Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ah Ratz!
Longtime Vatican apparatchik Joe Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI. He's not so much an antipope as an anticlimax.
|4.19.05 @ 12:48PM|#
I guess it's too late to do that reality show that I wanted. Well, I'm young, there will be more papal elections in my lifetime. When Benedict XVI starts to get sickly I'm going to get Cardinals to sign contracts to appear on Roman Idol.
Jesse Walker|4.19.05 @ 12:49PM|#
I want a new pope
One that won't make me sick
One that won't make me crash my car
Or make me feel three feet thick
I want a new pope
One that won't hurt my head
One that won't make my mouth too dry
Or make my eyes too red
|4.19.05 @ 12:51PM|#
YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Benedict Sixteen, we .... uh.....
Crap, can somebody give me a rhyme!!!!!!
|4.19.05 @ 1:10PM|#
Check the guy out in a photo when the Chilean cardinal is making the announcement, to viewer right, man, John McClain is EVERYWEHRE!
|4.19.05 @ 1:16PM|#
Heh, the CBS report identified him as head of the Vatican's
"theological thought police".
So much for the media honeymoon... :-D
Tim Cavanaugh|4.19.05 @ 1:21PM|#
He was, literally, a Hitler Youth. Youthful indiscretions and
all that, and John Allen mitigates it somewhat in his bio. He also
deserted from the Wehrmacht, which could probably be seen as a
point in his favor.
His bigger problem is that he's a Brezhnev. It's absurd listening
to all these people mooning over him and what an inspirational
figure he is, when he's obviously been selected as a caretaker who
won't last too long. (Not that he can't surprise people, but let's
be frank here.) Having actually read Ratzinger's in-house history
of the Second Vatican Council, I can tell you the characterizations
of him as a staunch conservative are accurate but incomplete. He
was a pretty open progressive through the sixties. He may have
changed in dismay at guitar masses and unhabited nuns and so on,
but I think the explanation that he's a true institutional
operator, able to be whatever he needs to be, is more
plausible.
Luke Thomas|4.19.05 @ 1:24PM|#
To borrow from comedian Bill Hicks, now we have a Pope of German Heritage that I don't listen to.
|4.19.05 @ 1:28PM|#
He's 78 years old!! What is this anyway, natural term limits? John Paul II was only 84 when he died and as we all know he was in terrible shape for quite a few years beforehand. You'd think they'd pick someone just a little bit younger. Maybe pope funerals are good publicity for the church ....
|4.19.05 @ 1:30PM|#
From what I understand, Hitler Youth membership was actually
compulsory at the time, and he was supposedly pretty anti-nazi
(explaining the desertion).
Someone recently wrote an article (quite possibly for
Reason, I don't remember) speculating that John Paul may
be remembered as the Pope that started the decline of the Catholic
Church. From what I've read about Ratzinger, he may be precisely
the sort of person to encourage this decline, even if he doesn't
last more than a few years. We'll see, I suppose.
|4.19.05 @ 1:30PM|#
Oh good, an ancient white guy. Not that ancient white guys as popes are unheard of. Speaking of Brezhnev, maybe we're going to go through a period of old coots who don't last very long like happened in the USSR after Ill B died - Andropov and those guys.
|4.19.05 @ 1:37PM|#
Mephisto,
If the church does decline from here on, it's gonna be hard to pin
it on anyone besides Paul VI, who totally bungled the aftermath of
Vatican II (from both sides' perspectives I'm sure).
|4.19.05 @ 1:40PM|#
Maybe, but I seriously doubt that in a hundred years Paul VI will be well-remembered. JPII likely will be.
|4.19.05 @ 1:41PM|#
I just ranted this morning that the pick wouldn't happen this
early. Shows you what I know, even for an ex-papist.
Ergo, tomorrow I will smoke for the pope and watch the 35th
Anniversity edition of Easy Rider. It's the least I can do.
|4.19.05 @ 1:46PM|#
78 years old and conservative? He's a placeholder.
What *is* the deal with the recycling of ancient names? We're going
to be tacking on a whole alphabet's worth of Xs and Is before they
get a Pope Cody or Pope Dylan.
|4.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Yes, my boy pulled through. I put $20 down on him when he was
29-1, but then money poured in on the guy. Last I checked it was
7-1 and I'm sure the odds fell even further.
Maybe those 10 years of Catholic school were worthwhile after
all.
|4.19.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Check in on andrewsullivan.com if you need some background on
Ratzenberger's contribution to Catholic theology.
For starters, he declared homosexual people to be intrinsically
evil, and unfit to serve as priests. Not even the usual pretense of
"love the sinner, hate the sin" or "compassion for the mentally
ill." Just a class of subhumans not entitled to respect.
|4.19.05 @ 1:55PM|#
Sieg Heil, baby, Seig Fucking Heil!
[This pope exemplifies why I'm an EX catholic and loving it]
|4.19.05 @ 2:00PM|#
For starters, he declared homosexual people to be
intrinsically evil, and unfit to serve as priests.
Any wagers on a schism during this pope's watch?
|4.19.05 @ 2:03PM|#
Ah DAMN!!!! I had fifty bucks on Estevez.
Pipe down, you guys, about who "won" and who "lost."
Remember: The first rule of Pope Club is, nobody talks about Pope
Club.
Oh good, an ancient white guy.
At least they had a black candidate. You want to talk about an old
white boys' club, look at the British royal family. They haven't
had a black king in years.
|4.19.05 @ 2:13PM|#
We had a black king? we had a black prince (richard the III if iirc) but never a black king, as the prince got killed by the usual suspects (the french)
|4.19.05 @ 2:15PM|#
You know, Scinter, a real schism would require a rebellion by the local clergy, as well as a substantial chunk of the public. If Pope Rat wants to start a purge, we could be in business. There are a lot of gay priests in this country.
|4.19.05 @ 2:16PM|#
The Brits did have a black queen though
http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/queen_phillipa.html
|4.19.05 @ 2:20PM|#
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Catholicism big into
suffering for what's right and true?
