Ratzinger's the Pope

The white smoke rose. There's a new pope.

Pope "Benedict XVI" is due to address the faithful shortly.

Comments

[Jeremy Osner]

Oy vey

[Paul]

I didn't expect that.

[Edward]

It does seem to be a missed opportunity to reach beyond Europe...but given the "fat Pope--thin Pope" tradition, perhaps Poland was too relatively far from the center of Europe for comfort last time and so an African or South American will need to wait til next time.

[double-plus-ungood]

78 years old? This shouldn't take long. The cardinals must enjoy the Vatican food or something. Let's hope they don't get called back from the airport.

Good heavens, that was disrespectful. Apologies to any Catholics who may be offended.

[crionna]

Interesting in that in two more years, he wouldn't have even been able to vote for the next pope, much less be it.

[Katherine]

He's a brilliant man, with plenty of integrity in a way, but I think the liberal American Catholic tradition I come from--not in the sense that I was raised a good Catholic, but my parents and grandparents and extended family were and the effects linger--it was already gasping for oxygen; this is probably the death blow. As far as the United States goes--Bobby Kennedy's church has become Rick Santorum's. Cardinal Bernadin's church has become at best Archbishop Sean O'Malley's and at worst Cardinal Law's.

It's not a tradition I can really lay claim to anymore, but it's a very, very good one, and it's heartbreaking to see it dying. Or maybe not dying, but certainly Rome will be doing its level best to kill it.

Oh well. Could be worse.

[Dantheman]

"I didn't expect that."

Well, according to yesterday's profile of him on NPR, he runs the successor to the Inquisition. Too bad he's German and not Spanish, or we could start a new run of Python jokes.

[Jesurgislac]

Pope Rat.

[Katherine]

(of course, one shouldn't look at the Church as if it only affects the U.S.--but the thing is, unlike someone like Hummes or Maradiaga and to a much greater extent than John Paul II, Ratzinger wants to fight the culture wars and purge the church of "filthy" (his word) heretical priests.

He's well aware that it might lose him members, and he's probably smart enough to realize that the political effects of such a choice might help empower or do nothing to resist people who will kill and harm a lot of innocents, but such worldly concerns are not his priority.)

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"He's well aware that it might lose him members, and he's probably smart enough to realize that the political effects of such a choice might help empower or do nothing to resist people who will kill and harm a lot of innocents, but such worldly concerns are not his priority.)"

He probably suspects that the church will lose members but not Catholics. I don't really understand your second clause. One of the biggest concepts which distinguishes the Catholic church from Protestant variants of Christianity is the enforcement mechanism against heresy.

[Susan]

At his age, Ratzinger is a caretaker. Let's see what happens in five or six years...or he could pull a John XXIII and surprise the heck out us, though I doubt it given his, um, doctrinaire views...

[John Thullen]

"filthy" heretical priests.

With the exception of the child molestors, I figure another or purge or two throughout the world's institutions will put the accumulated purged in the majority, should there be a suitable leader to unite them.

Then, I wonder what steps the current purgers will take to maintain their minority dominance. I fear then that "Oh well, could be worse" will be upon us.

[Barry]

Well, only if we define anybody whose name is on the (how shall we say it) "wouldn't miss them" list as non-Catholics. Of course, that was pretty much what was done in Latin America. Worked like a charm. Liberation theology, non-Catholic. Nun-raper and priest-killer, no problem.

[votermom]

I'm worried about the impact on the 2008 election. He's going to be very against choice and gay rights.

[Fitz]

As apparently the only practicing Catholic on this board - let me say..
Viva il Papa!!!

Another Pope, #264 over 2000 years- Started with Peter, and the Gates of Hell will not Prevail Against it.

(perhaps this will end this inane discussion that the Church will somehow adopt the contemporary views of the New York Times)

[Katherine]

I'm speaking about the decision to deny communion to certain politicians and not others, which Ratzinger more or less supported.

I don't think Ratzinger would have any illusions about the extent to which George W. Bush or Tom DeLay or Dick Cheney are sincere believers in a "culture of life" as the Catholic Church understands the meaning of the phrase. I would guess he prioritizes abortion over issues of war, peace, torture, whether poor people die for lack of medical treatment, but if you were going to be pragmatic about it--the President directly controls the actions of the CIA and the U.S. military and does not directly control the Supreme Court, let alone the actions of individual women. It's also in the political best interests of the GOP that Roe not be overturned. And by being unbending on things like contraception and condoms to stop AIDS, and inadequately dealing with the sexual abuse scandal--even if the majority of American Catholics are wrong about those issues and the Church is right, as a pragmatic matter that disconnect kills' the Church's chances of persuading them of its teachings about abortion.

