On Benedict’s resignation

I get sent updates now and again from these guys: Bonner Querschnitte: Bonn Profiles – Press Reports from a joint platform for various Bonn organizations of the Evangelical Alliance in Germany.

In this one, Thomas Schirrmacher, who is chairman of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance, gives some interesting observations in an interview on the Pope’s decision to resign as compared to Pope John Paul’s highly sacramental understanding of the office.

You published a German book in 2002 entitled The Pope and Suffering: Why the Pope does not resign, which in 2005 was released with the title Pope John Paul II and Suffering: Why the Pope does not resign. What distinguishes Pope Benedict from his predecessor?

Pope Benedict has clearly understood his office to be less sacramental than his predecessor, who saw his suffering as a continuation of the suffering of Christ. In recent months it has been noticeable that Benedict has above all increasingly lost control over the governmental sector of the Vatican. The spiritual aspect of his office, as head of the church and as a theologian, has always been more of a priority than the political aspect as head of state of the Holy See. It is not by chance that the political significance and the political activity of the Vatican have been reduced at several points. Even in Germany in his farewell address in Freiburg he called for the Roman Catholic Church to loosen itself from being caught up with the world. It is completely in keeping with how Benedict became Pope and what his understanding of the papal office is, that he would give up the office if he can no longer guarantee its leadership.

 Less sacramental?

Yes. He once said to the cardinals that a pope is fallible most of the time. In most of his masses and addresses there are hints that he makes mistakes, that he seeks forgiveness from God and the Church, and that he can only hope that God will protect him from wrong decisions. That even applies to his short resignation announcement. This was not the case with John Paul II. That includes the continual indications made by Benedict that he is not head of the church but rather that Jesus is.

The Pope has made many an unusual decision substantiating this. Thus his three volume book on Jesus was written expressly as a private individual who makes mistakes, which anyone may freely communicate to him by email. No predecessor of his had ever done such a thing; in the past published papal writings were always official writings only. Within his annual meeting with former students, he was nothing more than the professor conducting discussions, and he was one who also willingly invited Protestant professors to join in the discussion. He abruptly did away with the status symbols of his predecessors, above all those of a political nature, such as head coverings symbolizing political power.  Stated another way, in contrast to his predecessors, Pope Benedict never gave up being the private individual Joseph Ratzinger, and thus it is only consistent that he may retire from participation in public affairs, becoming a private man again.


From the Evangelical point of view, which publications do you find to be his most significant?

First of all, I would mention the three volume book on Jesus. Not only because it fights for the historical credibility of the Gospels, but above all due to its argumentation. The Pope wanted to make it clear that Jesus is the epicenter of the Christian faith and he repeated this clearly at the synod: the Christian faith is a personal relationship with Jesus. He continually says that the future belongs to a Christianity of decision, based on a personal decision and a relationship with Jesus, not a Christianity of traditional or cultural membership.

Next to that I would mention his first encyclical God is love (Deus caritas est), which places something in the center which strangely has been missing for hundreds of years in church confessions, that is that love is God’s central characteristic in the Bible. In the center is a nonviolent Christianity which forces no one and devotes itself towards those who are weak.

The second encyclical Saved in Hope was actually almost only a Bible study, apart from the final chapter about Mary which comes off as attached in order to make the document ‘Catholic.’

 Hasn’t the Pope been a rather conservative hardliner?

With ethical questions he was much more conservative that he was with dogmatic questions. Since ethical questions above all occupy the secular public and liberal Catholics, the dogmatic side of things was given less attention. Viewed dogmatically, he brought movement and made approaches to other churches, also to Evangelicals. This was tangible from the abolition of ‘limbus’ early on in his term in office, to the book on Jesus in which he was to a certain extent exegetically generous and broke away from later typically Catholic interpretations, and all the way to the relationship with Orthodox churches. One notices that as a well-read theologian he thoroughly knew other positions from books and writings as well as from comprehensive conversations and that he took the dogmatic discussion and opinion of others seriously.


PS A good time to note that my wife and I had an audience with Pope Benedict in the Vatican a few years ago ….. a very interesting experience indeed. I should also say there were about another 5000 people in the hall!


2 thoughts on “On Benedict’s resignation

  1. Patrick, I haven’t followed Benedict’s papacy very closely. I do know him more for the books on Jesus that he wrote and we bought for the IBI Library. There are two things that I like about him, first his courage to resign and to acknowledge that he is only a human being. The last days of John Paul II the second where horrible to watch as one saw a man who was fading away not able to relate to others. As many said, this had a big impact on his own resignation. The other thing was, his courage to say what needed to be said, like when he visited England and spoke about the dangerous of creating pluralistic societies without recognizing that Europe has been built on a Judeo-Christian way of looking at the world. May be he was a hardliner as people said, therefore he was not received as warmly as others, but, as I watched a programme last night about him, he had to deal and dealt as much as he could with the terrible scandals that he inherited that were not dealt before by the previous pope.
    As a Christian, who happens to be within evangelical circles, I am very conscious that whether I like the idea of the papacy or not, a good pope can still be a strong voice against the total secularisation and pluralistic society that others are trying to impose on Europe.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s