I recommend this article, in which Hans Kung compares the Statesian* precidency to the contemporaneous papal See. In what is sure to infuriate some, Kung compares Benedict XVI's obstinacy to Bush II's.
Like Bush in his time Pope Benedict, too, is suffering from an increasing lack of trust. Many Catholics no longer expect anything of him. Even worse, by withdrawing the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops who were consecrated illegally, including one who notoriously denies the Holocaust, Ratzinger has confirmed all the fears which arose when he was elected pope. The Pope favours people who still reject the freedom of religion affirmed by Vatican II, dialogue with other churches, reconciliation with Judaism, a high esteem for Islam and the other world religions and the reform of the liturgy.
In order to advance ‘reconciliation’ with a tiny group of arch-reactionary traditionalists, the Pope risks losing the trust of millions of Catholics all over the world who continue to be loyal to Vatican II. That it is a German Pope who is taking such false steps heightens the conflicts. Apologies after the event cannot put together the pieces.
It could be argued that theological concerns preclude the possibility of the kind of intra-piscopal (sic:) dialogue that Kung suggests would be the right course of action, but, then, isn't that the point of the piece? (i.e. To suggest that stodgy adherence to outmoded paradigms is just what the people DON'T need.)
The borrowing of Obama's Change metaphor is appropriate in that it calls attention to the general discontent with "I'm-the-decider" kind of governance.
Cheeky though he may be in his nod to a new president who is decidedly not popular with RCCs, Kung might yet be right. Benedict could very well be shooting himself in the foot. Time will tell.