Should Pope Benedict Resign?

[johnladder]

The Pope is a religious figure and can only be defended in a religious manner. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. Those who defend him use Catholic language and Catholic logic. Non-Catholics do not understand the Pope or the Papacy, and they have no right to demand that the Sovereign Pontiff resign.

The people who say our arguments are “religious babble” are the same people who say that there is no God. There is no way to defend the Pope when speaking to these people. They are on a totally different wave-length.

Are you saying that Catholic logic is somehow special? To the extent that much of Catholic doctrine runs counter to biblical teaching, I agree that much “Catholic logic” is unsound.

The Pope is not Sovereign in the Kingdom of God. So says Jesus, and Paul, and Peter.

Where child abuse and homosexuality occur under the leadership of any “leader”, the people in the community most certainly have a right to demand the removal of the leader from his position of influence.

 

[IHeartBenedict]

Are you saying that Catholic logic is somehow special? To the extent that much of Catholic doctrine runs counter to biblical teaching…

Correction: It runs counter to your personal interpretation of scripture. Well, your personal interpretation of scripture is not scripture itself.

Catholic Doctrine is infallible. It contains no error. I cannot say the same for your personal interpretation of scripture.
.

…The Pope is not Sovereign in the Kingdom of God…

The Pope is the succesor of Peter and Vicar of Christ. He is the supreme pastor of Christ’s TRUE Church

 

[CMatt25]

If an investigation reveals that the charges are true, he should resign.

Every person complicit is allowing these pedophile priests to be moved quietly from post to post committing more and more atrocities should resign.

They really should be properly punished but resignation is a start.

:sad_yes:

 

[Zatzat]

I suspect that more and more dirt will be uncovered in the coming months. These scandals likely will continue to grow, along with more and more scrutiny of the Pope.

 

[momor]

They say: The pope is not above the law.
We say: Everyone is subject to the law. You must still prove that he violated the law. Even if you could, you now have an additional problem, he no longer lives in Germany. Are you suggesting that the Germans invade the Vatican to bring the pope back to stand trial in Germany?

This is the logic that these people understand. From what I see coming out of the Vatican, that’s what they are using. Thy are taking the position that they have told the truth and if someone does not beleive what they have said, they have to prove it, not just make assumptions. We don’t hear Cardinal Bertoli using theological language on this matter. He uses logic.

That’s what I’m getting at.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I have to say I think your last example is flawed. They would rightfully say that if he did violate the law he should turn himself in and not wait for the German govt to bring him back to stand trial. It is the moral authority that people want to see exercised, not the letter of international law.

The people who are angy about Cardinal Law’s appointment in Rome are, I believe, saying the same thing. They don’t care if canon law precludes forcing him to take certain assignments. Where is the moral persuasion from the Vatican and fellow cardinals to do penance in a place where he will not be in the public eye any longer. The message appears to be that he is just fine where he is and he can just go on holding a very public place in the Church, close to the Vatican.

To those on this forum that wish this thread would just go away I ask: Have you spent any time and study on the problem of sexual abuse in the Catholic clergy? Have you actually investigated what went on in dioceses that transferred sexual predators from parish to parish? Or have you always turned your eyes away from these kinds of reports, being unwilling to discover the ugly truth? There are loads of internal documents on the web now which dioceses were forced to post as a result of legal actions taken by abuse victims. They are truly disgusting.

The Catholic Church will indeed prevail regardless of the (in)actions of indivduals. It is possible that things may get much worse before they get better. I believe the Holy Spirit protects her. It is perhaps God’s will that the Church be brought low and emptied out in order to be renewed and built up again. The media is guilty of a lot of abuse, but don’t be afraid to find out the truth for yourself. Don’t write off everything as simply attacks from the liberal media.

 

[JReducation]

Where child abuse and homosexuality occur under the leadership of any “leader”, the people in the community most certainly have a right to demand the removal of the leader from his position of influence.

That is not always true for several reasons. The person at the top is not always cognizant of what goes on at the bottom. We’re talking about the Catholic Church here, which competes with China in population, except that the 2 billion Catholics don’t all live in the same country. You can’t be everywhere and know everything.

Second, people who commit these abuses do not annouce them before hand. They have in secrecy. You would have to prove that their superior knew this and accepted it. In this case, you would have to prove that the pope knows this and accepts it. He knows that there are abuses. He does not know who and where. He gets that information after the fact and usually long after the fact.

Third, the abuses have not impaired his ability to run the Catholic Church. No head of state is ever asked to resign unless he can no longer fulfill his obligations or abuses his subjects. This is not the case here.

