age and that He wouldn't let the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church. If He can't keep that promise, then we should just pack it in and go find something else to do. My first reaction was sadness. Well, not just my first, but that's my main reaction. It was a bit scary at first, but that's natural when you lose your Father.

AMDG

Thanks Godesalc. I'll have a read.

Mac, it's true what you say about the CDF etc. All I can say is that the two things I mentioned are significant differences to a lay Catholic in the sticks like myself. A reversal of Summorum Pontificum, or a fresh injection of "new springtime" bishops into the modernist establishment would be a pretty big deal.

I read it on FB at 6 am - an Italian friend posted - he posted from the report of that journalist to whom I later linked, who grasped what the pope was saying because he knew Latin. So, I saw a headline in Italian, from the Italian newspaper the journalist works for. And I couldn't believe it. So I put 'lascia' into google translate. It does indeed means 'leaves' as in 'leaves the papacy.' I remembered how when JPII was dying, the Italian news reports were too quick off the gun about ten times. And Italian newspapers are always full of conspiracy theories. I very very narrowly prevented myself from posting a sarcastic remark about Italian newspapers under my friend's link. I searched the Telegraph and google news. Nothing. Then after about 10 minutes, a different friend posted from the Vatican Website.

Sorry, it's all a bit like where were you when you heard about 9/11 or the Kennedy shooting. My disbelief will stay with me a long time.

At mass at noon, a young Jesuit who is very devoted to B16 *didn't mention the resignation, and didn't ask us to throw in any prayers at the bidding prayers. Weird. We asked him to have lunch with us, and asked him what he thought, and he said something like 'I self censor on the pope's actions.' Because Jesuits take a vow of obedience to the Pope. I think he was in the same disbelief as me and many of the people on this blog.

I'm not a new Catholic - I been around since 1984. And it was far worse back then, let me tell you. Those were the bad old days.

It's like after the Normandy landings. It may take some time, but essentially all they got to look forward to is the Nuremburg trials.

My radical traditionalist friends *now* like JPII because they say he prepared the way for Summum P. During his pontoficate they were not that keen, but now they say he played a role in getting their liturgy back on the books.

Normandy--heh--excellent analogy.

When John Paul was pope, I loved him so much that I hated to think about the day when there would be another pope, but I love Benedict at least as much, and, as you say, I find his writings much more accessible and powerful.

AMDG

Well, that was my first thought and about the only thought that I have about his reasons.

AMDG

David Warren also thinks Benedict's age and growing inability to navigate the intricacies of the Church bureaucracy may have been a heavy influence in his decision to resign:

"The Vatican bureaucracy has been, in recent times, & perhaps inevitably, infiltrated by the very 'progressive' forces it exists to fight. The Pope must be entirely on his toes in such an environment. A man of extraordinary humility but also astute, Benedict would be aware of the danger that members of this bureaucracy would exploit his mental & physical decline.

This has become, to my mind, the key practical issue for the Church to face in her immediate future. The Pope & his Bishops have real canonical power, but with the proliferation of bureaucracy within the Church herself, they are required to exert it forcefully. In the Church as in mundane government, the bureaucracies take their own lead. They become too large for detailed supervision; & through the normal operation of organizational politics — a fact of nature — they acquire their own internal directors & directions."

I know next to nothing about the workings of the Church bureaucracy. Is Warren exaggerating or spot on?

I have no idea, Marianne. I mean, the broad observation about the bureaucracy is plausible, but whether it was a factor in the pope's decision or not seems impossible to know. I wonder if there were actions taken by Church agencies in the late years of John Paul's papacy that he might have thwarted if he'd known or been able.

I love this blog. It's such a comfort to be able to come here.

That's really nice to hear, Louise. Thank you.

I've been surprised at the number of people saying they felt warmer or closer or something along those lines about Benedict than about John Paul. JP was so warm and personable, and Ratzinger in comparison seemed cool and reserved. I mean, even in the perception of those who liked him. To those who didn't he was nazi blah blah blah.

I hope you're right about the Ordinariate, Janet. I wouldn't expect it to be reversed or anything but it could probably be discouraged and hemmed in and neglected.

Oh yeah, I think I saw some discussion to that effect on your Facebook feed earlier today. Very surprising to me.

Mac, here is what my daughter (27) said on my facebook when I said I thought young people thought of B16 more as a papa than they did JPII. "I would never say that I experienced the fatherhood of Pope Benedict more deeply than the fatherhood of Blessed JPII - his death affected me like few things have, and I specifically had the experience of losing a father. But he was certainly the father-hero: when he spoke you felt united with the universal Church, like you were suddenly swept up into the grandeur of salvation history, with banners and trumpets. With Pope Benedict, it is as though he just quietly sits down next to you, almost without you noticing, and starts talking to you one-on-one, and you suddenly become of aware of God's love and challenge for you not just as part of the Church but as an individual. That's why he is Papa Benedict. Both have shown us different aspects of God's fatherhood, I think. Those of us who lived during both papacies sure have been incredibly, undeservedly blessed."

