Damien Thompson at the Telegraph is reporting that concerns have emerged for Pope Emeritus Benedict’s apparently rapidly fading health.

Thompson writes:

I think all of us were distressed by the fragility of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI when we saw him greet his successor, Pope Francis. The footage was almost too painful to watch. Now, according to the excellent Fr Ray Blake, a Spanish newspaper says he is suffering from something “very severe”, and that “we won’t have us with him for very much longer”. His condition has apparently continued to decline. I thought twice about repeating this, but I’m sure Catholics and others would wish to pray for the man many of us regard as the most inspiring pope of modern times. No pontiff for centuries has written and preached so brilliantly about the relationships between liturgy, evangelism and the shape of history. If only he had been a younger man when he was elected to the chair of St Peter!

Personally, despite the doubts voiced by a number of Catholics about Pope Benedict’s abdication, I always sensed that he was too keen of mind and faithful to his duties to make such a decision without a very good reason. I find myself now wondering if he has been aware all along of some ailment that would bring him swiftly toward his eternal repose.

And really, how fitting it would be for a man of his character to keep the attention away from himself and on the office he would be leaving vacant? I don’t know about you, but I can’t resist trying to get sympathy from those around me when I have a common cold, let alone something serious. And I don’t have access to the prayers of billions. Pope Emeritus Benedict is arguably the most well-loved and recognized figure living in the world today, and if it were true that he knew of a rapidly developing illness and chose to keep that silent, what an impressive witness of personal humility it would be.

If it were so, then he has allowed his successor, Pope Francis, to begin his papacy free of the shadow of the impending illness — or even death — of his beloved predecessor. Pope Francis has now had time to establish himself, to “settle in” to the job, as Benedict has faded quietly into the background.

Of course, the media has already made much of the humility and personal piety of Pope Francis. Many of these reports are published by those who seem giddy in their attempts to contrast these virtues with the character of Benedict, who for his detractors was a symbol of all the pomp and circumstance and rigor and tradition in the Church that they wish to see swept away under the auspices of “reform”. Others have argued that by Pope Benedict’s adoption of the traditional trappings of the papacy, he simply demonstrated that he was personally submissive to the office that he held, and the symbolism in which it is steeped.

If it turns out that the Holy Father left his post without mentioning that he knew that the end was near, I believe it would prove this latter assertion. His dedication to the “hermeneutic of continuity” remains, even until the end. I should hope that even the cynics would give him credit for the dignity and selflessness with which he facilitated this transition.

Please pray for Pope Emeritus Benedict. I am certain he is praying for us.

Had you told me ten years ago that I would be serving a Tridentine Mass on the campus of Franciscan University of Steubenville the day before the Pope who “reopened” the Missal of 1962 stepped down from the papacy, I would have given you a very strange look indeed. First for suggesting that I, a life-long traditionalist, would be that involved with Franciscan University of Steubenville; and second, for suggesting that the Tridentine Mass would be so readily available and acceptable that it would be offered at Franciscan.

But that is what will happen. For the past three and half years I have been the head master of ceremonies and chief trainer of servers for the Extraordinary Form Mass on campus. During that time I have assisted one of the younger friars to learn the “Old Mass.”

I will never forget Father’s face the first time he sat in choir at a Missa Cantata on campus back in 2009. When we returned to the sacristy after the recessional I thanked him for coming, but his face displayed a combination of wonder, joy, and astonishment. He said, “No, thank you.”

And thus it began. He took lessons from a local diocesan priest, augmented eventually by myself serving for him at a private Mass once weekly, stopping him occasionally with a quiet, “Father, don’t forget…” and him thanking me, correcting the error, and the Mass continuing on.

The corrections lessened over time, to the point now where I almost don’t have to pay extra special attention any longer and can more fully enter into the prayer of this ancient liturgy.

As a matter of the regular semester campus Mass schedule, Father offers one public Extraordinary Form Mass per week on campus: a Low Mass on Saturday most weekends, but a Missa Cantata one Sunday per month.

Tomorrow morning will be another private Low Mass, just Father and me, praying this truly, deeply beautiful liturgy for the salvation of the whole world, in the presence of all the saints and angels, and “in the site of His divine majesty.” I will offer my prayer for the intentions of Pope Benedict XVI, and in thanksgiving for his papacy.

