Much of the Catholic world was stunned by the news that Pope Benedict XVI will resign the papacy at the end of this month. Benedict's timing cannot be coincidental.
The declaration came a few days before the start of Lent. That is the forty days before Easter that many Christians customarily use to reflect on the suffering and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, as well as his life, death, burial and resurrection. It is also a time of hopeful renewal.
The last time a pope resigned voluntarily was 1294 when Celestine V abdicated. Legend has it that the great poet Dante was so incensed that he put the retired pontiff into the antechamber of his Inferno. In the seven hundred years since no other pope has ever taken the name Celestine.
On Ash Wednesday, I met for a two-hour discussion with The Most Reverend Michael Miller, Archbishop of Vancouver. Miller is a globally respected papal scholar and author of seven books on topics ranging from the Holy See's teaching on Catholic schools, to the development of the papacy and the encyclicals of Pope John Paul II. Before coming to Vancouver, he was senior official of the Roman Curia, in the Vatican's Secretariat of State, and served as secretary of the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education and vice president of the Pontifical Work of Priestly Vocations.
Miller worked closely with Pope Benedict and calls him "one of the great intellectual, scholarly popes." He told me that the pontiff has a "masterful mind and a sweet disposition" -- someone who, although a keen and attentive listener, was always the "smartest guy in the room."
Miller is also close to one of the leading contenders for the papacy, Cardinal Marc Ouellett of Quebec. He and Ouellet attended seminary together and served at the same time in Rome. Today, Cardinal Ouellet of Quebec is at the very pinnacle of the Vatican hierarchy as Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. Miller is obviously a great supporter of Ouellet and believes he has all the necessary attributes for a great pope.
Whether Ouellet emerges as the new Holy Father or not, Archbishop Miller is sanguine about the selection process. Despite the view of some that the meeting of the College of Cardinals is largely a political process, Miller insists that no "campaigning" takes place. He told me that this is a quiet, reflective, and prayerful process. "Decisions are based on spiritual reflection and who Cardinals truly believe is the best man for the job at the time", Miller told me. Each Cardinal takes a Latin oath, which translates to: "I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I think should be elected."
Miller emphasized that participants in the Conclave are deeply spiritual people who understand the solemnity and momentousness of their charge.
Archbishop Miller embodies all I love about the Catholic Church. He's warmhearted and gracious, approachable and sympathetic, sincere and authentic. He's a brilliant and erudite pastor and teacher. And he is also a tough and resolute disciple, guardian and teacher of church doctrine.
The selection of a new pope always gives rise to those who hope to "modernize" the Church. This view reflects a misunderstanding of the very foundations of the Catholic Church and its sacraments. No pope has authority to alter essential doctrine, and by definition, it is inconceivable that someone who isn't orthodox could ever be called to the papacy.
At its core, belief in the doctrine of the Catholic Church is an act of faith, and as such, cannot be modified to "fit the times." In an era of rapid technological, social, and economic transformation, there is a comforting tranquility in the rock of Catholicism and its institutions. It may be tough for non-Catholics or non-believers to grasp, but the Church isn't in business to adapt to the ever-changing dispositions of our society.
For Catholics, it is incumbent on us to embrace Jesus Christ and His teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: "efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions."
I am the product of a Catholic school education in Quebec. While my faith has never fully left me, it has certainly been severely tested. I doubted the relevance of the church and its sacraments to my daily life. But my search resulted in rediscovering the magnificence and power of my faith. For me, it has been an even more profound and rich blessing the second time around.
And I feel a great sense of gratitude to Archbishop Michael Miller -- and countless others like him -- who hear and accept the call to serve.
Follow Daniel D. Veniez on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@danveniez
No, but any individual or institution that sets reason aside or tries to deny the rights of others is going to fail. The catholic church was all powerful once, but that wasn't on the strength or purity of its doctrines: people were commanded by political power (of which the church had lots) to attend mass or face punishment. As soon as such laws were lifted and people were independent, the church saw attendance start to decline.
When human rights were developed and adopted by nations, the catholic church was in conflict with these "progressive" ideas again and again. About women's rights, democracy, unions, slavery, contraception, safe sex, LGBT: it has been on the wrong side of human rights for over 300 years.