I ask this, because if one believes that something -- oh, say the
nazi party -- is evil, doesn't one have an obligation to stand
against it, even if it means death.
I'm not buying the youthful indiscretion line, or the "it was
compulsory" line either. A truly noble person, who believed in a
glorious afterlife, would not shrink back from such a
challenge.
So Joe, can we call you an ex-catholic now?
|4.19.05 @ 2:23PM|#
I blame the Church's decline on that god fellow. The whole
religion spiel might make more sense if he, y'know, existed or
something.
Kevin
|4.19.05 @ 2:26PM|#
So what are you saying KMW, Catholics priests lack the
convictions of say, Tibetan Monks?
As a practicing buddhist, it warms my heart to say that!
|4.19.05 @ 2:28PM|#
"God" is spelled with a capital "g", okay? It's not too much to
remember. Get it right.
Thank you.
|4.19.05 @ 2:32PM|#
Interesting choice on the part of God. Hard to argue with it, considering He is an all-knowing deity.
norbizness|4.19.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Oh, don't act so surprised, god. You knew it was going to happen and you didn't prevent it.
|4.19.05 @ 2:43PM|#
joe,
Interestingly enough, andrewsullivan.com has no info on the
Ratzinger quotes you cite. Do you have other links?
And yes, I know the CDF has issued documents calling homosexuality
-- not homosexual persons -- intrinsically evil. Just as
murderous rage is intrinsically evil, but not everyone who
experiences it is.
On an even more terrifying note, apparently Andrew Sullivan is also
receiving ad money from His Floorhumpingness...
|4.19.05 @ 2:45PM|#
There are people here who want to mutter darkly about Ratzinger
because of something he did when he was *14 YEARS OLD*???? Like
that means squat about the kind of person he was now?
When I was 14 years old, I was a fucking Communist. And I didn't
even have a govenment dragooning me into joining the Party (or its
youth arm). Within a year, I was quoting "Capitalism, the Unknown
Ideal," and within 2 years, I was reading National Review. I'm glad
when I ran for office in YAF, they didn't run a background check to
make sure I was ideologically pure.
|4.19.05 @ 2:46PM|#
If Pope Rat wants to launch a crusade against sweaty, bald,
ass-flexing guy, all is forgiven!
Keep watching Sullivan - I'm sure he'll lay out all the
particulars.
|4.19.05 @ 2:48PM|#
Seriously though, are political blog commenters more likely to be interested in humping floors than the general population? Cause I've seen the ad in exactly three places, and they're all blogs.
Tim Cavanaugh|4.19.05 @ 2:51PM|#
The Ratzinger/Nazi story is a canard.
I don't know what the "Ratzinger/Nazi" story is, but unless many
people are lying, he was
in the Hitler Youth and did serve in the German army.
Here's the Allen book, and here's
a review detailing the relevant material.
Not having been around at the time, I don't know whether Hitler
Youth membership was mandatory, but I certainly don't think Ben
Seize should be shunned on that account. It's also important to
note that the war ended less than a month after his 18th birthday
(though his church counts the "age of reason" as starting at
seven). But these childhood accomplishments are not exactly sources
of pride, and I question the Holy Spirit's grasp of public
sensitivities in making this selection.
|4.19.05 @ 2:57PM|#
As any good H&R commenter could tell you, the important
thing to remember about his youth is that at least he didn't serve
a left-wing dictator!
But seriously, I'm willing to forgive what he did at 18 if he's
renounced it (as I assume, or at least hope, he has). I have a
hunch that a Pope who suffered under the Nazi occupation of Poland
wouldn't have elevated an unrepentant Nazi to Cardinal. Or at least
that's what I hope.
|4.19.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Seamus,
You're also not laying claim to the holiest man alive.
If we were talking about an earthly political post, I wouldn't
care. But the man is supposed to be a defender of the faith. Peter
was supposedly crucified upside down, in reverence to Jesus. Pope
Rat can't even decline peer pressure.
|4.19.05 @ 3:05PM|#
KMW,
Saying no to the Nazi party in Germany at that time is merely
declining peer pressure? Please.
|4.19.05 @ 3:07PM|#
kmw,
The Pope is not expected to be the holiest man alive, he's expected
to competently lead the church. Considering that only 4 popes
(Celestine V, Pius V, Pius IX, & Pius X) of the past milennium
have become saints, the holiness standard must not be that
high...
|4.19.05 @ 3:07PM|#
The VP of the Mises Institute likes the new Pope
The Jerusalem Post
debunks the Hitler youth Nazi canard. Free registration
required.
|4.19.05 @ 3:10PM|#
Of all the things the Church has been pulling for the last decade or so, I wonder why the election of decrepit conservative as a placeholder pontiff is a "picking-up-my-toys-and-going-home" issue for anyone still sticking with it.
|4.19.05 @ 3:14PM|#
The placeholder take is probably right. The Cardinals punted
when they couldn't decide who they watned to have the influential
post so they picked a guy who may croak in a few years.
That doesn't mean he won't be able to do significant damage. I'm
hoping schism and all-out Catholic-on-Catholic war with bloodhsed
and stuff. The world's just not interesting enough right now.
|4.19.05 @ 3:18PM|#
crimethink,
I guess Peter was a hard act to follow then.
I would expect my church leader to be an example of holiness, but
then that's probably asking too much.
