Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pope To Resign Citing Advanced Age

Posted by samzenpus on from the time-for-golf dept.

Hugh Pickens writes writes "BBC reports that Pope Benedict XVI is to resign at the end of this month in an unexpected development, saying he is too old to continue at the age of 85. In a statement, the pontiff said: 'After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.' Resignations from the papacy are not unknown, but this is the first in the modern era, which has been marked by pontiffs dying while in office."

5 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Mea Maxima Culpa? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

    To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

    1. Re:Mea Maxima Culpa? by Maow · · Score: 5, Informative

      Reading between the lines, I think HBO's recent "Mea Maxima Culpa" was probably a significant factor. His resignation will stave off the worst of the public outcry and demands for deeper revelations from the church about the matters raised there. Hopefully the Catholic Church will be pressed about the issues raised regardless, but his specific, key role in it all is the point at the moment.

      To recap what I read elsewhere: prior to being Pope, he was the head of the modern (renamed) Inquisition, assigned there by the previous pope. In that role, he "took charge" of the recent wave of priest sex abuse scandals since the 90s, ordered all evidence be centralized in his department's archives, and then basically hid it all and did little to actually act on the mountains of evidence they still haven't revealed to prosecutors or the public. It's pretty damning stuff.

      The late, lamented Christopher Hitchens had possibly the ultimate take on the cover-up at Slate.com.

      To quote the appropriately entitled "The Great Catholic Cover-Up: The pope's entire career has the stench of evil about it":

      Very much more serious is the role of Joseph Ratzinger, before the church decided to make him supreme leader, in obstructing justice on a global scale. After his promotion to cardinal, he was put in charge of the so-called "Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" (formerly known as the Inquisition). In 2001, Pope John Paul II placed this department in charge of the investigation of child rape and torture by Catholic priests. In May of that year, Ratzinger issued a confidential letter to every bishop. In it, he reminded them of the extreme gravity of a certain crime. But that crime was the reporting of the rape and torture. The accusations, intoned Ratzinger, were only treatable within the church's own exclusive jurisdiction. Any sharing of the evidence with legal authorities or the press was utterly forbidden. Charges were to be investigated "in the most secretive way ... restrained by a perpetual silence ... and everyone ... is to observe the strictest secret which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office under the penalty of excommunication." (My italics). Nobody has yet been excommunicated for the rape and torture of children, but exposing the offense could get you into serious trouble. And this is the church that warns us against moral relativism! (See, for more on this appalling document, two reports in the London Observer of April 24, 2005, by Jamie Doward.)

  2. Re:Infallible? by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Infallibility doctrine does not apply to everything he says, just specific items of dogma that are specified, and those are usually fairly non-controversial items to believing Catholics.

    In other words, he's not expected to be perfect as a person, but after having duly deliberated on a matter of doctrine, that doctrine could be designated infallible. It's an authority that only the Pope gets to use, and he won't be Pope after he resigns.

  3. Re:News for WHO, exactly? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is news because he is quite possibly the first religious figure to resign short of death, or a war in which thousands die.

    Umm, no.

    He's not even the first Pope to resign. Just the first in "nearly 600 years"....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  4. Re:Pull Your Head Out of Your Ass by mattack2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    since I know there is no way to demonstrate the existence of a god, I am, by definition, without a god -- an atheist

    Umm, no. By that definition, you are an agnostic.

    a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

    I am an atheist because I *believe* there is no god, I am also an agnostic because I realize you can't *prove* there is no god.