Fourth, a pope cannot be removed from office. There is no provision for this in theology or Church Law, nor can the laity ask for his romoval. We do not have that kind of authority or voice in the Church. We have a right to communicate concerns to the hierarchy and to report problems. We even have a right to trials. But we do not have the right to demand this. That right was not given to the Church by Christ or ever mentioned by the Apostles. We cannot change what we are not authorized to change.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I have to say I think your last example is flawed. They would rightfully say that if he did violate the law he should turn himself in and not wait for the German govt to bring him back to stand trial. It is the moral authority that people want to see exercised, not the letter of international law.
.

I deleted the rest of your post, because this the part that I found very interesting and what I’m about to say actually speaks to this and the Cardinal Law issue.

The argument is not flawed, from a moral perspective. Moral law says that a person has a right to a trial and that the state has a right to try someone. That is true. But Church law, which is based on moral law also says that the Pope is subject to no one except Christ himself, unless he commits heresy in which case he loses the papacy. Then a council must depose him.

Since this is not a case of heresy, but of sexual immorality and a very serious case of injustice too, the demands do not apply. It would be damaging to the Church for the pope to allow himself to be put on trial. That would be immoral. The moral law is always to do the highest good. The highest good is to preserve the autonomy and the dignity of the papacy.

This also applies in Cardinal Law’s case. The highest good is to take way his Ordinary jurisdiction. Anything that would have violated Church law would have not been the highest good.

In simple words, the highest good is the best that you can do under the circumstances. Nothing that you do is going to make the damage go away. You must do the best you can to heal the person who is hurt and the sinner too.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[IHeartBenedict]

That is not always true for several reasons. The person at the top is not always cognizant of what goes on at the bottom…

Yes. That is like saying if an FBI Agent did something wrong, Obama should have known about it immediately.

 

[CMatt25]

However, you are writing as a member of a Protestant ecclesial community that does not recognize the Church as the True Church nor the authority of the Holy Father. Thus, with all due respect, your opinion is not formed with an understanding of the Church.

This is a very bad thread which should be closed. People with little to no understanding of the Church and with very little to no regard (let alone, respect) for Pope Benedict XVI are opining on things that they do not, as I read the posts, quite understand. Such a thread does no one any good and is an embarassment for these forums.

I find this is too often a typical response on CAF. Catholics always assuming a lack of knowledge by others simply because they don’t agree. And at least we ought to consider the embarrassment to the Church by the continuous defense of those covering up child abuse. Shouldn’t we face up and not hide our faces in the sand just to safe face?

 

[tweetymom]

I find this is too often a typical response on CAF. Catholics always assuming a lack of knowledge by others simply because they don’t agree. And at least we ought to consider the embarrassment to the Church by the continuous defense of those covering up child abuse. Shouldn’t we face up and not hide our faces in the sand just to safe face?

Yes , yes indeed.

 

[Hiskid1973]

Yes. That is like saying if an FBI Agent did something wrong, Obama should have known about it immediately.

Or OB found out after the fact, had things covered and had the issue sanitized…Those on the top bear responsibility no matter where it’s committed…The burden of proof causes it to be unearthed to show all responsible…

 

[Hiskid1973]

I find this is too often a typical response on CAF. Catholics always assuming a lack of knowledge by others simply because they don’t agree. And at least we ought to consider the embarrassment to the Church by the continuous defense of those covering up child abuse. Shouldn’t we face up and not hide our faces in the sand just to safe face?

Absolutely, this would take away a lot of fuel being thrown on the fire…

 

[GEddie]

Where child abuse and homosexuality occur under the leadership of any “leader”, the people in the community most certainly have a right to demand the removal of the leader from his position of influence.

But those outside the community do NOT, yet that is what is happening. If Hugo Chavez were to demand that our President resign, should our nation take that into account?