Which is why I was never a catholic.
|4.19.05 @ 3:24PM|#
Yous ladies can have ya tee-hees on my account, but lets me
tells yous, I wuz once a pencil-neck, 90-pound weakling.. untils
one fines summer day I took my gal Midge to da beach, and dis
muscles-bound bum kicks sand in our mugs! I wuz so mads I goes home
and kicks a chair. It didn't do nothing, so I kicked over anudder
chair. Den I humps da floor. Six weeks later of floor hump'n, I
gets dese muscles all overs (individual results may vary), and den
I goes back to da beach, and I PUNCHED OUT DAT BUM in front of my
gal. Yous can takes dat to da bank.
Now yous ladies can go backs to yous tea party.
|4.19.05 @ 3:26PM|#
John -
Not sure what you're trying to prove with this "canard" non-sense.
Jerusalem Post pretty clearly admits all the Nazi ties we've been
talking about. I'm not trying to prove the guy is a closet Nazi. I
do think the fact that he obviously did have Nazi ties at one point
is interesting, though.
|4.19.05 @ 3:34PM|#
Actually, I erred -- there are 5 saint-popes from the past
milennium (Leo IX, Gregory VII, Celestine V, Pius V, and Pius
X).
http://www.ewtn.com/holysee/Pontiff/saintschronological.asp
|4.19.05 @ 3:35PM|#
Furthermore, I ask... why the requirements for celibacy and
purity, if holiness doesn't matter for being pope?
Not to pull a Gunnels, but it doesn't sound very logical to me.
|4.19.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Dude. He was 14! He came from an ant-Nazi family and seems to have done everything that a teen could do (short of getting himself killed) to disassociate himself with the Nazis. I'm not Catholic nor do I support their church, but he seems like a pretty solid pick. From the reports I've read it seems like he is the most rigorous intellectual of the possible Popes, and is about as Libertarian as you are going to get in a Pope of the Catholic Chruch.
|4.19.05 @ 3:37PM|#
Eric .5b,
1) I've been hanging by a thread for years anyway.
2) Pope Rat isn't nearly as innocuous as the phrase "decrepit
conservative as a placeholder" makes out. Ratzinger is a raging
radical homophobe, even compared to John Paul II. If they wanted a
placeholder, they had plenty to choose from. Instead, they decided
to pick a firebrand who has spent his career insulated from the
flock, waging a war against modernity, liberalism, and the
existence of a private sphere.
|4.19.05 @ 3:39PM|#
"You're also not laying claim to the holiest man alive."
If kmw can point me to anywhere that Ratzinger claimed to be the
holiest man alive (or in Germany, or in the College of Cardinals),
I'll eat my biretta.
As I recall, St. Paul wasn't just a passive member of an evil
organization in his youth, but was an active persecutor of the
Church as an adult. Still, I don't think anyone would have thought
it outrageous if he'd been elected the first successor of St.
Peter. (Oh, wait, Andrew Sullivan would have.)
"If we were talking about an earthly political post, I wouldn't
care."
Well, maybe *you* wouldn't, but within the past couple of years,
people were seriously trying to shoot down one of GWB's nominees on
the ground that the fellow had been a Hitler Youth back in the old
country SIXTY YEARS AGO, when the guy was a teenager. (Of course,
if he'd been a Young Pioneer, that would have been another
matter.)
|4.19.05 @ 3:42PM|#
I'd like to know KMW, if you could find ANY 78 year old non-Jewish German who wasn't at some point involved in the Hitler Youth. It was the Hitler YOUTH, not the freaking SS. It sounds to me like you have more of a beef with Germans in general than you do with Ratzinger.
Tim Cavanaugh|4.19.05 @ 3:42PM|#
"Debunk" means "to expose as being false or exaggerated."
"Canard" means "a false or baseless, usually derogatory
story."
From the JPost story two people have claimed "debunks" the
"canard":
To all this we should say, "This is news?!"
As the Sunday Times article admits, Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler Youth was not voluntary but compulsory; also admitted are the facts that the cardinal-only a teenager during the period in question-was the son of an anti-Nazi policeman, that he was given a dispensation from Hitler Youth activities because of his religious studies, and that he deserted the German army.Ratzinger has several times gone on record on his supposedly "problematic" past. In the 1997 book Salt of the Earth, Ratzinger is asked whether he was ever in the Hitler Youth.
"At first we weren't," he says, speaking of himself and his older brother, "but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in 1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but later as a seminarian, I was registered in the Hitler Youth. As soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. And that was difficult because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was tied to proof of attendance at the Hitler Youth.
"Thank goodness there was a very understanding mathematics professor. He himself was a Nazi, but an honest man, and said to me, 'Just go once to get the document so we have it...' When he saw that I simply didn't want to, he said, 'I understand, I'll take care of it' and so I was able to stay free of it."
Ratzinger says this again in his own memoirs, printed in 1998. In his 2002 biography of the cardinal, John Allen, Jr. of the National Catholic Reporter wrote in detail about those events.
I believe what John and Kevrob mean to say is "The Jerusalem
Post clarifies the history of Ratzinger's membership in the
Hitler Youth." I know they wouldn't want to be spreading any bunk
or canards.
|4.19.05 @ 3:42PM|#
This Nazi stuff is just silly. A 14 year old boy didn't call
attention to himself and get his parents arrested? Ooohhhh, no soup
for you!
Ratzinger's got plenty of legitimate black marks to point out.
Tim Cavanaugh|4.19.05 @ 3:44PM|#
This Nazi stuff is just silly.
