Pope to step down 28 February per Italian news and BBC
Source: BBC
No link yet; multiple Italian sources reporting Benedict has announced his pending abdication.
Link (in Italian): http://www.corriere.it/cronache/13_febbraio_11/papa-lascia-pontificato_d6c03642-7438-11e2-b945-c75ed2830f7b.shtml
Text says: The Pope leaves the papacy from February 28. The announcement was made personally, in Latin, during the consistory for the canonization of the martyrs of Otranto.
Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21411304
And an update, text of the announcement on the Vatican site:
I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in todays world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=663815
muriel_volestrangler
(101,355 posts)Scairp
(2,749 posts)I don't believe but has there ever been anything like an ex-pope who was living while another one took over. A thousand years, and except for maybe the dueling pope days back in the 14th, 15th, 16th century times, or a pope who was forcibly removed, this does not happen. I think the weight of his role in the cover-up of thousands of child sex abuse cases and the priests he assisted in staying out of trouble has done so much damage to his papacy and him personally that he cannot take it anymore. His age my ass. John Paul II could not walk, could barely sit upright to say Easter or Christmas mass and he didn't resign so this is bullshit about his age. It's his guilt that weighs heavy on him. Maybe they will finally get a progressive pope who doesn't ban condoms in Africa so that the AIDS epidemic there doesn't get any worse, and paedophile priests will go to jail, that victims will get some measure of justice by having the abuse acknowledged as having been rampant. No more "treatment centers" but jail for these deviant fuckers.
mpcamb
(2,875 posts)Isn't that supposed to be in there somewhere?
Good one.
BumRushDaShow
(129,376 posts)Well - we know what the rest of the week is going to be discussing other than the SOTU tomorrow.
FreeState
(10,577 posts)FreeState
(10,577 posts)(Not being Catholic I have no idea, just thinking of motives).
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The conclave selects the next one by secret ballot and there's no 'candidates' per se until they see the results of the first round of voting. They usually go for a few days, narrowing the list as they go, until someone gets a two-thirds majority.
If Benedict actually retires from official church life entirely he wouldn't be allowed to be in the room as this was going on; if he took back his rank of cardinal he'd be on an equal footing with the 120 or so other electors.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)BenaDick has friends who know who he wants as the next Pope...Not saying it will be that guy but the plan has already been worked out or he would not be stepping down...We will know when the white smoke appears.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,355 posts)DesertRat
(27,995 posts)I think it's very clear how weak and ill he is.
In todays world, the pope said, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of St. Peter and proclaim the gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.
For this reason, he continued, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom, I declare that I renounce the ministry of bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I don't think this is about health issues, I think this is about some sex abuse scandal news about to come down on the church. He doesn't want to deal with it, just dump it in next pope's lap.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)I just don't agree. When the last pope was ill, he wouldn't resign and everyone was on a death watch for at least a month. I think that Pope Benedict doesn't want to do that.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)When was the last one to resign? How many since then were ill before dying? Almost every one. This isn't about health, it's about some serious shit coming down, and he doesn't want to face the music.
Rhiannon12866
(205,895 posts)Rhiannon12866
(205,895 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:09 AM - Edit history (1)
He said the pope's resigning because of poor health on February 28th, first time since 1415 that a pope has resigned!
melm00se
(4,994 posts)in 1415. Gregory XII
starroute
(12,977 posts)The Western Schism or Papal Schism was a split within the Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. Two men simultaneously claimed to be the true pope. Driven by politics rather than any theological disagreement, the schism was ended by the Council of Constance (14141418). . . .
Finally, the Council of Constance in 1414, advised by the theologian Jean Gerson, secured the resignations of antipope John XXIII and the successor in Rome of Innocent VII, Pope Gregory XII (who resigned in 1415, but not before formally empowering the Council of Constance to elect the new pope, thus ensuring the legitimacy of the election), and excommunicated the claimant who refused to step down, Avignon Pope Benedict XIII. The Council then elected Pope Martin V, essentially ending the schism. Nonetheless, the Kingdom of Aragon did not recognize Martin V and continued to recognize Benedict XIII. Archbishops loyal to Benedict XIII subsequently elected Antipope Benedict XIV (Bernard Garnier) and three followers simultaneously elected Antipope Clement VIII, but the Western Schism was by then practically over. (Clement VIII resigned in 1429 and apparently recognized Martin V.)
Rhiannon12866
(205,895 posts)Every report kept changing the year and I meant to edit my post after they finally determined which was accurate. Not surprised that they couldn't remember that far back...
Fire Walk With Me
(38,893 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)He joined the Hitler Youth only because the Nazis could and would throw parents into prison if their sons were not in the Hitler Youth.