This is only possible because of the great wisdom of Benedict. His motu proprio Summorum Pontificum—which is not a “universal indult,” but includes the recognition that the the Missal of Blessed John XXIII was never suppressed nor abrogated, thus no “indult” was ever needed or appropriate—opened up a real dialogue at the grassroots level (okay, sometimes it’s still askance looks or shouting matches, but that will take time and charitable hearts to overcome) and truly enabled the new to reconnect with that which had served so well for so long. It reestablished the tradition of the organic development of liturgy, allowing the good to stay and the dross of the bad burn away, that dominated for millennia but was greatly hindered in 1969 and the liturgical pogroms of the 1970s.

Because of Summorum Pontificum I will be able to drive onto the campus of one of the most liturgically eclectic and historically charismatic Catholic institutions in the country and take part in the great handing on what I have been given by those who taught to me that which they had been given.

Thank you, Holy Father, from the bottom of my heart, and may God richly bless your retirement.

The elevation of the Precious Blood during the first ever Solemn High Mass in Christ the King Chapel at Franciscan University of Steubenville, just this past October 28. My head and back can be seen to the right of the deacon, who is kneeling to Father’s right, holding the chasuble.

There are, however, a handful of names that keep coming up in conversation.

Here’s Fr. Barron on the Today Show speaking with Matt Lauer about possible successors to Pope Benedict:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

While it may be fun to pontificate about who the favorite is at this point in time, as Fr. Robert Sirico of Sacred Heart Parish in Grand Rapids, Michigan so aptly put it: “anyone who tells you there is a ‘front-runner’ simply does not know what he is talking about.”

Whoever the next pope will be, I think we’ll get a clear sense for the direction the Church wants to go, especially when it comes to the Vatican’s relationship with the SSPX. As Catholic News Agency columnist Louis Verrecchio has written, “we will know what the immediate future holds for the Church based upon just one observation; namely, the liturgical mindset of Pope Benedict’s successor.”

I’ll let other CatholicVote contributors discuss what each possible successor brings to the table, but at the time this post went live, the online prediction website Intrade has Cardinal Peter Turkson of Ghana as the frontrunner with a 25% chance of becoming the next pope. Followed by Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi at 21.9%, the Archbishop of Milan Angela Scola at 17.1%, Cardinal Marc Ouellet of Canada at 12.5%, and Cardinal Frances Arinze of Nigeria at 4.5%.

I don’t condone betting on who the next pope will be, nor do I think there is a favorite at this time, but most would conclude that these are the likeliest candidates to succeed Pope Benedict.

h/t Jeffrey Tucker

Starting with the humorous and moving quickly to the serious.

In case you hadn’t heard, and purely for context, we announced two weeks ago that our president, Father Terence Henry, TOR, will step down from that position at the end of this academic year. That in mind, Bob Rice, popular Catholic musician and assistant professor of Catechetics here at Franciscan, offered:

Isn’t it obvious? The Pope is resigning so he can be the new president of Franciscan University.

— Bob Rice (@therealbobrice) February 11, 2013

The cuisine here in Steubenville isn’t nearly as good as in Rome, but we would certainly welcome this prospective new president… He *would* have to become a TOR, however. One of our students offered a common solution to problems here on campus:

First Fr. Terry and now the Pope? This is too much. I need a couple hours in the Port. #overwhelmed #fusprobs — FUS Problems (@fusprobs) February 11, 2013

“The Port,” for those unfamiliar, is the replica we have on campus of the Portiuncula chapel St. Francis re-built in Assisi when he heard the Lord instruct him to “Rebuild my Church.” We have perpetual adoration in the Port during the academic year. As you can imagine, that also makes it a place to go when you don’t know where else *to* go.

Our vice president for Advancement, Michael Hernon, noted, “Steubenville has a new bishop, soon a new president for the university, and now a new pope. What a year of faith!”

Sure gives one the opportunity to just let go and trust that God is in charge.

We posted a collection of reactions from Fr. Henry and some of our theology professors. Here are a few highlights.

Father Henry offered,

While Pope Benedict’s resignation is certainly unexpected, it is yet one more sign of the strong leadership he has exhibited throughout his papacy. It takes a particular kind of wisdom to know when to step down and a wonderful humility to do so.

