Reports that Pope is going to resign...

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Oh, and why are you changing your mind on the criminal nature of Maciel's abuse from one post to another. Is it because I've rightly pointed out that Ratzinger is also criminally liable for covering up his crimes over the years? Is because you are looking to shift the blame from the living person directly responsible for prolonging Maciel's crime spree to the dead man who was only indirectly responsible and cannot defend himself (Wotyla could plausibly never have known about Maciel's criminality)?

I’m changing my mind on the nature of Maciel’s crimes because - thanks in part to you - I am becoming better informed about them. Do you see my willingness to be open to the evidence as a weakness in my position?

No offence, but I’ve yet to see evidence that you are right in claiming that “Ratzinger is criminally liable for covering up his crimes”. I’ve pointed out the obstacles to establishing criminal liability in my post above. As yet I’ve seen no serious attempt to address those issues.

It’s not really plausible to me that Wotyla might never have known about Maciel’s criminality, or at least about the allegations - they were well known for years, and the common view is that Wotyla chose not to believe them, and that his patronage and protection was extended to Maciel, and this was being said even in Wotyla’s lifetime. It’s also unquestionably the case that Maciel’s fortunes changed dramatically when Wotyla died and Ratzinger was elected, which is difficult to explain if you view Ratzinger as his friend and protector, but is entirely consistent with the common understanding.

Again, I’m happy to reconsider this view if further evidence is presented, but the evidence I have so far - the timing of Maciel’s downfall - tends to confirm it.

robindch wrote: »

I'm not quite sure if you understand how power-politics can be, and in this case, are being played out in the Vatican and other dictatorships.

By resigning, Ratzinger can (a) keep an eye on the upcoming papal elections and the electing cardinals will be aware of that and will feel compelled to vote in a Ratzinger-compliant fashion; and (b) keep an eye on his successor, to ensure that his policies, at least his initial ones, are also Ratzinger-compliant. And once the successor implements a few Ratzinger-compliant policies, he's going to have a hard time subsequently reversing his opinion.

Basically, and whether he's aware of it or not -- which he almost certainly is -- Ratzinger is attempting to perpetuate his legacy beyond his death.

As I said above, it's a neat stunt to pull and the next pope isn't likely to find it fun to have Ratzinger hanging around the Vatican, at least, not until he's conveniently silenced permanently by death.

All popes get to influence the election of their successor, because they get to hand-pick the electors. It’s already the case that 66 of the 118 cardinals who can vote in the upcoming conclave - 56% - will be Ratzinger appointees. If Ratzinger were to delay his resignation by another two years, 22 more cardinals would have passed the voting age, and he would get to appoint their replacements too, in which event he would have chosen 75% of the electors (more, if some cardinals were to die). By resigning now, he gives up that degree of influence over the election.

Of course he gains instead some intangible degree of influence by being still alive, and having personal relationships with at least some of the cardinals who will be voting. But, frankly, I question how much influence that really represents. Those who, from inner conviction, think and act like him would presumably still do so shortly after his death, just as they would shortly after his retirement. Those who are, um, more calculating will know that, however nice it might be to be in the good books of the former pontiff, it’s their relationship with the next pontiff that will really matter to them. Once a new pope is installed, there is no sanction for not having voted as Ratzinger thinks you should have voted.

However much moral authority a former pontiff may have, it’s nothing to the moral authority that a reigning pontiff can claim. Add to that the juridical authority, administrative authority and power of patronage that a reigning pontiff has and, really, it’s impossible for me to take seriously the notion of retirement as a power play. If you’re the pope, and you’re interested in exercising power in the church and entrenching your legacy, then the rational strategy - the overwhelmingly rational strategy - is to go on being pope.

Ratzinger has been zimmer-framed by circumstances. In retirement, even if his health permits him to attempt to exert influence and he is disposed to do so, he will be perhaps more influential than, say, Bertie Aherne in retirement, but certainly less influential than Garret FitzGerald in retirement. Retirement is not a power play. (If it were, an awful lot more popes would have retired!) The plain fact is that monarchs who have abdicated by choice have not, typically, been terribly powerful afterwards, and I see no reason to think that Ratzinger will be an exception, or that he expects to be.

As for “perpetuating his legacy beyond his death”, yes, I think Ratzinger would like to do this, but I don’t see the retirement as a key strategy here (except to the extent that his legacy includes establishing the principle that a pope can resign, and ought to consider doing so if his health begins to fail). Remember, Ratzinger is basically an academic and a theologian, not an administrator (and certainly not, even in his own estimation, a good administrator) . He believes in the power of ideas, and his legacy is found in his writings and teachings. From his point of view, the major project of his papacy has been an announced series of encyclicals on faith, hope and love - encyclicals which, he would hope, will be read and attended to long after his death - and his retirement leaves that series unfinished. There will not now be an encyclical on faith, and his legacy will be incomplete. I find it hard to see this as anything other than something forced on Ratzinger by failing health.

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm not sure how well the case would stand up in court, as I have not seen the evidence (and it goes far beyond Maciel, how about that lovely guy in Milwalkee?), but clearly either private citizens or even a government representing private citizens could take a case against him. Ireland for example, where the restitution costs borne by the state are far beyond anything the church (and government at the time) agreed to. The government could agrue that the evidence that was uncovered since the church settled out of court is sufficient to pursue a civil case.

