President George Washington started a precedent, Pope Benedict XVI broke one—both stepped down. Both did so on their own volition—neither was pushed (think: fired).
Relinquishing one’s responsibilities at the height of one’s power goes against the grain of human nature. In fact, many may believe that stepping down is a sign of weakness in a leader. That’s not always the case.
I chose to believe that Washington and Pope Benedict did so for the greater good of the entities they led—Washington for the United States; Pope Benedict for the Catholic Church.
In Washington’s case he believed that over time the country would be best served by having a number of people serve as the country’s leader—rather than one person serve indefinitely (as a King would in a monarchy). Washington was revered; he could have served far beyond his initial two terms. Yet he chose not to.
In Pope Benedict’s case the Catholic Church currently faces many substantive issues. To effectively deal with those issues, the church’s leader must be both focused and energetic. It’s no secret that Pope Benedict’s health has deteriorated—largely due to his elevated age (85) —at the time of his resignation. Today Emeritus Pope Benedict turns 86 with some reporting that he is suffering repeated falls and is nearly blind in one eye. His energy is reportedly waning. Is it any wonder he chose to step down?
Did these two leaders shirk their responsibilities in stepping down? Not from my perspective! Rather, they did what they felt was in the best interests of the entity they had been entrusted with. Both were willing to withstand the inevitable second-guessing and criticism that came with their decision. Isn’t that what we’d expect from someone who realized that “it wasn’t all about them”—consistent with mind-set two?