I am no fan whatsoever of Benedict. I literally wept when I heard he was elected Pope. But I do not hold with painting him unfairly.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Include the years he covered up sex crimes, ordered witnesses to lie under oath, ordered documents destroyed, and worse.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)The bush years saw a lot of political tragedies like this one. Opus Dei.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Good riddance, and I hope he wakes up and the lights come on and he finds a really good path before he dies.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)how about pedophile protector?
Retrograde
(10,152 posts)I don't hold him responsible for what he did as a teenager living in a totalitarian regime, but his adult works - his ultra-conservative views on birth control, the role of women in the church and the world, abandonment of liberation theology, aiding and abetting the cover-up of criminal acts by the clergy - there's more than enough to condemn him that he did on his own.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Membership in Hitler Youth was mandatory, under threat of dire penalty.
I won't hang this on Benedict.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(in the most literal sense).
Did any Catholic DU'ers have any inkling this was going to happen?
6000eliot
(5,643 posts)City Lights
(25,171 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)that this is all about being sure that his hand-picked successor gets elected. His wrinkled old ass is exposed in many areas, and he needs a replacement that he knows will cover it, and protect his reputation. He can't ensure that if he stays until he dies.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)(Pun intended)
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)Richard_uk
(20 posts)You can make the rules up as you go along. I wish that I had an imaginary boss, my day would be a breeze.
If you still believe in god when you have completed your theocratic college, you were not paying attention.
Make way for the next scammer
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I now expect to have my post voted out by a jury, because while atheistic bigotry is perfectly acceptable on DU, pointing out that bigotry is not.
Richard_uk
(20 posts)Your constitution (i am assuming that you are an american, my apologies if you are not) allows for religious freedom, a very worthy position. you may believe in whatever you like.
However, it does not preclude me from pointing out what utter dribble anything your particular superstition may claim as fact is (the whole freedom of speech bit).
I find it ironic that I am called out for bigotry when the xian holy book actually encourages it, in its worst form:
"And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..." (Deuteronomy 13: 5)
I am not sorry that I appear to have upset you, I am sad that you take it that way. I hope that your comment is not voted out. You have as much right to freedom of speech as I do (more if you live in the USA)
Have a nice day, enjoy your constitution, you are very lucky to have it.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)I quite understand. Most bigots prefer not to face the fact of their bigotry.
Richard_uk
(20 posts)Lets debate:
Here is a definition that I found after a quick search.
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I am happy to accept that definition.
In my defense I would like to start with this rather interesting article:
http://atheism.about.com/od/fundamentalistatheists/a/AtheistBigots.htm
So are atheists bigots or is it just me?
So let me state my position clearly and let the DUers decide.
I like to live in a fact base world.
You however, can believe anything that you want, I do not care. Use faith if you want to as your guiding principle, I do not care what you believe. That is until you make a claim based on your belief. I list some examples of claims made by superstition based groups below.
Gays are evil
Non believers need to be executed
Sunday is a holy day (Shops must shut you cant be allowed to buy beer) I'm going for the beer drinkers vote here.
God says you cant use condoms
Kids should not get biology based sex education in school ( i have a child who is in the US school system so this does apply to me)
need I go on?
So, in my opinion. When what I regard a a baseless claim is made and that claim is based on the superstitious belief of the claimant. And the claim could have a detrimental effect on me, I should be polite and shut up? I think not. So when I speak out against the beliefs of these claimants and their supporting organisations. Sometimes I will do so using sarcasm and accusations.
I think accusing somebody of being a scammer is a factual accusation that could be defended against (with great difficulty if you are the pope).
For the record I wish to point out that I do not hate or wish harm to anyone, that more than can be said for many religions.
So am a bigot?
DUers Decide
Stonepounder
(4,033 posts)While I am at best agnostic, it seems that your are using 'religion' as a synonym for 'extremist'. While there are certainly many who use religion as a club to try and further their extreme views, there are also many many individuals who subscribe much more to the 'love thy neighbor' philosophy espoused by the founders of their particular religion, such as Jesus or Mohammad.
And, yes, based on your posts, you are a bigot. I'm not sure I understand your anger at religion. As I stated I am at best an agnostic, but I don't feel the need to rush out of the room if someone wants to offer a prayer and an event I am attending. It doesn't seem to have a detrimental effect on me. (Any more than putting my hand over my heart during the playing of the national anthem has a detrimental effect on me, and I find that much more uncomfortable.) When any group tries to force me into their particular world-view I resist. I figure that your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins. But, by the same token, I don't condemn all old white guys because most extremist Republicans are old white guys.
