Shocking News from Rome

To say I was shocked upon hearing this news first thing this morning would be an understatement. Tory Royalist called me up and I was told, "you're not going to believe this" and indeed it took a bit of frantic channel flipping and listening to the full statement before I accepted that this was not some sort of joke. His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI has announced his abdication as Supreme Pontiff, Bishop of Rome, etc, etc. Once the shock sunk in I began to wonder who might be next. The Pope announced his abdication (in Latin -how long will that last now) as being effective from the 28th day of this month, stunning the world. The only reasons given were basically age and infirmity, despite the fact that Benedict XVI is still a young man when compared to Pope Leo XIII who reigned into his 90's and he is certainly far more able than his immediate predecessor Pope John Paul II was in the final years of his papacy. The world has been stunned by this unprecedented event, coming on the heels of the abdication of HM Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands which also sparked a great deal of talk over the (possible but highly unlikely) abdication of HM Queen Elizabeth II. Not having time as yet to check the records, the only prior case of a papal abdication that comes to my mind is that of St Celestine V which happened over seven hundred years ago. There was never a rule against it (and one would be hard to enforce since the Pope can pretty much do as he pleases) but it is as close to being unprecedented as anything could be.

My initial reaction was one of bewilderment. Of all the recent popes, Benedict XVI is the last one I would have expected to walk off the job. John Paul II certainly would have had more justification given his very frail condition (the man could barely even speak) and it would not have surprised me coming from Paul VI who broke with a number of traditions and who was, by the end of his reign, a rather depressed man under criticism from every quarter. For Benedict XVI to abdicate however, I would have bet my last dime that such a thing would never happen. Yet it has. I have to say, in all honesty, my opinion of Benedict XVI is not quite the same as it was when I went to sleep last night, unaware of what was going on in Rome at the time. As I said at the announcement of the Dutch abdication, I am not terribly fond of abdications in general and this one even less so for a variety of reasons.

In some monarchies, like The Netherlands, abdication has become the norm rather than the exception. This is certainly not the case at the Vatican and, whereas the next King of The Netherlands is a known quantity, no one knows who will be elected to sit on the Throne of St Peter after Benedict XVI. He has done a good deal to "pack the college" as they say, but there is still no guarantee when it comes to elections. It also seems incredible that Benedict XVI could cite age and infirmity as reasons for his abdication given what was endured by John Paul II. The Pope also made mention of his increasing inability to travel and yet, such travels are hardly a job requirement. In the history of the papacy they are a recent innovation. I don't think any pontiff from Pius VII to Paul VI ever left Italy and, of course, from Leo XIII to Benedict XV no pope ever even left Vatican City. In short, none of the reasons given really seem to hold up in my opinion and it makes me rather sad to say so. The papacy does not have to be simply a young man's job.

As with secular monarchs, and perhaps even moreso, the individual ability of a Pope is but one aspect of a larger picture. He serves a purpose simply by being there, by just existing he symbolizes a great deal and he is there, not just for what he can do, but for his people to believe in, to be a reassurance that the chain is unbroken, the bridge is still standing and, to quote a famous poem, "God is in his Heaven and all is right with the world". He could have carried out his mission (in my opinion) without ever even leaving the Apostolic Palace if he did not feel up to it and, though I am sorry if this offends anyone, it just seems to me like throwing in the towel. From what I have seen, most seem to be shocked but wishing the Pope well and accepting that he made the right decision. For myself, I cannot totally agree. Some important steps were made during his reign for a return to tradition and who is to say what will become of that now? Everyone should hope for the best but it seems to me that this is not something that we should have to be faced with right now -and goodness knows I can already hear the conspiracy mill getting fired up. This will be their biggest boost since the sudden death of John Paul I.

