Arthur der Weduwen explores the age-old controversy created by abdication and resignation.
The announcement of the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has shocked the political and religious community of the world. The BBC covered the announcement with a special section of quotes from reactions of different world leaders, such as David Cameron, Mario Monti, Angela Merkel, and the Vatican itself. Other notable commentators included Christine Boutin, of France’s Christian Democratic Party, who stated that “…this is shocking, very shocking, unheard of for the Catholics and certainly for the entire world.”
The unprecedented nature of Benedict’s resignation is the most prominent item in the majority of reactions. Everywhere comments are made regarding the fact that it has been around 600 years since the last pope resigned. It was in fact 1415 when Pope Gregory XII resigned due to papal strife. Before him, four pontiffs had also resigned from the post, due to a variety of reasons: John XVIII in 1009 due to ill health, Benedict IX in 1045 for financial advantage, his successor Gregory VI a year later as it was claimed he bought the office from Benedict, and Celestine V in 1294, who officially decreed that it was legal to resign as pope, and subsequently lived as a hermit.
Similar shock erupted internationally when Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands announced several weeks ago that she would abdicate in April. The BBC claimed that there “was probably not going to be a constitutional crisis”. This claim seems absurd to Dutch ears. Of course a ‘constitutional crisis’ wasn’t going to occur. Beatrix will be the third Dutch monarch to abdicate due to old age, a common and rather expected decision in the Netherlands. There are many other instances throughout history of abdications, all for a variety of reasons once again. In Medieval Japan, it was highly appropriate for an Emperor to resign and live the rest of his life in pampered retirement. More recent examples include that of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Jean, and the King of Belgium, Leopold III.
The reason for the international and Anglican shock has origins in the stigma attached to the resignation of a monarch. Edward VIII resigned in 1936 voluntarily, in an event now known as the “abdication crisis”. The mere phrasing of the event portrays the gravity of the emotions associated with a resignation of an important leader. However, this does not seem to be well-founded anymore. There are few monarchies remaining in the 21st century, and those that still stand do not exercise any autocratic control: the majority of monarchies are purely symbolic. While the Pope’s role is much more than simply symbolic, his position is not much different. He is an elected leader, and elected leaders have the right to resign whenever they wish, even if the justification is unreasonable. Benedict’s reason is highly justifiable, as he states that his old age will prevent him from further continuing his duties. I therefore do not see why one should be shocked.
In conclusion, it is a wise move for Benedict to resign. A presiding leader, monarch or Pope should be able to tell when he or she is no longer able to take on all the responsibilities of such a role. While Benedict’s decision is relatively new and revolutionary, it should not be viewed as either unprecedented or strange. In a world where monarchs no longer hold absolute power, they should also be free to resign or abdicate whenever they see just, without fear of scandal or embarrassment. One may hope that Benedict will be followed as example in the future by other ageing leaders.
exeposedev 