I’ve seen some saying that Pope Benedict ought to stay in the office until he dies like John Paul II did. As much as I might think it is a good idea and I would like that to happen for the great witness is gives of noble suffering, I recognize that what I’m saying is I, I, would like it. Frankly, what I would like or what I think is the appropriate thing to do doesn’t really matter here. If I love this pope and trust his judgment then that trust must extend to a decision as momentous as this one. Few would grasp the gravity of such a move as well as Joseph Ratzinger, especially since he had a front-row view to the deterioration and demise of his beloved predecessor. Does Benedict want to set the precedent that popes ought to resign before the onset of Alzheimer’s or another debilitating disease that saps the mind but not the body? Modern medicine can keep a body alive long after the mind is gone. If we trust that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church from any harmful actions of a debilitated pope—and we do—ought not we also to trust that the Holy Spirit could guide a pope to resign *before* he loses his mental faculties and then cannot resign with a free conscience and fully operational will?

Interim chair of the Department of Theology, Dr. Alan Schreck, said,

Upon his election as pope, some predicted that Pope Benedict XVI would be a polarizing figure, continuing his long-held role as the Catholic Church’s chief doctrinal defender and ‘censor.’ Pope Benedict certainly did not avoid controversy in the pursuit of truth, engaging in honest and serious dialogue with other religions and with modern culture, unafraid to challenge the ‘dictatorship of relativism.’ Yet Pope Benedict was deeply committed to promoting reconciliation: among Christians, among nations, and with those alienated from the Catholic Church.

Indeed, this pope has gone further than anyone thought imaginable extending olive branches and making efforts to restore unity. From the true meaning of his much-maligned Regensburg Address—the one that angered some fundamentalist Muslims to murderous rage, but actually led to a significant dialogue with Muslim scholars—to his visit to Turkey and the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to the establishment of the Anglican Rite and the massive influx of former Anglicans to the Church, to his efforts to draw the Society of St. Pius X back into the fold, to Summorum Pontificum and the seismic shift it caused in the landscape of Catholic liturgical development, and other efforts that escape me at the moment, he has used a graceful humility, arguing with an unassailable logic, founded in the truth of the Love of God, proposing always that any approach not founded in and leading to that love, is inhuman and doomed to denigrate humanity and lessen all of us.

I love the language Dr. Regis Martin, professor of systematic theology, uses, (and I appreciate that he echoes what I said this morning):

The sudden news of the Pope’s decision to retire at the end of this month, rather than die, as his sainted predecessor did, with his boots on, has taken us all by surprise. But the shock of the realization that this gentle and good man, this wonderful Vicar of Christ whose mind is as profound as his heart is fearless, should be tempered by the recognition that while popes come and go, the Church remains forever. And the legacy he leaves behind will surely last as long as the Bride and Body of Jesus Christ himself. What precisely that patrimony will consist of I leave for another day. But surely the centerpiece of his life has always been the love of God monstrated before the world in the sending of his Son. All else has been a footnote to that horizon-shattering event. And so I see his departure in the immediate context of that blinding light. Leaving—to recall the last line of a poem by Stephen Spender—‘the vivid air signed with his honor.’

Yes. No pope’s full impact on the Church, and therefore the world, can be calculated within many decades of the end of that papacy, but I think this pope’s impact will reverberate with the loudest of them for centuries for reasons touched on in the list above of areas where he has tried for reconciliation. Striking because of how quiet and meek a man he is. But from the outset, when the first encyclical of this extraordinarily intellectual man was a profound meditation on “God is Love” (a very Augustinian opener that just warms my Augustinian heart), we knew we had something we did not expect.

Almost as though “God is Love” is the answer to, or countering position against, the “dictatorship of relativism” he identified as a great threat to modern man roughly a year prior.

More will be said in the days and weeks to follow, but that’s enough for now.

Pope Benedict is resigning. Not the end of the world, nor the end of the Church.

If you find yourself saddened by this news remember: the Church is the bride of Jesus Christ, not the product of human enterprise. The Pope is Christ’s vicar, not successor. The pope is a caretaker and steward, not lord. Continue to love the Church and not any one man. Trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit—that same Holy Spirit who gave us Karol Wojtyla and Joseph Ratzinger. And especially pray for the cardinal-electors who just started burning up the red phone lines. They are who the Holy Spirit shall work through, pray that they are sensitive to the authentic promptings of the Spirit.

