Ratzinger throws in the towel!

THE Pope is to resign at the end of this month in an entirely unexpected development, the Vatican has confirmed.

Ratzinger: Perhaps he could no longer stand the heat

Ratzinger: Perhaps he could no longer stand the heat

According to the BBC, the 85-year-old became Pope Benedict XVI in April 2005 following the death of John Paul II.

The reasons behind the pontiff’s surprise resignation have yet to emerge.

At 78, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was one of the oldest new popes in history when elected.

There much excitement over the issue on Reddit, where someone points out that the last Pope to resign was Pope Gregory XII (1406–1415).

Latest reactions to the news:

11.58 A nicely-put reaction from the editor of The Catholic Herald newspaper, Luke Coppen:

Pope Benedict’s pontificate has been full of surprises. This is the biggest one of all.

11.55 Catholic commentator Mary Kenny has told BBC News the decision is reflective of Benedict’s “intelligence” and that he had done much for Anglicans in the UK who no longer felt the Church of England reflected their views.

11.50 German Chancellor Angela Merkel has released a statement through a spokesman on the resignation of the German-born Pope this morning:

The federal government has the greatest possible respect for the Holy Father, for his accomplishments, for his life-long work for the Catholic Church.

11.38 Ann Widdecombe, the former Conservative MP who converted to Roman Catholicism in 1993, has told BBC News:

Benedict has always been an extremely decisive Pope. If he decided he couldn’t carry on he wouldn’t hang around. [It is] fairly typical not only of the Pope but of the man. It is in the interests of the church if someone who can do them [his duties] takes over.

Hat tip: Peter Brietbart and Remigius

166 responses to “Ratzinger throws in the towel!”

  1. Broga says:

    Ken: I don’t suppose you would subject yourself to the inconvenience of explaining how you know this. Try to get what remains of your brains, after their being addled by religion, to think about this. Your fantasy solves nothing. It merely complicates things further. Because you are then left with answering the question of who created God, and who created who created God and so on ad infinitum.

    “no-one created God, the biblical God is not part of the creation and has never not existed. That be beyond human comprehension, but the ‘who created God question’ is a neat deflection away from the evolutionist problem of what started the whole thing off in the first place. ”

    Now if this is beyond “human comprehension” how come you know it?

  2. Angela_K says:

    @Ken “…but what caused this ‘nothing’ to change into something?” It certainly wasn’t your god because he/she/it is 100% man made. As the for the something from nothing argument, I’m sure we went over that with you a few months back and I don’t think Barry would like me to expand on that by filling this blog with pages of equations and diagrams. Ken, you could study Physics and Mathematics and work it out for yourself, but why bother when you have all the answers you need in your bible – easy no brain power required.

  3. RabbitOnAStick says:

    I have had a chat with gawd.
    He has told me that ken isn’t real.
    And he then told me he wasn’t real either.

    But I still believe. I truly do believe. I must. As I have faith. And it is strong within me.
    Prove me wrong.

  4. AgentCormac says:


    “If morality can be changed, then what is your basis for criticising the ‘priesthood’ for their child abuse?”

    Oh, do grow up! Are you seriously prepared to use semantics to defend child abuse? What a complete and utter moron you are showing yourself to be.

  5. Marky Mark says:

    In **1997**, the Federal Bureau of Prisons released the professed religious adherence rate of those in the U.S. Federal Prison system.

    Christians make up about 80% of the American population AND prison population.

    However, Atheists make up about 8% of the American population but only 0.2% of the prison population.

    If one has to believe that a magical being is watching them all the time in order for them to behave properly, they will never be a good person. As the stats suggest, these people simply try to justify their crimes with religion. The countries with the most Atheists also have phenomenally low crime rates….but Ken cannot deal with FACTS.
    …The few Catlicks I have spoken to about the documentary “MEA Maxima Cupla: Silence in the House of God”, refuse to watch it. This tell us something about the actual persons that believe, they would rather not know about crime and abuse than admit they are wrong.

