Today I heard the news that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned and on 28 February 2013 will vacate the throne. He is the first living Pope to resign since Pope Gregory XII in 1415, who resigned in a very convoluted and political plan to end a Civil War when there was more than one man who was considered Pope. This resignation is a virtually unprecedented move which comes, as Pope Benedict says, because his “strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.”
So, this means that the cardinals will elect a new Pope. As the Pope’s official statement says, “I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.”
Okay… so what? Seriously… does this matter? In particular, does it matter to we Christians who are not Catholic. Should Protestants care about the election of a new Pope?
Here was my answer to that question back before Pope Benedict XVI was elected. What do you think? In the last 8 years has the role of the Pope changed in any way? Has the Catholic Church changed? Do you care less or more about the election of a new pope this time?
_____________________________
Why Should Protestants Care About the Election of a New Pope?
by David Drury (2005)
Whenever a Pope vacates Saint Peter’s throne and heads to heaven to bow before The Throne ancient bureaucratic wheels in the Vatican break free of their rust. Rome calls all its “princes” (red-dressed Cardinals) where those under 80 years of age vote to see who will become the next Pope. When the small chimney above the chapel starts to smoke (a tradition signifying the burning of the secret ballots) then faithful Catholics everywhere rejoice at the news and look to hear who their new Holy Father (for life) will be. As far as permanence and spiritual significance to Catholics, it makes the American Presidential Election look the race to be 11th grade class secretary.
But why should we Protestants care?
Here’s why:
THE SANCTITY OF LIFE
For many Protestants the most monumental contribution of Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church of late is in the battle over abortion. There has been great unity among the Evangelical Movement and the Catholic Church over this issue: forging unique and tight bonds in the Pro-Life movement. In fact, the position of the Catholic Church on abortion has been far more stalwart than the evangelical church at large (and some would say it has much more philosophical and medical integrity). For this reason, Protestants should care who the next Pope is and pray for the Cardinals to have discernment and wisdom in their choice. Frequently Popes are elected to overcompensate for the weaknesses of their predecessor, and to perhaps deemphasize any overemphasis as well. While the Catholic church seems quite unified on this issue, it is not set in stone that the next Holy Father will speak so unequivocally on the Sanctity of Life regarding abortion (or in matters of assisted suicide, capital punishment and reproductive technology). The next Pope may simply provide less leadership here and more in other matters.
THE CATHOLICITY OF THE CHURCH
The small “c” here in catholicity is used to denote the “entire unified church” around the globe, which includes us. Perhaps no person embodies a hope for worldwide unity of the church more than the Pope. Since the Reformation there are massive ecclesial and governmental divisions to this catholicity, but the ecumenical movement, more recently the emergent in the United States and the Missional Church have sought to find more common ties and mission with the Catholic Church, and vice-versa. Pope John Paul II was quite intentional in this area and sought to bridge divides over past sins against other religious groups as well (Jews and Muslims most notably). The word “Pontiff” itself means “bridge-builder.” We should care about catholicity even if we shouldn’t become Catholics.
RESPONSE TO MINISTERIAL SCANDAL
The scandal of Priests abusing children has rocked the reputation of the Catholic Church in many places, perhaps most notably in the Eastern United States and in Ireland. But it has also cast a pall over ministers everywhere, in a much more visceral and criminal way than the financial scandals of the 80s Televangelists have. The response from the next Pope to the existing and any future scandals—and possible reforms in the accountability, structure and style of Priesthood—will affect Protestants as well. And we should also care about this because of all the pain it is causing people.
WOMEN IN THE MINISTRY
The issue of women becoming priests has been largely sidelined as improbable and out of the mainstream in the Catholic Church. However, there is a large underground movement within Catholicism to push this issue with the next Papal regime. The forced celibacy of priests is a related issue here, and the scandals have gone so far as to re-raise this potential within Catholicism. Protestants as a whole are going in opposite directions on this issue, and both “sides” will be wise to care about any potential shifts within the Catholic priesthood policy. For my part, I do hope to see this equality established in the Catholic Church as it is in my own Wesleyan Church. However, I think we both should refrain from ordaining Sinead O’Connor.
THEOLOGICAL SHIFTS
The theological power of the Pope is nearly infallible within the Catholic Church. This, of course, is part of our major “protest” against Roman Papalism as Protestants. However, that theological power has bled into many other denominations and movements in history, even since the Reformation. We have largely focused on the political statements of the Pope in the past century. We should be ready for theological statements of the Pope in the coming one.
