Power is seductive, even
within religious organizations. It is like a drug in that denial can accompany
an instinctual urge for immediate power even at the expense of the person’s own
credibility. Put another way, self-discipline can easily succumb to the urge
for power, even if the person has previously foreswore acting on that urge. Warped
discernment between minor and major issues can also occur from the gravity of
the instinctual urge. For example, a cleric may choose to break his or her
decision to disavow acting on the urge in part because he or she incorrectly
views the issue at hand to be a major one, when in fact it is not, at least as
far as the religion is concerned. As in the case of a drug, perception,
judgment and cognition may be impaired, or warped, by the urge itself. The
Roman Catholic ex-Pope Joe Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) is a case in point.
When Pope Benedict resigned in
2013, “some experts believed he should go back to being simply ‘Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger,” his previous title and given name, to emphasize that he no longer
held any papal authority and to reduce the chance he might be seen as a rival
point of reference to his successor.”[1]
For his part, Ratzinger vowed to remain “hidden from the world.”[2]
This decision was particularly important because just the fact that he
continued to wear papal attire could lead people to view him as having such
authority. In fact, bearing the likeness of a pope could have tempted him to
leverage his appearance in order to challenge the current pope, presumably on a
controversy central to the Roman Catholic Church.
Unfortunately,
the former pope was not able to keep himself hidden from the world. In From the Depths of Our Hearts, published
in 2020, he “argues in favor of the centuries-old tradition of celibacy within
the church.”[3]
In the introduction, he wrote, “We can say: ‘Silere non possum! I cannot remain
silent!”[4]
He could not remain silent, hidden
from the world, on the matter of a tradition.
His change of heart on remaining silent would have been more justifiable had a
major theological doctrine, such as the divinity of Christ, been the
controversy, yet he inveighed on a tradition, which a pope could change.
Indeed, the
former pope broke his silence on a matter then before the current pope, challenging
Francis’s statement that sometimes other factors had to be considered. In this case, the exception had to do with whether
to relax the celibacy rule pertaining only
to the Amazon region in South America and only to whether elderly men could be ordained to relieve the
shortage of priests. No priest would be getting married. So the controversy was
actually quite minor because it was not only on a tradition, but even more
damning, on a regional exception that still would not allow priests to get married
(the elderly men in the Amazon being already married).
In short, the
former pope chose to challenge the sitting pope on an exception to a tradition.
Yet Ratzinger perceived the matter to
be very important indeed. He wrote that he believed that celibacy carries
“great significance” and is “truly essential.”[5]
In fact, “(t)he call to follow Jesus is not possible without this sign of
freedom and of renunciation of all commitments,” he wrote.[6]
With its requirements, celibacy must penetrate “all of the attitudes of
existence.”[7]
Leaving the matter of whether it is or is not possible to follow a Christian
religious calling without being celibate aside, I submit that the former pope
overreacted to Pope Francis’s assertion that sometimes other factors should be considered
as to whether specific exceptions should be made. The former pope chose to
break his silence in order to use his papal influence to challenge the sitting
pope on a minor matter.
Even if celibacy is as important to the Church
as Ratzinger asserted, challenging the current pope when the latter agrees with
the former pope on the principle represents a misjudgment in which, I contend,
the urge for power was salient. Ratzinger felt an irresistible urge to speak
up, violating his own terms of being hidden from the world, on an exception to
a general rule. By implication, he compromised not only his own credibility,
but also the viability of the office of an emeritus pope. I submit that
whatever influence he achieved on whether an exception should be made to the
celibacy rule was not worth the costs to not only him, but also his Church as
unified rather than divided.
1. Amy Woodyatt, Vasco Cotovio, and Hada Messia, “Ex-Pope Benedict Undercuts
Francis on Priests and Celibacy,” CNN.com, January 13, 2020. (accessed same
day)
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