I suppose I could look at it as a good thing that most people seem to be reacting as positively and trustingly as they are. However, and again I am sorry if this offends or upsets anyone, the nagging notion at the back of my mind continues to be that this is simply quitting. In my view, that is a luxury a pope does not have barring some extraordinary circumstances. The captain is supposed to go down with the ship and if God chooses you for a position, you do your best in that position until God himself calls you home and not before. If that means the Pope can no longer travel, no problem, the people can come to him. Again, I think of John Paul II who could barely speak and could not move around on his own at all, yet he continued to soldier on and gave the world an example about how to deal with suffering and how to honor and appreciate the elderly. This is significant to me only because I could accept such an abdication more easily if there was some better reason for it but old age just doesn't pass muster with me and I never thought Benedict XVI would be one to do it. True, as a cardinal he had tried to resign before but John Paul II would not allow it and the then Cardinal Ratzinger said that he could not simply retire while seeing what the Pope at the time was going through, with even greater burdens than he had, without giving up.

I wish I could be more positive about this and, believe it or not, I do try to look on the bright side of things once in a while but, so far, I really cannot see this as a good thing. Perhaps it will take a little time to see it differently. In any case, I wish the soon-to-be former Pope all the best and I hope a worthy man is chosen to take his place. One sure way to tell will be if there is a coronation or not. After all, we have been told that with Benedict XVI it was talked about but that there simply wasn't time to organize such a ceremony. Well, this time there shouldn't be any excuses. If the next pope wants one, there is no good reason why he shouldn't have one. That will tell us something about the man from the very start.

Papal Profile: Pope Benedict XVI

The first pontiff of the Third Millenium, Pope Benedict XVI was born Joseph Alois Ratzinger in the small Bavarian town of Marktl am Inn on Holy Saturday, 1927. His father was a policeman and his mother was from the Austrian region of Tyrol, and both were devout Catholics. His father retired in 1927 and the family tried their best to avoid the expanding Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler, Ratzinger's father being a known critic of the Nazis -the same party which dismissed Catholicism as a religion of "Jews and Romans". He escaped service throughout most of World War II because of his age, but as the situation grew worse he was forced into the Air Force in 1943 but never served in any combat role. Later he was pressed into the labor corps where he worked in Eastern Europe before being released and drafted into the army, but his unit never went to the front. Before the war ended, young Joseph deserted at the risk of his life because of his opposition to the Nazi regime. He knew he had a religious calling and was determined to spend his life serving the Church.

After attending the seminary, where he did very well having a reputation as a very intelligent, devout and scholarly young man with an "angelic" singing voice, he was ordained a priest in 1951 along with his older brother Georg. He continued his studies and in 1958 became a professor at Freising College. The following year he took a post at the University of Bonn where he served until 1963 when he transferred to the University of Munster. His reputation had become so great that Joseph Cardinal Frings of Koeln, Germany took Fr. Ratzinger with him as his theologian to the Second Vatican Council. Ratzinger was included as one of the reformers of Vatican II, but would later write extensively on the need to "reform the reforms" of the council. Like many at the time, he thought the changes outlined by the Council were necessary but that these were often implemented in such a way as to remove any value or even be harmful to the Church and its work.

In 1966 Ratzinger went to work at the University of Tuebingen, but later resigned because of the increasing acceptance of secularism, atheism and Marxism. He became an outspoken but very thoughtful critic of such rising world-wide trends as materialism, communism, liberalism and the acceptance of homosexuality. In March of 1977 Ratzinger was named Archbishop of Munich and Freising, taking as his motto, "be co-workers in the truth". Three years later he was given the rank of cardinal by HH Pope Paul VI. Shortly after the accession of Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger was named Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1981. This office, known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition before Pope St Pius X changed it in 1908, made Cardinal Ratzinger the chief enforcer of orthodox doctrine for the Church. The former Holy Office couldn’t have been in better hands.