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.”

If, on the other hand, you find yourself happy with this news because you think “finally, we’ll get a pope who will allow contraception, women priests and [all manner of silliness] to prevail,” prepare yourself for continued frustration. The Church is the creation of God, not to be remade in our own image and likeness. She does not approve these things because they are un-approvable.

The Church is who she is because of Jesus Christ and not because of any individual man. All we weak human persons can contribute is more difficulty through our sinfulness—but even when we screw up, God is capable of bringing great good out of it.

We will hear all manner of silliness and bad advice from many corners about what sort of man (heh… or woman…) the Church ought to elect to show that she is still “relevant.” An actively and activist homosexual man. A non-Catholic. A man who isn’t so hung up on this or that doctrine.

Meh.

That’s like impetuous teens telling their stodgy conservative parents to “get with the times and live a little” in licentious, irresponsible, indulge-your-appetites behavior … except it falls short of the relationship between the Church and the world by orders of magnitude.

Those who would try to remake the Church do not understand her. Pope Benedict’s resignation, though an epochal event in world history, will not rock the Church, but merely confirms the primacy and solidity of the Church over the ever-changing times.

And yet, the fact that a sibling and a dad ranked so high on wish-lists gives me great hope. Even though we can see many sociological indicators that suggest all is not at all well with the world, these children seem to suggest that they know it should be better, starting with their own families.

In his homily for Midnight Mass, Pope Benedict, reflecting on Mary and Joseph as they are turned away from every inn, asks, “[W]hat would happen if Mary and Joseph were to knock at my door. Would there be room for them?” He ties the situation of Mary and Joseph to our own lack of willingness to open the doors of our hearts to God, including “children, the suffering, the abandoned, those who are excluded and the poor of this world,” in whom God is reflected.

While these children may not all be writing the type of Christmas letter that the Pope wrote when he was a boy of 7, I find at least two of their requests to be profound and a hopeful indication that their hearts are very generous. And without wanting to suggest that children cast off all their lessons on stranger danger, I think they would open their doors to Mary and Joseph. They’d know a family when they saw it.

Well, as personal as a tweet to more than a million people can be.

Dear friends, I am pleased to get in touch with you through Twitter. Thank you for your generous response. I bless all of you from my heart.

— Benedict XVI (@Pontifex) December 12, 2012

I’ve long maintained that while communications tools like Facebook and Twitter have the potential to cause great harm, allowing society to become more atomized and individuals to become more insular, they also can be used for great good, providing a means to reach more people with good news and encouragement—including and especially people who may otherwise have no opportunity to hear the Good News or reach out to others.

The good purpose is what people of good will must insist they be used for, and conduct ourselves accordingly.

Presumably the pope intends to contribute positively to societal discourse, which makes a tweeting pope a very good thing.

Today, however, it is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.

They're using illicit clay and glass vessels. Of course they aren't actually priests, so no harm no foul.

So two points: 1) Sensus fidelium cannot be seen as a corrective force against the clear, unequivocal, ancient teaching of the Magisterium; 2) The sensus fidelium arises from those baptized who are also faithful to the Magisterium.**

Now I recognize the convenient position in which the Reporter and their adherents find themselves vis-a-vis this statement by the pope: They don’t believe him as a matter of course when he says something that offends their sensus dissentium,*** so why start here?! After all, he was not declaiming ex cathedra so this is just his private opinion; Cardinal Newman said this thing about conscience and drinking that totally trumps anything the pope says; etc. But at what point might these people realize that the problem might lie not with the Church, but with their conception on how the Church ought to be?

Not holding my breath, but it would be kinda cool if the major publications that called themselves “Catholic” were, perhaps, Catholic.

———-

*Come now, the movement is not about being authentically Catholic in the way the Church understands herself or being authentically Woman as the Church sees women’s roles in the Church (e.g., exalted as the Immaculate Conception) so why confuse outsiders by using those words in such disparate ways?

**Both points back up nicely what I had been saying in both posts on the topic and in the short comm box discussion of the second one.