POLITICAL POWER
But the political force of the Pope is huge. When John F Kennedy was elected president many wondered if “the White House would take its cues from the Vatican.” This worry was somewhat unfounded, but rooted in a sense that the political positions of the Pope have a great bearing on governments everywhere. Perhaps this is the most lasting legacy of Pope John Paul II, who spoke to political issues with frequency and effectiveness. The Evangelical Right has nothing on the Pope when it comes to political power. And when it comes to church and state separation in the US—we are reminded with this election in Rome that the Vatican is both church and state at the same time.
SPIRITUAL DIRECTION AND DYNAMIC
The entire spiritual dynamic of the Church worldwide is affected by the Pope. John Paul II was extremely effective at elevating his office to the place of “world spokesman for religion” and therefore we should care about this election for that reason alone if no others. Whether we like it or not, the Pope speaks for us from time to time. If not in the current day, then at least in history he speaks for us. Perhaps I’m overestimating the direction the Pope gives to the spiritual climate and dynamic of all churches and their influence on the culture around them. But as Pope John Paul II is memorialized and some other cardinal must fill the massive white shoes of this Polish Pope, we will be reminded of the huge role he played on the international stage in the past quarter-century.
Perhaps Protestants underestimate how much can float away on the smoke rising from the Vatican chapel chimney.
© 2005 by David Drury
For me… several things have changed since I wrote this in 2005:
1) I think that abortion has not been as central to Evangelicals as it was even 8 years ago. I hear less and less about it in elections and in churches. I personally don’t think that’s a good thing. Yes, I don’t think it should overwhelm all other issues–but I don’t want us to lose our prophetic voice as Catholics and Protestants.
2) I mentioned the emergent movement and Snead O’Connor above. Both have lost some steam since 2005, I’ve noticed. 🙂
3) I think the Catholic church has lose some of it’s power in the last decade in America. Perhaps all established churches have. I wonder if the Catholic church will have more influence as an ecumenical convener of denominations in the future, however. They seem more and more prone to that leadership. I like it.
4) I did not feel as though the role of the Pope under Benedict gave spiritual direction and theological vitality to the whole church like I hoped it would. John Paul II did much more for that. But he was quite a hard Pope act to follow.
5) Perhaps Pope Benedict will have some influence in just the WAY he is stepping down. It will, a century from now, be the thing he is most remembered for: humbly stepping down due to advanced age. Perhaps this will be a trend–a good one, and a good precedent to set.
Time to look toward Rome to see who is next. Or if all this stuff bothers you just pick up your copy of Martin Luther’s Babylonian Captivity of the Church and move on. 🙂
Perfect post for today, David!
Thanks for your support, pub house (oh, and thanks for printing and selling my books and all too!)
Before the last papal election there was talk if the cardinals would embrace what Philip Jenkins calls “The Next Christendom” or stick to electing popes from Europe. A pope elected from Africa or South America would have rippling effects not just through the Roman Catholic Church, but for the whole little “c” catholic Church.
Amen, Paul. Last time they diversified from Poland to neighbor Germany. Time to diversify continents, Catholic Peeps!
Looks like bishops from Argentina & Brazil are both on the short list, Paul. I have yet to see your name, however. Haven’t seen any african names… have u. Black Pope = Awesome
I like Desmond Tutu, but he’s Anglican. But here’s the real question in my mind. This conversation makes me wonder how prepared are we in The Wesleyan Church for when North America is not in ascendancy.
All very sound insights and excellent reminders to us; especially your comments on catholicity. One cannot study the history of our faith and the church without seriously considering one’s own place in the unity of The Church. I have learned a deep gratitude and respect for the unique contributions of the Roman Church to the whole Body of Christ.
Well said, Jason. My brotherly admiration for the Catholic Church started at Boston College, where I studied in prep for my Master’s Thesis on the Lord’s Supper. It was then that I, somehow, finally realized that I had really mostly been exposed to 1/4 of the tradition of the church–and I had two Christian theology and ministry degrees!
David, perhaps that depends on what you mean by “care about”? Does that mean “be interested in” the course of Roman Catholicism, the largest single body within Christendom? I think we’d be foolish not to pay attention. When the Pope sneezes, the whole world catches a cold.
However, it you mean “be really uptight about” or “try to influence in some way” how the Roman church conducts itself, I think we’d be equally foolish to do so. I believe Protestant Christianity needs to drop the modifier and define itself in relation to Jesus, not Rome.
