PopeWatch: Pope Emeritus

In his retreat on the Vatican hill, Joseph Ratzinger just won’t keep quiet. Neither in the written nor in the spoken word.

In the anticipation of the early autumn release of his book-length interview with Peter Seewald, a new monumental biography will arrive in bookstores tomorrow, written by his friend the theologian Elio Guerriero, introduced with a preface by Pope Francis and ending with an interview of the ex-pope conducted by the author, previewed on August 25 by the newspaper “la Repubblica”:

> Ratzinger confessa: “Troppo stanco, così ho lasciato il ministero petrino

In the interview, Ratzinger once again explains that the only reason for his resignation of the papacy was his loss of energy. Thereby contradicting his successor Francis, who in an interview last July 3 with “La Nación” asserted that the abdication of Benedict XVI “had nothing to do with anything personal.”

But there is one point, among others, one which the two latest successors of Peter agree. Both of them give credence to the figure of the “pope emeritus,” a figure that however has no precedent, whether historical, theological, or juridical.

Francis writes in this regard, in the preface to the book previewed on August 24 by the newspaper “Avvenire”:

“For the Church, the presence of a pope emeritus in addition to the one in office is an innovation. [. . .] It expresses in a particularly evident manner the continuity of the Petrine ministry, without interruption, like the links of a selfsame chain joined together by love.”

Not only that. It is known that the prefect of the pontifical household, Georg Gänswein – who as Ratzinger’s personal secretary before, during, and after his pontificate is certainly the person closest to him – has pressed much further in setting forth this contemporaneous presence of the two popes, according to him almost “an expanded ministry,” “in common,” with “a collegial and synodal dimension’:

> Not One Pope But Two, One “Active” and One “Contemplative” (17.6.2016)

But it is not known to what extent Ratzinger may share the reckless ideas asserted in public by his secretary. What is ever more certain, however, is that some of the most competent and authoritative figures of the circle closest to the ex-pope are absolutely opposed to them.

One of these is Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, an illustrious Church historian, who last July spoke out in tough critical terms not only against the figure of the “pope emeritus,” but also against the goodness of Ratzinger’s abdication itself:

> Brandmüller: “The Resignation of the Pope Is Possible, But May It Never Happen Again” (18.7.2016)

Another is Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, a luminary of canon law and secretary of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, who in an interview with Andrea Tornielli for “Vatican Insider” on August 25 ripped to pieces the juridical and theological sustainability of the title “pope emeritus” being applied to one who has abdicated the papacy:

> Sciacca: “Non può esistere un papato condiviso”

Sciacca is bound to Ratzinger by a longstanding and solid friendship, which still lives on after his abdication. And this friendship lends that much more power to his criticism against the title of “pope emeritus,” which Ratzinger was the first to attribute to himself.

In the body of the interview, Sciacca demolishes the ideas of those who maintain that by abdicating Benedict XVI has renounced only the active exercise of the papal “ministry,” but has kept its “munus.”

But it is at the end – reproduced below – that the canonist’s criticisms are aimed against the figure of the “pope emeritus,” of which he spares practically nothing. And Sciacca also advances reservations on the abdication of the papacy in general.

It will be interesting to unearth, in the future spoken and written forays of ex-pope Ratzinger, some indication of his judgment on this double barrage of friendly fire aimed right at him by the unimpeachable Sciacca and Brandmüller.

___________

Pope emeritus? An aberration

From the interview with Giuseppe Sciacca on “Vatican Insider,” August 15, 2016

Q: What do you think of the designation of “pope emeritus.”

A: The expression “pope emeritus” or “pontiff emeritus” would seem to denote a sort of pontifical authority distinct from a further type of exercise of it. An exercise not identified, never defined in any doctrinal document, and impossible to comprehend, that is taken to have been the object of resignation. Arguing in this way, part of the pontifical authority would remain with the emeritus, even if, as is said, the exercise of it is prohibited. But the prohibition of the exercise of that which by its nature is essentially free in its exercise (potestas) is nonsense. The irrationality of this idea and the possible interpretive errors that stem from it therefore appear evident.

Q: You would have preferred the title of “bishop emeritus of Rome” for the pope who resigns?

A: No, I maintain that this solution would be just as problematic, even though some authoritative canonists may have upheld it: pope, pontiff, or bishop of Rome are in fact substantially synonymous. The problem is not the substantive, “pope” or “bishop of Rome,” but the adjective “emeritus,” which bears a sort of duplication of the papal image.

Q: What hypothesis would you have preferred or would you like to suggest?

A: First of all I would like to preface: I am not among those who hope that the resignation of the papacy may become a custom. On the contrary! Purely as a working hypothesis, if we should wish to sketch out for the resigning pontiff a possible legislative forecast for the future, the most congruous solution would seem to me that of the conferral of the title of “former supreme pontiff.” Or that of stipulating the reinsertion of the resigner in the college of cardinals, in the order of bishops, by the new pope. And to emphasize the “singularity” of the new officeholder, in the hypothesis in which all the  suburbicarian sees should be occupied, to insert him – ad personam – among the Eastern patriarchs who are members of the college of cardinals. “Salvo meliori iudicio,” as we are always accustomed to conclude the views that we advisors give to the dicasteries.