You say that you live in a fact-based world, yet I assume that you accept quantum physics that says, essentially, that at the most basic level you can't know the facts. Is that superstitious mumbo-jumbo? I have known Catholics who were intolerant SOB's and I have known Catholics who were gentle and kind. It seems to me that painting all those who believe in some higher power as 'superstitious groups' is no better than any other form of bigotry - all Muslims are terrorists, all blacks are lazy, etc.
My opinion is that any time you lump all members of a group into the same stereotypical archetype you are being a bigot and it seems that is what you are doing.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)And that - not your belief - is the problem
Richard_uk
(20 posts)OK the title was a little more sarcasm.
The US constitution allow you (and me) freedom of though and freedom of speech. It does not provide for freedom from being offended. In fact it guarantees it. Republicans offend me every day. I can suck it up or respond back. I cannot be fearful of offending republicans or upsetting them.
So why does religion get a pass. If my opinion on religion offends or upsets you i am sorry that you feel that way, but it is your problem not mine. I am not sorry for what I said.
ForgoTheConsequence
(4,869 posts)This has nothing to do with the "constitution" (which is about the government btw, private websites can set any rules they want) This is about common courtesy. There is a way to get your point across without being a rude condescending jerk.
demwing
(16,916 posts)well, it enumerates free speech as an inalienable right, but you know what I mean...
But with that right comes a social responsibility to not be a prick, especially to your liberal/progressive allies. Just because you are free to speak, doesn't always mean you should always speak freely.
uppityperson
(115,678 posts)I'm going to take a leap and assume you meant "freedom of thought" not "though". The constitution does not allow for any "freedom of thought". Not sure where you get "freedom of thought" from but not the constitution.
Amendment 1 does say this:
DU is private website, not Congress and as such can have laws prohibiting any or all of those.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,335 posts)At Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:30 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
I prefer to call it rational thought
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=395857
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
"hat utter dribble anything your particular superstition may claim," "I am not sorry that I appear to have upset you." 17 posts, including 1 RBKA, and already bashing DUer's religious beliefs with evident glee. Grossly insensitive and does not vote for Democrats. TOS for MIRT.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:49 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT and said: Bigot.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: There's nothing wrong with this post. The poster says nothing about not voting for Democrats.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
demwing
(16,916 posts)is the rule that DU loves to forget
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)That is, and remains, off limits on DU. You can call Christians naive, stupid, evil...just about every name in the book. But if you even hint at attacking Muslims, you're showered as a bigot by many of the same people who crap on Christianity all the time. It's quite odd.
NBachers
(17,135 posts)clubbers who can't wait to jump in and shove their crusade into everyone's face.
corneliamcgillicutty
(176 posts)comment. In my relatively short time on DU, I have observed that atheism is equated with and indicative of intellectual superiority. Oh the hypocrisy of elitism and vice versa! Kudos to you for your excellent post.
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)I am not Catholic and do not think much of this particular Pope nor the Vatican in general, but I do not share your apparent disdain for countless Catholics who chose to follow their religious beliefs in their own manner (and quite often in opposition to official church doctrine).
Richard_uk
(20 posts)I did not intend to imply that you shared my views.
I admit I have little regard for all superstition based organizations.
When a man such as the pope has the ability to cause death through aids to countless thousands simply by stating a baseless opinion on the use contraception. I have no qualms about calling him out.
I suggest that the catholic church is not a force for good in the world (you can debate that if you wish, it has been debated before):
Encouraging rational though and debate, i think is a good cause.
Sometimes it is done with a little sarcasm an apparently it can touch a nerve.
I stand by my words, bring on the next scammer.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)in opposition to official church doctrine).
Wouldn't that make them some form of Protestant?
Not mocking as I I have said before; just trying to understand how that works compared to what I have read.
Thanks
hlthe2b
(102,343 posts)As i posted above, I'm not Catholic--but I'm not ignorant of basic aspects of this and several mainstream religions--nor of atheism.
And, no, Catholics who live a so-called "menu" practice of their religion are NOT Protestants, bad pun notwithstanding.
TruthBeTold65
(203 posts)...when we drop superstition we will finally be free as human beings. I was wishing someone at his level in the church would "come out" on the hypocrisy of it all. They need a figurehead to give their superstition credibility.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Live and let live.
Richard_uk
(20 posts)Respect however has to be earned.
It is not earned by covering up the sexual abuse of children a protecting the those that commit these acts. It is not earned by blaming the ills of the world on secularism. It is not earned by calling homosexual acts violations of divine and natural law.
Live and let live, I wish that the pope would take your wise advice.
