Videos: The final day of a retiring Pope
posted at 5:51 pm on February 28, 2013 by Ed Morrissey
Pontiffs don’t have exit interviews, since most of them don’t retire or resign. Today, though, the cardinals gathered for one last audience with Pope Benedict XVI, his last official meeting as head of the Roman Catholic Church. The affection for the outgoing Pope is evident, even as the cardinals must already be considering whom to select as his replacement (via Deacon Greg and Ta Deum):
In his address, now-Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI pledged obedience to his successor, in a move intended to quell concerns that any public statements would create confusion during the tenure of the next Pontiff:
In remarks Thursday to the cardinals, broadcast on Vatican television, the pope pledged to show “unconditional reverence and obedience” to the next pope. The vow could lay to rest fears that the presence of a living, retired pope in the Vatican would reduce the power of the next elected head of the Roman Catholic Church.
Thursday is set to be a quiet day for the pontiff. After bidding farewell to the cardinals, his helicopter ride to Castel Gandolfo will give him one last aerial view of the Vatican while he is still in charge of it.
Pope Benedict’s resignation officially goes into effect at 8 p.m. local time. At that hour, the doors of Castel Gandolfo will close and the Swiss Guards charged with guarding the reigning pope will go off duty.
I doubt that anyone in the Vatican had real fears that the Pope Emeritus wanted to interfere with his successor. Benedict XVI wants to let go of those concerns; if he wanted to retain control, he would never have broached the idea of retirement.
After saying his goodbyes, the Pope Emeritus left the Vatican, on his way to board a helicopter for the short ride to Castel Gandolfo:
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Via Twitchy, Benedict XVI and a few colleagues board the helicopter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKa8OTjcdxU
CNN correspondent and National Catholic Reporter analyst John Allen explains what happens next:
Meanwhile, perhaps this is a good moment for some self-reflection on the part of American media outlets, too. Media Research Center has tracked the coverage of Benedict XVI’s retirement, and they’re underwhelmed by the result, especially from major broadcast media:
A frail, ailing 85-year-old man announces he doesn’t have the strength to continue as the spiritual leader of 1.2 billion people. With the humility of one whose entire life has been in service to God and his Church, he says he will retire to quietly live out his remaining years.
ABC, CBS and NBC have never been fans of Pope Benedict XVI. They saw the former Cardinal Ratzinger as a “hard-liner” for “strenuously condemning divorce, homosexuality, and abortion,” as ABC’s Dan Harris put it in 2008. But the broadcast networks’ coverage of Benedict and the Catholic Church in the weeks since he announced his retirement has been bizarre – relentless negativity punctuated by often inappropriate humor and personal attacks.
From Benedict’s Feb. 11 resignation through the evening of Feb. 27, the day before it took effect, the networks referred to the Catholic Church as a troubled institution 122 times and aired the word “scandal” 87 times in 112 reports. Anchors and reporters suggested that the Church must modernize (32 times) and pressed for change in issues regarding women (7 times) and gays (13 times). At times, they trivialized the first resignation of a Pope since the 1500s as “worthy of a Dan Brown novel.”(ABC’s Harris again.) and sensationalized it by entertaining theories about other reasons Benedict might be stepping down.
The night before the Pope’s resignation took effect, ABC anchor George Stephanopoulos said he was “known as God’s Rottweiler.”
Actually, I’m not sure that’s objectionable. That nickname has been pretty widely known for quite a long time, and I don’t believe that Benedict XVI would be entirely displeased with it. However, on the rest of MRC’s criticism of the coverage, they’re spot on. Instead of taking the time to understand the role of the Pontiff and the actual doctrine of the Catholic Church, the media has treated this like a secular succession where all the rules can be rewritten to suit the fashions and tastes of the day. That misses the point in a very large way.
Let’s hope the coverage improves during the conclave.
Update: I’ll be on the Hugh Hewitt show at 7:30 ET to talk to guest host Guy Benson to discuss this — and to make a pretty cool announcement. Be sure to tune in!
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
In the abortion debate today, you’re either unashamedly Pro-Life, Pro-Choice with the ‘rare’ exceptions of rape, incest or (real) harm to mother, or Pro-Abortion on demand for any reason at any time for any woman. President Obama is Pro-Abortion, based on his voting record. Somebody should ask him about those children’s lives and why they don’t have the same value as the children gunned down at Newtown. He should be answerable for his voting record, right?
CitizenEgg on April 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM
Which is why traditional media is as dead as a baby born at Gosnell’s clinic.
rbj on April 15, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Even if true the excuse would still essentially be, “I know you are but what am I?”
You couldn’t so much as turn on the tv or leave your house without 24/7 carpet-bombing of the Newtown shooting being smashed into your face. Even watching sports coverage would bring some jackwads comment about Newtown and what it meant for this or that sport.
Bishop on April 15, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Yes, libtards, the conservative alternative media has been covering the trial. They’re just regurgitating their Media Matters talking points without lifting a finger to confirm the veracity of those claims. For example, last week a bunch of lefty morons went after The Five because that show criticized the media blackout over the Gosnell trial despite never having done a single segment on it themselves. But anyone who’s paying attention knows damn well that FoxNews itself has done countless stories on Gosnell’s trial, rendering the entire allegation from MMFA and the rest of the Democrat/media complex irrelevant.