It adapts, but late, and there is an enormous rift between the "rules" of the church (i.e. no female priests, nuns subservient to priests, condemning gays and lesbians) and the values that mainstream society sees as increasingly "more moral" than the church's teachings and its practices (forgiving and transferring priests who abuse boys is one example).
I see no point in celebrating an institution that would eliminate and reverse the rights and privileges that secular society has bestowed on the author's wife, his mother, his daughters and the rest of society.
Religious morality: doing what you're told regardless of what is right.
Secular morality: doing what is right regardless of what you're told.
You don't see the vatican endorsing slavery anymore do you?
None, however, were "eternal truths," or teachings of the Church. Big difference.
Of course the Church taught about the ever-present danger of witches, devils, and possession, and taught that Jews were to be despised as Christ-killers and Islam is a false religion (or worse). Will we only count as the Church's eternal truths things such as Transubstantiation and the Trinity? That makes for an easy out. Or do the eternal truths include more difficult teachings such as the banning of women from the priesthood, the banning of contraception, masturbation as a mortal sin, and so on?
When absorbing other faiths it adapted by adopting their holidays and occasionally their sacrements and rituals.
It adopted the rituals of its competitor, the religion of Mithras, including the birthdate of Mithras, December 25, as the birth date of Jesus.
The original sabbath was Saturday.
Constantine, when offering the Catholic church power, insisted that the sabbath be Sunday. And that was agreed.
Constantine told the various Christian factions to come up with standard doctrine and quit fighting. So they did. They came up with a bible or compilation of scripture and resolved various other issues.
There is nothing unholy about this expedience.
The duties to the commandments, the golden rule and to love our neighbour, those are fundamental.
The gospels also tell us what is not fundamental.
E.g., the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.
Jesus was about substance, not ritual, and he saw that unthinking devotion to ritual caused the Pharisees to foresake their duties.
Every generation produces its own Pharisees.
If church positions and rituals help you keep your commitments to your duties, so be it, but if they blind you to your duties to the commandments etc., they become an obstacle. What is required is adherence to principal, not ritual.
The Catholic church adapted in the past and when it failed to do so and ossified in ritual it stumbled.
The Catholic church has a duty to adapt, and there is precedent.
Daniel D. Veniez Entrepreneur, and former Liberal Party candidate, for such comic relief.
What other faith has an intellectual tradition that goes right back to the Greek philosophers and ranges from Augustine and Aquinas to Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger; has a catechism that explains and sources its teachings in great detail, produces encyclicals that address everything from the nature of truth, to human dignity, to social issues like the environment, poverty and economics (prompting, I might add, great debate among experts in these fields).
The very Pope who is stepping down has taught throughout his pontificate that faith and reason are both necessary if we are to understand reality and live our lives well. John Paul II taught the same principle in his encyclical Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason).
Has there been any progress in world history that wasn't in some way influenced by this Bronze Age religion, which by the way feeds, clothes and cares for more people in the world?
Some parking job.
The Church believes that it is guided by a "Holy Spirit" (of which there is no evidence) and that it is therefore infallible (ask Galileo) and cannot fall into doctrinal error (thereby asking you to park your brain at the door).
It asks you to believe in "Sacred Scriptures" including the Old Testament and its angels, demons, and miracles. The Old Testament dates to the Bronze Age, therefore the church is stuck there. It asks you to leave your brain at the gates, because it is asking you to believe in nonsense.
That is your prerogative -- but you must realize that comparing your faith against other faiths that demand belief in equally fantastical beliefs is a straw man argument. That the church does some good in the world is irrelevant to whether it is stuck in the Bronze Age and to whether it demands that you not think. Moreover, just like it does some good it has also done harm, continues to do so and shows no sign of stopping.
Finally, just as progress may have been spurred by this Bronze Age religion, progress was stunted and death caused by it. The dark ages, inquisition, crusades, medieval witch hunts, scientific regression (e.g., Galileo), women's rights are some examples that come to mind where the church has played a less than stellar role in "progress".
Not sure where some of you are getting your history from...the burning of millions of witches has long been debunked...but for a good discussion on the Church's role in history take a look at http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=518741.
Have Catholics done some crappy things through history? Sure. That's the history of the world. But the Catholic faith was there from 33 AD to the present and an unbiased view (neither pro-Catholic nor anti-Catholic) has to acknowledge its contribution to world history.