Canon 332 §2 has nothing to do with Benedict's renunciation because it does not foresee the situation within the Church under which Benedict made his decision to resign from the "exercise" of the Petrine Office, or if you will, from the ministry. He had recourse to the CANONICAL PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY: Amleto Giovanni Cicognani explains the virtue of Equity thus: “EPIKY. We have enumerated certain cases in which this ars boni et aequi (equity) is to be applied. Frequently, however, we speak of equity only in reference to positive laws. A human lawgiver is never able to foresee all the individual cases to which law will be applied. Consequently, a law, though just in general, may, taken literally, lead in some unforeseen cases to results which agree neither with the intent of the lawgiver nor with natural justice, but rather contravene them. In such cases the law must be expounded not according to its wording but according to the intent of the lawgiver and the general principles of natural justice. Law in the strict sense (jus strictum) is, therefore, positive law in its literal interpretation; equity, on the contrary, consists of the principles of natural justice so far as they are used to explain or correct a positive human law if this is not in harmony with the former. Epiky (Gr. 'Επιεικειεα, equity) is therefore defined: The benign application of the law according to what is good and equitable, which decides that the lawgiver does not intend that, because of exceptional circumstances, some particular case be included under his general law. D'Annibale (I, p. 180) states that epieikeia is a species of equity.” (Amleto Giovanni Cicognani, Canon Law, Second Revised Edition, Autorized English Version by The Rev. Joseph M. O'Hara, Ph,D. And The Rev. Francis Brennan, D.D., J.U.D., The Dolphin Press, PA., 1935, p. 15.)

In any discussion concerning Benedict's renunciation only the official Latin text can be used, which text uses the word "vacet" (the word for vacant). This word, however, is Present Subjunctive, not Future Indicative! This was purposely used by Benedict because he was only resigning from the "exercise" of the Office and not the Office itself-intending to maintain the Papacy as Dr. Massa holds. But furthermore, Benedict CANNOT be said to have intentionally attempted to separate the Papacy from the See of Peter, which separation the translation of the Subjunctive as a Future Indicative actually, but deceptively, could be used to assert. Briefly, the Indicative expresses a fact, while “The Subjunctive Mood represents the predicate as an idea, as something conceived in the mind (abstracts from reality)” (Gildersleeve - Lodge Latin Grammar). "Vacet" must, therefore, be translated as "may be vacant," "could be vacant," "should be vacant," in which case it is not legitimate to use that sentence (with "vacet" as a Future Indicative) to argue that Benedict was trying to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. The FACT that he intended to and actually still does live in Rome also must be understood to manifest his intention not to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. Any questions can be asked via email frdbelland@netscape.net, for there is a bit more to the Latin use of "vacet" than is given here. Father David R. Belland

In any discussion concerning Benedict's renunciation only the official Latin text can be used, which text uses the word "vacet" (the word for vacant). This word, however, is Present Subjunctive, not Future Indicative! This was purposely used by Benedict because he was only resigning from the "exercise" of the Office and not the Office itself-intending to maintain the Papacy as Dr. Massa holds. But furthermore, Benedict CANNOT be said to have intentionally attempted to separate the Papacy from the See of Peter, which separation the translation of the Subjunctive as a Future Indicative actually, but deceptively, could be used to assert. Briefly, the Indicative expresses a fact, while “The Subjunctive Mood represents the predicate as an idea, as something conceived in the mind (abstracts from reality)” (Gildersleeve - Lodge Latin Grammar). "Vacet" must, therefore, be translated as "may be vacant," "could be vacant," "should be vacant," in which case it is not legitimate to use that sentence (with "vacet" as a Future Indicative) to argue that Benedict was trying to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. The FACT that he intended to and actually still does live in Rome also must be understood to manifest his intention not to separate the Papacy from the Roman See. Any questions can be asked via email frdbelland@netscape.net, for there is a bit more to the Latin use of "vacet" than is given here. Father David R. Belland