I mean, someone like Dick Durbin--he goes to mass. He supports Roe v. Wade in defiance of the Church, but then unlike Santorum he wrote a bill banning late term abortions that would have actually been upheld by the courts and enforced against ALL late term abortions. He opposed the Iraq War. He has been the loudest, most effective voice in Congress opposing torture by the U.S. government. He has been one of the loudest and most effective voices in Congress trying to get us to do more to fight AIDS in Africa and genocide in Darfur. He supports a moratorium on the death penalty, mental health treatment for veterans. He takes poverty seriously in America--without getting into a laundry list his positions on economic issues are in excellent alignment with the Catholic church's.

As far as the actual effects of his actions--all of this is going to completely swamp the votes he will cast against Supreme Court justices who want to overturn Roe v. Wade. And even those votes are a mixed bag, because the sorts of justices who would overturn Roe would also make decisions that ran directly counter to the Church's teachings on many, many other areas.

I think it's actually immoral to threaten people with hell and exile for not obeying you, and while I'm no Catholic and no theologian, there have been respected Catholic theologians who agreed. But let's leave that aside for the moment & just look at it on pragmatic grounds. If you were a political pragmatist, if your concern was to how to best save innocent lives & get the U.S. government to act more in line with church teachings, you would not deny this man communion. But Ratzinger is not a political pragmatist--or if he is, he's one with a much longer view. He believes that Durbin is in a state of grave mortal sin, and that Durbin will be eternally separated from God if he dies without repenting, and that to grant him communion in this state dishonors the sacrament, increases the chance that Durbin will die in a state of mortal sin, deprives the Church of its moral authority, and does real harm to Christ Himself.

And from a certain view of Catholic teaching, this makes perfect sense. So at some level you have to admire Ratzinger's damn-the-consequences integrity to what he believes, and it's pretty internally consistent*--as I said, he's a brilliant, brilliant man.

At another level--this all rests on premises which I completely reject. And it's going to do harm to people, and great harm to the parts of the Catholic tradition that my parents and grandparents and favorite aunts and uncles believed in. So it's kind of hard to sit back and admire his intellectual brilliance and his unswerving commitment to his principles.

*with certain exceptions--e.g. the view of condoms and AIDS.

[Katherine]

"He probably suspects that the church will lose members but not Catholics."

Well, given that the church officially counts ME as Catholic even now, I think this is not accurate. "Members but not good Catholics", or not "members but not practicing Catholics", or "not true Christians" or "not in a state of grace" or "not in full Communion with Christ or His Church--but as I understand it, you're a Catholic from baptism until excommunication, official renunciation of your faith, or death.

[NeoDude]

Well, it's back to "The road to heaven goes through Rome!"

No more flirting with Protestant theological fads, like Charasmata and the such.

[Tad Brennan]

One way to look at it.

JPII did a lot of good. But he also did a lot of harm, too.

(Good against communism, harm against women, would be one short summation).

He was most damaging when he acted as Ratzinger with a human face.

Now we're going to get Ratzinger with a Ratzinger face.

No charisma, no credibility as the Pope who brought down the Wall, no ability to touch the young.

I'm betting the honeymoon will be over before it starts. And as a result he may do a lot less damage.

Still, as the child of Catholic parents, especially as the child of a liberal Catholic father who believed in the promise of Vatican II, I see it as a deep tragedy for an institution that at some times in its history has done more good than harm.

[NeoDude]

Ratzy may have gotten rid of the Marxist, but there are the hordes of Protestants still tainting Roman theology.

Are We To Lose Our Protestant Heritage Forever?

How easily many professed evangelicals have swallowed the sugar-coated pill of Rome’s propaganda and adopting a superior manner with arrogant airs, assure the world, “We are just Christians, we are not Protestants.” Poor fools, they know not what they say nor whereof they affirm. They are the joy of the pope and the sorrow of heaven. The root meaning of the word Protestant is “a witness for”, and any who claim to be Christians and yet affirm that they are not witnesses for Christ only indict their own souls. Away with such talk, “I am a Christian but not a Protestant.” It is an outgrowth of conditioning by Romish propaganda. As a Christian I must be a Protestant and if I am not a Protestant, that is, a witness for Christ, then let it be said, I cannot be a Christian. As it is impossible to be a Christian antichristian, so it is impossible to be a Christian and not a Protestant.

More:
Are We To Lose Our Protestant Heritage Forever?

[NeoDude]

I remember hearing Deacons reminding young Protestants:

Protestants saved Christianity from the Romans!

Since, it was the Romans who killed Christ!

Maybe we have matured from these religious wars...but I doubt the Fundementalists on both sides have.

[sidereal]

Soooo. . what's the over/under on Vatican III? 2007?

[Fitz]

None of this is terribly confusing.
the 1960's happened - Vatican II happened, people who were invested in the liberationist echos of the 1960's projected that ethos into the "spirit of Vatican II".

A couple of more Pope's come along a fail to deliver on that supposed "promise".
Those same Catholics go to there grave feeling cheated (not very humble of them)
The Church ends up stronger then ever for not having abandoned the Gospels to the fashions of the times.

[votermom]

What Katherine said.

(Btw, I'm technically still a practicing Catholic -- received Communion the other day. Do I throw away Jesus' revolutionary teachings because of the failings
of his successors? It's a hard question).

Any speculation on why he chose the name Benedict?

[NeoDude]

Fitz,

Do you believe the scourge of secularism and humanism (thus, the tyranny of reletivism) began with Luther's drunken behavior?

[Paul]

I'm betting the honeymoon will be over before it starts.

Pretty much what I've been thinking. However conservative John Paul II was, his charisma and his struggles in Poland made most people at least want to like and respect him even if they disagreed with his doctrines. Now we've gone from a Pope who fought the communists, to a Pope who flirted with the Nazis. I imagine those visits to Israel will be very awkward. Now for all I know, that flirtation was just a "youthful indiscretion," but I'm still a little stunned at the Church's willingness to put him on the world stage.

[timw]

"And it's going to do harm to people, and great harm to the parts of the Catholic tradition that my parents and grandparents and favorite aunts and uncles believed in."

Some examples of these "Catholic" traditions would be interesting to see.

[Bill]

He didn't just flirt with the Nazi's, he was a nazi.

Supposedly he guarded a bmw plant where slaves from Dachau were working. Later he went to hungary to set tank traps and saw jews being herded into death camps. The article says he deserted so yeah he gets somepoints but wow, I can'ty believe they picked this guy.

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=92405

[timw]

Neodude,

"Protestants saved Christianity from the Romans!"

It would be easy to make a case for that statement.

What's your point?

[sidereal]

It will only be a matter of time before the Vatican is fully operational.

[Anderson]

Bill, I wouldn't say he was a Nazi; according to the article, he was briefly a Hitler Youth when 14, and only when it became compulsory.

I wouldn't have been brave enough to risk my life opposing the Nazis when I was a kid (indeed, I may not be that brave now).

On the other hand, if this guy is going to tell Catholics they have to make hard choices the "right" way, or else, then he needs to be reminded of his own frailty. The White Rose group wasn't much older than Ratzinger was, and they died for opposing the Nazi regime.

[NeoDude]

As soon as I hear "traditionalists" who shout "reletivism", it's usually a lazy way to demonize those who disagree with them.

[timw]

"As soon as I hear "traditionalists" who shout "reletivism", it's usually a lazy way to demonize those who disagree with them."

Good strategy. He who demonizes his opponent first wins.

[Macallan]

He didn't just flirt with the Nazi's, he was a nazi.

No he was a conscript. You know, against one's will.

[NeoDude]

He didn't just flirt with the Nazi's, he was a nazi.

Maybe they want the world to know they are serious, now!

[Slartibartfast]

He didn't just flirt with the Nazi's

Flirt with the Nazi's what? Wives? Daughters? Which Nazi?

[Anderson]

See Eric Muller on the Nazi business, though you still won't learn which Nazis he flirted with (female ones, we're sure).

[Dutchmarbel]

I am sad and disappointed. Yet more polarisation and more religion in politics. From the BBC profile:
"One of his first campaigns was against liberation theology, which had gained ground among priests in Latin America and elsewhere as a means of involving the Church in social activism and human rights issues.

He has described homosexuality as a "tendency" towards an "intrinsic moral evil". During the US election campaign, he called for pro-choice politicians to be denied Communion.

He has also argued that Turkey should not be admitted into the European Union."

[judson]

I care so little about this white circus.

[Paul]

No he was a conscript. You know, against one's will.

Anderson is OTM. To be fair, the Pope's probably no worse than most of might be in the same situation. But either way, considering the Church's own less than enviable record during WWII, it really demonstrates either an amazing insensitivity or an amazing cluelessness about "appearences of impropriety" to choose a Pope who is associated with Nazi Germany.

The Pope could use his experiences to help us all reflect on our own moral fallibility and the necessity of forgiveness. Hail, Benedict XVI if he does. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Macallan]

Here's a different spin on his "flirting".

[Katherine]

The London Times article does NOT support the assertion that Ratzinger was a Nazi.

He wasn't a heroic resistance fighter either; there seems to have been a long period of doing the minimum legally required so as not to endanger yourself, and then stopping even that much but still not becoming really actively resistant. Given that he was 17 when he deserted in 1944, given that desertion was punishable by death....

It does seem odd to me that he completely fails to see that the arguably-excessive relativism and individualism of today's Europe is a direct rejection of the Germany of his youth, an attempt to avoid that kind of fanatacism, blind obedience to authority, & totalitarianism at all costs. It seems odd to me that 1968 could seem to be a threat that's anywhere close to the same order of magnitude of the 1940s. The argument that it takes an organized hierarchy to oppose an organized hierarchy breaks down given the Church's institutional failure during those years.