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)John1956PA
(2,656 posts)His predecessor's body was not even embalmed, and it lay in state for a few more days than was prudent. Maybe the current pope wants to preempt Dark Aged rituals being performed with regard to his remains.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)John1956PA
(2,656 posts)I am cynical. I think many in the R. C. hierarchy do not believe church dogma such as scripture authenticity and concept of afterlife. I think that this pope is willing to allow outdated teachings to enslave believers, but is reluctant to be the victim of the trappings of the church's primitive postmortem rites.
I think that Benedict was repulsed by the un-embalmed, putrefying remains of the previous pope in public view for a few days beyond what would appear to be prudent. There were reports of dignitaries in the front row holding handkerchief to their noses.
This is just my two cents as an ex-Catholic, now atheist.
LiberalFighter
(51,054 posts)so he doesn't need to worry about his body being delayed for embalming.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I think it's only happened three or four times before, all of those in medieval times.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)And spare us.
The energy vibes I get from the popes and Vatican in general are rotten sick ones.
Grrrrrr *shrugs*
Bucky
(54,041 posts)It's better he doesn't hold on past his time.
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)This was frequently asked during the last painful days of John Paul II, and the short answer was, "Popes don't do that."
That's why, to me, this whole story stinks like a 3-day-old mackerel.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)If you count that one as more "forced out of office" because of the whole "three claimaints to the throne" thing, it's the first since 1294.
longship
(40,416 posts)No one saw that one coming!
Curiouser and curiouser it gets.
struggle4progress
(118,332 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)I bet he's losing his wits and done some crazy stuff. His staff and favorite bishops probably recommended it.
Auggie
(31,184 posts)fasttense
(17,301 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)How could he "lose his wits" and "do crazy stuff"? Wouldn't that make his senility and crazy actions godlike?
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)Senility is a specific condition and calling someone senile just because they are old is ageist.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)The concept is very, very strictly defined. There's somewhere between seven and a dozen cases of outright infallible statements the last two thousand years. It absolutely does not mean "everything the Pope says is true," and never has meant that.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... and realized the hypocrisy of covering for pedophile priests was doing to the Vatican.
It might have finally sunk into his head.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)office.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)His conversion to Catholicism upon leaving office was publicized. He's a lot younger, although married with children. It would be a break with tradition, but it might cause a resurgence of interest. And the Pope stressed his old age for leaving.
As I said, sounds crazy, but it's not like the Cardinals care about what most of us think and the rebellion of the Nuns on the Bus and other movements might have gotten their attention.
Not that Tony would be good choice after having made a mess, but after watching a decade of the insane clown posse GOP here, anything is possible. I also thought until I looked at the BBC link this was the Onion...
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)he was disappointed
Richard_uk
(20 posts)and another please
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)Kath1
(4,309 posts)Surely they can do much better.
life long demo
(1,113 posts)like John the twenty-third, from the sixties. But Benedict has stacked the Cardinals with hard line right wing theologs. Will just have to wait and see. But I'm glad to see him go, Benedict has caused much damage.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)I agree that he has done a lot of damage. It certainly would be nice to see a Pope that would bring the Church into this century but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)In March
Lucky Luciano
(11,258 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)PADemD
(4,482 posts)The Italian central bank has suspended all bank card payments in the Vatican, citing its failure to implement fully anti-money laundering legislation, Italian media report.
The Holy See was required to meet European Union safeguards on finances by the start of 2013.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20903443
hunter
(38,325 posts)Does everything in this modern world have to be about the money? Frankly, I'd prefer any other kind of scandal to that.
What the church needs is someone who can lead it into the 21st century as a liberal institution promoting peace and social justice, but I have very little hope this will happen.
I think what will happen is various mergers and schisms, leaving us with a church divided. A powerful figure will unite the authoritarian right wing patriarchy of the Catholic-Orthodox-Anglican churches. Modern liberal communities will be excluded and form their own loose coalitions with their own lines of succession. This liberal church will be the one that survives the increasing transparency of the internet age.
But if modern communication systems fail, well then, we're all fucked. Earth becomes the hot radioactive hell we've always feared as the fundamentalists fight it out for world domination.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)To make a Pope resign, it must be very big.
The BBC article page has links to...
