There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth since Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation, through ill-health, from the job of being God’s chosen representative on earth. The act itself may have come as a surprise, but not the reaction; after all, if any position should be considered a job for life, surely it is that of Pope.
Pope Benedict XVI announces his surprise resignation during a press conference at the Vatican
However, in these days of career plans and exit-strategies, and with the most popular method of removal in their early days, that of martyrdom (favoured by half of the first sixteen incumbents) being no longer considered politically-correct, it was obviously time for the church to modernise its HR policies. Even so, retirement had not been used for nearly six hundred years, since Gregory XII, it is said, was persuaded to stand aside at the Council of Constance in 1415. He had been one of three rival claimants to the Papal throne at that time, John XXIII and Benedict XII being the other two, all of whom had self-elected and were subsequently removed from contention so that council could elect a single replacement. The only others to ‘do a runner’ were Celestine V, who handed-in his key in 1294 after just five months in the job, and Benedict IX who sold the papacy to his Godfather in 1085. Before that we need to go all the way back to St Pontian in 235 before we find another.
Still, just seven ricidivists in two-thousand years is not a bad employee-retention record. However, with three of those seven named Benedict, plus two further of that name, Benedict V & VI, having been deposed that moniker does not appear to be the most reliable choice of taken-name. Maybe the upcoming conclave might consider asking future candidates to nominate their chosen papal name in advance, in order to eliminate the possibility of history once again repeating itself.
I was listening to one of those busybody phone-ins on the radio at lunchtime, about whether this is now the time to modernise the Catholic Church, during which three callers made interesting points. The first gentleman, a devout Catholic, was steadfast in insisting that it was not for the church to change, but those who worshipped in it. A fair point, probably lost on the smartphone generation, but well-made; he concluded his argument by stating that catholicism is not a brand.
The next lady was more liberal, thinking that now was the time for change and, after-all, most of the doctrines that are outmoded have been around since the ‘seventies. I hope that she meant the eleven-seventies, but then everything is so instant these days. Her main point was the lack of tolerance of divorcees in the Catholic Church, and the double-standard when similar ‘slips’ happen to priests. She argued that if a Catholic priest ‘falls’ and has a relationship, then they are given the opportunity to atone, whereas once divorced a Catholic, whether culpable or not, is given no such opportunity. She was, of course, a divorcee.
The final point was a text which said, quite succinctly, that surely, as God’s chosen one, all the Pope had to do was pray for enough health and strength to continue his work, and then just carry-on until the ultimate answer came back. If he could no longer do that, then surely he had lost his faith – ergo: the man at the top of that church no longer believed in the Deity that had selected him.
That sheer simple logic took my thoughts back to the first point regarding branding. Of course we are not talking about pure marketing or promotion here, but there are theological similarities to such concepts in every monotheistic religion. The common factor between them all is that there is one God, and He is all around us. The differences between them are in the way each religion signifies that, and in the manner in which an adherent is expected to behave towards their chosen Deity.
Leaving aside exactly how any single religion evolved its method of worship and manner of living, the first contributor was absolutely right – it is not for worshippers to dictate how a religion should meet the demands of its Maker, but for individuals to adapt their lives to the standards laid-down for them to be part of it. Surely the supplicant, in making a choice as to how they want to recognise their God, has already acknowledged any personal adjustment necessary to maintain that recognition?
If a particular religion is less-tolerant of certain behaviour, then that must be taken into account when deciding to join, or leave should circumstances change – such conservative or liberal attitudes are purely human, and therefore standards applied by the people in the church, not the Deity it represents.
At the end of the day, all church leaders are only human, with all of the frailities that condition encompasses. Frailness is often seen as synonimous with weakness, yet surely it is only weak to delude oneself that such susceptibily does not exist. Maybe in having the strength to recognise personal frailty, Pope Benedict will give his church the strength to deal with shortcomings of its own that it has chosen to ignore for too long.
© 2013 CepenPark Publishing Ltd except for linked images hosted on third-party sites.
For image source details hover over the image or click on the image to visit the host site.