Is the Pope allowed to retire?

[tremorviolet]

Or is the position for life, no matter what? I feel sorta bad for the guy, the way he's carted around and propped up in front of windows. Surely he'd be better off if he didn't have the stresses of being Pope along with the physical problems.

Oh, and what if he's permanently mentally incapacitated? Can he be relieved of duties or would the Vatican pull a "Woodrow Wilson"?

[N9IWP]

Yes.
http://www.catholicherald.com/saunde...s/ws050303.htm

IIRC The only thing that only the pope can do is make bishops.
Already aides do the day-to-day administration.

JPII views his suffering to be parallell with Jesus' Therefore, I doubt he will resign voluntarily.

Brian

[JohnM]

Disclaimer: caveat lector, most of the below is from memory. I am not a priest or canon lawyer. You should always consult a professional on matters of canon law. Lather, rinse, repeat....

To the OP, yes, the pope can definitely abdicate; the last time it happenned was in the 15th century during the Great Schism, but the precedent definitely exists.

NDIWP, to clarify, the pope administratively chooses the bishops but he doesn't (usually) create them. While today bishops must be approved by the Holy See, this was not always the case, and most bishops are ordained by other bishops with Vatican approval, not by the pope directly.

The only spiritual authority peculiar to the pope that I am aware of is the authority to teach definitively (de fide) when speaking ex cathedra. Strictly speaking, the extraordinary magisterium is also present in a General Council, but since current canon law only allows Councils to be called by the pope and serve at his pleasure the point is moot.

Administratively, there are many other duties and powers reserved to the pope by canon law but not by doctrine. Given the intricacy of canon law, it would not surprise me if there are provisions for alternate authorities in the curia for many of these duties in the event of a long papal illness.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Not to hijack but it seems appropriate here...

Is there any mechanism to have a Pope removed (and not by assassination but by a "legal" means)?

For instance...what if a Pope ends up like Terri Schiavo and it is their policy to keep him alive at all costs? Does the church just effectively run without a Pope (at least a conscious Pope) for 15+ years or can they have him replaced?

[Duckster]

Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole

Not to hijack but it seems appropriate here...

Is there any mechanism to have a Pope removed (and not by assassination but by a "legal" means)?

For instance...what if a Pope ends up like Terri Schiavo and it is their policy to keep him alive at all costs? Does the church just effectively run without a Pope (at least a conscious Pope) for 15+ years or can they have him replaced?

You may get your for instance ...

Pope John Paul, now being fed through a nasal tube because of his throat problems, effectively wrote his own "living will" last year in a speech declaring some life-extending treatments a moral duty for Roman Catholics.

The ailing Pontiff sharply narrowed Catholic guidelines for treating patients nearing death in March 2004 when he described tube-feeding as a normal treatment rather than an extraordinary measure that can be stopped if all hope of recovery fades.

This indicates he would want to be kept alive by artificial means even if he fell into a coma or a persistent vegetative state, such as the brain-damaged Terri Schiavo in the United States whose feeding tubes have been removed after 15 years.

"The Pope's statement would have to be considered the equivalent of his living will," said Father Thomas Reese S.J., editor of the Jesuit weekly America in New York. "It would be very difficult to unplug him if it came to that."

Source: Reuters

[Mycroft H.]

I heard a discussion about this subject on NPR the other week. They covered N9IWP’s points, especially about how he believes suffering and pain is good for the soul. I think the pope has even written a book on that subject.

A complication if a pope does decide to step down is the possibility (even likelihood) that many Catholics around the world would continue to look to JPII and not to the new “interloper”. The commentator pointed out how likely a division in the Church could occur if a pope were to abdicate.

It would be very ironic (and tragic) if JPII were to go into a long term coma or Persistive Vegetative State. But, to pull a line from Spider Robinson, “God is an iron.”*

The cynic in me says that in spite dogma and policy, the plug would be surreptitiously pulled before too long.



* Ask and I’ll elaborate.