Vatican bank 'needs more reform', report says (July 2012)
(my summary: inadequate controls on money-laundering to terrorists)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18883902
Vatican Bank chief Tedeschi dismissed (May 2012)
(my summary: Italian police investigating him for money-laundering)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18200083
Vatican Bank 'investigated over money-laundering' (Sept. 2010)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11380628
---
If the Pope has been money laundering for terrorists, which terrorists would that likely be? My first guess: Right-wing paramilitaries in Colombia, who are responsible for thousands of murders of trade unionists and other advocates of the poor, and have a highly organized and political criminal organization (called "the Black Eagles" , tied to the (U.S. funded/trained) Colombian military and to Bush Jr. pal, Alvaro Uribe, president (and mafia boss) of Colombia during the Bush Junta. The Bush Junta was using the U.S. "war on drugs" to brutally displace FIVE MILLION peasants from their lands, in my opinion to consolidate the cocaine trade into fewer hands and to better direct its trillion+ dollar revenue stream to certain beneficiaries (U.S. banksters? the Bush Cartel? etc.). (The Vatican?)
I'm just guessing, as to which terrorists the Pope might have been funding. I have no evidence that it's the Bush-connected Colombia mafia--but it's an educated guess. The Pope wouldn't be money-laundering for Islamists, I wouldn't think. And the Pope wouldn't resign merely because of inadequate Vatican banking controls on money-laundering. He's likely been personally tied to something in the banking investigation.
It's possible he would resign over the child abuse cover-up, due to the cumulative impact of the scandal. It is quite a massive scandal and may be hurting church revenues. But there doesn't seem to be a precipitating event--that we know of--recent "smoking gun" sort of thing that would require this very, VERY unusual resignation.
So I think it's something lurking in the shadows in this Vatican banking investigation--such as I've suggested--and it would have to be something very bad, to prompt a Pope to resign. It's been 600 to 800 years since that's happened.
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)Remember the Roberto Calvi affair way back in 1982? Calvi was found hanging from Blackfriar Bridge in London. There have been allegations ever since of involvement in money laundering and some shadowy secret organizations, primarily the Propaganda Due or P2 Masonic Lodge.
P2 was a 'Black Lodge' not recognized by Italy's Masonic leadership. They were so powerful that they were sometimes referred to as "a shadow government," ready to seize power if Italy's political leadership faltered.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)...by the Italian police (as I said, connected to money-laundering for terrorist groups). But it's possible that the current brewing scandal is an outgrowth of the one in the 1980s. Also, I wanted to add, that, if I'm right that it's the Colombia 'mafia,' it might be AUC, the predecessor of the Black Eagles. AUC was officially designated a "terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department. I don't think they've caught up with the Black Eagles yet, to officially call them what they are--and they may not, since the "Black Eagles" was/is a Bush Junta phenomenon and the Obama administration is into ignoring Bush Junta crimes. There was a phony demobilization of the AUC, but it was reborn as the Black Eagles during the Bush Junta. They, like the AUC, are closely tied to the U.S.-funded, U.S.-trained Colombian military, and to major drug trafficking.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Richard_uk
(20 posts)When he asked her if he could resign, did she say yes?
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)What a set-back he's been for everything progressive, but perhaps most of all for women Catholics. Not even a hint of breaking up this extremely un-Christian, dimwitted and sexually sick boys' club--but more than that, they've mounted an Inquisition against the nuns who ARE doing Christian work. But this Roman Catholic Church crime against women is much older than Benedict--goes back about 1,500 years. He has been quite consistent with this appalling sin. So, if God the Mother spoke to him, I doubt that he could hear Her. He'd think it was the Devil, the snake, the Great Evil One, tempting him to give up his steadfast defense of the indefensible.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)OnlinePoker
(5,725 posts)Interesting. The next pope is supposed to be the last one according to St. Malachy, a 12th century bishop in Ireland.
112 Peter the Roman, who will Nourish the sheep in many tribulations; when they are finished, the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The end.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
valerief
(53,235 posts)Wouldn't that be a nice change?
PasadenaTrudy
(3,998 posts)No more Dark Ages, no more religion! #atheist
PADemD
(4,482 posts)"The 12th century Irish seer St. Malachy prophesied an end to the Roman Catholic Church and predicted the fates of the Popes until Judgement Day."
Excellent Book
ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)And only acurrate since its discovery thanks to vagueness.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Popes can resign?
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)He couldn't think of anything else
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)If you're saying monarchs don't stand down you haven't been reading the news much in the last decade, because there's been abdications and resignations all over the place.
Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)And I don't think you understand the patriarchal hysteria--indeed, insanity--of the MEN of the Church hierarchy in their insistence that the Pope has a "lineage" back to St. Peter. They mean it LITERALLY. To them it is spiritual DNA, linking the current papal monarch to the last papal monarch to all the previous papal monarchs, back to St. Peter. That's why it has been nearly unthinkable for a pope to "resign."
