The Pope and Queen Elizabeth have similar histories. Let's review each one separately to see how they have so much in common with each other besides ermin robes.
Today Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was resigning his post at the end of this month due to failing physical and mental health. The last pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII in 1415. Although many employers mandate a retirement age, the Catholic Church expects, due to historic precedence as much as any other factor, that their Pope will continue ministering his flock until death.
The response to Benedict's announcement is sure to be immediate and voluminous. I imagine reaction will fall into one of two camps. The first argument holds that the Pope, at the moment he undertook his responsibility also took on the obligation to keep his job till the end. Effectiveness in carrying out his responsibilities is not of paramount concern to this camp. The Church is top-heavy with advisors and various minions who have for centuries acted on behalf of the Pope in times of incapacitation to protect the Office. Tradition trumps personal desire. What Pope Benedict is doing, according to detractors, is standing tradition on its head, virtually burning the Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice at the alter of pragmatism. He has no right or authority to resign.
The other stream of thought contends that the man has served honorably for seven years. Traditional values must give way to the heavy personal toll brought about by the realities of the modern papacy. Benedict is dealing with heavy demands brought about by increased media scrutiny, schisms within the faith, seismic shifts in the geography of Catholicism, internal office intrigue and legal problems. Remember too that the Pope is managing the global response about the horrible reality of decades of child abuse by the priesthood and cover-up accusations centered on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which the Pope directed as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Resigning now provides the Church with the opportunity to inject fresh air and new perspective into the Church. Ratzinger is practicing self-sacrifice, his supporters say, by making this historic decision which in his mind is designed to save and protect the Catholic faith.
A related dilemma was faced by Queen Elizabeth II in the immediate aftermath of the death of Princess Diana in 1997. The popularity of the Princess was magnified after her tragic and sudden death to a level that affected the centuries-old traditions of the British monarchy. Diana, divorced in 1996, was no longer a member of the Royal Family and therefore funeral arrangements were originally planned to be private and at the direction of the Spencer family. No public announcement was made by Buckingham Palace in the days immediately following the accident. Public outrage grew along with disillusionment of the monarchy and Queen. Finally, with counsel of the Prime Minister, the Palace jettisoned centuries of royal protocol and tradition. Until 1997, the only flag to fly from Buckingham Palace was the Royal Standard, the official flag of the reigning British sovereign. On the day of Diana's funeral, the Union Flag was flown at half mast over the Palace. In another departure from centuries of behavior, Diana was given a state funeral at Westminster Abbey with pomp normally bestowed on a member of the royal household. The Queen made a live television announcement the day prior to the funeral expressing her feelings about protecting and sheltering her grandchildren (Diana's and Charles's sons William and Harry) from the tragedy against the realization that Her subjects demanded that the Queen acknowledge and support their communal grief.
So when the Queen and the Pope head into the bar, they'll raise their glasses to their mutual understanding -- that tradition and preservation are intertwined but separate concepts. Then they'll return to their palaces and sleep soundly confident that they made the difficult and necessary decisions to preserve their life's work.
No comments:
Post a Comment