Can the Pope resign?

[ElDestructo]

Since I was raised fundamentalist protestant, I have little knowledge of all things Papal. If John Paul II’s health deteriorates to a point where he can no longer fulfill the duties of his office, can he step down or is the Pope appointed for life regardless? Can he be removed from office if he is deemed unfit to proceed? Who would do the deeming in such a case?

[Akatsukami]

The Roman Pope (there are others) can abdicate…probably. The difficulty is that the Pope (in the Catholic view) is God’s highest representative on earth, so who can he tender his resignation to?

Nevertheless, Celestine V (1294) resigned, athough he was tricked into it by (probably) Crdinal Gaetani (who was then elected Pope as Boniface VIII) and the resignation is held to be valid. Gregory XII (the last pope on the Roman end of the Great Schism) had his resignation pronounced by a representative in 1415.

The pope cannot be deposed (by earthly authority, anyway), although some popes have been imprisoned (as Pius VI, Boniface VIII, and Martin I). The camerlingo of the Church, I think, would take over the non-sacral duties of the pope in the event of his disability. The judging of that disability would probably be in the eyes of the papal consistory and other senior official of the Catholic Church.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Like every other ecclesiastical dignity, the papal throne may also be resigned. The reasons which make it lawful for a bishop to abdicate his see, such as the necessity or utility of his particular church, or the salvation of his own soul, apply in a stronger manner to the one who governs the universal church. It is true that the Roman Pontiff has no superior on earth into whose hands he can resign his dignity, yet he himself by the papal power can dissolve the spiritual marriage between himself and the Roman Church. A papal Abdication made without cause may be illicit, but it is unquestionably valid, since there is no one who can prohibit it ecclesiastically and it contravenes no divine law. The papacy does not, like the episcopacy, imprint an indelible character on the soul, and hence by his voluntary Abdication the Pope is entirely stripped of all jurisdiction, just as by his voluntary acceptance of the election to the primacy he acquired it. All doubt as to the legitimacy of papal abdications and all disputes among canonists were put an end to by the decree of Pope Boniface VIII which was received into the Corpus Juris Canonici (Cap. Quoniam I, de renun., in 6). The Pontiff says:

Our predecessor, Pope Celestine V, whilst he governed the Church, constituted and decreed that the Roman Pontiff can freely resign. Therefore lest it happen that this statute should in the course of time fall into oblivion, or that doubt upon the subject should lead to further disputes, We have determined with the counsel of our brethren that it be placed among other constitutions for a perpetual memory of the same.

…

The classic example of the resignation of a Pope is that of St. Celestine V (1294). before his election to the pontificate, he had been a simple hermit, and his sudden elevation found him unprepared and unfit for his exalted position. After five months of pontificate, he issued a solemn decree in which he declared that it was permissible for the Pope to abdicate, and then made an equally solemn renunciation of the papacy into the hands of the cardinals.

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01031a.htm

As to whether or not a Pope can be removed I’m unsure…

XIII. CAN A COUNCIL DEPOSE THE POPE?

This question is a legitimate one, for in the history of the Church circumstances have arisen in which several pretenders contended for papal authority and councils were called upon to remove certain claimants. The Councils of Constance and Basle, and Gallican theologians, hold that a council may depose a pope on two main grounds:

ob mores (for his conduct or behaviour, e.g. his resistance to the synod)
ob fidem (on account of his faith or rather want of faith, i.e. heresy).
In point of fact, however, heresy is the only legitimate ground. For a heretical pope has ceased to be a member of the Church, and cannot, therefore, be its head. A sinful pope, on the other hand, remains a member of the (visible) Church and is to be treated as a sinful, unjust ruler for whom we must pray, but from whom we may not withdraw our obedience.

But the question assumes another aspect when a number of claimants pretend to be the rightful occupants of the Apostolic See, and the right of each is doubtful. In such a case the council, according to Bellarmine (Disputationes, II xix, de Conciliis) has a right to examine the several claims and to depose the pretenders whose claims are unfounded. This was done at the Synod of Constance. But during this process of examination the synod is not yet Ecumenical; it only becomes so the moment the rightful pope assents to its proceedings. It is evident that this is no instance of a legitimate pope being deposed by a legitimate council, but simply the removal of pretender by those on whom he wishes to impose will.

Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful. In all controversies and complaints regarding Rome the rule laid down by the Eighth General Synod should never be lost sight of: “If a universal synod be assembled and any ambiguity or controversy arise concerning the Holy Church of the Romans, the question should be examined and solved with due reverence and veneration, in a spirit of mutual helpfulness; no sentence should be audaciously pronounced against the supreme pontiff of the elder Rome” (can. xxi. Hefele, IV, 421-22).

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

[3waygeek]

ElDestructo wrote:

If John Paul II’s health deteriorates to a point where he can no longer fulfill the duties of his office, can he step down or is the Pope appointed for life regardless?

Well, there’s an old saying at the Vatican – something like “the Pope is not sick until he is dead.” The Vatican is notoriously reluctant to admit any truly serious papal health problems.

As pointed out in other responses, that doesn’t mean that the Pope can’t step down (I’ve usually seen the term abdicate used in this context, reinforcing the image of Pope as a ruler).

[SmackFu]

Here’s a little article from Slate on the question:
http://slate.msn.com/code/Explainer/Explainer.asp?Show=2/22/2001&idMessage=7125

[dolphinboy]

The practical answer to the OP is that yes, the Pope could resign… but why would he? If he is ill they would simply reduce his tasks or put him in the hospital. The current Pope disappears for days or weeks when he is sick and nobody seem to worry about that too much. There are plenty of people around him who could handle the day-to-day tasks leaving him to handle the really important things.

If he is incapacitated they would probably hide that fact for as long as possible. The Pope would eventually die and a new Pope would step in. Nobody would be the wiser. (Much like they use to do with the aging Russian heads of state).

I can’t see anyone suggesting that they put the Holy Father in an old folks home… his life is extremely regimented and I bet he can have his workload reduced to almost nothing should that be necessary and the papal duties would still continue to get done. There’s a fairly big papal machine behind the man…

[Guinastasia]

Couldn’t he just appoint a Regent Pope, like other monarchs do?

[The_Ryan]

Seeing as part of the definition of “monarchy” is that power is inherited, I don’t think that the Papacy qualifies as such.

[kniz]

Just like in “Hotel California”, he can resign, but he can never leave.

[APB]

[hijack]

*Originally posted by The Ryan *
**Seeing as part of the definition of “monarchy” is that power is inherited, I don’t think that the Papacy qualifies as such. **

Except that inheritance is not part of the definition of “monarchy”. Elective monarchies have existed and, in the case of the papacy, still do. The Pope is the sovereign ruler of the Vatican City State.

[/hijack]

[Milton_De_La_Warre]

Could someone please clarify this (from an earlier post):“Not even John XXIII could have been deposed at Constance, had his election not been doubtful and himself suspected of heresy. John XXIII, moreover, abdicated and by his abdication made his removal from the Apostolic See lawful.”?

Isn’t John XXIII the pope of the late 50’s and early 60’s who is the subject of several current threads? Isn’t he the one they dug up and made a saint out of? I thought he died in office instead of quit.

[tomndebb]

The first John XXIII was one of the anti-popes who arose at the cusp of the Medieval and Renaissance periods. There were several occasions when various kings tried imposing their will on the Church to determine who would be pope.

During the Medieval period, the Church had acquired a lot of land and power, wielded through the administration of the various bishops and abbots. With that (political) power came entangling alliances with the various kings, princes, dukes, and occasional emperors. This led to the politicization of the selection of the pope. On several occasions, the various papal electors organized themselves along secular political lines and competing groups elected different popes. Whichever pope was later determined to have been the “wrong” pope is now identified as an anti-pope, but for the period he held office, among the people who elected and supported him, he “was” the pope.

The first John XXIII was chosen by one of the many factions (in this case, centered in Pisa), during this time. He held the office (or one version of it) from 1410 to 1415.

At the time that he was (anti-)pope, there were two other claimants to the title. The Council of Constance decided to declare a plague on all their houses, deposed all of them, and selected a new single pope. I don’t have time to look it up right now, but I think that might have been the last incidence of having anti-popes.