I agree, but that doesn't make it untrue.
|4.19.05 @ 3:49PM|#
And all the talk of a "caretaker" Pope seems a bit misplaced as well. Statistically, the average life expectancy of a Westerner who reaches the age of 78 is about another 10 years. Throw in the fact he will have the best health care the world has to offer and he could be with us for quite some time.
|4.19.05 @ 3:49PM|#
That depends on what the meaning of the word "it" is. If "it" means, he was a Nazi or a sympathizers, "it" is untrue. If "it" means he accommodated the circumstances in which he lived and mostly kept his head down, than "it" is true, though not particularly meaningful.
|4.19.05 @ 3:55PM|#
"I wuz so mads I goes home and kicks a chair. It didn't do
nothing, so I kicked over anudder chair. Den I humps da
floor."
LOL. Thank you Bald Fury, for that nice little chuckle.
|4.19.05 @ 3:55PM|#
Seamus,
As I recall, the pope is called "Holy Father" and other such titles
of holiness. He doesn't have to claim holiness, it goes with the
title.
DavePotts: I am German myself. My ancestors fled the nazification
of Europe -- and we are blonde haired aryans. They could have
easily blended in. Maybe I just have high standards.
|4.19.05 @ 3:58PM|#
Joe - I think "it" means the man was a Hitler Youth. That's it.
Jesus Christ.
Scott -
That's possible, but I still think he probably was elected as a
placeholder. One - he was elected very quickly. I think that if the
cardinals had been looking for someone who was going to make
radical changes (either in a conservative or liberal way) they
probably wouldn't have taken a very short time to elect the clear
leader. Two: Ratzinger is a hard-lining conservative. Very little,
if anything, will change under his rule. Whether he's pope for 1
year or 20, he will not deviate from core church doctrine or
introduce new ideas. So he's a very safe choice.
I admit I could be wrong, but it seems to me that JPII would
probably be a pretty hard to act to follow, and Ratzinger is just a
safe, conservative figurehead that will hold them over until (they
hope) a figure as powerful as JPII was can be elected.
|4.19.05 @ 4:01PM|#
"I think "it" means the man was a Hitler Youth. That's it. Jesus
Christ."
Uh, yeah. When people point out someone's alleged connections to
Nazis, they generally aren't concerned with making a larger point.
Especially not one related to the subject's character.
|4.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#
Joe:
Well, what do you think this guy is going to do? What could he
conceivably do between now and the next temporary chimney
installation in the Vatican that would really be worse than, say,
what the Church has done to shield priestly child molesters?
I can see the "straw that breaks the camel's back" aspect of
things, but I honestly can't understand why someone would
stick with the Church this long if this Pope would bother him.
|4.19.05 @ 4:03PM|#
I think deserting the Wehrmacht as he did during war-time,
especially under Hitler's reign, would have been punishable by
death if he'd been caught. Does that help anybody feel
better?
I'm starting to feel sorry for Das Poop. I would like to know more
about what he said about homosexuality, though. Haven't had time to
read Sullivan yet.
|4.19.05 @ 4:04PM|#
Just to clarify, I don't believe for a second that he's a nazi
sympathizer. I'll even grant that he is anti-nazi.
I don't give a rat's ass that Arnold had a SS father, or whatever
he was. But one would have to suppose that pope Rat thinks heaven
is better than earth, and martyrdom is the ultimate glory. At
least, that used to be the church teaching. And standing up for
good, yadda yadda.
|4.19.05 @ 4:04PM|#
I humped floors when I was 14.
And suddenly we're in the crowd confessional scene in
Airheads.
|4.19.05 @ 4:05PM|#
Whatever sort of affiliation Ratzinger might have had with the
Nazis, that affiliation was much less willfull and active than,
say, Paul's active persecution of Christians.
I'd say that his positive activities at Vatican 2.0 and negative
activities as Cardinal need to be weighed more heavily than his
minimal association with the Hitler Youth. I also doubt that a
Polish Pope who suffered under the Nazi occupation would have
elevated to Cardinal an unrepentant former Hitler Youth.
|4.19.05 @ 4:05PM|#
But one would have to suppose that pope Rat thinks heaven is
better than earth, and martyrdom is the ultimate glory. At least,
that used to be the church teaching. And standing up for good,
yadda yadda.
Dude, how many totalitarian regimes did you live in and stand up
against when you were 14?
The Anti-Puritan|4.19.05 @ 4:09PM|#
And here I was hoping he'd call himself George
Ringo...
Benedict is the Egg Man. Goo goo goo joob!
|4.19.05 @ 4:09PM|#
>>"I also doubt that a Polish Pope who suffered under the
Nazi occupation would have elevated elevated to Cardinal an
unrepentant former Hitler Youth."
Minor point, but I think "Eggs" Benedict XVI was one of the few
cardinals not appointed by JPII but by a predecessor.
|4.19.05 @ 4:11PM|#
I've got no opinion about Ratzinger's "holiness", and don't
really care about his theological opinions, as I fired the Catholic
Church as my spiritual outfit quite some time ago. But the
continued accusation that someone who, as a kid in the Third Reich,
was forced to join the Nazi Boy Scouts,
and even then seems to have wormed his way out of going to the
meetings, is just not fair. In my earlier contribution I posted the
Jerusalem Post article that explains this. If navigating
the registration was too tough for some, let me quote it:
As the Sunday
Times article admits, Ratzinger's membership in the Hitler
Youth was not voluntary but compulsory; also admitted are the facts
that the cardinal - only a teenager during the period in question -
was the son of an anti-Nazi policeman, that he was given a
dispensation from Hitler Youth activities because of his religious
studies, and that he deserted the German army.
Ratzinger has several times gone on record on his supposedly
"problematic" past. In the 1997 book Salt of the
Earth, Ratzinger is asked whether he was ever in the
Hitler Youth.
"At first we weren't," he says, speaking of himself and his older
brother, "but when the compulsory Hitler Youth was introduced in
1941, my brother was obliged to join. I was still too young, but
later as a seminarian, I was registered in the Hitler Youth. As
soon as I was out of the seminary, I never went back. And that was
difficult because the tuition reduction, which I really needed, was
tied to proof of attendance at the Hitler Youth.
