Pope resigns

[jean]

I've just heard this announcement on the news: "I have had to recognise my incapacity to adequately fulfil the ministry entrusted to me." For me the brazen use of a split infinitive in the official translation of the pontiff's resignation statement is more momentous than the event itself.

Serves you right. You should have read it in the original Latin.

[Pabmusic]

Dawkins at his most typical:

"I feel sorry for the Pope and all old Catholic priests. Imagine having a wasted life to look back on and no sex."

Except that it's not always true. Lucrezia Borgia was one of the several children of pope Alexander VI.

[EdgeleyRob]

Pope latest - He says he's too ill to work- but Atos suspect Benedict fraud.

[Nick Armstrong]

Huw Edwards has flown out to Rome and is anchoring the 10.00 news from the Vatican. Has the BBC gone completely mad?

You beat me to it! The second outrage from BBC News today that's caused me to expostulate: on returning home, switching on the news, and seeing Edwards out there

I can't print here what I said

[scottycelt]

To put it into context, the last time this this happened was the same year as the Battle of Agincourt and (obviously) before Richard III...

It is actually quite an astonishing and brave thing to have done on the one hand, knowing history will record this act above (probably) anything else.

Yet on the other, and quite seriously, how does the next Pope handle having his predecessor still alive? Which of them is then God's 'chosen one'?
I sincerely don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, but will it sow more seeds of doubt in the minds of the ever-increasing number of scientifically-aware and 21st century faithful?

And, lastly, what better way does this act by another demonstrate the Queen's aherence to her Coronation Vows re service and duty ['till death]?

I should add that I am (perhaps obviously) not a Roman Catholic, but I do admire this man's decision and cannot fathom the pain he must have endured in making it. I hope he enjoys a long and happy 'retirement' (?).

That is the first really intelligent post on the thread to date (including my own) ...

If we can get away from the pea-brain comments for a moment (including the 'typically Dawkins') this is certainly come as a shock to Catholics as it was totally unexpected. Many will also feel that Benedict has set a precedent here which could set a pattern for the future.

The Papacy is quite different from our Monarchy in that the Pope is not just a figurehead (a Head of State) but the leader of over 1 billion with huge influential power. For years Catholics have debated whether it is really a good thing to have a sick, elderly man in charge no matter the inevitable support in place at the Vatican. The previous Pontiff was a perfect example and, indeed, this is now said to have influenced Benedict's decision. Only he knows.

For myself, it is a mixture of disappointment and relief (what Catholic really wants to see yet another sick old man on their TV screens so soon after the last incumbent?) but, on the other hand, the tradition of seeing it through to the bitter end whatever the 'challenges' was an undoubted source of inspiration and example to Catholics. That said, history may well prove that, in the modern world, Benedict's decision was a radical and necessary act. Popes are now expected to travel all over the world and face gruelling schedules and that's the simple reality. Sick, frail old men, however intellectually and spiritually accomplished, are going to find that not just difficult but physically impossible.

The Catholic Church, the greatest institution on the planet, will easily survive, and much to the chagrin of its enemies, will continue to influence and lead its huge number of faithful. Maybe the time has come for an African or South American Pope where Catholicism is on the rise, unlike Europe and North America where rampant secularism takes an ever-increasing grip on the minds of largely materialist populations? Who knows.

From a broader perspective the last 30 years or so have been truly momentous for humanity. The collapse of Communism, the end of Apartheid, and now the resignation of a Pope, the first in 600 years.

Whatever next ... ?

[MrGongGong]

Whatever next ... ?

How about this pope ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmt7Mm_fkI

[Boilk]

Huw Edwards has flown out to Rome and is anchoring the 10.00 news from the Vatican. Has the BBC gone completely mad?

This almost enraged me, to get Edwards out there and back at short notice, plus the overtime fees for the cameramen, and satellite link up, must have all cost the Licence payer a five-figure sum, at least.

They know how to squander our money.

[Richard Tarleton]

I was greatly cheered by the first part of Newsnight, with Geoffrey Robertson QC pointing out that as he would no longer be a head of state he would, like General Pinochet, no longer be immune from prosecution by the victims of child abuse whose abusers he protected. The evidence on this score is chilling. The panel discussion was pretty useless, apart from the excellent Lavinia Byrne.

[Roehre]

This almost enraged me, to get Edwards out there and back at short notice, plus the overtime fees for the cameramen, and satellite link up, must have all cost the Licence payer a five-figure sum, at least.

They know how to squander our money.

...and get there priorities wrong as this is the general attitude isn't it, to get someone staying in front of the building where something has happened (being it the Vatican, Number 10, any of the Departments, the High Court, or whatever), telling us something which the newsreader in the studio could do, and sometimes do better.
Saves time -opening up the possibillity to pay attention to more news items- and obviously money.

The Beeb should have a look at German, French and especially Swiss television news programmes how these inform about more items in less time and cheaper on top of that.

[amateur51]

Pope latest - He says he's too ill to work- but Atos suspect Benedict fraud.

[amateur51]

You beat me to it! The second outrage from BBC News today that's caused me to expostulate: on returning home, switching on the news, and seeing Edwards out there

I can't print here what I said

I didn't watch any of the coverage of Benedict's UK tour but was Edwards perhaps the anchor-man for that extravaganza?

But in principle I agree - why is anyone in Rome to cover this story when they have two experienced and excellent broadcasters in David Willey and Alan Johnston available to them as permanent correspondents?

[Flosshilde]

...and get there priorities wrong as this is the general attitude isn't it, to get someone staying in front of the building where something has happened (being it the Vatican, Number 10, any of the Departments, the High Court, or whatever), telling us something which the newsreader in the studio could do, and sometimes do better.
Saves time -opening up the possibillity to pay attention to more news items- and obviously money.

It's because television is a visual medium, & a person sitting in a studio isn't visual enough.

[eighthobstruction]

No doubt the fleet of BBC helicopters has been sent too, providing pictures of cars arriving and cardinals going in and out, 27 different angles of the smoking stack (and non smoking stack)....

[Flosshilde]

Sadly, I appear to be much too young to even consider accepting the ultimate honour, Ferret.

So it's fellow-scottycelt Cardinal Keith O'Brien for me, especially at a tempting 33-1!

I have absolute proof that the next Pope will be Scottish - a sign from God, you might say. Walking towards St Peter's along the Via della Conciliazione last autumn I was struck by the sight of a St. Andrew's cross in the sky, perfectly placed above the dome. Little did I know at the time what this vision portended.

[Pabmusic]

I have absolute proof that the next Pope will be Scottish - a sign from God, you might say. Walking towards St Peter's along the Via della Conciliazione last autumn I was struck by the sight of a St. Andrew's cross in the sky, perfectly placed above the dome. Little did I know at the time what this vision portended.

How very odd! I remember once at school when I handed in some homework - or rather when I got it back.

I can see it as clear as day - the large red X on a white background, signifying (I thought) a right royal cock-up by young Pab. But no! I was wrong. I didn't have the depth of understanding - the connexion to the real world that seems unreal to the uninitiated - to appreciate what was happening. The unreality that is, in fact, reality.

The cross was in fact a saltire, white not red (red only to those who don't understand); the background, which appeared white to those not favoured, was in fact blue - sky blue at that, in the days when we all though that dark blue looked better. The whole was obviously a miraculous portent of a Scottish something.

Now I know what... A prophesy