  6. Ken says:

    The respite care would be nicer, but:

    Broga – the very issue in discussing whether God exists in biblical terms is that “God” is defined as being eternally existent, from everlasting to everlasting. He is not part of the creation/universe, so the infinite regress doesn’t apply. Dawkins was silly to ask the question. This is how God has revealed himself in Christian theology, belief in any other kind of God really is a human invention. The fact our finite minds cannot really grasp this does not mean it is untrue, but it does point away from the idea that God is a human invention.

    AgentC – at no time have I begun to justify or defend what priests have been doing in the Catholic church. Quite the reverse: biblically what they are doing is wrong, both in terms of sex outside marriage and same sex activity where that has occurred. If the church were under the OT Mosaic law, you could argue the death penalty would be in order, but of course as you should by now realise, it’s not. The secular rejection of Christian marriage and sex ethic, seen for example in divorce of sex from marriage, leaves you without an objective standard applicable to everyone everywhere. If morality can change, on what basis can you say sex between a priest and a choirboy is wrong? Why can’t morality evolve to make that way of ‘expressing love’ become acceptable? What if a majority think it’s OK? Would it be alright if both parties were consenting? Biblically, it cannot under any circumstances be right.

    Further, if you believe in evolutionary descent, if we are simply the result of blind forces and in a sense pre-programmed, how can you make anyone responsible for their actions? To echo Dawkins ‘But doesn’t a truly scientific, mechanistic view of the nervous system make nonsense of the very idea of responsibility, whether diminished or not? Any crime, however heinous, is in principle to be blamed on antecedent conditions acting through the accused’s physiology, heredity and environment.’ If we are not made in the image of God and any kind of freewill is an illusion, if we are actually merely talking apes, why worry if anyone carries on in the same way as their cousins in the wild. The strong dominating the weak is perfectly natural for animals.

    The fact that most people across the board see the abuse (and cover ups) as evil is testimony to the fact we are created in the image of God and can be held accountable for our actions, we not just animals, and we have a God-given instinct or conscience that some things are definitely wrong, we know the difference between good and evil. Testimony to the fact that God does exist, and deep down you all know that!

  7. RabbitOnAStick says:


    How you change colouration and comment to fit your pre-conceived ideology that is not just flawed but wholly illogical. You base most of what you say on a premise impossible of rational analysis and purely on belief. You have no reason no logic and no sense. But then you believe in something you cannot prove, doesn’t exist and is fake.

    Now, I don’t believe in gawd. Prove that I am wrong.

  8. David Anderson says:


    Atheists don’t believe in evolution. Evolution, is like any other scientific theory, you either understand it or you don’t.

    You don’t.

    Belief is what you have that keeps you ignorant.

  9. Broga says:

    “the very issue in discussing whether God exists in biblical terms is that “God” is defined as being eternally existent, from everlasting to everlasting. He is not part of the creation/universe, so the infinite regress doesn’t apply. Dawkins was silly to ask the question.”

    Ken: God “is defined” and that’s all you need. Not by me is he so defined. What a very convenient fantasy you have erected for yourself. It is, of course, a Christian fantasy. You decide to define something, extracted from your bible which has yet to provide any worthwhile scientific facts, anything that would be helpful to humans, many cruel and destructive dictats and decide it must be true. Ken, you are losing all sense of reality. You descend ever more into the toxic superstitions of religion.

    You’ve got some chutzpah, in view of your performances here, to describe Richard Dawkins as “silly.” Have you no shame, no feelings of embarrassment about yourself, no awareness of your own profound limitations? I suppose, splashing in the sewers of religious thinking, I suppose not.

  10. RabbitOnAStick says:

    I have just realised that a foundation of my earlier comment & thought is entirely flawed.
    That, at the same time, dinosaurs did not walk the earth with ‘man’.

    I stand corrected. I am wrong.

    Ken is proof of this fact.