"Thank goodness there was a very understanding mathematics
professor. He himself was a Nazi, but an honest man, and said to
me, 'Just go once to get the document so we have it...' When he saw
that I simply didn't want to, he said, 'I understand, I'll take
care of it' and so I was able to stay free of it."
Further:
As prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger played an
instrumental role in the Vatican's revolutionary reconciliation
with the Jews under John Paul II. He personally prepared
Memory and Reconciliation, the 2000 document
outlining the church's historical "errors" in its treatment of
Jews. And as president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission,
Ratzinger oversaw the preparation of The Jewish People and
Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, a
milestone theological explanation for the Jews' rejection of
Jesus.
If that's theological anti-Semitism, then we should only be so
lucky to "suffer" more of the same.
As for the Hitler Youth issue, not even Yad Vashem has considered
it worthy of further investigation. Why should we? - Sam Ser
Are we to demand that everyone who has been conscripted in an evil
cause be considered morally tainted forever, even when, once they
have regained the freedom to make their own choices, they act
contrary to the evil that enslaved them?
Kevin
|4.19.05 @ 4:12PM|#
Kevrob - I truly hate to say it, but Joe's right. Anyone going on and on about the Hitler Youth membership is just going for the sleazy ad hominem.
|4.19.05 @ 4:24PM|#
Serafina,
You are correct. Ratz is one of I believe two cardinals who were
appointed by Paul VI.
This "Hitler Youth" connection seems fairly irrelevant - as other
posters have pointed out membership was not optional by the mid
1940s. There are very few 78-year old German men who can boast a
cleaner record than his. Deserting the German Army was a capital
offense for which you could, and usually would, be shot on the
spot. Ratz may have been a scared conformist but there is no
evidence that he was an enthusiastic or even luke-warm Nazi. In
fact, in Nazi Germany enthusiastic Catholic belief was not
compatible with Nazism. The Nazis tolerated and tried to coopt the
Catholic Church but never trusted it. There were a large number of
German priests who were sent to concentration camps. On the whole
the wartime record of the German church is much better than that of
the French or Croatian Catholic churches.
|4.19.05 @ 4:26PM|#
Eric .5b,
"What could he conceivably do between now and the next temporary
chimney installation in the Vatican that would really be worse
than, say, what the Church has done to shield priestly child
molesters?" Scour the seminaries for gay students, and kick them
out. Require Catholic colleges to fire professors who don't toe the
Church line on political issues. Pound the table on converting the
Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists.
|4.19.05 @ 4:32PM|#
Hey Joe - the problem is, that would be precisely in line with
Catholic teaching. He would be completely and totally in the right
(according to Catholic doctrine) in doing that. So what you're
saying, then, is that you're afraid he's a hard-liner conservative
who's going to do exactly what the church doctrine
commands that he do.
Of course, this leads to a discussion of how much power he really
holds. It would almost be interesting to see, sometime - I wouldn't
be suprised if much of the Catholic Church's supposed "power" is
just smoke and mirrors.
|4.19.05 @ 4:39PM|#
Actually, Meph, Church teaching doesn't command any of those actions, though it could certainly be used to justify them.
Vache Folle|4.19.05 @ 4:40PM|#
Why is this an anti-climax? Was there an "exciting" prospect? Was Bono up for the job?
|4.19.05 @ 4:42PM|#
I think a better analogy than Brezhnev may be Suslov, (called the "Gray Cardinal"), the long-time Chief Theologian of Marxist-Leninist Orthodoxy in the Kremlin. Though it is true that Suslov never became General Secretary. Like Ratizinger, Suslov was an intellectual of a sort--which Brezhnev was not.
|4.19.05 @ 4:46PM|#
I wouldn't be suprised if much of the Catholic Church's
supposed "power" is just smoke and mirrors
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
(uses telekinetic powers to crush Mephistophocles' throat)
You haven't seen nothing yet. Once my awesome battle station, the
Culture of Life Star, is complete, then we shall use fear
to keep the secular authorities in line. But even the power to
destroy a planet is nothing compared to the power of the
Church.
|4.19.05 @ 4:47PM|#
Tim C:
The late Adrian Hastings' review may be an accurate depiction of
Allen's take on Ratzinger, but it goes out-of-bounds when it dwells
on the fact(?) that the new pope's uncle was an anti-Semite. I
guess if you can't substantiate the sins of the fathers, you try to
pin them on the uncles, huh? I might as well point out that
Hastings may have had bone to pick with a conservative like the
future Ben XVI, what with his marrying while still an R.C. priest,
and all.
If "liberal Catholics" don't like Ratzinger because he upholds
traditional teachings, they should just say so, not bruit about
deliberately misleading stories meant to tar him with the Nazi
brush. If I were still a Catholic, I might even side with the
"liberal" ones on some issues, but I'll leave the intracommunal
strife to the communicants.
Kevin
Tim Cavanaugh|4.19.05 @ 5:05PM|#
History will record that JPII's real achievement was not the downfall of the USSR but the downfall of Sinead.
|4.19.05 @ 5:30PM|#
KMW-
In view of your harsh opinion concerning the new Pope's lack of
teenaged courage in standing up to the Nazis, I have a serious
question--do you also thik less of Galileo because when the Church
threatened him with torture he denied, for the record, that the
Earth revolved around the sun?
|4.19.05 @ 6:07PM|#
Jennifer,
The crux of my argument is one of hypocrisy. Good Catholics believe
in martyrdom, yet their top dog was unwilling to risk that. I don't
believe in an afterlife, so I don't believe in a glorious heaven,
but supposedly the pope does.