And, having a pope resign--i.e., this one--the first to do so in 600 years--means that something is very much amiss in this MONARCHY. Or that is a very safe assumption. It ain't old age or infirmity. Popes DON'T "resign" for that reason. And exactly like hereditary kings, St. Peter's DNA weathers every scandal, every crime, every horror, every mortal sin, and even vast numbers of scandals, crimes, horrors and sins. Spiritual DNA exists in a rare ether that is not affected by worldly concerns.
I know there are some current instances of WORLDLY monarchs "resigning." That is not relevant to the Papacy. The Papacy is GOD's monarchy, in their view. And, among the things that this male establishment has asserted is that THEY "crown" worldly kings. They have more authority than any worldly monarch.
The official Church literally exists in an early Medieval era. That is how popes, cardinals and bishops think; that is how they behave; those are the kinds of laws and social rules they adhere to--and the rewards in that extremely top-down, monarchical system are doled out on the basis of medieval fealty, deference and obedience TO A MONARCH.
Thus, it is strange, to say the least, for this monarch to "resign." And it seems very unlikely that his "resignation" is for the reasons he states--age, infirmity. Could be. But--given the huge scandals of his REIGN--it is probably not true, and is instead connected to personal culpability in one of the two big scandals we know about--the child abuse scandal or the CURRENT (not 1980s) Vatican banking investigation, or perhaps some other. That is a good guess, that he has done something so discreditable that he was forced to resign. Another possibility is that the cumulative effect of his mismanagement of these scandals has so reduced Church revenue that a power faction among the cardinals has forced him out. The Vatican and its cardinals lie like Bushwhacks. You really can't believe anything they say--so all this talk about how "surprised" everybody is, is probably nonsense. It was a forced "resignation" for one reason or another. And the gravity of the crisis was such that overturning 600 years of precedent and the "DNA" back to St. Peter was the lesser 'evil.'
840high
(17,196 posts)TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)A monarch is an absolute sovereign of a state through heredity. Popes are voted into office by the cardinals, not through birthright... how could they through birthright what all members of the hierarchy aren't permitted to marry and not allowed legitimate issue?.
The office of Pope is a lifetime appointment because of the belief the church itself has fostered since its inception that the Pope is so holy they are the closest thing to God on earth thereby being nearly divine, and when one is magically "recognized" (ie, voted in by the cardinals) with this special holiness it can't be taken back thereby the church having to admit that the pope was NOT so magically holy after all.
This is why it is so astounding that Ratz is resigning especially with such a lame excuse as age and ill health and why it hasn't been done for hundreds and hundreds of years... it shakes the church to its foundation the belief that the church itself has always fostered of the near divinity of the Pope, and for centuries (once Protestantism got a foothold in Europe) that Catholics were maligned because of their apparent allegiance to the Pope was more than to the Christian faith.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)ButterflyBlood
(12,644 posts)That's odd. I'd expect him to wait until Easter at least.
Iggo
(47,564 posts)Beacool
(30,250 posts)I wonder if he's very ill.
starroute
(12,977 posts)More likely that he's becoming either physically or mentally incapacitated in some way that could drag on for years.
Historic NY
(37,452 posts)the ones in our past just fade to dust in the crypt.
A new younger progressive Pope is what the church needs & should have had but again, the system is rigged. Infallible not so much.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Pope Benedict XVI has been placed on gardening leave after accepting an unbelievably generous offer to join Islam on a free transfer during the religious transfer window.
In what is believed to be a historic move between the two great traditional rivals, the Pope will take a leading role in his new side as they seek to become the dominant force in world religion.
In a brief statement the Pontiff revealed his thoughts had been turning increasingly towards Mecca and that Islam represented his greatest professional challenge.
The former Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed he would work his four-week notice period minus any holidays he carried forward from last year, but was immediately escorted from his gold throne.
http://newsthump.com/2013/02/11/pope-placed-on-gardening-leave-after-accepting-lucrative-offer-to-join-islam/
TheCowsCameHome
(40,168 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)mfcorey1
(11,001 posts)Yavin4
(35,445 posts)Better pay and a couple of extra weeks of vacation.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in todays world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.
Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.
Beacool
(30,250 posts)No Pope has resigned in almost 600 years. It's simply not done. He's also resigning right before the highest holy days in Christendom, the Lent period culminating with Easter.
On the other hand, he was 78 when chosen and was the oldest man to be elected to the job in a few hundred years.
Anyway, God Bless!!
LeftInTX
(25,523 posts)If it is health, he could have waited till after Easter.....
Beacool
(30,250 posts)Which means that there won't be a Pope chosen before Easter.
Oh, well.........
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)Gregory XII was doing so to resolve a schism which had split the church open for decades and which currently had three claimants to the throne.
