POPE BENEDICT XVI RESIGNS

Benedict XVI: Soon to be ex-Pontiff. (Guardian.co.uk)

At a time when the Catholic Church is divided over various controversies such as corruption in the Vatican, sex abuse by priests, and their waning influence in the modern world, another shocker from the Vatican took us by surprise today—Pope Benedict XVI will resign on February 28 this year.

"The Pope announced that he will leave his ministry at 8:00 pm (1900 GMT) on February 28," said Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson who announced the news.

The Pope cited health reasons for stepping down. In an official message, he said, "After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry.” He added that he has recognized his "incapacity to adequately fulfill" the ministry entrusted to him.

Benedict XVI, now 85 years old, is one of the oldest Pontiffs to be elected. He was 78 when he ascended to the Papacy in 2005 following the death of Pope John Paul II.

Below is the full text of Benedict XVI's resignation letter:

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, 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 govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom 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.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

BENEDICTUS PP XVI

An Act of Humility

The Pope’s resignation is a sign of his humility and concern over his ability to fulfill his duties. With the Catholic Church facing a variety of challenges and scandals, the Pontiff must have realized that the Church needed a stronger and more able leader to guide them in dark times.

In part, his resignation is also an admission of the Church’s waning influence in these modern times; hence his stepping aside and his call for a successor who can be in touch with the modern society and help re-establish the Church’s integrity and influence.

A pope can resign?

The news of the Pope’s resignation came as a shocker as it is not common knowledge that Pontiffs can resign. The Vatican’s Code of Canon Law, however, allows a Pope to resign as per Rule 332.2 which states that:

"If it happens that the Roman Pontiff resigns his office, it is required for validity that the resignation is made freely and properly manifested but not that it is accepted by anyone."

What makes Pope Benedict’s resignation even more of a shocker is the fact that no pope has resigned since the Middle Ages. History has recorded at least four to six popes to have resigned, most notably Pope Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 to end the Western Schism. His resignation ended the gridlock between three popes (including Gregory XII) vying for papal recognition. Other popes known to have resigned are Pontian in the year 235, Silverius in 537, and Celestine V in 1294. However, Benedict XVI will be the first to resign over health reasons.

Tagle: The Next Pontiff?

Conclave in 2013

The Vatican announced that a conclave will be convened in March to begin the selection for a new pope. Notable contenders for the position have been circulating from some time now, including Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarsicio Bertone, Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Kodwo Appiah Turkson (President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace), Archbishop of Milan Cardinal Angelo Scola, and even our very own Archbishop of Manila Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle.

Many progressive Catholics are looking forward to the election of a more liberal pope contrary to the traditionalist stance of Pope Benedict XVI. Meanwhile, conservative Catholics are calling for the election of a pope that will revive traditional Catholic teachings and restore the Church’s glory in these modern times. Whatever our expectations and the outcomes will be, we are all fortunate to be witnessing another conclave in our generation. TSS

ENDS AND MEANS

At this day and age, who would have thought that people could still be sentenced to jail by simply expressing their opinion about issues concerning society?

At a time when human rights are at the very core of our basic laws, a person such as Carlos Celdran was given a verdict of imprisonment after expressing his support for women’s reproductive health and opposition to the Catholic Church’s meddling in the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill. Even if the said bill is now a law (thanks to Congress), ironically, the Church still managed to score a point with this latest conviction.

Background

On September 30, 2010, Filipino tour guide, cultural activist, and performance artist Carlos Celdran staged a protest at the Manila Cathedral. Dressed as Crisostomo Ibarra, the lead character in Dr. Jose Rizal’s “Noli Me Tangere”, Celdran interrupted mass, raised a sign with the word “Damaso” (pertaining to a character in Rizal’s novel which symbolizes corrupt individuals in the Church), and shouted, “Stop getting involved in politics!” Celdran staged the protest in front of church-goers including Papal Nuncio Edward Adams, Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales, and Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim.