Related question, should we care about the recent election of John X, Patriarch of the Church of Antioch, one of the 15 autocephalous bodies in the Eastern Church? http://john-x-enthronement.com/en/
Well said, Larry. I do mean “be interested in” and “pray for” not “try to influence”
I think the election of John X is important. But there are billion Catholics–so perhaps I can be excused extra attention on this one.
Although your casual use of the word autocephalous alone has inspired me to study up! 🙂
Well, count me as interested in and praying for. Many are wondering if the next Pope will soften on social issues. I think the next Pope is far more likely to further the conservative movement within the Catholic church than to be a liberalizer. My “old 60’s radical priest friends” see their church leaning to the right these days …
Mr. Drury,
I hope that you will allow me, as a Catholic studying for the priesthood, to offer two small objections to your post regarding women “in ministry.”
1. This is not something that can ever happen. Ever. There are four levels of Church teaching (not overly dissimilar to your dogma/doctrine/conviction/speculation distinctions). Level one, the highest level, is what is found in Revelation. Level two includes infallible statements by the Pope (there are 4 conditions that must be met for this to occur; not everything the Pope says is infallible) and necessary logical consequents of what is found in Revelation. Level three is similar to your definition of doctrine. Level four are disciplinary things that can change and often have over the centuries.
The ordination of men only to the priesthood is considered to be “level one” because it is revealed that way in Scripture by means of two passages. I’m not going to get into an exegetical debate here; I attended IWU before coming to Seminary and I am extremely familiar with the arguments and I am not interested in another rendition which really has no end due to the subjectivist tendencies in Protestant interpretation of Scripture.
Furthermore, (as if that weren’t enough), John Paul II declared in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (if you look it up, it’s way at the very end of the document) that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women.
The four requirements for an infallible statement by a Pope are as follows: It must be on faith and morals, must invoke the Pope’s supreme authority, must be definitively declared, and must be binding on all the faithful. All four elements are present in Blessed JPII’s language in the document.
2. I object strongly to the term “women in ministry,” as if the Catholic Church doesn’t have women that fulfill roles that are absolutely crucial in the Church. In almost every single Catholic parish you will find women performing lay ministries that are absolutely vital and they bring a unique perspective and set of skills (the “feminine genius ” we call it) to ministry and Catholicism would simply not exist without these women.
Quite frankly I find offensive the implication by the term (“women in ministry”) that you use. They’re weasel words that seem to be intended to get people riled up against the Catholic Church by implying that we don’t have women in any ministerial roles when the reality is that, because of our hermeneutic of continuity and good old fashioned logical consistency and self-honesty, we restrict ONE (out of thousands!) ministry to males only, and that is the ministerial priesthood. The odd thing about all this business is that God seemed to have no problem doing the exact same thing in the Old Testament and Jesus didn’t seem to have a problem not inviting women to the Last Supper which is when the Eucharist (and therefore the priesthood) was instituted for the first time, but I don’t hear any complaints about that from anyone. No, it must be the big bad old Catholic Church being discriminatory because they have these silly notions in their heads that they should mean what they say when they speak Truth and apply it consistently until time immemorial instead of doing what nearly every other denomination on the face of this earth does and changes their doctrine to accommodate secular whims and demands.
Admit it. This business has nothing to do with “women in ministry” as such. I’m sure that you’re actually aware of the innumerable ways that the Catholic Church employs women in absolutely indispensable ministries for which we are VERY and eternally grateful. This ruckus is about female “ordinations” and absolutely nothing more.
Lastly, and therefore with all the above in mind, I respectfully request that you reconsider asking the Catholic Church to contradict itself on this matter – what you are essentially asking that we do, in the name of “equality,” a word not found in Scripture to the best of my knowledge, is for the Church to say that it is capable of erring on dogma and that it has done so. I hope that you understand why this is not a charitable or ecumenical request on your part. It would be similar (although even worse than, from our perspective) to asking you, as a Wesleyan, to submit unquestioningly to seven-point Calvinism.
If you read this all the way to the end, please know that I appreciate you doing so and that you are in my prayers so that someday, we may all be one, as Jesus asks us to be.
Yours in Christ,
T.J.H.
B.A. Religion and Philosophy, Indiana Wesleyan University
Current M. Div. student and Roman Catholic Seminarian
Hello, TJ.