Doughboy on April 15, 2013 at 10:10 AM
The shame and blame lays squarely on the shoulders of those that support infanticide, known as abortion. obama shed crocidile tears for Newtown, where are his tears for what happened in Philly and in every other aborion clinic around the world. There will be none because he has no soul, he is his own god…..He can just go golfing or on another vacation or party it down to salve whatever soul he does have….
crosshugger on April 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM
WTG, Ed and Hot Air!
layin’ some smack down!
ted c on April 15, 2013 at 10:11 AM
Our trolls will say the largely-silent LSM have been covering the story properly, while at the same time saying HA is sensationalizing it.
Liam on April 15, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Even if Fahri’s claims weren’t so dishonest his argument is nothing but tu quoque. Weak.
forest on April 15, 2013 at 10:14 AM
I’ll just remind people that Headline News, a CNN station, has been running wall-to-wall coverage of sensational cases (like the Jodi Arias case) for years now.
If there’s nothing more sensational that a doctor killing babies by snipping their spinal cords, all while doing it in filthy conditions, with women suffering from dangerous after-care (to the point where at least one died), then I’m clueless as to what is.
Nethicus on April 15, 2013 at 10:17 AM
NY Times ran Abu Ghraib on Page 1 47 times, including for 32 consecutive days.
But this story is “sensationalistic”.
Del Dolemonte on April 15, 2013 at 10:25 AM
Waiting for Thuja to show up and equivocate in…
5…
4…
3…
2…
1…
gryphon202 on April 15, 2013 at 10:26 AM
LA LA LA can’t hear you..gotta stay on our message
-lsm
cmsinaz on April 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM
So the MSM that spiked a story that didn’t fit the narrative has managed to make headlines by still not reporting on the story but, rather the fact that conservatives are not reporting on the story.
Got it. Conservatives are at fault and always will be no matter the truth.
Dr. Frank Enstine on April 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Buzz feed has been covering this for awhile
- morning joe defending his buddy
cmsinaz on April 15, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Keep spreading the truth Ed, let the LSM wallow in the depths of hell when the time comes.
D-fusit on April 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Well done Ed & HotAir
Don’t Wait for the Media to Cover Gosnell — Do It Yourself..
http://www.catholicvote.org/dont-wait-for-the-media-to-cover-gosnell-do-it-yourself/
workingclass artist on April 15, 2013 at 10:51 AM
Prolife liberal? Sorry, isn’t such a thing. You vote for the people
Who believe in murder so you are an accomplice in my book.
mrscullen on April 15, 2013 at 11:10 AM
wtf?? how would that be “pro-choice?” it IS rare. over 99% of abortion cases do not involve those circumstances. so if someone wanted abortion to be mostly illegal except legal in those cases, calling them “pro-choice” is a mistake and actual pro-choicers would just laugh. that’s my position too and i still call myself “pro-life” just like many other pro-lifers who have the same position.
women who were raped and still have their child, or face a health threat and still have the child, are heroes to me and i have posted people like that on my blog. i do want to spread the word that there are raped women who had a child and were happy about it. but i wouldn’t go as far as to make it a law that abortions absolutely must not happen in those situations. i can’t say “i wouldn’t have an abortion if i were in that situation” because i haven’t been in that situation. it’s easy for anyone to say “i wouldn’t do that” but it doesn’t take any courage to say those words when those things are not actually happening to you. so don’t tell me “i wouldn’t do it.”
besides, the pro-life cause already has enough difficulties trying to get people to believe that those over 99% of abortions are bad. if we start trying to convince people that 100% of abortions are bad, that will make people resist us even more than they already are. going all-or-nothing is not going to work. look at the laws republicans are passing in various states. they don’t ban 100% or even 99% of abortions, but they are stopping some abortions, and that’s better than nothing.
Sachiko on April 15, 2013 at 11:28 AM
lol at people who are trying to say that that conservative media missed this story too. if conservative media missed the story then how do conservatives know about it in the first place? XD such simple logic.
i knew about this story back in 2011. some lib journalists are saying they just heard about it recently. i’ve thought about it, and i’m honestly not sure whether they are lying or not.
Sachiko on April 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM
That isn’t exactly their type of story. It makes as much sense as chiding Highlights for Children for their lack of reporting on the trial.
Happy Nomad on April 15, 2013 at 11:51 AM
Pro football player kills girlfriend…national news with wall-to-wall coverage. Doctor murders hundreds of babies, in conditions the USDA would find unsuitable for a slaughterhouse…crickets.
Every time I read anything about this Gosnell creep, I get the same feeling that I did when I read a book about H.H. Holmes and the Chicago World’s Fair murders.
ReaganWasRight on April 15, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Good reminder.
I think any sane person would rather have been mistreated by U.S. soldiers in Abu Ghraib than be one of those babies or women slaughtered in Gosnell’s House of Horrors.
No U.S. soldier kept an Abu Ghraib prisoner’s severed hands or feet in a trophy jar, like Gosnell did with little baby hands and feet.
ITguy on April 15, 2013 at 12:15 PM
Before we get to that, is there any conservative media?
Yes, there’s Hot Air and the blogs, but how “mainstream” is that? You know, where the people with short attention spans might actually see it?
The only thing that could be remotely conservative is Fox and even then that’s pushing it.
The premise fails. There really is no mainstream “conservative” news outlet. Once again, the idiot media has built a strawman in order to avoid their culpability.
kim roy on April 15, 2013 at 2:36 PM