That's a beautiful and very perceptive comment from your daughter, Robert. I could find it in my heart to say I'm a touch envious. And her last sentence is right on; I was thinking something along those lines earlier, and wondering whether that blessed period is coming to an end.

I have found it difficult to collect my thoughts about this. I have a good deal of affection for Pope Benedict -- as several others have already said, I feel somehow closer to him than I did to John Paul II (who is the only other pope whom I have "known") -- and I think my dominant feeling is simple sadness. I wish that he would stay on.

I will admit to a touch of disappointment of the sort already mentioned by godescalc. If the pope is our father, how can he stop being our father? I know it's legal and all that, but somehow it doesn't sit well with me.

Actually, Ross Douthat's thoughts on how an abdication sits uncomfortably with a Catholic sense of what the papacy is resonate with me.

Having said that, I can see, or at least imagine, why he felt he must make this bold move, and I've no doubt he thinks it is best for the Church. I am just so sorry to see him go.

I have no idea who is likely to be chosen to succeed him, but I think it is plausible that his mere presence, strolling around at Castel Gandalfo, while the conclave is in session might well exert an intangible influence on the proceedings.

Let me also say that, like Louise, I am grateful for this blog and this group of people. I made the mistake of looking at the comment boxes on a few newspaper stories about the Holy Father, and it was really disturbing to see what people will say.

I agree with AM - Ratzer saw how JPII was too old to deal with the abuse crisis and with Maciel.

Maciel was the superior of a very consequential religious order and the complaints against him made it to the Vatican and subject to careful investigation there.

The 'abuse crisis' was a phenomenon in the anglosphere, and concerned how, in the period running from 1983 to 2001, diocesan bishops had responded to complaints about misconduct by priests occurring over the period running from about 1925 to 1990, usually filed 15 years or more after the incidents in question.

The pope has 3,000 bishops reporting to him; 92% of the lay Catholics in this world are not in the anglosphere. Rod Dreher may think the Pope's attention should have been fixed in rapt attention on Dallas as opposed to Manila or Valparaiso, Rod Dreher may think it a simple matter to ascertain the veracity of an uncorroborated complaint a decade after the fact, and Rod Dreher may fancy the Pope should sanction some bishop over a bad decision made by his predecessor 10 years ago over an incident which occurred 25 years ago. The rest of us can be more sensible.

You could 'deal' with it by identifying actually misfeasant bishops (as opposed to bishops just left holding the bag) and stripping them of their sees. They were around (Grahmann and McCormack to name two). Neither John Paul nor Benedict did much of that, whatever their ages.

Yes, that is my point. I seriously doubt that how John Paul handled disciplinary problems and corruption in dioceses in the anglophone world had much effect on Benedict's thinking.

The Catholic Encyclopedia offers a report (or an educated guess) as to the date of birth of about a hundred (of 266) popes. About 8 (including the incumbent) reached the age of 85, so it is atypical but not all that uncommon. Five of the eight remained on the throne no more than a year after their 85th birthday, one departed just shy of 88, one at age 92, and one at age 93. So, his age places him at the 96th percentile.

To add to that, a man of 85 has a life expectancy of about six years. That six years, however, is often consumed by dementia and miscellaneous debilitation. Reportedly, his brother is in wretched shape. Wagers: he is old and he is playing the averages. (Discovering he could not trust his butler I would also wager has been weighing on him).

I haven't read either of the linked pieces, but it seems to me that although you can't resign from being a father, you can transfer your paternal authority to another, or you can lose it due to being unable to exercise it.

I feel very sad about dear Benedict, even if it may perhaps be a good decision, but as someone whose father did actually leave the family (admittedly I was legally an adult, though my brother was not), I find the "leaving father" concept just a touch melodramatic. Sad as I am, it's just not quite the analogy to resonate with me. But I empathise with any feelings of sorrow or abandoment.

Oh yes, Maclin, I was thinking more of another blogger. Although her own family life was far more difficult than mine, so I don't begrudge her use of this analogy. And of course, her early suffering may make her particularly vulnerable to feeling abandoned.

Thank you. I'm extremely pleased to hear that. I count myself very fortunate to have such intelligent and civil people commenting here.

I generally find the comments on the average blog a mixed bag. To be truly and thoroughly appalled, I dip into the comments on some big news site with a mass audience. Not for very long, though.