 

[JReducation]

Or OB found out after the fact, had things covered and had the issue sanitized…Those on the top bear responsibility no matter where it’s committed…The burden of proof causes it to be unearthed to show all responsible…

There is a difference between being the person responsible for trying to fix a problem and being culpable. To say that the person at the top is always culpable is a gross violation of justice. Regardless of his posiition, justice must be equitable. You can’t blame someone for something that they did not do. That is moral law. Civil law may say something different, but civil law is not always moral.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Hiskid1973]

There is a difference between being the person responsible for trying to fix a problem and being culpable. To say that the person at the top is always culpable is a gross violation of justice. Regardless of his posiition, justice must be equitable. You can’t blame someone for something that they did not do. That is moral law. Civil law may say something different, but civil law is not always moral.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Leadership is responsible for what goes on underneath them tho, whether guilty or not…They show be spearheading an effort to cooperate and turn over what is known…Justice will prevail, God will vindicate those who walk uprightly…

 

[JReducation]

**Leadership is responsible for what goes on underneath them **tho, whether guilty or not…They show be spearheading an effort to cooperate and turn over what is known…Justice will prevail, God will vindicate those who walk uprightly…

Actually this is contrary to Church law and tradition. Each diocese is a Church. It is the bishop of that diocese who has the duty to oversee the diocese. Even there, there are exceptions in the law. Bishops do not have jurisdiction over religious men. That falls under the major religius superior.

We cannot change the structure of the Church to satisfy modern man. The structure of the Church is based on the Apostolic structure. Peter’s job was to govern and to feed the sheep with the truth. It was not to run every Church that the other apostles founded. They each had their own leadership. When the Dessert Fathers founded religious life, they had their own leadership independent of the bishop.

This is the way that it has been for 2,000 years. The pope governs the entire Church. He teaches the entire Church, but he does not supervize the entire Church. The structure was not set up that way by Christ or the Apostles. That is why in our 2,000 year history popes have never willingly subjected themselves to secular governments to the popular demands. Becaues this was not what was expected of Peter. He was in a very different social position from the rest of the Apostles. He could govern them, but they had to run their own Churches, not him. It’s never been changed. Popes do not interfere in the internal affairs of a diocese unless the bishop cannot handle it.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bookgirl32]

Leadership is responsible for what goes on underneath them tho, whether guilty or not…They show be spearheading an effort to cooperate and turn over what is known…Justice will prevail, God will vindicate those who walk uprightly…

This is all cracking me up in way because there is this ongoing complete misunderstanding of what the office of the Pope is in and of itself. We may as well start another thread on infallibility and how no one understands it for how well some of these comments are displaying correct understanding of the office as Pope as defined by the Church. This is the same problem as when the media calls for the priests to be “fired” by the Church. Being a priest isn’t a public declaration by the Church of the impeccability of the man. Being a priest does not guarantee sinlessness in the person. Being a priest is not “revocable” as the media seems to want to suggest. A priest can be disclipined, but he can’t no longer be a priest. If the Pope is personally culpable for something (and I’m not saying he is) then punishment is logical. It is not logical, if you truly understand what being the Pope is, to consider a forced resignation a suitable punishment for personal culpability (that no one can prove, by the way). If it was, then Peter would’ve resigned himself right then and there when he denied Christ.

 

[Hiskid1973]

This is all cracking me up in way because there is this ongoing complete misunderstanding of what the office of the Pope is in and of itself. .

How is it with popes in the past being put out for impropriety…You don’t think leadership is accountable? What about the Corinth church? You don’t think the guilty parties and those involved in cover up should receive due penalty no matter what position they hold ? You don’t avdocate they "fess up " from the top down and turn guilty parties over to the law ?

 

[bookgirl32]

How is it with popes in the past being put out for impropriety…

You’re assuming this ever happened, it never has. The only issue in question was when there was one true pope and several false popes simultaneously and the false popes were confirmed false. That’s not the same thing.

You don’t think leadership is accountable?

Of course it’s accountable. When did I say that it wasn’t? I’m simply saying that it displays a misunderstanding of the actual office of the Pope as the Church defines it to say that a forced resignation of the office is a logical punishment for a crime. The office isn’t a reward in the way that a public official is rewarded with office by benefit of a public vote. So a forced recognition of the office is not a public statement of culpability in the same way as a resignation of public office would be. To put it simply, what it would say is that the Holy Spirit was wrong.

What about the Corinth church? You don’t think the guilty parties and those involved in cover up should receive due penalty no matter what position they hold ?

I’m not saying they shouldn’t receive due penalty. I’m saying that in thinking that a forced resignation of the office of the pope would actually be the said “due penalty” you are greatly misunderstanding what the office is in the first place.

 

[Hiskid1973]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t receive due penalty. I’m saying that in thinking that a forced resignation of the office of the pope would actuall be the said “due penalty” you are greatly misunderstanding what the office is in the first place.

Only church leadership would remove those in authority if found guilty of the crime or cover up. Civil could would then do thier part for those accused…No, the secular govt has no rule over church authority…It is the church that is to be harmless as a dove, policing it’s own ranks…