[Diceman]

The ailing Pontiff sharply narrowed Catholic guidelines for treating patients nearing death in March 2004 when he described tube-feeding as a normal treatment rather than an extraordinary measure that can be stopped if all hope of recovery fades.

What is considered an "extraordinary measure" is debatable, but generally they're thinking of something like if you're brain dead, and the heart/lung machine is the only reason that your body is still warm. Also, Catholics (and all Christians, for that matter) have a duty to feed the hungry. So while I personally would consider a feeding tube to be extraordinary, I see where John Paul is coming from here.

[ouryL]

Is that a euphemism for a coma?

[tomndebb]

A complication if a pope does decide to step down is the possibility (even likelihood) that many Catholics around the world would continue to look to JPII and not to the new “interloper”. The commentator pointed out how likely a division in the Church could occur if a pope were to abdicate.

This seems like an extremely unlikely scenario. If a pope actually abdicated and retired to some convent somewhere, there would be no need for anyone to doubt his actions (aside from the tiny fraction of nutcases that believe that yesterday's sunrise was a conspiracy). The overwhelming majority of Catholics woud be surprised, but would accept his decision.
(You might make a case for a schism if someone announced that the pope had abdicated and then retired to a cloister where no one could find him, but a simple abdication in which the ex-pope was still able to see the public would would not cause any schism. Even with a cloistered ex-pope, you need to find enough people with enough power within the church to believe a conspiracy in order to actually drive a schism.)


.

The higher cardinals would surely help let the pope "go" so to speak. It's its own country, too, so I don't know if any external laws apply.

Why? As long as he is lying in bed with no way to change his staff, everyone gets to keep their current jobs and power. Once he dies, the (younger) cardinals go into conclave and it is anyone's guess who the next pope will be, thus jeopardizing the postions of any senior staff member who cannot absolutely guarantee the selection of next pope. (I will also preemptively note that three of the last four popes were a surprise to the political speculators, reducing the possibility that there is any "fix" in for the next pope. When you put dozens of powerful political guys together to take a vote, you will find that "controlling" them is rather more difficult than your typically wild-eyed conspiracist can really predict.)

I know that it is fun to imagine all these grey eminences wandering about plotting murder and mayhem, but between the number of people involved who would actually morally oppose murder and the number of people whose jobs might be jeopardized by any skulduggery, such conspiracy theories are pretty silly.

[tomndebb]

If their supreme mortal leader could not make active decisions, and was settled in for the long haul, could they tolerate that situation and would they take secretive action?

From a practical standpoint, a few saints could not get canonized and a few appointments would have to hold titles similar to "temporary" or "acting," but no serious church activity would be affected. The pope sets policy (most of which is already pretty firmly in place) and performs a number of ceremonies (which can be deferred or have a replacement delegated). There is no earth-shattering daily need for the pope to be up and active.

[Frank]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

From a practical standpoint, a few saints could not get canonized and a few appointments would have to hold titles similar to "temporary" or "acting," but no serious church activity would be affected. The pope sets policy (most of which is already pretty firmly in place) and performs a number of ceremonies (which can be deferred or have a replacement delegated). There is no earth-shattering daily need for the pope to be up and active.

What about appointing cardinals? Say a pope went into a long term coma or whatever, and by the time he died, there were no cardinals under 80?

[BobT]

That would have to be a very long coma, if not a state of suspended animation.

It would require a pope being elected at a relatively young age and then becoming incapicitated almost immediately and staying that way for decades.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by tomndebb

...Why? As long as he is lying in bed with no way to change his staff, everyone gets to keep their current jobs and power. Once he dies, the (younger) cardinals go into conclave and it is anyone's guess who the next pope will be, thus jeopardizing the postions of any senior staff member who cannot absolutely guarantee the selection of next pope. (I will also preemptively note that three of the last four popes were a surprise to the political speculators, reducing the possibility that there is any "fix" in for the next pope. When you put dozens of powerful political guys together to take a vote, you will find that "controlling" them is rather more difficult than your typically wild-eyed conspiracist can really predict.)

