Is it time to think again about a mandatory retirement age for Popes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximian
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even if you had a young pope there is nothing to say he won’t have a heartattack or develop Alzheimer’s or something else.
 
Vatican II “earnestly requested” that bishops less capable of fulfilling their duties due to age (it did not provide a particular age) offer their resignation on their own accord or upon the invitation of the competent authority (Christus Dominus 21). The reasoning the Council gave was that the office of bishop was “so important and weighty.” Given that reasoning, it seems this earnest request would apply even more so to the bishop of the diocese of Rome since his office is even more weighty and important.

Pope Paul VI established specific ages for which bishops were required to offer their resignation to him, but he did not choose to ever resign himself despite exceeding the ages in question (which was his prerogative). Of course, bishops are free to request retirement earlier and the Pope can keep them on longer so it’s not strictly a one-size-fits-all mandatory retirement age for other bishops either.

Personally, I don’t like the idea of any bishop retiring (before it became a standard practice, the Church had ways of assisting a sick or aged bishop, without officially removing him from his see), and in the past, if they did, they were at least given a titular see. See-less bishops are somewhat anomalous (but not strictly unheard of) in Church history. But if we’re going to do it for the reasons Vatican II gave, then Popes should be logically consistent about it when it comes to themselves. But having a strictly fixed age doesn’t make sense in any case.
 
Last edited:
We always assume that when we got bad Popes in the past that was not under the purview of GOD. Even when something evil happens HE allows it to bring a greater good.
We might be able to see the why and the how because we are limited to what we can observe of the human timeline.
In due time we shall all see the full scope. Rest assured.

Peace!
 
JerryZ said:
St. John Paul II set a wonderful example for us Catholics on the value of suffering and offering it up to GOD as well as let HIM decide when it is enough.
Pope Emeritus thought otherwise and that is OK too.
Click to expand...
John Paul the Great could have provided the good example as a Pope emeritus.

I really admire Benedict for his decision. It sets such a good example for secular leaders.

Jesus taught servant-leadership, not trying to maintain power for as long as possible.

So when Benedict thought he was no longer capable of serving adequately as Pope, he admirably moved aside for someone else.

I know what those who are not fans of Francis are thinking. I’m not going there : )

I was a little young during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI so I’d be grateful for the thoughts of others who are a little older. It is my impression that some of the problems in the church during the mid 1970s could have been reduced if Pope Paul had retired when he was no longer able to serve.

Medicine has progressed such that elderly people often live for many years with poor health. Almost none of them would think about trying to work in that state. Why should the pope?
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with the way it is now. The ultimate Head of the Church is Jesus. Jesus can end the term of a Pope at His pleasure. Why should there be a human imposed age limit when the Head of the Church can simply end a Papacy at will?
 
Benedict himself caused this confusion when he chose to keep his Pope name instead of going back to Cardinal or Bishop like his predecessors who also resigned…
 
It’s no different to retired presidents still being referred to as “Mr President”. People just love conspiracies.
 
That will come with time, there was a rumour that Francis might resign at some stage but think it was just sedes wishful thinking.
 
There is no conspiracy. It is just cause and consequence. He kept his Pope name and it created some confusion. Conspiracies derived from this confusion though.

PS - The office of the president is different from the Pope’s. The former is made to be temporary as the general rule rule whereas the latter lasts until the person dies as general rule.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing like the position of Pope but as a comparison for a title it works.
 
I understand what you mean. People do call former presidents as ‘president’. However, this is a cultural thing which does not correspond to legal definitions.

The term ‘former president’ is actually an official term defined by law. Here it is, taken from the Former Presidents Act
(f) As used in this section, the term “former President” means a person–
(1) who shall have held the office of President of the United States of America;
(2) whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and
(3) who does not then currently hold such office.
Click to expand...
I think people shouldn’t be calling a former president as president because of this (legalism maybe)…

On the other hand, Pope Benedict XVI made it official when he decided to call himself Pope emeritus. There is a figure called Bishop emeritus and I think Pope Benedict based on it, since being Pope is being Bishop of Rome. He did nothing wrong legally speaking, I think, but just look at the confusion it created. It is undeniable…
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top