The pope to resign on February 28

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**reds8n**

This was the moment lightning struck the Vatican today - hours after Pope Benedict XVI's bolt-from-the-blue resignation.

The lightning touched the dome of St. Peter's Basilica, one of the holiest Catholic churches, after the Pope's shock admission he lacks strength to do the job.

I thought the only way out was dying.

No no, the Catholic church strongly supports people's right and ability to terminate, or abort, something that was presumably ordained by God before it's come to full term.

**WarOne**

reds8n wrote:

No no, the Catholic church strongly supports people's right and ability to terminate, or abort, something that was presumably ordained by God before it's come to full term.

Almost fell for the gut reaction to refute that, then looked at the context, the nuance within the nuance, then finally smiled at the winky face at the end.

**kronk**

n0t_u wrote:
So he's killing himself or something? I thought the only way out was dying.

No, he could be resigning over the priest scandals or he could have a terminal disease or he could have Alzheimer's (all speculation, of course). Either way, this way he can have a say in his successor and the church can move on.

**Alfndrate**

kronk wrote:
n0t_u wrote:
So he's killing himself or something? I thought the only way out was dying.

No, he could be resigning over the priest scandals or he could have a terminal disease or he could have Alzheimer's (all speculation, of course). Either way, this way he can have a say in his successor and the church can move on.

I guess I missed this, but where does it say the pope can have a say in his successor? The next pope will elected by the college of cardinals like always, does the Pope go back to these duties, and thus gets 1 vote amongst the 120 currently in there? Just some cursory glances, the only way to not be a cardinal, once appointed, is by death, resignation, or election to the papacy. So Benedict could step down, but wouldn't be a cardinal anymore, nor would he get a vote if he were to be a cardinal again because a ruling in 1970 limited the voting members of the college to those under the age of 80 (i.e. those that could be elected Pope). So Benedict is pretty much just going back to Joseph Ratzinger and living a quiet life with his cat(s).

Edit: Though to be fair, he is still technically infallible until the end of the month, he could change up the voting rules.

**kronk**

Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

**WarOne**

kronk wrote:
Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

it is an interesting anomaly because normally a pope's say in who becomes the next pope dies along with him and its up to the surviving electors to interpret his living will.

Now we will have a former pope be involved in the process one way or another!

**Alfndrate**

kronk wrote:
Unlike previous popes (who were dead during the selection process), Benedict will be alive during this selection. Even if he can't vote, he can still speak with the cardinals about the direction he things the church should go before they sequester themselves.

Okay, so it's nothing official, which is where my confusion was stemming from. I don't think Benny will be giving much advice though. I mean they can't start for 15 days after he resigns... *shrugs* it'll be interesting.

**rockerbikie**

I have heard the most likely candidate for the new Pope is a Cardinal from Canada.

**reds8n**

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/14/pope-allegedly-sought-immunity-for-abuse-crimes-just-before-resigning/

meh, sounds unlikely to me.

**Ouze**

Well, it's all going to remain a secret, anyway. source

Pope says Vatileaks probe will stay secret, adding intrigue to final days
By Erin McClam, Staff Writer, NBC News

A potentially explosive report into embarrassing leaks from the Vatican will be seen by only two people — Pope Benedict XVI and the man who succeeds him.

Italian newspapers have already angered the Vatican by suggesting that the report found evidence of corruption, blackmail and a gay sex ring, and that it triggered Benedict’s decision earlier this month to give up the papacy.

The Vatican said in a statement Monday that Benedict, who commissioned the report on leaks from three cardinals, is the only person who knows its contents and will make them available only to the next pope.

The pontiff also praised the cardinals for showing "the generosity, honesty and dedication of those who work in the Holy See," considering "the limitations and imperfections of the human component of each institution."

Over the weekend, the Vatican took the unusual step of lashing out at the Italian press — accusing it of "unverifiable or completely false news stories" designed to influence the conclave that will pick the next pope.

Father Thomas Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church," said that Benedict’s decision to keep the report secret was not a surprise.

"The Vatican doesn’t like to do its laundry in public," he said.
In any event, he added, the new pope could always decide to make the report public. Benedict’s decision simply gives him cover in case he wants to keep it private, Reese said.

The pope ordered the report on what has become known as the Vatileaks scandal last year after documents became public that deeply embarrassed the church, including some of Benedict’s own correspondence and letters alleging corruption.

Benedict pardoned the ex-butler, Paolo Gabriele, just before Christmas.

The pope, 85, announced earlier this month that he would abdicate, the first leader of the Catholic Church to do so since the Middle Ages. His last day is Thursday. A conclave to pick successor begins next month.

The decision to keep the leaks report secret adds a layer of intrigue to what has already been a tumultuous papal transition.

Just Monday, the most senior cleric in Britain, Cardinal Keith O’Brien, resigned after The Observer newspaper reported that three priests and a former priest had accused him of inappropriate behavior going back 30 years.

Also Monday, the pope changed Vatican law to allow his successor to be picked sooner — as soon as all the voting cardinals are in place in Rome. Under previous law, the conclave could not have begun before March 15.

That last sentence there is especially fascinating.

**Manchu**

Come back to earth, please:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/23/opinion/allen-vatican

**Kilkrazy**

That said, what about the Scottish cardinal resigning suddenly?

**Manchu**

Cardinal O'Brien resigned amid allegations that he himself once had inappropriate relations with seminarians (mind you, seems like whatever this was involved adults). Cardinal O'Brien is still a cardinal and a bishop emeritus but has said he will not participate in the coming conclave.

**Ouze**

I'm not an expert and this is just my uneducated, gut feeling, but I think that humans are sexual beings and a lifetime of celibacy - whatever the declared reason - is going to screw up the majority of people who take one and I think lead to a higher-than-normal rate of "sexual deviancy", however you define that.

I think I prefer the religions that allow for it's priests to marry. Besides, how can you realistically counsel married folks on issues you have decided never to partake in? Eh, maybe that's an appeal to... something. I guess you can counsel victims of abuse without being abused yourself.

I hope this isn't too offtopic, just filling space until there is a new development.

**Manchu**

I don't think celibacy is unnatural much less that it necessarily drives anyone to "deviancy," criminal or otherwise. That idea strikes me as particularly uncritical, to be polite.

**Ouze**

You don't think celibacy is, by definition, abnormal for humans?

**Manchu**

No more than homosexuality, I suppose.

**Ouze**

That is presupposing that all homosexuality is by choice, yes?

**Manchu**

Not at all.

**unmercifulconker**

I dont think Celibacy is abnormal in the sense that it is wrong but I agree it must be damn well hard to uphold

I dont know about the increased proneness to become sexually deviant because isnt most rape crimes about control rather than sexual pleasure?

**Manchu**

I think you're on the right track. The quality of "naturalness" is pretty much a red herring.

**Kovnik Obama**

Manchu wrote:
No more than homosexuality, I suppose.

Strictly speaking, both are abnormal, as normality refers to the social norm (which is to marry a person from the opposing sex).

Homosexuality has over abstinence the advantage that the sexual impulses are spent rather then frustrated.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

unmercifulconker wrote:

I dont know about the increased proneness to become sexually deviant because isnt most rape crimes about control rather than sexual pleasure?

Control (or domination) is a huge provider of sexual pleasure. In the case of rape, both are indissociable, as otherwise rapists would have plenty of occasion of spending their desire of control in many, much more socially acceptable manners.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:
That idea strikes me as particularly uncritical, to be polite.

You could be fair and say that it is simply opposed to your position.

http://www.psyplexus.com/ellis/83.htm

**Manchu**

I said what I meant.