I know that it is fun to imagine all these grey eminences wandering about plotting murder and mayhem, but between the number of people involved who would actually morally oppose murder and the number of people whose jobs might be jeopardized by any skulduggery, such conspiracy theories are pretty silly.

This is the most likely scenario. If the pope is incapacitated, they'll prop him up and wheel him out, if possible, to make the odd (very odd) public appearance, thn trot him back to his little room, lock him up, and the grey eminences will run the show from behind the curtains.

The pope appoints a mess of underlings to do various jobs, the equivalent of secretary of state, secretary of finance, etc. plus deputy head for the college of cardinals. These guys stay in their jobs, and unless a real vicious office politics infighting breaks out, they run things quietly and without making waves or setting out on significant policy changes, and everything coasts until it is time for fresh blood (fresh brains?). the pope's implied number two man will run the show.

I suppose the Vatican's worst nightmare is Alzheimers, a physically strong and capable pope with diminished mental capacity and erratic behaviour. Again, the back rooms recognize this and would take the same steps. The guys who used to share a beer with the pope when they were back in the College of Cardinals together are not going to suddenly defer to him, even as a raving looney just because he's pope. They will recognize he's having "issues" and take the necessary steps to prevent him from damaging himself or the church's reputation. (Similar to King George III, I assume). The biggest danger is when he is slipping away but the significance of the problem is still unclear...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

I don't think Cardinal is considered to be the precursor to Pope. Indeed, you don't need to be a Cardinal, even if that is often de facto the case.

Originally Posted by jayjay

You don't even need to be a priest, really.

Not quite -- there is a nuance.

The Code of Canon Law, Can. 332 ß1, provides that the newly-elected Pope acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. This means he must be a bishop in order to become Pope.

It does not, however, prevent the cardinals from electing any baptized male. If the College of Cardinals should happen to choose someone who did not already "have the episcopal character," canon law requires that the man elected is immediately to be ordained as bishop.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not quite -- there is a nuance.

The Code of Canon Law, Can. 332 ß1, provides that the newly-elected Pope acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. This means he must be a bishop in order to become Pope.

It does not, however, prevent the cardinals from electing any baptized male. If the College of Cardinals should happen to choose someone who did not already "have the episcopal character," canon law requires that the man elected is immediately to be ordained as bishop.

Yes, but that's after-the-fact of the actual election. If the spirit moves the College to elect Giuseppe Bagadonutsi the shepherd boy as Pope, he would be slated to be ordained and consecrated, but they still elected Giuseppe Bagadonutsi, the shepherd boy, not Giuseppe Bagadonutsi the priest/bishop/cardinal.

[Procrustus]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Not quite -- there is a nuance.

The Code of Canon Law, Can. 332 ß1, provides that the newly-elected Pope acquires full and supreme power in the Church when, together with episcopal consecration, he has been lawfully elected and has accepted the election. This means he must be a bishop in order to become Pope.

It does not, however, prevent the cardinals from electing any baptized male. If the College of Cardinals should happen to choose someone who did not already "have the episcopal character," canon law requires that the man elected is immediately to be ordained as bishop.

What if the Cardinals chose me, an atheist Jew? (but male) Could I be Pope?

I have found my answer:

Technically, a non-Catholic male could be elected Pope, but he would have to be immediately converted to Catholicism, ordained as a priest, and consecrated as a bishop before becoming Pope. However, this is extremely unlikely

I'll do it!

[Kenm]

Is Jesus (the Hebrew one) reckoned to be a bishop, for the purposes of taking over from the Christ pro tempor? Or would the cardinals have to make him one first?

What would happen if he turned it down?

[RachelNewstead]

Originally Posted by tremorviolet

Or is the position for life, no matter what? I feel sorta bad for the guy, the way he's carted around and propped up in front of windows. Surely he'd be better off if he didn't have the stresses of being Pope along with the physical problems.

Oh, and what if he's permanently mentally incapacitated? Can he be relieved of duties or would the Vatican pull a "Woodrow Wilson"?