You have to go back into the 1200s before running into Celestine V, who basically went "Popin' ain't easy, it's time to retire."
Beacool
(30,250 posts)That makes his choice to leave even more shocking.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)While Benedict XVI did not specify his reasons for resigning, he had already raised the possibility of resigning in 2010, when he said that if a pope clearly realizes that he is no longer physically, psychologically and spiritually capable of handling the duties of his office, then he has a right, and under some circumstances, also an obligation, to resign.
He is said to have urged his predecessor, Jean-Paul II, with whom he worked closely for nearly a quarter of a century, to resign after the late pontiff suffered increasingly dire heath but refused to give up his papacy.
We mustnt forget that Joseph Ratzinger [as he was known before] was very close to Jean-Paul II and was severely affected by [his ill health at] the end of his term, Radio France International religion correspondent Geneviève Delrue said on Monday. Benedict XVI felt that his own health was declining and did not want to find himself in the same position, she said.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130211-pope-resignation-papacy-life-end-catholic-church?autoplay=1
Sounds plausible. But then it could be other things AND health. Dunno.
LiberalFighter
(51,054 posts)Face slap moment
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Courtesy Flush
(4,558 posts)I suspect his successor will have to pass an extreme right wing litmus test.
CANDO
(2,068 posts)The new movie on HBO. Heart wrenching documentary on Priests abuse. Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) was head of the office where every single abuse case went on its way up the Church hierarchy. He then became Pope after providing cover-up for so many cases.
Franker65
(299 posts)The church really needed a more progressive leader to guide it through all of the revelations and turbulance of its recent past. Benedict was the wrong guy. The church needs a younger more adventurous individual at the helm.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)disgusting empire. He only continued the decline, instead of cutting out the festering rot.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)loudsue
(14,087 posts)Singing hallelujah!
Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Third Doctor
(1,574 posts)He was in his 70's when he was elected.
Ian Iam
(386 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Good riddance, to be honest.
Hard Assets
(274 posts)Good.
His age means that he was meant to be a "temporary" pope.
Now let's find the most liberal pope in the Catholic Church history that will not only announce that the Church is nothing but a bunch of old men that has been abusive but will sell off all its Church properties to pay off the victims. And restrict themselves to Rome and nothing more.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)Our Lady of Fatima's third suppressed prophecy which Ratzinger had major influence was announced on
The third secret, a vision of the death of the Pope and other religious figures, was transcribed by the Bishop of Leiria and reads:
"After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: Penance, Penance, Penance!' And we saw in an immense light that is God: something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, Religious men and women, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God."
Bertone, along with Cardinal Ratzinger, co-authored The Message of Fátima,[2] the document published in June 2000 by the Vatican that allegedly contains a scanned copy of the original text of the Third Secret.
It will be interesting if Bertone is picked
patrice
(47,992 posts)Peace Patriot
(24,010 posts)Back in the Dark Ages, the Church replicated the monarchical system from the physical world, to the spiritual world, and invented a "lineage" back to St. Peter (not incidentally excluding Mary Magdalen). They frequently mention this "lineage" as if it were an actual biological lineage. Kings might be overthrown, beheaded, etc., but they don't cease being kings, nor do their progeny cease being "royal" and often the rallying figures to returning that "lineage" to power. The Roman Catholic Church has many strange and extremely contradictory concepts. This is one of them--that, though the Pope is supposedly chosen by a vote of the Cardinals, he is simultaneously chosen by God (the Cardinals are "inspired" and thus becomes a descendant of St. Peter and a monarch by right.
Popes don't resign because of illness, any more than kings do. They simply fade away and die, while the Curia and others run the Church. There are certainly intrigues and so forth, as the monarch lay dying, just as there are with a biological monarchy. But there is never any notion that illness requires a Pope to discard this sacred, kingly mantle.
Benedict's age and illness are an EXCUSE--a P.R. point--not the truth. Something VERY serious lay behind this--the Vatican banking investigation, the child abuse scandal or something else.
It's conceivable that some faction among the hierarchy has forced him out, due to the cumulative effects of the known scandals, not anything specific but different things added up, but why would they would be in such a hurry, as to overturn 400-600 years of precedent (calling the very monarchical nature of the Vatican into question)? Why don't they just wait it out (given his age, illness)? Popes have always survived scandals--some of them really incredibly bad in the deep past (and recent scandals such as the Italian banking scandal of the 1980s). Another strange concept of the Church: Popes don't have to be "holy" to be Pope. Same with monarchs. Good king, bad king, it doesn't matter--he's king by right of birth (and, with the Pope, by right of God-appointed "lineage" .