First, let me apologize for any offense my words from 2005 have caused you. If I wrote them today I would likely use softer words. I did not mean to use words back in 2005 that offend you today in 2013, as a Catholic student. I was using “our words” for “Women in Ministry”–it also would be offensive to suggest that, for instance, Wesleyan women who are not ordained are not a valued part of the ministry. That is not what I meant. I mean what you mean by “priesthood”–which for us would be “ordination.” Of course, there are many ordinations in the Catholic church–and women have for ages gone by been essential parts of the RCC. For sure. Good point.
Second, know that I have some very rewarding Catholic relationships. I actually spent a great deal of time with many Catholic leaders and Bishops 10 days ago in Texas as we worked on Immigration issues together. I don’t mean to ecumenically tell the RCC what to do–that would be presumtive and rude. I do, however, as a Wesleyan, value the issue of women in ordained roles of leadership in every expression of the Church. I keenly anticipate the day when other denomination and perhaps even the Catholic church revisit their views on this. You say it cannot, should not, and will not happen. Ever. Thanks for your clarity and honest on this. I have heard different from others–but there simply is no “big tent” bigger than the Catholic church, whereas I’m in a tiny little tent here. I am merely “interested” in what the Catholic church does–being so influential on 1/7th of the population of planet earth, it’s kind of a big deal.
Third, I respect your journey and your knowledge of these things. You know it better than I. I posted this back in 2005 as an outsider to the Catholic church, which remain today. From the outside looking in–these things were what I highlighted as interesting to me about the election of a new Pope. They continue to interest me. However, I’m not “being uptight about it” (see Larry’s comment) and in fact, I posted this back in 2005 in a lighthearted brotherly manner, trying to get my fellow protestants to care more about the Pope than they do. I hope I’ve succeeded in that–even today by bringing it up again. However, in light of that, I would hope that you would grant some grace to me for the mistakes I made in offending you. I will do the same for the things you said in your comment that might offend we non RCC Christians. I hope you trust my heart and why I brought up this issue on this historic day, not only for the Catholic church but for all Christians, and all people. I want us to not only pay attention but also care about this election, for a good many reasons beyond the ones I listed.
Believing…
-Dave
Hey Dave,
A couple of things just to make some clarifications. My overall reaction to your response is, “Fair enough.”
1. I’m not saying that *you*, personally, offended me. There’s no real need for you personally to apologize. It’s the terminology in and of itself, a priori, that I find offensive. When evangelical Protestants (I was Wesleyan until 5 years ago, just so you know) talk about “women in ministry” what they (generally) mean is ordination. But when I was at IWU I pointed out, and I’ll continue to point out, that this is dishonest equivocation. Maybe I’m ignorant of my Protestant days and in Protestantland, there is no distinction between the general ministry and the ordained ministry like there is in the Catholic Church. But if you do make the distinction between those two things in your community, then talking about “women in ministry” when you actually mean “ordination” is ambiguous at best and weaselly at worst.
2. I want to be very clear here – I, personally, do not say that it can never happen. I don’t declare that by my own authority, because, frankly, as a seminarian I have exactly three rights in the Catholic Church and making declarations as lofty as, “female ordination is a mere fantasy and will never occur in the Catholic Church” is not one of them The reason why I come on the Internet and say it is because it’s been definitively declared by a Pope and that is the bound of Revelation given to us by the only entity on Earth that was given the authority by Christ to interpret Scripture. So I don’t think that female ordinations “should not” happen. That’s not really an opinion that I hold because I’m not the one that makes that call. If we removed religion entirely from this conversation there would be no reason not to ordain women to the priesthood because they have the same substantial form and prime matter as men. There are inherent differences between men and women, but I don’t see any of those as inherently impeding women to Holy Orders. The problem isn’t the natural capacities or lack thereof of women; the problem is Jesus and the Pope.
That said, and I don’t mean to be offensive here, but the truth of the matter is that Protestant ordinations are invalid from our perspective anyway because they meet one, at the absolute most, of the four requirements for a valid ordination anyway. So keep “ordaining” women in your ecclesial community because that’s basically one of many capitulations to secular society that has been made since the Rebellion back in the 16th century. But know that with every one of them, it makes it that much harder for all of us to be reunited with what Vatican II calls the Church of Christ which subsists fully in the Catholic Church, and to fulfill the desire of Christ that we will all be one.
This relates pretty specifically to this post. Thought I’d share it here.
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/wesleyans_catholics.htm