I'm not sure if Galileo had any spiritual ambitions, so I don't
know how to answer your question. I think maybe I was inarticulate
in my points. I do think that Galileo wimped out, and I don't know
why he gets more credit than he deserves for what Copernicus did.
The fact that he died only a few years later tells me he didn't
save his skin as much as he thought.
If someone told me to believe in God or be killed, I wouldn't
renounce my disbelief. So if I'm willing to die for that, why
someone who's supposedly has all the answers in life.
|4.19.05 @ 6:19PM|#
Many 14-year-olds think they have all the answers in life, but most of us prefer they don't act like they do in life-or-death contexts...
|4.19.05 @ 6:37PM|#
Even 14-year-olds are responsible for their own lives, gubmit nannism notwithstanding.
|4.19.05 @ 6:50PM|#
Good Catholics believe in martyrdom
I'm not the greatest Catholic, and I've been unable to find any
reliable information thus far about the RCC's official stand on
martyrdom, but I think that's an oversimplification.
My sense is that martyrdom is regarded as a noble thing, but I
don't think it's something you're positively obligated to go out of
your way to seek out. Also, the Church's position on suicide
indicates that one is not to throw one's life away lightly. The
question is, will you do any good by such a sacrifice?
As I recall most martyr stories, the martyr in question was pretty
much up against the wall and didn't have a lot of options. For
example, the Romans martyred a number of Christians because they,
as Christians, would not acknowledge the emperor as "divine," even
in the pro forma kinda way that was required at the time. (I hope
I'm recalling that right.) But generally they didn't go out of
their way to flaunt the civil disobedience thing. People got
martyred when faced with a stark choice: either stop being a
Christian, or die. And many weren't necessarily even given that
open to save themselves.
Ratzinger's situation was a lot less binary. I don't know that a
14-year-old German kid necessarily grasped the extent of the evil
of the Nazi regime. He couldn't exactly turn on CNN (or Fox News!)
and get the truth. And even if he did, what good would he do to
avoid going to some Nazi Youth meetings? These kids weren't out on
the front, or rounding up Jews and Gypsies with those dreaded 9
p.m. door-knocks. (Midnight would have been past the kids'
bed-time.) He probably would have only succeeded in drawing
unwelcome attention and punishment upon his family, a definite harm
in exhcange for a rather vague good. Killing yourself and
endangering others just to flaunt your own supposed holiness is a
rather vain boast. Perhaps he thought he could do good through some
other actions. (Even lesser sacrifices are considered a form of
martyrdom.)
And a devout Catholic would say Ratzinger obviously made the right
choice, because if he'd gotten himself killed instead of surviving
to become pope (as God intended -- now obvious), then a billion
Catholics would be screwed right now, wouldn't they?
All joking aside, I wish the best for the guy and I hope he does a
good job, and that he surprises the pessimists.
|4.19.05 @ 6:57PM|#
kmw,
The only time a Christian must submit to martyrdom is if it is the
only alternative to sinning. There is no reason to believe that
merely being a member of Hitler Youth -- without participating in
their violent crimes -- was a sin.
Of course, what you're ignoring here is that JP2, and any honest
pope before him, would admit that he was but a sinner. If perfect
lifelong holiness was a requirement of the office, there would
never have been anyone to fill it.
|4.19.05 @ 7:41PM|#
Looks like the Catholic Church is doing all it can in killing the outpouring of goodwill from liberals that resulted from the funeral. At least the left can stop feigning respect for the institution and get back to bashing religion.
|4.19.05 @ 7:52PM|#
Of course, what you're ignoring here is that JP2, and any
honest pope before him, would admit that he was but a sinner. If
perfect lifelong holiness was a requirement of the office, there
would never have been anyone to fill it.
Especially not Benedict's early namesakes:
In 964 Pope
Benedict V raped a young girl and absconded to Constantinople
with the papal treasury only to reappear when the money ran
out.
Benedict
IX, who modern sources believe was only 18 when elected, was
described by a chronicler as having "surpassed in wantonness and
profligacy all who had preceded him". He eventually sold his office
to Gregory VI in order to marry, and then a year later led an
insurrection to regain the papacy.
|4.19.05 @ 9:23PM|#
Even if he was an enthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, for which there is no evidence at present, I don't think that makes him culpable for the Holocaust. He was a kid. My history may be a bit shaky, but I have seen approximately 10,000 documentaries on the History Channel about Hitler and the Nazis, and I don't recall seeing anything about the Hitler Youth boys being asked to stoke the ovens at Auschwitz.
|4.19.05 @ 9:42PM|#
Looks like the Catholic Church is doing all it can in
killing the outpouring of goodwill from liberals that resulted from
the funeral.
Let's not pretend that much of anybody from any point on the
political spectrum listens to the Church anymore. Think what a
politician who followed JP2's desired policies would be:
anti-abortion, anti-death-penalty, pro-foreign-aid, pro-welfare,
anti-war. What the heck political party would a guy like that find
a home in in the United States of America?
That's why I don't get why this papal election was supposedly so
significant. Once upon a time the church held significant political
influence. But these days the South American Catholics are
defecting to evangelical protestantism left and right, European
Catholics can scarcely be bothered to show up for Mass, and
American Catholics are eyeing the exit doors. JP2 may have been
loved and respected by zillions of people, but he inherited a
church that had lost most of its influence and presided over the
loss of much of the rest.
|4.19.05 @ 9:52PM|#
Most of the popes Benedict seem to have been no great shakes,
although Benedict XII seems to have been one of the better Avignon
popes and Benedict XIV had his moments. One theory is that Benedict
XVI chose his name in memory of Benedict XV, who had the misfortune
of becoming pope on September 3, 1914 and spending the first four
years of his papacy futilely trying to bring peace to a Europe
which was determined to rip itself apart. He also canonized Joan of
Arc.