Which raises yet another question--if a pope does abdicate, what title does he hold, if any? Is he "demoted" back to cardinal? Is he considered something along the lines of a "pope emeritus?" Or does abdication entail leaving the clergy entirely, making him an ordinary layman?

[hajario]

Originally Posted by RachelNewstead

Which raises yet another question--if a pope does abdicate, what title does he hold, if any? Is he "demoted" back to cardinal? Is he considered something along the lines of a "pope emeritus?" Or does abdication entail leaving the clergy entirely, making him an ordinary layman?

Just to let you know, you have responded to a seven year old thread. Some of the participants have moved on.

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by hajario

Just to let you know, you have responded to a seven year old thread. Some of the participants have moved on.

So has the Pope.

[Lukeinva]

Originally Posted by muldoonthief

So has the Pope.

He hath ressurected.

[Leo Bloom]

Originally Posted by Lukeinva

He hath ressurected.

He is risen. See long thread withstand subject.

[Smapti]

The question is, if the Pope dies, then returns as a zombie, is he still Pope? Can the cardinals go on with the election process, or do they have to destroy his brain first?

[robert_columbia]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The question is, if the Pope dies, then returns as a zombie, is he still Pope? Can the cardinals go on with the election process, or do they have to destroy his brain first?

I think he would need to go to Confession, if not immediately then soon, because isn't eating brains a mortal sin?

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by robert_columbia

I think he would need to go to Confession, if not immediately then soon, because isn't eating brains a mortal sin?

Only during Lent, I think.

[MEBuckner]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The question is, if the Pope dies, then returns as a zombie, is he still Pope? Can the cardinals go on with the election process, or do they have to destroy his brain first?

The traditional procedure was for the Papal Camerlengo to smash the deceased Pope's skull with a silver hammer.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

The traditional procedure was for the Papal Camerlengo to smash the deceased Pope's skull with a silver hammer.

I know this was a whoosh, but do they still really and truly tap a pope on the head with a hammer to see if he's still alive?

[Leo Bloom]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

The traditional procedure was for the Papal Camerlengo to smash the deceased Pope's skull with a silver hammer.

What about the Pope's nose?

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by RachelNewstead

Which raises yet another question--if a pope does abdicate, what title does he hold, if any? Is he "demoted" back to cardinal? Is he considered something along the lines of a "pope emeritus?" Or does abdication entail leaving the clergy entirely, making him an ordinary layman?

I don't think there is one. Or at least wasn't one in the late Medieval period, which was sort of the hey-day of ex-popes and ex-anti-popes.

When the anti-pope John XXIII (not to be confused with the more modern pope of the same name) was forced to resign, he went to Florence where the Medici for various reasons wanted to legitimize his former papacy. When he died, to reinforce the fact that he'd been a 'real' pope before resigning, they put "former pope ("quondam papa") John XXIII" on his tomb instead of just "Cardinal John".

Presumably if there was a standard title for ex-popes, they would've used that instead of the somewhat awkward sounding "former pope".

[thelurkinghorror]

I don't think Cardinal is considered to be the precursor to Pope. Indeed, you don't need to be a Cardinal, even if that is often de facto the case. They would not get defrocked unless they also did something bad. I don't think bishop is even implied.

Benedict IX - resigned (twice I believe) because he was a scumbag and did it for money. Not much record on him after he was completely done.

Celestine V - preferred to be a hermit. Was later recalled, imprisoned, and possibly killed. I am going to assume that hermit = no position of power, safe no?

Gregory XII - did so to keep the peace after the Western Schism, where there were two antipopes. "Peaceful obscurity" that suggests he probably didn't participate in politics.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by thelurkinghorror

I don't think Cardinal is considered to be the precursor to Pope. Indeed, you don't need to be a Cardinal, even if that is often de facto the case.

You don't even need to be a priest, really.

[TriPolar]

I was responsible for the death of two Popes. If retirement was a possibility, that would have been a lot easier.