While doing his duty in this office, Cardinal Ratzinger gained many friends and more than a few enemies because of his firm determination to uphold Catholic doctrine. Some of the issues he tackled which gained him fame and notoriety were his writings explaining that Catholics who voted for pro-abortion politicians were cooperating with a sinful act, that women could not be ordained priests, that homosexuality was wrong and homosexual marriages an absolute sacrilege and firmly upholding the supremacy of the Catholic Church as the one, true church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. Many non-Catholics were outraged by this as were many Catholics (or “Catholics”) who had been advocating that the Church embrace things like abortion, gay “marriage” and ordain women. While Cardinal Ratzinger was on guard, such agendas were certain to go nowhere. As he grew older, Cardinal Ratzinger tried several times to retire, but Pope John Paul II would not let this most devout and faithful cardinal go. Finally, as Dean of the College of Cardinals, Ratzinger had the sad duty of presiding over the funeral of Pope John Paul II after his death on April 2, 2005.

After the traditional conclave, on the second day of voting, April 19, 2005 Cardinal Ratzinger was elected to the Throne of St Peter, taking the name of Benedict XVI. He announced that the goals of his reign would be to unite all Christians, resist the creeping secularism in the world and uphold the truth and purity of the Church's teaching. Benedict XVI, at 78, is the oldest man elected to the See of Peter since Pope Clement XII in 1730 and is the seventh German pope in history. Many worried that Benedict XVI would be far too authoritarian, but have quickly discovered the warmth, humor and humility of the new Pope. He has spoken out of the need to battle the "dictatorship of relativism" and to unite all Christians without any compromise to the truth because of the pressure of the modern world. This has led to some controversies as the Pope has dealt with other religions though in virtually every case it was a case of hyper-sensitivity or feigned moral outrage rather than any extremism on the part of the Pontiff. Eyebrows were raised when the Pope categorized the Catholic and Orthodox communities as churches but the Protestants as Christian sects. This was, of course, simply a reference to the Apostolic Succession which, generally, Protestants do not consider significant anyway. Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, among others, also expressed outrage when the Pontiff, while visiting South America, said that the indigenous peoples were ’silently longing’ for Christianity. Many people seemed to ignore the basic truth that any Christian would (or should) believe that everyone is longing for Christianity, consciously or not.

Benedict XVI has made sincere efforts at outreach to people of other religious beliefs but many in the secular world cannot see that or understand how the Pope could do so while refusing to compromise the teachings of the Catholic Church. While not relenting in pursuit of the goal of Christian and religious unity, the Pope has also made it clear that past efforts at times mistakenly gave the impression that all beliefs are the same, an impression he has worked to correct, viewing it as another aspect of the tyranny of relativism which he has devoted his reign to opposing. This has also fit in with the noticeably more traditional style of Pope Benedict XVI. Since his election he has elevated the traditional form of the mass (in the Latin language) within the Church, insisted on a more traditional and reverent pose for those receiving communion and has adopted more traditional style vestments than have been seen in recent times. He has also enacted special guidelines to welcome in disgruntled traditional Christians into the Catholic Church, specifically from the Church of England where the embrace of the ordination of women, gay “marriage” and other issues have caused many old-fashioned Anglicans to turn to Rome.

In the past, moves in this direction were often discouraged by many Catholic officials for fear that anything seen as “traditional” would put off younger Catholics and drive people out of the Church. Pope Benedict XVI doesn’t seem to be buying that line of thought. In fact, the Pope has spoken out on several occasions that he believes the Church must hold ever more strongly to traditional truth even while Catholicism may be reduced to small (but devout) isolated communities in a sea of secularism and irreligion. The choice of his reigning name reflects this as well, calling to mind St Benedict, that a new “Dark Ages” is coming which the Church will have to endure, protecting what they have inherited, before going out to start the work of conversion all over again. The quality and ability of Pope Benedict XVI can be easily gauged by simply asking Catholics their opinion of him. Some will have unqualified praise while others will have nothing but criticism. However, it is those who actually attend Church regularly and believe in Church teachings (even the really difficult ones) who think well of him and those who are more ‘Catholics in name only’ who do not. There should be no doubt that, from a Catholic perspective, for devoted Catholics, Benedict XVI has been a great Pontiff. Those who criticize him are generally those who favor innovation and do not view Church history and tradition with great respect. In other words, generally the sort whose criticism speaks well for the person in question.

