When I wrote in early January 2013 that it is time for Pope Benedict XVI to consider resigning if he is physically and mentally feeble so that his cronies would not govern the Catholic Church in his name, I did not in my wildest imagination think that the Pope would take the very bold step of resignation so soon on February 11, 2013. His decision to resign in my mind is the best decision he made in his life. In this article I want to briefly high-light some important factors of interest in the papacy of Pope Benedict XVI and mention some salient factors in the election of a new pope. As a Jesuit professor in a leading institution (Jnana Deep Vidyapeeth (JDV) Institute of Philosophy and Religion Pune, India) in the world that trained selected candidates for Catholic priesthood I had a deep interest in the doings of popes. Besides as a solemnly professed Jesuit I had taken a special vow of obedience to the pope. Progressive Jesuits did not view Pope John Paul II favorably as he was very conservative. His take- over of the Jesuits after a bad stroke Pedro Arrupe, the superior general of the Jesuits, suffered by appointing his own men in a stubborn autocratic authoritarian style was unprecedented. The Jesuit professors at Pune including me expressed our displeasure in a letter addressed to the Pope. It was very obvious that Pope John Paul II was not very fond of the Jesuits especially in the way faith was more and more looked at by Jesuits in the context of social justice in the world. Pope John XXIII and Fr. Pedro Arrupe (the Superior General of the Jesuits is also known as the Black Pope, because of his importance as the head of a powerful world-wide religious order in the Catholic Church, and because he wore a black cassock) were two holy and visionary men of the last century who strived to bring the Catholic Church into the modern world. And the two men who stalled progress in the Church after the Vatican Council II were Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger, the right hand man of Pope John Paul II. I think the way John Paul II treated Arrupe also contributed to his stroke. By the way the job of the Jesuit General was also life-long until Arrupe. I might also add that Pope John Paul's action in taking over the Society of Jesus also contributed to my leaving the Jesuits. Besides I would not be able to criticize the pope and write what I am writing now if I were a Jesuit.

             It must be said that Pope John Paul II did well in loosening the strangle-hold of communism in his native Poland. But he did not do anything to ameliorate the situation in Latin America by supporting liberation theology that had a bearing on the plight of the poor Catholic peasants and the natives crushed by rich callous Catholic land-owners and evil right-wing dictators. So much so Fr. Leonardo Boff, a Franciscan liberation theologian in Brazil called Pope Benedict XVI a religious terrorist. Pope John Paul II created a fortress of conservatives and ultra-conservatives such as Opus Dei men and Cardinals such as Ratzinger around himself. He even canonized the founder of the Opus Dei. He did not undertake any substasntive and meaningful reform in the face of enormous changes and challenges facing the Catholic Church. Of the 115 Cardinals who came to the conclave to elect a new pope all, except two cardinals, of whom one was Cardinal Ratzinger, were appointed by Pope John Paul II. When Joseph Ratzinger was elected pope in 2005, the Time magazine quipped that the new Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger, was as close to cloning John Paul II as the Catholic Church could get. At that time I wrote that I did not expect Pope Benedict to do anything remarkable in his pontificate. A papabilis ( a word in Latin meaning a person who is capable of being elected as a pope; a person who is talked of as a future of pope), Jesuit Cardinal, Archbishop of Milan, Carlos Martini, much popular than Ratzinger in the very same conclave Ratzinger was elected to be Pope, said in an interview two weeks before his death at the end of August 2012 that the Catholic Church was two hundred years behind times. Cardinal Martini's scathing criticism of the way the Church is run is very poignant.

             In his early priestly years Fr. Joseph Ratzinger started as a liberal. Cardinal Ratzinger functioned as an arch conservative all the important years of his active life. He was the chief spokesman for conservatism, traditionalism, and fight against liberalism, relativism, and modernism. His papacy was still born. He did not have any bold initiative to solve the problems facing the Catholic Church. He re-cycled the same issues that confronted Pope John Paul II and himself as the Pope's right hand man. Pope Benedict was a spent man as a Cardinal in the papacy of John Paul II. He spent his energy spinning his wheels going nowhere around the same issues. He was not able to lay to rest the clergy child sexual abuse. Of course the news-starved media and the anti-Catholic elements tried to keep it alive and get the most mileage out of it. But Benedict's lack of decisive action together with the controversy surrounding dealing effectively with it as a cardinal did not help. In the initial unearthing of the abuse, he was, perhaps, unaware of the enormity and extent of the abuse that damaged the Church's very credibility as a safe, secure, and spiritual haven for children. But the inner workings of the unaccountable authoritarian Church governance shrouded in secrecy was also responsible for the mess. They thought they were divinely appointed, and hence above any civil laws. They did not take into confidence civil authorities at critical junctures. A very important principle that some Church officials in high position forget is that the Church the bride of Christ needs to be as self-transparent as Christ himself.

            The Society of St. Pius X was founded by the rebel French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to fight the reforms of the Second Vatican Council. He was a strong defender of Tridentine Mass, certain beliefs and pious practices, and religious discipline before the Second Vatican Council. He was explicitly reprimanded by Pope Paul VI for his obstinate disobedience and on-going persistent defiance. This reprimand was an unusual act for a pope. Lefebvre was forbidden to ordain priests and bishops. Against the explicit orders of Pope John Paul II, Archbishop Lefebvre ordained four bishops who incurred automatic excommunication together with Lefebvre on account of the defiant act. The archbishop's schismatic act was condemned by Pope John Paul II. Pope Benedict XVI remitted the excommunication of the four bishops. One of the bishops even denied the holocaust. The Pope also resurrected the Tridentine Mass, a symbol of the rejection of the Second Vatican Council according to Pope Paul VI (Refer National Catholic Reporter, December 8, 2012). Pope Benedict XVI bent backward so far to accommodate the schismatic prelate and his bishops that, I must say, he fell down. These acts of his needs to be viewed in the light of several progressive theologians who were silenced or forced to leave their prestigious positions or ministries in the Catholic Church on account of his intolerance. During his and Pope John Paul II's regime progressive theologians were oppressed and emasculated as he was supposed to be the guardian of the Catholic doctrine and as he had the power and resources to reward those who toed his lines. The Church as a community in a representative council needs to come to the decision as to what is orthodoxy and what is a vital doctrine. It is not the prerogative of a pope or his appointee to decide that. It is high time that the notion embedded in the minds of most Catholics that the Pope and his Curia (equivalent to a cabinet) are the Church and their decisions with regard to the universal Church are undisputable needs to be rooted out. The Pope and all his officials are subject to the same admonition of St. Paul of working out their salvation, as any other Catholic, with fear and trembling.