{"id":1713,"date":"2020-02-01T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-02-01T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/?p=1713"},"modified":"2020-01-22T10:35:47","modified_gmt":"2020-01-22T09:35:47","slug":"vf172","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/vaticanfiles.org\/ro\/2020\/02\/vf172\/","title":{"rendered":"172. Can the Roman Catholic Church survive two Popes? — one Catholic and one Roman"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

When Pope Benedict XVI resigned in 2013<\/a> nobody could have imagined what has been happening since: the Roman Catholic Church has one reigning pope (Francis), but also a former yet living pope (Benedict) who still speaks, acts, and intervenes in ecclesiastical matters. There were hints that the prospect of having two living popes would cause some confusion, if not controversy. The fact that Benedict wanted to keep his title as Pope (only adding \u201cEmeritus\u201d to it), as well as his white papal robe (a symbol of the papal office) and his residence inside of the Vatican walls (the home of popes), indicated that, in spite of his pledge to remain silent for the rest of his days, the cohabitation between two popes would easily result in misunderstandings, even conflicts. The outcome has been an increasing polarization between Francis\u2019 fans over against<\/em> Benedict\u2019s supporters and vice versa, certainly beyond the intentions of both. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One Pope, Two Popes?<\/em><\/strong>
In 2019 we had a preview of the present-day turmoil. The two popes spoke on the same subject, the sexual abuses committed in the Roman Church<\/a>, but with clearly different positions: Francis blamed \u201cclericalism\u201d, an abuse of ecclesiastical power by the priests and religious people involved, whereas Benedict pointed to the collapse of Catholic doctrine and morality since the Sixties and after the Second Vatican Council, a theological decay that according to him was at the root of the scandals. The two popes interpreted the malaise of their church and the possible solutions in radically different ways. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