Anti-Catholicism Alive in Britain

There has been a great deal of talk, for quite some time, about the current visit of HH Pope Benedict XVI to Great Britain. In Britain’s first televised prime ministerial debate the candidates were asked if they would even receive the Pope due to his “outrageous” position on moral issues like homosexuality and birth control. Then there were the insulting comments directed against the Pope from employees of the Foreign Office. Recently, a survey by the Theos think tank found that an overwhelming majority of Britons, some 77%, are against the British government paying for the state visit. I have often been told by friendly Britons, usually when defending some law or custom aimed against Catholics, that modern Great Britain is a very religiously tolerant country where anti-Catholicism is a thing of the past. Frankly, the facts are mounting and I am finding it more and more difficult to be reassured that anti-Catholic bigotry is confined to the history books.

I am sure it did not escape the notice of Catholics in the British Isles that earlier this year Ian Paisley, the man who publicly called Pope John Paul II the anti-Christ, was made a life peer, given the title of baron and a seat in the House of Lords (he also personally attacked his Queen but that seems no impediment to advancement these days either). There were also legal challenges made and threats that these groups would attempt to have the Pope arrested. Given all of that, were I in the Pope’s shoes I think I would have called off the state visit, thanked the Queen for her kind invitation and simply marveled at how much more gracious she is than the majority of her subjects. The Pope, of course, would never do that and even if he did it would surely be counted as a victory for the secularist forces in the U.K. because, no doubt about it, they are the ones behind this even if they stir up Protestant passions among an anti-Catholic but largely irreligious population.

Recent events have convinced me at least that the U.K. is still a largely anti-Catholic country and that I should not have been swayed by those who tried to convince me otherwise. Of course the Pope is being treated well and he was very kindly received by Her Majesty the Queen (this is a state visit of one monarch to another after all) who sometimes seems like the last person in her country to still regard England as the ‘land of good manners’. As many know, this is not a new phenomenon. Anti-Catholic hysteria goes back many centuries with lurid tales of priest-assassins, Catholic plots to “take over” the country, the “Gunpowder Plot”, Titus Oates and so on. Such paranoia helped bring about the English Civil War and later brought down the House of Stuart from their British thrones. Of course, in most of these cases, attacking or destroying Catholicism was not finally the point but was rather a useful tool to stir up popular support for the accomplishment of some ulterior motive such as wealth redistribution, promoting unwanted foreign wars, stripping power from the monarchy and finally changing the dynasty and bringing about an almost purely ceremonial monarchy.

To me it has never made much sense that so many ardent British patriots are so anti-Catholic. Yet, I have heard it time and time again; how in the past monarchs were slaves to their papal master, how cruel and viscous Catholic rulers were and then of course there was the Armada (which I swear is brought up more often than Guy Fawkes -one would think there would be less angst about a battle the Protestants won). I may be deranged but I cannot picture any sensible person looking at the likes of King Richard I, King Henry V or King Edward III and regarding them subservient tools of the Pope in Rome. The supposedly infamous Queen Mary I was often at odds with the Pope (her husband was even excommunicated), James II ignored the advice of the Pope and was even opposed by him in the political sphere. Likewise, there has never been any priestly assassins, the Titus Oates episode was proven a lie and even the suspect Gunpowder Plot” was foiled because of a Catholic tipping off the government.

Moreover in all the time since the “Glorious Revolution” and the Jacobite Uprisings the British Empire was allied with Catholic powers in opposition to the French Revolution and in that glorious period of reactionary resurgence the supporters of the British monarchy and the supporters of the Pope looked upon each other as Allies in the defense of the traditional Europe and in suppressing revolutionary forces. Why can we not have that attitude back again?

*Update - I just saw on the news that five men (Algerian nationals according to the BBC) were arrested for plotting to murder the Pope during his visit. Welcome to the U.K. Your Holiness...

The Pope a Target?

HH Pope Benedict XVI opened Holy Week with the Palm Sunday mass in St Peter's square in the Vatican but in all the news coverage His Holiness' actual religious message was overshadowed by continuing accusations of clerical abuse in Europe, particularly in Ireland and Germany. Is it not odd how all of this comes about just as such similar controversy had died down in the United States. One might think that if people were going to come forward with decades old claims they would be encouraged to do so when others are doing the same rather than waiting until it dies down on one continent only to flare up in another -so that the controversy never ends. But enough about that -that's for a religion blog somewhere to cover.