[Leo Bloom]

Must you be circumcised to be Pope? Carnal wedding ring and all that?

[muldoonthief]

Originally Posted by Leo Bloom

Must you be circumcised to be Pope? Carnal wedding ring and all that?

No, but if Showtime has taught me anything, you need "duos testiculos et bene pedentes." And they check.

[BigT]

It seems to me to be an odd question.

I don't see how the Pope could possibly not be able to abdicate, as he has supreme authority when speaking ex cathedra. If the Pope says God says it's okay for him to abdicate, it is okay. The Pope in his infallible role could not be disallowed anything, as he could change the rules.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by BigT

It seems to me to be an odd question.

I don't see how the Pope could possibly not be able to abdicate, as he has supreme authority when speaking ex cathedra. If the Pope says God says it's okay for him to abdicate, it is okay. The Pope in his infallible role could not be disallowed anything, as he could change the rules.

That's actually a pretty typical misunderstanding of papal infallibility. Whether or not a pope can resign is not a matter of doctrine or faith, which are the only matters the pope can proclaim infallibly.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by jayjay

That's actually a pretty typical misunderstanding of papal infallibility. Whether or not a pope can resign is not a matter of doctrine or faith, which are the only matters the pope can proclaim infallibly.

Yes, it is. I don't misunderstand it. Things are doctrine because the pope says they are. If the Pope says that something is something God told him to do or not to do, then the administrative rules have to be rewritten. The only other possibility is deposing the pope.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by BigT

Yes, it is. I don't misunderstand it. Things are doctrine because the pope says they are. If the Pope says that something is something God told him to do or not to do, then the administrative rules have to be rewritten. The only other possibility is deposing the pope.

That's not really the way it works. Although it is amusing that some of the same people who believe this also believe that John Paul I was murdered for daring to go after the Vatican Bank/Banco Ambrosiano scandal...how surprised he would have been that if he'd just declared the whole thing anathema, the whole Church would have fallen in behind him and he might have had a 30-year reign...

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by jayjay

That's not really the way it works. Although it is amusing that some of the same people who believe this also believe that John Paul I was murdered for daring to go after the Vatican Bank/Banco Ambrosiano scandal...how surprised he would have been that if he'd just declared the whole thing anathema, the whole Church would have fallen in behind him and he might have had a 30-year reign...

Well, then educate me as well. I was also under the impression that if the Pope decreed that priests did not have to practice celibacy, or that chewing tobacco was mandatory for all Catholics that his word was infallible and the same as if God himself spoke it.

[AWB]

Upon reading this in Wikipedia:

Having been gradually forced to give up temporal power, popes now focus almost exclusively on religious matters.

my first thought was: "Wow, the Pope used to be able to control time!"

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by md2000

But basically, they are like soldiers - they go where they are told, the whole of their life is pretty much run by the heirarchy... or at least that's the way I remember it. Beyond basic little things like books, radios, etc. they did not have a lot in the way of personal possessions and material goods. Although, if your country is like Canada, sometimes here the priest would end up with a car courtesy of a generous parishoner who owned a car dealership - but notice even then, the car is donated to the parish (hence a charitable deduction). If the priest left, the car stayed for the new priest.

No. Diocesan priests in the United States are housed by the diocese and earn a salary on top of that. To pick a diocese in example, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati pays a base salary of $27422 per annum with increases for years of service. From that, priests buy cars, plane tickets, restaurant meals, and so on.

Similarly, household expenses for the parish house, groceries, or whatever come out of the collection revenue. A priest in a fairly well-off parish could appear to be living the high life - a car, nice lodgings, good furniture and amenities, maid service, etc. Much of this might come at a discount from generous parishoners.

Not exactly.

Parishes have budgets and a budgeting process overseen by the diocese. A wealthy parish does not necessarily mean a luxurious rectory.

What, specifically, is your experience with the topic? You have some small, and some grave, misconceptions.

