On Pope Benedict, Again.

They had just been informed they run the Vatican, and dispose of Popes as they wish…

A certain view of Pope Benedict’s resignation goes along the lines of the Pontiff Emeritus having resigned as a consequence of “pressures”, or even having been “forced” to resign. In this second case, his successor would not be the legitimate… bishop of Rome.

I do not think these theories have any solid fundament in reality. Allow me to explain why.

A) Pressure

A Pope, like every powerful man, is under pressure all the time. Unavoidably, he – and they – will be surrounded by people having different ideas about the course he should take on this or that matter; some of them will be in good faith, and other won’t. It’s all par for the course.

What is not par for the course is a Pope that suddenly begins to do stupid things just because he is put under “pressure” to do so. Pope Ratzinger had a decade-long experience of positions of power; nothing, absolutely nothing of the office life of a powerful man could have been unknown to him. Powerful people know how it works. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be powerful.

The idea of a Ratzinger just deciding that the time has arrived to think with other people’s head, and do what he thinks wrong because others say so, is just untenable and, I add, disrespectful of the former Pontiff, seen as a Romulus Augustulus rather than a true Prince of the Church.

Be it as it may, it might in all cases never be denied that a man who chooses to bend to exterior pressure is himself responsible for his behaviour. Ubi honor, Ibi onus. There is no way Pope Ratzinger might have taken such a decision without bearing all its responsibility. So we are at square one.

B) Threat

Even more absurd is the second hypothesis: that the Pope was “forced”. How do you “force” a Pope to do something he does not want to do? Is our esteem for Benedict so low that we consider him able to bend to, say, the threat of physical violence, or blackmail? What fear of death may a man of 83 have, a Pope to boot? And who on earth would be in a position to threaten or blackmail him without being immediately arrested? Again, this theory is, when reflected upon, even more offensive for the Pontiff Emeritus, who is then seen as having fears for his life, open to blackmail, and outright cowardly. It makes the same sense as to imagine that extraterrestrials would have visited the Pope and said to him either he resigns or they will invade and destroy the Earth in order to devote it to the cultivation of their favourite mushrooms.

No, it doesn’t make sense. What also does not make sense are these equilibrist’s exercises by which every time the Pontiff does something we do not approve of, the reason for it must be looked elsewhere: typically, the culprits are chosen among the “wolves”, as if a Pope could not send all of them to Uganda at three hours’ notice, and as if there were only one of them who is allowed to exert influence on him for even thirty second without his consent.

In addition, this second theory hides a terrible menace to Catholicism: ad libitum Sedevacantism.

If every time we have a bad Pope we start to theorise that the former Pope might have been “forced” to resign (or have been poisoned, or the like) and therefore the current Pope not validly elected, or the result of murderous scheming, we will create an army of Sunday Sedevacantists who think they can decide, by every Pontificate, whether it is a legitimate one or the Sea is vacant. This in itself is a worse danger than every Papal resignation, and can cause immense damage by weakening the dignity and authority of the Papacy.

If I think that I can freely decide whether the Pope is Pope (say, because I have become persuaded the last Pope was illicitly disposed of), it is fair to say I am the last one who can call himself Catholic.

My suggestion is that we leave the conspiracy fantasies where they belong: to the old cranks, the Sunday Novelists and the Vodka Vaticanists – of whom there will never be any scarcity – and start to respect the Papacy, the Popes and common sense.

Benedict “forced” to resign? Seriously, the “extraterrestrial” theory makes more sense.

We live in terrible times for a Catholic; a time in which not only the… Bishop of Rome is very bad (this has often happened in the past, as I will never tire to point out), but the news of how bad he is goes around the world in minutes. We are, therefore, subject to challenges our ancestors did not have. One of the results of this disgraceful Papacy will be to undermine the prestige of the office, and the devil will try to use this to persuade the faithful that the Church is not the Church, or the Pope is not the Pope, or both.

We, who are good and well instructed Caholics, react to such a temptation. We stay faithful to the Only Church as we bemoan Her miserable state, and we stay faithful to the… Bishop of Rome and to the Papacy he does not even want to mention, because as good Catholics we side with the Papacy even when the Pope is an utter disgrace.

Beware the temptation of escaping the drama that is unfolding under our eyes by fleeing to a fantasy world made of non-popes, of “poping wolves”, or of outlandish theories of Vatican Fiction. The reality is bad enough. It is a Cross we are called to carry. Let’s carry it denouncing every falsehood and scandal, but staying faithful to the institutions of the Church and the Papacy.


Posted on August 22, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Quite right – and superbly expressed, M.

  2. Whow! Very good advice. We have to carry the cross of Bischopf Francis, who is pope and don’t want to be pope.

  3. Laudetur Jesus Christus!

    I’m not a sedevacantist (and trying not to become one), however, their position certainly appears to be increasingly plausible…and more logical than others. How many years and decades, and how many pontiffs and bishops spreading heresy and apostasy do we need to see before we realize this is something more than merely bad popes?
    The council and its doctrines, canon law, liturgy, encyclicals, catechisms, (not to mention the actions of several pontiffs)…all containing heretical and condemned ideas. And yet we know the true Church can not teach error and things harmful to our salvation. I have yet to hear any even half-plausible explanation that reconciles those two facts.

    In any case, thanks for your blog!

    • The Church cannot teach error in a dog attic way. The Church cannot, in a way, change the Truth.

      Clergymen, on the other hand, can – and did on several occasion – spread or defend false teachings.

      Was the Sea vacant when John XXII publicly declared there can be no beatific vision before the Last Judgment? He recanted only very shortly before his dead, so did he plunge the Church into Sedevacantism?

      Pope Liberius condemned Athanasius for being… Orthodox, and even forbade to say the Creed, which is a dogmatic statement. Was the Sea vacant during his papacy? These are only two of the most famous examples.

      Then there are the many examples of Popes whose conduct was so disgraceful as to make the faithful ashamed to this day. Did people start to say “at which point this is something more than merely bad Popes”?

      Some Popes are bad, some are horrible, some are heretics (John XXII is truly an extreme example of that). But they are still Popes.


  4. ‘Recognise and Resist’, Mundabor. We recognise HH. Francis I as ‘Bishop of Rome’ (that does not merely annoy me, it disturbs me greatly), Pope and God’s Vicar on Earth, but when he tries to destroy the Faith, we resist him to his face. The conciliar Popes are recreant, as they refuse to defend the Faith. The Brazilian scandal made me think how deep the apostasy has gone. The conciliar Bishops are barely Catholic. Conciliarism is not Catholicism!

    • I would say that conciliarism is a very bad Catholicism, or is a Catholicism with Protestant influences.

      In my opinion, we must pay attention to the words we use. If I say that I recognise the Pope, it does not make much sense that I recognise him as the head of a non Catholic Church.

      It’s like having an alcoholic mother.

      Perhaps barely recognisable at times. But still the mother.


  5. Traditionalcatholic, you make no new point.
    Sedevacantism is not allowed here.

%d bloggers like this: