 against resignation, and I think it sets a precedent that will alter the way the church looks at the papacy. For one thing, the cardinals who come together to elect his successor may well look to someone younger, knowing that resignation is an option.
CB: The Catholic Church is going through difficult times. Pope Benedict has had to face challenges from several directions. They were political, social and cultural challenges, from within the church as well as from outside it. His response to these challenges has been staunchly conservative. Is there any way we could read “defeat” into the Pope’s gesture?
JT: I wouldn’t characterize it as defeat, but there’s no doubt Benedict suffered these challenges. His legacy project, the “new evangelization,” is designed to confront the drift away from religion in many parts of the world and to reclaim the church’s place in the public square. The pope spoke openly about his concern that the church is losing this battle, and I’m sure it worried him. At the same time, the sex abuse scandal, including revelations about a great number of cases in Europe, has clearly weighed on this pope. Perhaps one of the biggest disappointments for Pope Benedict is that his carefully crafted talks, homilies, and documents, which have focused primarily on the fundamental elements of faith in Christ, have had trouble breaking through the media filter. Scandals and miscues have dominated media coverage of this pope, and that’s got to be disheartening. I should point out, however, that Vatican officials were quick to dismiss any talk of a “defeated” pope, and said his resignation coincided with a period of relative calm for the church.
CB: Pope Benedict has had a consistently conservative agenda on a whole range of issues. Ironically enough, his final gesture — this resignation — may be one of remarkable modernity. For in his resignation statement he says: “In today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to steer the ship of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary.” This seems to imply a novel understanding of what papacy is about. He appears to suggest that papacy should not be so much about the past, as about the future. The pope, rather than a nominal successor of Saint Peter, should be primarily an effective leader of the Church, someone who has to act in an efficient manner and make sure that his authority is always manifest. Therefore, when old age becomes an impediment to his leadership, he may need to step down, especially if the Church is having problems and is in need of a strong leader. Coming from such a conservative pope, I find this — how shall I put it? — “managerial” vision of the role of papacy quite revolutionary. With so strong an emphasis on human agency, it is as though there is almost no place left for God’s intervention in the unfolding of history. What do you think?
JT: I personally consider this a very courageous decision, and I think it does reveal a new understanding of the papacy. Benedict is a realist, and I think he made a sober assessment of the burden of the papacy and his own physical strength. He said he prayed over this decision — but a prayer cannot be a demand that God keep him healthy. It was interesting that in explaining his decision, the pope in effect said that the “job description” for a pope had changed in today’s world — it’s a job that now requires tremendous energy. So here is a pope who is resigning not from his deathbed, or even because of a specific illness (if what the Vatican says is true), but because he recognizes that he’s simply too old and frail. And in doing so, he’s saying the papacy is not a static institution that never changes, but one that can and should adapt to the times.
CB: Benedict’s sudden resignation is uncannily reminiscent of Nanni Moretti’s 2011 film, Habemus Papam (We Have a Pope), about a reluctant pope who literally flees the office. Mutatis mutandis, to speak in the language of the place, do we have a case of real