  11. AgentCormac says:


    “The fact that most people across the board see the abuse (and cover ups) as evil is testimony to the fact we are created in the image of God and can be held accountable for our actions, we not just animals, and we have a God-given instinct or conscience that some things are definitely wrong, we know the difference between good and evil. Testimony to the fact that God does exist, and deep down you all know that!”

    Claiming that universal revulsion towards the paedophiliac activities of priests is nothing less than proof that god exists is mind-numbingly worthless. It is your personal opinion and nothing more. Surely even you can see that. Everyone knows that what those monsters did is depraved. Everyone. Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians (of all brands) and yes, even us pointless atheists. We don’t need the bible to tell us, it is a universal truth that humans, as advanced social creatures, understand instinctively. So the complete antithesis of what you claim is actually so. The fact that regardless of creed, colour or indeed religion, we all know unequivocally what happened to those children wass heinous is surely proof beyond doubt that morality does not derive from your god at all, but from our own innate comprehension of what is right and wrong. BTW you may be disheartened to learn that morality is not just a human attribute – it can be clearly observed in animals, too

    And you know what, contrary to your distasteful and presumptive assertion that deep down we all know god exists, I for one can tell you that I have no doubt whatsoever that you are wrong. There is no god. There never has been a god. It is all a figment of human imagination. I have never seen a single shred of evidence to suggest otherwise. I would ask you to provide such evidence, but I know just as surely that you can’t.

  12. The Woggler says:

    On what basis can we decide what’s right and what’s wrong? It’s an appeal to the reality of our humanity.

    If you can’t see that, you’re either not real or not human. I will accept either position in your case.

  13. AgentCormac says:

    I thought this was a well-written appraisal.

  14. Broga says:

    @AgentCormac: I agree with your comments about this appraisal. Something which seems to be happening is that as the RC faith fades, and with increasing speed, in Europe and the educated West it depends on a numbers game. However, these numbers come from fundamentalist Africa and South America and depend on ignorance and naked superstition. What will be interesting will be the effect on the RC Church of the growing secularism of Europe and whether that educated population will continue to tolerate the current Vatican power.

    The nonsense of the Vatican as a state, created by the fascist Mussolini, has surely run its course. And the self serving Vatican supporters in government and the media are now forced to inhabit a fantasy land that they know has no basis in truth. I hope the current charade in Rome, with the gawping, unthinking and ridiculous hordes are a kind of last hurrah.

    Ratzinger was a disaster to his church and to the world. His successor, whatever he attempts, will be treading on very thin ice. His legitimacy, to whatever extent it exists, is already severely compromised by allowing Cardinals complicit in sexual abuse cover ups to vote. The BBC, seriously tainted from its pro RC spin, continues to do its best for the shamed church. There needs to be a serious accounting there unless we are supposed to accept that licence fee payers must continue to fund RC propaganda.

    Interesting times ahead.

  15. AgentCormac says:

    Here, I would offer up, is a wonderfully revealing and damning excerpt from Ratty’s farewell speech: “The Church is a living being,” he declared, which “also remains always the same”.

    That’s right, always the same.

    So, as ever, an institution that will carry on promoting celibacy as a virtue without realising that it actually creates sexual deviants. An institution that is a front for a horrible, despicable vipers’ nest of political interference on a global scale. An institution that is a promoter of hate mongering, retarded ideology, cynical wealth-accumulation, the calculated and wicked dissemination of lies to those who are uneducated enough to understand birth control, or those who are grief-striken enough to not know where else to turn for comfort when they truly need it. And, of course, an institution that tells women they have no control over their own bodies.

    But above all, let us not forget all those paedophile, child-abusing priests that Ratty and his bastard bishops have ignored, helped and in the case of so many, actually excused.

    The same? Of course the RCC will be. Let’s make sure they never forget we are watching them.

  16. Marky Mark says:

    I had seen the poop-copter today. I didn’t know the pope had his own helicopter…I imagine he has his own privet Lear Jet as well.