Not at all. The man is 85. It's highly likely that he's starting to develop Parkinson's, "tired" is a euphemism. He stepped down so that the Church could have an effective leader as his mental and physical abilities deteriorate. Seems perfectly sensible to me and this will probably become the norm now that the mind almost invariably goes before the body thanks to modern medicine.

In this age dominated by secularism the Church is not well served by a Pope unable to keep up a vigorous schedule. The Holy Father has done a great thing by realizing this and being humble enough to step down from one of the most influential positions on the planet for the greater good of the faith.

@maple - I understand the realism behind the resignation, and I accept it. I don't particular understand the concept of the Pope. BUT....he is supposed to represent God on Earth...and he quit. Christ never quit. I can't think of any of the Apostles stepping down. One died because he betrayed Christ and the rest became martyrs. But I can't think of a biblical example of someone quitting...

It isn't about "rigious-right whiack-jobs" -- it's about what the man states he believes, what the Cathlic religion states as a belief system, and the fact the head dude pretty much just said through his actions, "Ehhh....i don't believe this stuff....the going got tough, and God is too small to carry me through...." If I were Catholic, I'd be pretty disappointed I think. BTW...the Pope IS a religious-right whack-job, if you line up his stated beliefs versus what you would most likely define as a R-R-W-J.

@Invictus -- again, I guess you missed the Biblical Quote in my post -- the old dude isn't strengthened by God enough to carry on. "Reality" or not, it kind of flies contrary to the Word of God he was supposed to represent.

But -- I understand that most "Chirsitians" are generally Biblical illiterate and take it with a grain of salt. They sit in the pews once week (maybe) and pretend they are Godly people, and thus such a trivial matter is...well...trivial.

And yet Catholics have never let the Bible stand in the way of their religion, so I'm willing to give the Pope a pass on this one.

He's only human.

Yours is the arrogance, krellin. You assume without discussion that anybody who disagrees with you on a theological point has never given it any thought -- that the interpretation that comes into your head is so clearly right that you don't even have to discuss it, but can just write naysayers off as fake Christians.

Kind of sad that someone would bash the Pope for being old and feeling that there are better and more capable leaders than him right now. The legacy doesn't make it ironic, and anyway, abuse within the clergy is nothing new. He's done a good thing that hopefully will set a much needed precedent.

krellin, you're doing that thing that makes Catholics loathe Protestants most of all: biblical quote mining.

I think I was pretty clear in my first post. He's old and getting older, and he thinks the Church needs someone else to lead it in order for God's work to be done effectively. Someone who can make transatlantic voyages and not need a wheelchair to celebrate Mass. God's not going to make an 85 year old suddenly have the vigor of someone several decades younger. Rather than have the Church tread water as his age advances, the Holy Father has decided to step aside and make sure there is always effective leadership. He's given strong hints he would do this for almost the entirety of his time as Pope, we shouldn't be shocked he's keeping his word.

krellin, I thought you were Catholic.

Anyway, Invictus said everything I would have if I were more articulate and also more willing to argue with strangers on the internet.

(This is you. Many of you: http://xkcd.com/386/)

And a more on-topic link, a blog post containing 10 reasons B16's resignation is a good thing:
http://marysaggies.blogspot.com/2013/02/10-reasons-benedicts-resignation-is.html

The pope is not allowed to resign while he is not in control of his faculty also. In other words, if he has Alzheimer's and he is no longer in charge of his post (yet he is still the pope), he is, at that point, unable to resign even if he wanted to. Sadly, he has probably been told that he is terminally ill of something whether it be Alzheimer's or cancer. When Bl. Pope John Paul II was sick while pope, Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, was for John Paul's resignation if John Paul felt he was unable to carry on. It is frowned upon to resign from the papacy, but obviously Benedict XVI has felt that resignation is an option for an ailing pope. This sums up what I know on this topic, and most of the topic in general.

Great link MKE

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me" clearly includes the strength to lay aside great power, the humility embrace frailty, and the wisdom to pass the torch to the next generation in a timely manner. Would to God that we had a million more such leaders, not just in the church but in every arena of human endeavor.

Despite the argument of whether he should be "tired" or not according to God's strength, he is. He is old after all. So here's my question...