Another possibility is he named himself after St. Benedict. Or
maybe his favorite egg breakfast.
|4.19.05 @ 10:00PM|#
Syd,
That's an interesting angle on Ben XV; indeed, WW1 was all the more
problematic for the papacy since it was fought between countries
with large Catholic populations on both sides (Austria-Hungary
& Germany vs France & Italy). Perhaps that lent special
urgency to the cause of Joan, who likewise fought in a war between
Catholic England and Catholic France...
|4.19.05 @ 10:08PM|#
Oh no, the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church actually
chose a pope who is... a Catholic!
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before you. If
you were of the world, the world would love what is its own. But
because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the
world, therefore the world hates you."-John 15:18-19
|4.19.05 @ 11:23PM|#
For me the coverage of the election of the new pope has been
immeasurably enriched by having read the books by Dan Brown,
because I now know that:
Puff of Black Smoke = Child Molester was not elected Pope
Puff of White Smoke = Child Molester was elected Pope
|4.20.05 @ 12:36AM|#
I think the most important thing to remember is that this
election was accomplished without a recount.
Florida, are you listening? ;->
|4.20.05 @ 3:03AM|#
"What could he conceivably do between now and the next
temporary chimney installation in the Vatican that would really be
worse than, say, what the Church has done to shield priestly child
molesters?" Scour the seminaries for gay students, and kick them
out. Require Catholic colleges to fire professors who don't toe the
Church line on political issues.
Even if I were a Christian, I wouldn't be a Catholic for many
reasons, including the dogmas on homosexuality and birth control.
But how on earth would either of those things be worse than
international conspiracies to protect child-molestors and their
enablers? (Cardinal Law in Rome, I'm looking at
you.)
And really, how would they be any more than a footnote in what the
Church has already done and does?
Pound the table on converting the Jews, Hindus, and
Buddhists.
Last time I looked, that's how religions generally grow - by
convincing people of other religions to change to them.
|4.20.05 @ 3:22AM|#
I'm always fascinated when people on this forum can't understand
why not all Catholics are hard-liners.
Keep the following in mind:
1) Catholicism doesn't require the same degree of conformity and
fanaticism as libertarianism ;->
2) Catholics aren't as fanatical as fundies.
3) Most modern Catholics aren't as fanatical as the old church that
drove so many people away.
4) While private groups of individuals should of course be free to
associate exclusively with those who conform, the Catholic Church
isn't like other private groups. It was founded by a long-haired
radical who told his followers to be inclusive. The die-hards have
an obligation to share the big tent with the rest of us.
|4.20.05 @ 3:41AM|#
Scour the seminaries for gay students, and kick them out.
Require Catholic colleges to fire professors who don't toe the
Church line on political issues.
I fully support that idea...
... because I hate the Catholic Church, and the proposals quoted
above would be certain to finally kill it off. They would lose most
of their priests and seminarians, plus most of the remaining
European and American congregations (which provide the Vatican with
virtually all of its revenue).
|4.20.05 @ 4:09AM|#
On the Hitler Youth thing - of course he doesn't mean he was a
Nazi supporter, he deserted after a while after all, he was only a
teenager, etc. etc. But consider this:
1) he was in seminar, and that would have provided him an easier
way out from having to serve in the fricking Nazi army than what
was available to any other male of his age who wasn't in a
seminar.
2) in the list of crimes of "moral relativism" he listed in his
recent pre-election sermon (see quote from the
Sullivan), between Marxism (honourable first mention, of
course!) and liberalism (wow, I didn't know that was a
dictatorship), from individualism to atheism to mysticism (good,
now even St Francis would be burn at the virtual stake) to
agnosticism, can you spot a glaring absence? That's right, no
mention of nazism and fascism. This is very typical of
ultra-conservative Catholic groups. After all, nevermind the
questionable role of the Vatican during that period, think of how
overtly they supported Franco's dictatorship in Spain, or the
various fascist regimes in Latin America.
So it's not the Hitler Youth connection. It's the rest, what he
stands for.
Oh, another of his statements about nazism - which he never
mentioned by name - was in an episcopal letter that talked of
relations with Jews, and in which he alluded to nazism as an
"anti-christian" regime that targeted Christians through their
Abramitic predecessors - ie. the nazi persecution of Jews was not
really antisemitic but only instrumental, the real target was the
influence of Christianity. I can guarantee you the response from
Jewish religious representatives has been very mild and polite
considering the kind of ancient insult they'd just been
handed.
As to those who don't understand why only this election would be
the final straw for Catholics hanging by a thread - sure, there was
no need to wait for this to know where the wind was blowing, but so
far, there was still some possibility, some opening for debate,
there are severeal theologians and groups within the Catholic world
that pushed for more liberal views, the liberal Catholics have been
playing an increasing role in the lower hierarchies and in the
social involvement of the Church in the last decades, and this
election is just a blidingly clear message that they're not welcome
anymore, since even "liberalism" is anti-Catholic. Plus, what
thoreau said.
I have to wonder though what do other ex-catholics consider as
defining step in becoming an ex-catholic? Simply not going to
church anymore and/or joining another religion? Did anyone consider
formal renounciation?
|4.20.05 @ 12:54PM|#
"the nazi persecution of Jews was not really antisemitic but
only instrumental, the real target was the influence of
Christianity. I can guarantee you the response from Jewish
religious representatives has been very mild and polite considering
the kind of ancient insult they'd just been handed."
I suggest you get a copy of
Hitler's Table Talk
The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of
Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both
are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of
religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. [Hitler's
Table Talk, p. 6-7]
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against
nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the
systematic cultivation of the human failure. [Hitler's Table Talk
p. 51]
Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this
respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse.
Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more
Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will
decline.