What has captured my attention in all of this is the calls for the Pope to "resign" (to be correct; abdicate) over these latest scandals. So far these have only come from what a Vichy French police captain would call the 'usual suspects'; secularists, enemies of the Church, the liberal media etc. However, what I find disturbing is that this is not a new suggestion. Readers will recall that when the late Pope John Paul II was near the end of his life and quite infirm there were calls from these same people (all sounding very sympathetic and concerned of course) that John Paul II abdicate as well. Now, they want Benedict XVI to abdicate because of accusations that the Church in Europe has a number of degenerate clerics.

Why is it that all of a sudden, no matter what the problem or situation the "answer" is always for the Pope to abdicate. Is it just me or does it seem like something that would have been absolutely unthinkable only a few years ago keeps being suggested as a 'proper response' to everything? Okay, fair warning, here is where the Mad Monarchist is going to head home to CrazyTown. Could it be that these anti-religion types are simply desperate for the Pope, this one, this last or a future one, to abdicate simply so that the precedent will be set? If such a thing were to happen it would, one could imagine, make it easier for a Pope to pushed aside or done away with.

We have already seen republicanism on the rise in Sweden, attemps on the life of the Dutch Royal Family, calls for the succession in Belgium to be changed, the Grand Duke of Luxembourg stripped of his role in government, bi-partisan opposition to the Spanish monarchy and the republicans in the UK admit that they are simply waiting for the Queen to go to her reward to make their move. The Pope, however, cannot be silenced or influenced and the attempt to kill John Paul II failed and now we have increased calls for abdication. So, if in the future the Pontiff (who is always difficult for the revolutionary crowd) is shuffled off the scene the reason can be given that he abdicated for some reason or another and it is 'no big deal' because abdication has been done before and is nothing out of the ordinary. Call me mad, call me paranoid (and medical opinion would be on your side) but I cannot help but wonder......

Obama's Man Bashes Pope

Yet another one. One Henry Knox, a member of the President's Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, went on a tirade against His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for Catholic teaching against the use of condoms (and all artificial birth control) which he blames for spreading AIDS in Africa. Harry Knox said, "The Pope’s statement that condoms don’t help control the spread of HIV, but rather condoms increase infection rates, is hurting people in the name of Jesus. …The pope’s rejection of scientifically proven prevention methods is forcing Catholics in Africa to choose between their faith and the health of their entire community. Jesus was about helping the marginalized and downtrodden, not harming them further."

This never fails to outrage me, and I think it should outrage all Christians and most religious people in general. For one thing, it is incorrect on the face of it and Knox has refused to retract his statement even when presented with the facts that pushing condoms as the "full proof" means of preventing AIDS simply encourages risky behavior (i.e. fornication) and sooner or later someone will forget their condom, it will break, slip off etc, and people get AIDS. On the other hand, if they were to follow the Pope's advice and have "relations" only with their spouse there is *zero* chance of getting AIDS. Oddly enough Mr. Knox is also a homosexual activist -yeah, let me repeat that: the *homosexual activist* is blaming a German cleric who has taken a vow of chastity and preaches no sex outside of marriage for *spreading AIDS*.

These people utterly frustrate me. It is just such an asburd argument. Do they think all Africans are Catholics and contracted AIDS only because the Pope said condoms are immoral? Do they really think that the millions suffering from AIDS are all Catholics who are absolutely obedient to the Pope when he speaks against condoms but turn that absolute obedience off when he says there should be no sex outside of marriage? How could anyone be that ignorant and contradictory?! Obviously, they are not and this stuff shows up for what it really is which is simply another attack on a traditional authority figure, a Christian religious leader and an advocate for traditional morality. The President would do well to fire this slanderous degenerate but I will not hold my breath for that. Thankfully, the Pontiff is also not the sort of man to hold back the truth or change his position based on such verbal attacks and popular opinion -so long live the Pope!