All very very different from what happens with Catholic priests for the current way things are run. A priest may express his wishes, lobby for a certain option, he may be given choices, but generally it is not his decision to make, how he serves the church.

Again, it depends. Canon law vests priests with rights. A diocesan priest is incardinated to his diocese; he cannot be sent to another diocese, for example, involuntarily.

Again, what is the source of your information or experience?

[md2000]

Interesting. My misconception then is that my main experience was talking monastic types mainly, not parish priests.

The church I grew up near was actually more like hotel central for quite a few priests, and the nuns and monks who taught the schools were not given a lot of the perks you mentioned. The next parish I lived near the two priests (those were the days) lived in a small apartment set-up on the side of the church.

As opposed to the ex-ministers I worked with (one whom found there was no market for divorced baptist ministers); he had survived on the fact that his wife also worked and brought in some money too, since his salary was barely adequate.

[Nava]

Originally Posted by md2000

Interesting. My misconception then is that my main experience was talking monastic types mainly, not parish priests.

Yeah, you finally got it. Monks is not the same as priests.

Think of it as if pastors who belong to large churches are corporate employees, while those who are hired by a smaller congregation are employees of a smaller company.

Priests do not live in community, do not have a vow of poverty, do not have a vow of obedience, have always held other jobs if they wanted to (the "worker priest" movement of the '60s and '70s was about getting blue-collar jobs rather than the white-collar ones they've usually held, being educated people). They go on vacation wherever they want to and can afford, just like anybody else.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Nava

Priests do not live in community, do not have a vow of poverty, do not have a vow of obedience, have always held other jobs if they wanted to (the "worker priest" movement of the '60s and '70s was about getting blue-collar jobs rather than the white-collar ones they've usually held, being educated people). They go on vacation wherever they want to and can afford, just like anybody else.

It depends on the order, though. Franciscan priests do take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Our parish priests were always TOR (Third Order Regular) Franciscans, and they all lived in the rectory. The church itself owned everything.

[md2000]

Originally Posted by Nava

Yeah, you finally got it. Monks is not the same as priests.

Think of it as if pastors who belong to large churches are corporate employees, while those who are hired by a smaller congregation are employees of a smaller company.

Priests do not live in community, do not have a vow of poverty, do not have a vow of obedience, have always held other jobs if they wanted to (the "worker priest" movement of the '60s and '70s was about getting blue-collar jobs rather than the white-collar ones they've usually held, being educated people). They go on vacation wherever they want to and can afford, just like anybody else.

Hmm.. Quite the opposite from my impression of the way things worked. After all, you read things like the diocese moving a priest (many priests) halfway across the country or even out of the country on short notice. Although that didn't stop the eventual lawsuits, they did often evade prosecution. So how did that work - did they find a non-parochial job? (According to news reports, no.) Did the guy in a nice cushy parish get told "you are getting a new asistant/partner", or did they do the musical chairs thing? On the more mundane level, I heard stories of a local priest about 20 years ago who was moved because there were rumours he was carrying on with a divorced (female) parishoner.

As for jobs, the only "working" priests I ever heard of were doing things like teaching, university jobs, running charity projects and other such "church" stuff. Same with all the new articles, stories and literature I read about this... Maybe it would solve their priest shortage if the got back to the parsh priests being simply ordained from dedicated members of the local community with an outside life; but I never heard of priests living that way.

But then again, most of my exposure was decades ago, before I decided not to be involved with the church, and I never really asked any priests the details of their financial life. North Americans typically have this thing that how much money you have, or make, or how you spend it, is nobody's business. Back then, the concern would be more about things like should the priest even have a TV, let alone colour TV, if most of his parishoners could not afford one? Is watching TV tripe even appropriate activity for a priest? Ah, we've come a long way, father...

All in all, very different from where the locals in a protestant church or synagog get a committee together from the church board, to hire someone and pay them out of the congregation assets.

I have never heard of the local Catholic congregation being in any way involved in priest hiring or selction, except to complain when a popular one was replaced by powers above. I guess if I cared at all, I would know more about current practices.