[Hitler's Table Talk, pp 58-62]
If it's possible to buy the high dignitaries of the Church with
money, let's do it. And if one of them wanted to enjoy his life,
and for this purpose put his hand into the till, for the love of
Heaven let him be left in peace. The ones we have to fear are the
ascetics, with rings under their eyes, and the fanatics.[Table
Talk, p. 411]... I'll make these damned parsons feel the power of
the state in a way they would never have believed possible. For the
moment I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the
slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot
the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there
is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be
stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by
the Jews. The fate of a few filthy lousy Jews and epileptics is not
worth bothering about. [p. 625].
|4.20.05 @ 1:34PM|#
I'm always fascinated when people on this forum can't
understand why not all Catholics are hard-liners.
Catholicism doesn't require the same degree of conformity and
fanaticism as libertarianism
That so depends on the Catholic you ask. Much like
the libertarian you ask...
|4.20.05 @ 2:21PM|#
thoreau says:
It was my intention to razz the church leadership
only.
Lay catholic parishioners are some of the coolest people I've met,
and most of the hierarchy doesn't deserve them.
Sorry if I painted with an overly broad brush.
|4.20.05 @ 4:17PM|#
lilli:
I think you are misreading Ratzinger's Christmas 2000 remarks. He
specifically chided Christians who harbored anti-Jewish attitudes.
Full address here.
Even the ADL seems to be happy
with the pick:
Under his leadership in Germany and Rome, the Catholic Church
made important strides in improving Catholic-Jewish relations and
atoning for the sin of anti-Semitism.
I expect that Ratzinger didn't expressly condemn Nazism and Fascism
in that speech because neither of them was considered an imminent
threat to be installed as a governing ideology. That may be an
ill-considered judgment, of course. The possibility of the former
Red Russia turning Black still worries me, for example.
As for his war service, the new Pope was 12-years old in 1939, when
he first entered the minor seminary. When he was
conscripted late in the war, the Nazis were not giving
seminarians "draft exemptions".
As for this:
I have to wonder though what do other ex-catholics consider as
defining step in becoming an ex-catholic? Simply not going to
church anymore and/or joining another religion? Did anyone consider
formal renounciation?
I just stopped going to church, aside from attending funerals and
weddings. Explaining why to my parents, when I still lived with
them, was a bit rough, though. I never bothered with a formal
renunciation. What do you think, should I publicly burn my
baptismal certificate? :) I know that in some European countries
with state churches an assumption is made that one belongs to the
established faith unless a disclamation to that effect is made, but
here in the USA we are blissfully free of such nonsense.
Kevin
|4.21.05 @ 3:44AM|#
John: thank you for the quotes, I knew all that already, there
remains the little fact that the 6 million people who ended up in
concentration camps were Jews, not Christians. And Ratzinger's
statements addressed that as a mere "consequence" of Hitler's goal
of substituing religion with nazism.
Also, as you can see yourself from the passages you quoted - "Both
[christianity and bolshevism] are inventions of the Jew" - one
could say that, if there is any subordinate relation between a main
target and a secondary target, the attack on christianity was a
consequence of the nazis antisemitism, as it is qualified as an
attack on something invented by Jews.
So for Ratzinger to claim it was the other way round, also given
that little detail that Christians were very safe and sound in
Germany, unless they overtly opposed the regime, is a bit bizarre,
to say the least.
Kevrob - I'm not misreading, I never claimed Ratzinger was an
antisemite or that he only spoke condescendingly to Jews or that he
refused any dialogue with Jewish communities. Ratzinger wrote that
under Wojtyla's pontificate and W. made the first papal visit to a
synagogue and made important steps in reconciliation, he was friend
with the Rome rabbi and even named him in his spiritual testament.
That happened under Wojtyla's leadership, not Ratzinger's.
I was only saying how that statement on Jewish persecution being a
mere by-product of Christian persecution is, objectively, a
distortion and an offence to history. That statement stood out
among the rest of the opening, concilitatory, dialogue-promoting
statements and gestures that John Paul II made.
And it does bear a relation to his failure to include nazism and
fascism in the list of crimes of non-christian thought.
I expect that Ratzinger didn't expressly condemn Nazism and
Fascism in that speech because neither of them was considered an
imminent threat to be installed as a governing ideology. That may
be an ill-considered judgment, of course. The possibility of the
former Red Russia turning Black still worries me, for
example.
I don't understand what you mean - he failed to mention nazism both
in his statements on Jews and the "anti-christian" persecution they
suffered, and in his recent pre-election sermon where he talked of
"relativism" in the negative sense and what he considers its
historical by-products, not only what he sees as current dangers.
Nazism and fascism were deliberately left out.
This is not a peculiarity, it is a typical tradition of right wing
factions of the Catholic church. It is one of the reasons why, even
if it's not his direct responsibility, Ratzinger is also seen with
very much favour by the fringes of far-right traditionalist
Catholic groups including those with neofascist sympathies.
|4.21.05 @ 3:50AM|#
And on the Hitler Youth thing:
As for his war service, the new Pope was 12-years old in 1939,
when he first entered the minor seminary. When he was conscripted
late in the war, the Nazis were not giving seminarians "draft
exemptions".
I don't know, but that's not what others who had experience of
living under that regime were saying. I don't think it was a matter
of automatic "draft exemptions", but it seems being a seminarist
afforded a lot more chances to escape the military service than for
non-seminarists.
For me, this is a minor point anyway, even if he hadn't served in
the nazi army, there's still so much about what he stands for today
that is controversial. But, even without exaggerating and
conflating being drafted into the Hilter Youth and Werhmacht as
nazi-support, one expects religious leaders to be willing to stand
up to higher moral standards. So I can hardly blame people for
being disturbed by that relatively minor point, too.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245