But a civil case is a different matter. The claim that I am responding to was that Ratzinger is about to be charged with a criminal offence by a country which will then seek his extradition, and that this was crucial factor in his resignation decision.

For what it’s worth, I’m not sure that I’d take the prospect of a civil case very seriously either. First, the guy is not worth suing, in terms of his assets, so who is likely to devote significant resources to suing him? Secondly, he’s outside the jurisdiction. Thirdly, although I think the evidential problem is less that it would be in a criminal case, it’s still considerable. “Ratzinger was prefect of the CDF” is simply not going to be enough to establish personal civil liability on his part. In the first place, many of the matters for which the Irish government is paying compensation occurred before Ratzinger became prefect of the CDF (in 1981), and most of the rest occurred before the rule requiring sex abuse cases to be reported to the CDF (in 2001). And even if you could show that a particular abuser was reported to the CDF, that in itself would not be enough to establish civil liability; you’d have to look at what the CDF did, and show that this (a) was at least negligent, and (b) contributed to the damage caused. And finally you’d have to link Ratzinger personally to the action or inaction complained of.

I’m not saying any of this is impossible. I’m just saying that I don’t find the notion that this possibility is what has led to Ratzinger’s sudden retirement decision terribly convincing. Age and frailty looks like a far more convincing explanation to me.

nagirrac wrote: »

The legal question is how well the Vatican are protected being a sovereign state. I don't know the answer to that, but what I do know is that Ratzinger was head of the Vatican dept that had visibility on all the internal reported cases of sex abuse crime. It would be extraordingly harmful for the church if he were to be charged, even if it never got to trial, or was tried in absentia. The best tactical move in a battle that could yet destroy the church might be for him to step aside. Remember he has all the files so he knows how bad the potential situation is.

If the Vatican has a problem here, I’m not seeing how Ratzinger’s resignation would help it in any way. A corporation which has incurred a civil or criminal liability does not escape that liability by firing the chief executive - or any executive - who was involved, or having them resign; the corporation is still liable. Why would it be any different if the corporation happens to be a church?

As for the embarrassment if Ratzinger personally were sued, or charged; yes, that would be embarrassing. But it would be embarrassing whether Ratzinger was pontiff or former pontiff when charged. And since as long as he’s a head of state he has sovereign immunity and can’t be charged or sued, that would argue strongly for his not resigning, if court action against Ratzinger was seen as a real possibility. If anything, his resignation suggests to me that he's not afraid of finding himself the defendant in a court action.

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree a legal case would be difficult, but it does not stop someone bringing it, though EU Human Rights for example. The distinction between the new pontiff and Ratzinger though is that the new pontiff can say "that was the old regime, now we've moved on", and try and get their remaining brethern to move on. The biggest problem the church has now is dwindling attendance in the developed world, Ratzinger will not turn that around.

You mean with Ratzinger as a mere ex-pope, if he is sued the church can hang him out to dry? And Ratzinger is effectively sacrificing himself for the good of the church by resigning?

Possibly. But (a) that certainly hasn't been their strategy up to now. They've paid a high price in credibility for their refusal to hang out to dry hierarchs who have been much more complicit in concealing/factilitating abuse than (so far) we know Ratzinger to have been - e.g. Cardinal Law. So this would be a sharp change of tack, and not necessarily one that would pay off. It might look just too cynical to be credible.

And (b) it still glosses over the fact that bringing proceedings against Ratzinger would be expensive and difficult, and there is no evidence that it's about to happen.

And (c) since resignation makes it easier to sue/charge Ratzinger (since he no longer has sovereign immunity) the impolication is that the church is gambling that the increase likelihood of Ratzinger being sued is more than offset by the protection for the church in having a mere ex-pope, rather than a current pope, sued. That's a bizarre judgment, frankly.

All in all, "age and infirmity" still looks to me like a far more satisfactory account of Ratzinger's retirement that this.

nagirrac wrote: »

No, they are gambling they will be better able to survive to fight another day. I'm basing this on how a CEO of a large corporation would handle it. At the end of the day its risk managemnet. The biggest risk for the church is not being sued, the biggest risk is losing their flock in the developed world where they still have significant income, USA for example. This scandal is doing enormous damage, the recent HBO documentary brought it to the masses and now it is being talked about openly. It is hard to get a congregation back once you lose them.

Yes, but as long as Ratzinger remains pope, he cannot be sued. If he resigns, he may be sued and, while the church can try to distance themselves from him, it's frankly hard to see that distancing being a resounding success. And it's all but impossible to see that as a better outcome for the church than Ratzinger not being sued at all. I don't think the calculation you are suggesting is one the church could plausibly make.

Sovereign immunity is a pretty long-established principle of public international law, and the sovereign status of the Holy See is also long-established and widely-accepted. Nothing is impossible, but there's no way around the reality that it's a huge, huge obstacle to taking legal proceedings against a pope, and consequently a pope who genuinely feared being the defendant in legal proceedings would be very slow to resign.