This makes me think that, whatever it is, it's REALLY bad.
patrice
(47,992 posts)patrice
(47,992 posts)which was the last Shah of Iran? My sister, a highly experienced long-standing liturgist, was around something they did in COLORADO SPRINGS (home of Eric Prince at the time) and was appalled at the absolutely over the top display of wealth as a part of the liturgy. She dis-associated herself with the events.
I have also been wondering what the roots of this thing are: http://www.tfp.org/
And my last close association with my church, close to some 30 years ago now, I felt that there was kind of a push on for African priests, visiting here in America. It was something that got noticed, because some of them had serious persistent problems with the equality of American female LAY Catholics. Recent world drought predictions indicate that Africa is going to suffer even more than it has, extremely so. Wondering here if this isn't somekind of financial adjustment in the RC's relationships with Africa, in order to "re-define" the means by which the RC church responds to that continent's blooming crises.
I'm going to be watching Secretary Kerry.
tawadi
(2,110 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I'm 32 and in reasonably good health and the guy's predecessor's travel schedule would burn me out in a few years.
Benedict's been in visibly poorer health the last couple of years, needing more assistance walking and so on. His mind could be in perfect working order and he'd only be able to do so much unless he was going to just stay in the Vatican, and I think John Paul II set a bit of a bar as far as making that less acceptable than it used to be.
24601
(3,962 posts)Arizona or St. Louis or Stanford? I'm betting on Louis because of the Saint thing.
Response to Spider Jerusalem (Original post)
fast_eddie_72 Message auto-removed
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Permanut
(5,628 posts)I can't imagine what it would be like to convoked in the Consistory.
redwitch
(14,946 posts)And much nicer than being rebuked in the rectory.
Permanut
(5,628 posts)tomm2thumbs
(13,297 posts)In a statement issued Monday morning, Mahony said it was his privilege to participate in the April 2005 conclave to elect Benedict.
Last month, after the release of thousands of pages of records about sexual abuse by priests, Los Angeles Archbishop Jose Gomez announced that he had relieved Mahony of all public duties. The move, spurred by what Gomez said was Mahony's mishandling of the abuse cases, is unprecedented in the American Catholic Church.
Despite the public censure, Mahony is still allowed to help select a new Pope.
"I look forward to traveling to Rome soon to help thank Pope Benedict XVI for his gifted service to the Church, and to participate in the conclave to elect his successor.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/pope-benedict-cardinal-mahony.html
Paper Roses
(7,474 posts)is going to resign? I'll bet there are a lot of nervous people in the Vatican and elsewhere that are worried about
what may be behind this resignation.
Health? maybe, other things, probably.
rateyes
(17,438 posts)AndyTiedye
(23,500 posts)Ratzinger's main job has been to keep all the pedophiles out of prison.
Bosonic
(3,746 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Lightning hits St Peter's hours after Pope Benedict stuns cardinals with first resignation in 600 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276884/Pope-Benedict-XVI-resigns-First-Pontiff-600-years-stand-longer-strength-carry-on.html#axzz2KcjsAjgK
REP
(21,691 posts)How many victims couldn't be bought off this time?
AngryOldDem
(14,061 posts)Out of the blue resignation? In just two weeks' time?
The sex scandal gaining new traction, with the revelations out of Ireland, and the developments in LA?
The long-held rule that Popes do not resign, no matter how poor their health? (This was often asked late in JPII's papacy, and the explanation was that Popes don't resign. If anyone had a good reason to resign, it was JPII._
The recent controversy with the valet?
This is just all too sudden...and odd...to be just one more old man announcing his retirement.
Not that the true story will ever come out, not from an organzation so adept at obfuscation as the Catholic Church.
darkangel218
(13,985 posts)NYtoBush-Drop Dead
(490 posts)They were Nazi youth together.
happynewyear
(1,724 posts)I do wish him and his love for cats well. That is the sanest thing about this man, he is a cat lover. If it weren't for that I would have kicked him to the curb long ago.
He was however thought to be nothing but an "interim pope". I do not believe that the Vatican et al. ever suspected he'd live to be so old.
goclark
(30,404 posts)that was chosen while Bush Jr. was in office?
Wasn't there some gossip that he was the choice of Bush Jr. ?
happynewyear
(1,724 posts)John Paul died in 2005.
triplepoint
(431 posts)goclark
(30,404 posts)BlueMTexpat
(15,372 posts)a Papal decision that I can wholeheartedly support.
If only the Pope would encourage Justice Scalia to do the same ....
PMcDee
(43 posts)Dick Morris has predicted that Mitt Romney will be elected Pope by a landslide.