***Yes, I kinda coined that on the fly.

Nowadays, almost every university, publically owned company and nonprofit organization has some type of mission statement that includes the words “diversity,” “tolerance,” and “inclusion.” These are not inherently troublesome ideas, but, as Allan Bloom notes in “The Closing of the American Mind,” when these values become the pre-eminent virtues of society, we’ve reached a very dangerous point in human history.

Take President Obama’s decision to support same sex marriage. Although his progressive values ostensibly restrict him from actuating public policy based on the teachings of his Christian faith, he came to the conclusion that gay Americans should be able to marry because the Golden Rule compels us to love thy neighbor as thyself.

There’s been a tidal wave of commentary devoted to demonstrating how the president’s understanding of the Golden Rule is philosophically incoherent, but Carson Holloway, in a post for Catholic Vote not long ago, debunked his position better than most. He writes:

To be of any use as a moral guide, the Golden Rule must presuppose some known, objective standard of morality…If it does not, then it would lead to obviously ridiculous outcomes.  In the absence of such a moral standard, the Golden Rule would require me to help the depressed person commit suicide.  After all, I’m supposed to do to others what I would want them to do to me.

Holloway adds:

The President wants to “do unto others” with regard to gays who want to marry.  But what about all the other people — equally human beings — who oppose same-sex marriage?  Doesn’t the Golden Rule require the President to treat them as they would wish to be treated, and to join with them in rejecting same-sex marriage?

As my born again Catholic friend mentioned to me not long ago, it seems that we now elevate our love for our neighbor above our love for God. In other words, we value interfaith dialogue more than intra-faith dialogue.

Marcello Pera, an Italian philosopher and President of the Italian Senate from 2001 to 2006, wrote about the purpose of interfaith dialogue in a 2006 book called “Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Islam.” “In the Christian religion,” Pera writes, “dialogue cannot be an instrument for the discovery of truth, because Revelation plays that role.” However religious dialogue does have two important functions: it allows “for believers of various faiths to communicate and foster understanding; and to preach, spread, and advance the [Gospel].”

To be sure, Pera adds, dialogue can promote brotherhood, tolerance and peace, but these “’are secularizing values,” and “Christian evangelism does not preach secularism.” It preaches transcendence, “the unique, sole, true transcendence.”

Pera’s views are important to understand, and they invite a larger question: how much should the Church be willing to collaborate with other religions? After all, Pope Benedict has already written that ““interreligious dialogue in the strict sense of the word is not possible.”

Stephen Kokx is an adjunct professor of political science and a featured columnist at RenewAmerica.com. Follow him on twitter @StephenKokx

Too often the debate about environmentalism is hindered by focusing on the politically divisive issue of global warming. Unfortunately, ideological blinders continue to deter people from coming to the realization that we live in a world of finite resources that are being consumed at an ever-increasing rate. This doesn’t mean the state should cap the amount of energy people are allowed to consume, but it does mean that we, as Americans, should start thinking about reducing our environmental impact.

Denying the possibility of life by providing universal contraception is not the answer to our ecological problems, even though ranking officials at the United Nations and members of the elite media feel that it is. As Benedict pointed out in his 2009 encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “Our duties toward the environment are linked to our duties toward the human person…It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while trampling on the others.”

How, then, are we to go about solving the world’s ecological problems? A starting point may lie in clarifying the Church’s teaching on the subject.

Some environmentalists blame Christianity for the degradation of the environment. Man’s dominion over the “fish of the sea and the birds of the air,” the argument goes, exemplifies a speciest worldview that fails to recognize the value of the “natural world.” This argument, however, fails to understand that mankind itself is part of the “natural world” and that for many years the Church has emphasized responsible stewardship of the Earth. “The environment is God’s gift to everyone,” Benedict writes, “and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole.”

Christian stewardship, therefore, is not a license to do whatever one pleases to the environment. As beings made in the image of God, we are called to advance our legitimate needs but only by using the planet’s resources in a responsible way. We are not called to be in “kinship” with our animal neighbors. As I have written about before, human life is not on par with a flock of geese or blade of grass. “It is contrary,” Benedict adds, “to view nature as something more important than the human person.” For “human salvation cannot come from nature alone.”

Stephen Kokx is an adjunct professor of political science and a featured columnist at RenewAmerica.com. Follow him on twitter @StephenKokx