The police apprehended Celdran on the spot and detained him. The rector of the Manila Cathedral, Monsignor Nestor Cerbo, filed charges against him for violation of Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:

“The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

Verdict

On January 28, 2013, the Manila Metropolitan Trial Court Branch 4 judge Juan Bermejo Jr. found Celdran guilty of violating Article 133 and was given an intermediate prison sentence of 2 months to a maximum of 1 year. Celdran, who was temporarily free due to bail, said he will appeal the sentence up to the Supreme Court. Netizens and ordinary citizens alike lamented their disgust and shock over the sentence, arguing that Celdran simply exercised his freedom of expression and that no one should be imprisoned for voicing out their opinion about a social issue. The hashtage #FreeCarlosCeldran is once again trending in Twitter and comments of support poured into Celdran’s official Facebook page.

Archaic, Punitive Law?

The lawyers of Carlos Celdran are arguing that their client was charged guilty under a law that is as old as the Spanish friars which Celdran saw in CBCP today—the Revised Penal Code. The 79-year old penal code, which is a revision of the original Spanish penal code, still contains archaic provisions that are no longer relevant and deemed inappropriate for punishing criminal liability at this day and age.

Nevertheless, there are still provisions in the law that enshrines the core of our constitution—human rights. This includes Article 133, the same article which Celdran was found guilty of.

Article 133 became part of the RPC with respect to the country’s Christian and Islamic roots but most importantly out of respect for religious freedom. It is anyone’s right to be associated in a religion of his/her own and exercise one’s religious beliefs. The article protects this right by preventing one religion from offending the feelings and beliefs of another religion, especially during the practice of such belief in one’s place of worship.

Article 133 is upheld even further by the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Section 5, which states:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed…”

The Most Unfortunate Place and Time

The 1987 Constitution enshrines not just freedom of religion but freedom of speech as well, as Section 4 of the Bill of Rights states:

“No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.”

This very passage in our Constitution guarantees people like Carlos Celdran of the right to express their opinions no matter how these opinions go against the beliefs of any group whether political, racial, or religious in nature. Celdran’s protest in 2010 does not violate any laws if we are going to look at it from the ends—the expression of support for women’s reproductive rights and opposition to Church meddling in the passage of the RH Bill.

But the end does not justify the means.

It’s totally agreeable that back when the debate over the RH Bill is still hot, church leaders needed to be reminded of the limits of their influence. But the means through which Celdran gave his astounding reminder just defies the very core of our basic laws and makes him undeniably guilty of violating Article 133 of the Revised Penal Code.

There are two important phrases in this violation: “…acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful” and “…in a place devoted to religious worship…”

By staging his protest during Holy Mass, Celdran placed himself in the most unfortunate time and place to express an unquestionable end. Whether it’s Holy Mass, Islamic sermons, or Buddhist prayers, it is offensive to intentionally interrupt one’s exercise of religious beliefs. We could argue that mass can sometimes be interrupted by cell phones unintentionally ringing or babies suddenly crying, but these are not willful acts of interruption, nor offensive in nature.

What made Celdran’s act even more offensive is his equation of Church leaders to corrupt Spanish friars while mass was going on by flashing the now iconic word. No matter how accurate this comparison is, you don’t offend the faithful inside their place of worship (and let us not begin questioning who we mean by “faithful” here, for Christ’s faithful followers are all sinners after all). If the word was posted outside of the cathedral, it could have been a different story for Celdran.

An Important Lesson

There are a lot to learn from this landmark case. One, you don’t step on one basic right in favor of another. If we can go around it to avoid conflict but still achieve the same ends, then let us do so. We are also made aware of the value of tolerance and how both Celdran and the Church should have exercised it: The former should have exerted due tolerance despite his flamboyant disapproval of the latter’s position; the latter should have exercised due tolerance by not going as much as filing a court case.

Most importantly, we are made aware of how our church leaders, who are preachers of forgiveness, should have been the first to exercise such virtue. It is understandable that the Church only wants to prevent future disrespectful acts from happening, hence, the filing of the case. But this is not Christ’s way; if it were Jesus who witnessed such act, He would admonish Celdran humanely and forgive Him for his trespasses. The church leaders who pursued this case are human after all—egotistic and filled with pride.

The only achievement of this verdict is the reiteration of respect and tolerance for religious beliefs. But by putting Celdran behind bars, this achievement will only defeat itself. Free Carlos Celdran! TSS

-----

“To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”  

― C.S. Lewis