The Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI: Out with God’s Rottweiler
RELIGION, 18 Feb 2013
The Pope, formerly known as Joseph Ratzinger, just wants to get back to his first love: zinging rats.
John Moe, tweet on 11 Feb 2012
“There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving examination as the Roman Catholic Church.” So wrote Thomas Babington Macaulay in his known review of Leopold von Ranke’s mammoth The Ecclesiastical and Political History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1840). Such a complex organism certainly demands close scrutiny, and when something as unusual as a Papal resignation is announced, the cat is certainly bound to find itself among unsuspecting pigeons.
Pope Benedict XVI’s announcement that he will be leaving the office he has held since 2005 was one such event, suggesting that the aging pontiff may wish to return to this scriptorium to hold up the fort against secularism. Dan Brown will probably be scribbling something in parallel, smelling a conspiracy to ponder – the last time this happened was in 1415 when Pope Gregory XII stepped down. Certainly, the Tweeters are happy to mock the exiting Pontiff, some in more genteel ways than others. “The Pope is resigning,” observed Guy Nicolucci. “Probably wants to spend more time with his wife and family.” That is what you get when you enter the world of Twitter.
When Ratzinger was elected Pontiff, he tended to be regarded as a spiffy, sharper version John Paul II, part ideological attack dog and part doctor, taking the pulse of the Catholic faithful. When it came to the more reactionary elements in the church, he cultivated and pampered them with enthusiasm. As the Neue Rheinische Zeitung reported (Feb 11, 2009), Ratzinger during the time of John Paul II, ensured a good number of Opus Dei members and their supporters election to the College of Cardinals.
Benedict XVI found himself holding the broom of history, cleaning out the stables, re-ordering the furniture and dealing with much he would rather not have. During his papacy, legal scholars pondered whether it would be possible to take him to court over administrative complicity in child abuse. Then came the issues of head of state and accountability – was the man even liable in any practical let alone juridical sense for those thousands of damaged beings? “Ratzinger,” explained Jakob Purkarthofer, “was part of a system and co-responsible for these crimes” (Guardian, Feb 11).
One example of the Pope’s conduct when it came to confronting matters of child abuse comes to mind. As head of the Doctrine for the Congregation of the Faith, the then Cardinal Ratzinger ordered that Fr. Lawrence Murphy, who had sexually assaulted at least 200 children at St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee, leave the ministry. All to the good, except that Murphy was not defrocked let alone punished or prosecuted via formal legal channels. Besides, no one was particularly interested in listening to deaf victims.
Victims of abuse at the hands of clergy will simply remind Benedict XVI that it was under his pontificate that the revelations bubbled and boiled. Some church officials were irritated, notably Cardinal Sodano who saw such accusations as “idle gossip”. As Pope, God’s Rottweiler seemed reluctant to bite, let alone bark. The stories are numerous and ghastly – incidents where priests were shuffled about; cases where pledges for silence were made. Matthias Katsch of the NetworkB group concerned with German clerical abuse victims claimed that, “The rule of law is more important than a new pope.” Norbert Denef, the group’s chairman, was blunt: “We will not miss this Pope.”
The singularity of the Catholic Church is an intentional, extra-legal construction. In terms of criminal law, labour law and matters of state subsidies, the status of the church in many countries is one of employer and educator. Katsch has called for an end to such exceptionality, urging German lawmakers to bring the Catholic Church into standard legal frameworks.
So the Benedict legacy is one of mild promise, revelations and shadows cast by the previous pontificate. Vatican II has started to develop mouldy encrustations. Priests in some countries are becoming schismatic – the Austrian case being notable in the wake of child abuse claims there. It’s not so much a broom as an entire refurbishment that is required.
This then, is a battle to the finish in terms of recognition. “No matter how tired or weak Pope Benedict may be, he still has two weeks to use his vast power to protect youngsters,” urges Barbara Dorris from the protection group SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests). This, to put it mildly, would be an understatement, but what do you expect when the wolf is asked to reform his harmful ways to sheep? Any outcome is bound to be unsatisfying.
Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: email@example.com
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.