More recently, a power struggle rallying around Pope Francis and Pope Benedict erupted, with the \u201cFrancis party\u201d pushing for changes in areas such as the re-admission of the divorced to the Eucharist<\/a> and the extension of the priesthood to married men, and the \u201cBenedict party\u201d resisting those changes, denouncing them as heresies<\/a>, confusions and failures<\/a>. It was indeed an Annus Horribilis<\/em><\/a> (terrible year) for the Roman Church. Last but not least, we have now a popular movie entitled The Two Popes<\/em><\/a> telling a made-up story (with some truth in it) and making fun of the two characters and their unusual cohabitation in the Vatican. All of this was unthinkable seven years ago.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pope Emeritus, yet Outspokenly Concerned <\/em><\/strong>
The last episode in the tale of the two Popes only happened a few days ago. Cardinal Robert Sarah, a prominent member of the traditionalist front, announced the imminent publication of a book written with Pope Benedict. The title of the book, From the Depths of Our Hearts<\/em><\/a>, is indicative of the highly emotional tone of its authors. The book itself is a heartfelt cry seasoned with theological acumen to maintain the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine and practice of the celibacy of the priests. It arises out of fears that after the 2019 Synod for the Pan-Amazon region, Pope Francis will allow some married men (viri probati<\/em>, \u201cproved men\u201d) to access the priesthood, thereby breaking a millennial rule of the Roman Catholic Church which prescribes her priests to be celibate. Sarah and Benedict staunchly defend the permanent validity of the celibacy of the priests and denounce any attempts at breaking it, even those painted as \u201cexceptions\u201d in extraordinary circumstances. It is true that after the press release by Cardinal Sarah there has been a backlash against Benedict appearing as co-author of the book, even though it looks like the Pope Emeritus had given at least tacit prior approval for the full manuscript. You can read the full story here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The theological arguments of the book deserve attention on their own merits because they show that traditional Roman Catholic theology is against progressive and liberal trends, not out of biblical concerns or standing under the authority of the Bible, but in order to preserve traditional Roman Catholic teaching on the basis of the weight of church tradition and extra-biblical arguments (i.e. the \u201contological\u201d and \u201csacramental\u201d nature of the priestly office). Because of its importance for gaining an insight into the traditional Roman Catholic way of theologizing, the book by Sarah and Benedict will be reviewed in a future Vatican File<\/em>. What is of interest now are the standing questions that it brings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An Unsettled Tension <\/em><\/strong>
One of the roles of the pope has always been the maintenance of the balance between the Roman and the Catholic dimensions. Roman Catholicism is the ongoing tension between two fundamental aspects of the whole: the Roman side, with its emphasis on centralized authority, pyramidal structure, binding teaching and the rigidity of canon law; and the Catholic side, with its emphasis on the universal outlook, the absorption of ideas and cultures and the inclusive embrace of practices into the Catholic whole. The resulting system is Roman Catholicism, at the same time Roman and Catholic. The human genius of Roman Catholicism and one of the reasons for its survival across the centuries has been its ability to be both, though not without tensions and risks of disruption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Popes embody the Roman Catholic synthesis by holding together the Roman apparatus and the Catholic vision. Of course, they each do it differently, especially after the Second Vatican Council. John Paul II, for example, was a very Roman pope but at the same time a very Catholic one. For example, he strongly defended traditional Roman Catholic teaching (e.g. by launching the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/em><\/a>), but was second to none in promoting the universality of this Church around the world (e.g. inter-religious dialogue, traveling globally). Unlike John Paul II, who was both Roman and Catholic, Benedict XVI made the pendulum swing over the Roman pole. With his staunch conservativism in areas such as liturgy, morality and the critical relationship with the secular world, Benedict appeared to be more Roman than Catholic. He seemed to be a rigid, centripetal, doctrinaire pope. A Roman <\/em>pope. Many felt that his papacy, while strong in its Roman centredness and boundaries, was weak in its Catholic breadth and warmth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This criticism helps explain why a pope like Francis was chosen to succeed him. With the election of Pope Francis, Rome seemed to be wanting the pendulum to move in the opposite direction in order to re-address the balance. Distancing himself from many Roman features of the office (e.g. his refusal of the pomp of the Vatican Curia, his blurred teaching that leans away from official teachings), Francis has embodied the role of a very Catholic pope. His stress on \u201cWho are we to judge?\u201d<\/a>, universal brotherhood with Muslims and other religions<\/a>, ecological concerns<\/a>, etc. made his papacy significantly shaped by the Catholic elements. The open-endedness of his teaching, coupled with the ambiguity of his language<\/a>, has created some interest in the secular West, which resonates with much of what he says on social issues. This is to say that he is a very Catholic <\/em>pope. Perhaps too<\/em> Catholic and too little<\/em> Roman for a growing number of Roman Catholics! <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Struggle to Re-Fix the Balance<\/em><\/strong>
Admitting the divorced to the Eucharist, fudging the traditional opposition to homosexuality and extending the priesthood to married men have been perceived as the latest, dangerous \u201cCatholic\u201d moves of the pope which run contrary to the Roman tradition, risking its whole collapse! This is the highly emotional background behind the From the Depths of Our Hearts<\/em><\/a> book, part of which was written by Benedict himself in order to reinforce the \u201cRoman\u201d teaching on the celibacy of priests over against possible \u201cCatholic\u201d openings towards married men, which Francis seems to be in favor of. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tension between\nthe \u201cRoman\u201d Benedict and the \u201cCatholic\u201d Francis helps explain the present-day\ncrisis. Past popes reigned without a Pope Emeritus around and therefore\nembodied in their own way the Roman Catholic synthesis. The next pope would\nhave fixed the synthesis differently. But now, with two very different popes\nliving next to each other (with only one reigning, but the other still lucid\nand active), the situation is very different. The overly Catholic attitude of\nFrancis is compared and contrasted with the Roman outlook of Benedict to the\npoint of creating an unprecedented struggle between opposite parties. For some,\nFrancis has become too Catholic to maintain a proper Roman Catholic synthesis.\nHe is incapable of being the Roman\nCatholic<\/em> (at the same time) Pontifex. Therefore, he needs the correction of\na Roman pope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet, if this situation goes on unresolved it will undermine the institution of the papacy as it was cleverly crafted throughout the ages. The \u201cprogressive\u201d pope will be counter-balanced by the \u201ctraditional\u201d pope and the disruption of the system will be achieved. The papacy will be transformed into a two-party political system, as if it were an ordinary parliamentary monarchy. It will be the end of Roman Catholicism as it stands now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This tension at the\nhighest level of the Roman Catholic Church is not tenable in the long run. This\nis why it is highly probable that the status of Pope Emeritus (the one which\nBenedict enjoys now) will be revisited and regulated in order to end the temptation\nto think of the papacy as a \u201cdual\u201d responsibility, resulting in the on-going\nconfrontation of a Roman and a Catholic party. Roman Catholicism accommodates\ndifferent positions and tendencies, but the pope is thought of as being the\none, living synthesizer of the tension, until the next one takes over and\nperhaps re-fixes the balance. The tale of two popes will not last long because\nRoman Catholicism is built on the conviction that its system is capable of\nkeeping together its unchangeable Roman identity and its ever-increasing Catholicity.\nNo biblical reformation is in view; it is only an internal struggle that is\ncausing Rome to go through a stress-test and some chaos until the Roman and the\nCatholic dimensions find a new, sustainable equilibrium.<\/p>\n

\"Share<\/a>