Why is it that whenever a new Pope is assigned, the one chosen is always old. I don't know about the religious reasons surrounding the appointment of a new Pope, but wouldn't the whole process be a little more efficient if they chose a younger Pope. Reducing Pope Turnover would be more effective from a financial standpoint. If you chose a 40 year old Pope would mean he would last longer and reduce the cost of fitting robes and hats and rings and all the other Popely stuff, allowing more money to be used on helping charity, and feeding homeless, and stuff... Religion is confusing sometimes.

Krellin, http://imgur.com/U9mt72m.png

You people. Decrying atheists, decrying Catholics. If it weren't for the Catholic Church, there wouldn't be a Protestant church for you to cling to.

Part of the reason for electing old men to an office they hold for life is that if they suck, they won't suck for long.

Also, electing people younger, less experienced, less knowledgeable, less seasoned, and more lacking in historical perspective than you are (most of the cardinals, I am sure, are 60+) will always seems like a ticket to disaster.

Fro the record, I did not bash the Pope, did not bash the Cathloic church, etc, etc,etc.

I asked a question, and I played devil's advocate in response.

Honestly, I could give a flying fuck if the Pope resigns. I could give a flying fuck if the Pope is Catholic, for that matter. But fuck off if a guy isn't allowed to ask a question and then probe the answer for a deeper understanding of how people view the situation. Good god (he says mockingly...) get a grip.

Let's go back to Maple's attempt to derail...

What do you mean teachersa re more likely to abuse, maple? The percentages don't work. Sure, more teacher sexual abuse occurs, because there are a fuck load more teachers and more students than priests and altar boys combined. Get real. The statistics show that as a percentage (the likelihood as you were asserting, is found in percentages), priests are the guiltiest ones of the bunch, second only to prison rapes. And when it comes to pefophilia, priests rank #1 in percentages. Why, because that whole fucked up vow of chastity that I have yet to find beyond one of Paul's writings saying *he* preferred they not get married, not God, not Jesus, *him* (Paul).

Yeah, let's have a little less bashing the bishop on here guys.

"If it weren't for the Catholic Church, there wouldn't be a Protestant church for you to cling to."

That's like saying if it weren't for deadly mold's, there wouldn't be penicillin. While technically true, it belies the point that the Catholic church is backwards teaching andhas one of the most corrupt histories of all religions. Popes elected because of their "noble" bloodlines and not their piety to God. Selling indulgences so sinners could do what the fuck they want and then just give money thinking they'll get to heaven, like God gives a fuck about money here on earth.

And just last night I heard some idiot proclaiming that only the Catholic church can claim apostolic succession, which is utter bull. Martin Luther was a Catholic priest and all Lutheran ministers can run their "apostolic succession" through him.

A bunch of sanctimonious, self-egrandizing kiddie fuckers is what the Catholic priesthood is.

Why Maniac? Porr wittle boy-ass fuckers can't take a wittle abuse on a web forum?

"apostolic succession..." Sigh....whatever the hell that is - but is sure isn't in the Bible that the church claims to believe. That's the problem with the Catholic Church -- they do a bunch of stuff that has little to nothing to do with the Bible.

As for the specific notion of apostolic succession -- Christ came to tear down legalism, not ensconce it in a silly hat...

To whomever up there complained because Protestants cherry pick Biblical quotes or whatever the gripe was ... well, my experience with most Catholics is that they are generally completely ignorant of the Bible - so I'd rather have someone that can cherry pick versus because they actually read the book, than someone who is generally unread.

The idea of Apostolic Succession is that Christ set Peter as the first among his Apostles: first Pope (in Catholic views). And the casting of lots at Peter's descretion to pick Matthias as Judas' replacement is viewed as the original Apostolic Succession, but it is a stupid belief, especially considering casting lots was literally random chance, voting for someone ins't even remotely the same thing. They should just put names in a hat and draw the first one. Casting lots is a lottery, so why do they view this as some sort of vote and appointment of priests... One can only guess.

@draug, you do know I was talking in euphemisms?

The recession is so bad even God is laying people off....

LOL Nigee.

Oops! Sorry Maniac. A reread confirms that. :-)

And that was brilliant, Nigee. Finally you wrote something that was actually funny!

Actually, casting lots is tied to the belief that God will intervene and the choice will be God's in the end, and not man's.