Mad Rant: The Pope in the U.K.

It was confirmed not long ago that His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI will be visiting England and Scotland sometime toward the end of this year, in part to mark the beatification of the venerable John Henry Cardinal Newman. However, if anyone thought Britain had left the days behind of a papal visit being controversial they would be sadly mistaken. A small but very vocal group of critics have already started condemning the papal visit well in advance of the pontiff's actual arrival, the date for which has not even been set yet. The Pope has made no effort to avoid the controversy, stating again recently his opposition to the anti-Catholic laws currently on the books. If you listened only to (mostly irreligious liberal) MP's you might think these would be the laws barring Catholics from the royal succession. However, the Pope seems more bothered by the laws which require Catholic adoption agencies to hand children over to homosexual couples.

So, gay activist groups and atheists who would oppose the pontiff simply for who his boss is, are planning the largest gatherings they can muster to protest the papal visit. Yes, these are the people most offended by the Pope coming to Britain. Even the Church of England has been nice and polite about the visit even though they have been rather upset as of late about the Pope throwing out the welcome mat for defecting Anglicans upset over gay "marriage", women priests and the renunciation of details like *the Bible*. Though, to be fair, the influx of conservative Anglicans going Roman has also upset liberal Catholics so the policy seems to be good for ecumanism all the way around. So, in a nutshell, these gay and atheist groups are upset with the Pope for (gasp) upholding Christian doctrine and refusing to change 2,000 years of tradition and teaching in his Church to conform with modern trends. Anyone else find this odd?

To hear these people go on about the adoption issue one would think that the Catholic Church in Britain had cornered the market on adoption agencies. Listening to them one would think that the Pope's strict adherence to Church teaching is putting a stop to all homosexuals from having a family. Of course, that is far from the truth. Gay couples can go to other adoption agencies (such as those run by the government) and given the Church position on homosexuality one would wonder why they would even want to give their "business" to any group associated with the Catholic Church. The truth, of course, is that these are but mere excuses by a group of people who oppose the Catholic Church and the Pope who leads it. I'm sure it must be frustrating for them; finally bumping into the one European sovereign who cannot be bullied or influenced, who remains the last legally and effectively absolute monarch in the western world.

They also have to deal with the little sticking point that the Pope has no means of actually enforcing his wishes, that the Catholic Church cannot even compel its own members to follow Church teaching much less compel anyone else to. They can, of course, through their pressure and numbers, pass laws to force the Catholic in Britain to fall in line, but they cannot force the Supreme Pontiff to change his position no matter what they do. They cannot silence him and they cannot intimidate him. After all, Benedict XVI formerly led the congregation once known as the Holy Office of the Roman Inquisition -those types do not tend to scare easily. Fearful that the people of Britain might get wise to all of these facts they have also tried to appeal to their pocket book and have voiced outrage at how much money the papal visit is going to cost British taxpayers. This, however, is, if anything, even more absurd. If they oppose the Pope coming to Britain on purely fiscal grounds (or really any other for that matter) they should blame their own Prime Minister Gordon Brown for extending the invitation to His Holiness in the first place.

I must say I have been glad that the C of E, while not exactly enthusiastic, has been at least as polite and welcoming as it has been. I would like this visit to be a line in the sand on behalf of the entire Christian community in Great Britain, Catholic or Protestant, on the basis that as they do not force anyone to join their ranks or accept their beliefs it will not be tolerated for the homosexual and atheist agitators to force sincere Christians to abandon their sacred doctrines in order to please them. Alas, given the state of Christianity overall in Great Britain, I cannot be too hopeful about that. If nothing else they should at least remember that England used to be known as the land of good manners and treat the Pontiff with all the respect due to a visiting sovereign and religious leader. If not, as long as they continue to try to destroy the religious and culture roots of Europe and the Christian west I shall remain just as opposed to resisting them every step of the way. And, I shall remain ...... The Mad Monarchist.

MM Video: H.H. Pope Benedict XVI