Occam's Razor and the Pope

[arely staircase]

On the one hand it seems quite plausibly simple that the man so close to the last pope had sworn long ago that if ever pope himself, he would never go through such a public physical decline.

A more sinister possibility is that something horrible is about to tie him to the sex abuse scandals (and he already is to some extent.) Now I offer nothing but speculation, but it is an alternative possibility that really isn't any more complex or (im)possible.

Could be a little of both - something is about to come out and he is old.

But remember, no pope has done this since the 1400's. That and the worldwide scope of the sex scandals raises a flag.

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. Yeah, the former seems likely. Remember that address where John Paul II couldn't speak?

I can't find the Youtube now, but the poor guy was up on that big balcony at the Vatican, with this big crowd gathered, and the words just couldn't come out, due to his illness. It really was a negative spectacle for Catholics, broadcast worldwide. I wouldn't be surprised to see a new pope wanting to avoid that... More a symptom of the age of global media than anything else.

[arely staircase]

4. the official story is quite straightforward and plausible

and though sensible, does he plan to set a new precedent? if so, how many retired popes can there be, since they are all supposed to be infallible. does the infallibility discontinue with the office? if not, what if they disagree?

these are not trifle questions and are the types of questions that has probably kept this from happening for over 600 years.

[napoleon_in_rags]

10. Lol! Maybe its an adaptation to the quantum age rather than the age of mass media.

Like quantum "many worlds interpretation", the universe splits whenever two popes disagree, into one where pope A is right and one where pope B is right. I don't know. Its weird looking into other people's faiths.

[arely staircase]

19. quantum pontiffs eom

[AngryOldDem]

15. Popes as a rule are not considered to be infallible unless they are speaking of faith and morals.

Yeah, I know...the irony.

In other words, Popes are infallible when they are speaking "ex cathedra." It's only been done a handful of times in the modern era (circa 1870). What doesn't change is that Popes are considered to be vicars of Christ on Earth, directly descended from Peter. So to just up and resign from such an awesome responsibility is what is so surprising here.

At least, this is this lapsed Catholic's understanding of the concept of infallibility.

[arely staircase]

21. Does he take his old name back?

is he a cardinal again?

[AngryOldDem]

22. Good question.

Given that this is the first time in modern Church history that there will be an ex-Pope, I'm not quite sure what the naming protocol will be.

I would suspect he'll still be called Benedict. Kind of like being an ex-president. You get to keep the title even though you're no longer in office. But this is truly a question for someone who is more up on their Vatican politics.

I don't think he'll go back to being a "mere" cardinal, though.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Once he retires he is no longer Pope.

The infallibility doctrine applies to the office, not the person.

I am a not a Catholic but at least I understand the doctrine.

[Samjm]

2. I think he is more ill than we've been led to believe

Possibly terminal. This way he can gracefully leave and still exert some influence on who the new Pope will be. Him still being alive when the next Pope is chosen means the Cardinals will not likely go for someone very different.

[arely staircase]

6. very possible especially

if it is something that will allow him to remain alive for a long time but in a steadily deteriorating state. say, if he found out he'd be dead of cancer in 6 months he would probably hang in there until the end.

[davidpdx]

11. True, this maybe way he gave his one month's notice to his employer

"uh, God I'm sorry I have to give one month's notice. I'm sure you'll have plenty of time to find my replacement"

[Demo_Chris]

3. No pope in HISTORY has resigned due to ill health

[markpkessinger]

8. Celestine V . . .

. . . in 1294, five months after he became Pope, resigned, citing, among other things, "the deficiencies of his own physical strength," as a reason for his resignation.

[Demo_Chris]

16. Yes, but that seems a bit of a stretch. (cont)

Not an exert by any means, but according to wiki.

* He never wanted to be pope in the first place. He actually refused and even attempted to flee.

* He abdicated only 5 months after taking office citing:

"The desire for humility, for a purer life, for a stainless conscience, the deficiencies of his own physical strength, his ignorance, the perverseness of the people, his longing for the tranquility of his former life".

* After resigning, he apparently again attempted to get the hell away, but the next Pope eventually managed to capture him and lock him up (not sure why). He died in prison ten months later.

Summary: I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim he retired due to his health.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Celestine_V

[AngryOldDem]

23. You really can't compare medieval popes with modern-day popes.

Situations are vastly, vastly different.

[AngryOldDem]

14. Exactly -- and if any Pope had a right to do so it was John Paul II.

He didn't, because Popes don't resign.

Or so the story goes (or went).

[rurallib]

5. harkening to the olden days, I think he's been given

a slow acting poison. Ah! the days of the Borgias return.

[arely staircase]

7. or godfather 3

[lindysalsagal]

9. Either way, this does nothing for the image of the church.

Mucho ant-acid being consumed in the last day, I'll presume. This is gonna cost them $$ and followers.

[RudynJack]

12. Wouldn't it be funny if the cardinals elected...

Joseph Ratzinger?

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in..."

[AngryOldDem]

13. The timing of this is what is odd.

I could see announcing his retirement a year in advance. But two weeks? Popes never step down -- that was the rationale as to why John Paul II didn't, and by comparison Benedict is the picture of health, age notwithstanding.

There is definitely more to this story but it's doubtful we'll ever find out what it is. My guess is he has been up to his beanie in the sex scandal coverup for decades, and I think the tide is turning as to how much global society is willing to ignore. Then, there's the banking scandal, which never has been definitively cleared up...the list goes on. He's been around the corporate offices for awhile so I'm sure he's got his finger in every damn thing going on.

And don't look for any big improvements in his successor, either. It's only going to get worse. I think The Who had the Vatican in mind when they wrote, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

ETA: One more thing. Why resign right before Lent, which is right before the most sacred time of the Church calendar?

Something just ain't adding up here.

[Demo_Chris]

17. I think we WILL find out... (cont)

If the real issue were something they could contain then there is no reason for the Pope to resign. Therefore I can only conclude that whatever it is is something they do not feel they can contain.

It couldn't happen to a more evil bunch of child raping, women hating, hypocritical anti-human torturing totalitarian bastards. In my opinion.

[mtnester]

20. Peter the Roman cometh

if you read any of the Nostradamus prophecies.

It will be interesting who they appoint to succeed him. I am pretty sure they also read that stuff.



Edit - typo only

[REP]

24. He's got a deal with Fox

He's the Sarah Palin of religion.