So I understand Bernard Haring's reaction much better and prefer his approach on every level. But, with Ratzinger, whom I suppose I should get used to calling Benedict XVI--there's enough accurate criticisms one can make without resorting to slander.

[Macallan]

He wasn't a heroic resistance fighter either

…and we should expect a teenage seminary student to become one? Is he supposed to put down the books and start killing people?

[Slartibartfast]

I wasn't arguing the criticism so much as attempting to point out a misuse of the possessive.

It appears it didn't take.

[Anderson]

Macallan, please. Whether or not it's reasonable to have expected him to resist, he didn't. Had he done so and been executed by the Nazis, few of us would've heard of him today, but the church would be proud of him for having done so.

It's always strange to see the conservatives saying that one can't really be expected to risk one's life for one's faith or principles. I thought we godless, faithless liberals were supposed to monopolize that tactic.

[Macallan]

It's always strange to see the conservatives saying that one can't really be expected to risk one's life for one's faith or principles.

When you see someone argue that let me know. Back here on earth, we were arguing against ill-informed slander.

[Anderson]

"Ill-informed slander"? Pooh.

…and we should expect a teenage seminary student to become one? Is he supposed to put down the books and start killing people?

The choices available, then, being (1) passive acquiescence in the Nazi regime or (2) putting down the books & starting to kill people? No other options?

Sigh. I'll turn my attention to what Benedict XVI does & leaves undone, rather than what Joe Ratzinger did or left undone. Maybe that's the message behind their taking new names.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"It's always strange to see the conservatives saying that one can't really be expected to risk one's life for one's faith or principles. I thought we godless, faithless liberals were supposed to monopolize that tactic."

I think it is tough to expect (in the sense of making reasonably useful predictions about behaviour) most people to risk their lives for faith or principles. We can hope, or encourage, but we rarely expect it.

[rilkefan]

The kid who under compulsion went along with the evil machinery of a totalitarian state is not the man who is Pope; the man should be assessed on his record as an adult.

[Anderson]

Good correction, Sebastian.

[Macallan]

No other options?

Just what do you think resistance fighters do? Short-sheet the barracks?

[Tad Brennan]

" Ratzinger, whom I suppose I should get used to calling Benedict XVI"

Hmmm...I can see that people who owe allegiance to the church would adopts its nomenclature.

As for those who don't--what sort of obligation does one have to refer to him as "Pope Benedict XVI"?

I generally try to be respectful to others. But does that require me to refer to foreign dignitaries by the titles of their choice?

After all, I called our former president just "Clinton", or worse. I refer to our current president as "Bush" or worse. I didn't generally refer to Grace Kelly's husband as "His Serene Highness", even though that might have been what he liked.

And I never saw any harm in the many references to the former pope, from his detractors and admirers alike, as "Wojtyla".

So if I keep on calling this guy "Ratzinger", am I doing something offensive, or even disrespectful? If I am, you could probably convince me to stop.

[Anderson]

So if I keep on calling this guy "Ratzinger", am I doing something offensive, or even disrespectful? If I am, you could probably convince me to stop.

Just don't call him "the Ratz Man."

[NeoDude]

Heidegger and de Man were NAZIs, yet they were rehabilitated, why not the Pope?

[Edward]

The kid who under compulsion went along with the evil machinery of a totalitarian state is not the man who is Pope; the man should be assessed on his record as an adult.

I agree with this. It is a liberal sensibility, folks.

[sidereal]

"what sort of obligation does one have to refer to him as "Pope Benedict XVI"?"

I generally referred to Karol Wojtyla with his name, as long as doing so wouldn't confuse and irritate people enough that the conversation would be impeded. I'll probably do the same with Ratzinger.

"Just what do you think resistance fighters do? Short-sheet the barracks?"

Don't be ridiculous, Mac. Sebastian's point is well-taken, that while we'd like everyone to resist a powerful, murderous government, the fact is that the vast majority of people won't. Whether the set of people eligible to be Pope should or should not draw from that small minority is Catholic sausagemaking I have no business involving myself in. But you go too far in trying to excuse Ratzinger, and in doing so demean and discredit the uncountable people throughout history who have non-violently resisted totalitarianism and murder. Gandhi? Miep Gies? Cripes, hilzoy just posted about Mbaye Diagne. Why do I even have to make a list? Surely this is so self-evident that no one would forget it merely for the sake of taking a side in an argument.

[Edward]

What's wrong with calling him "the Pope"? I call Bush "the President" with no hint of suggesting approval or disapproval by doing so. That's who he is: the president or the pope.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Heidegger and de Man were NAZIs, yet they were rehabilitated,

On whose authority?

Not that I think the criticism of Ratzinger is justified.

[Anderson]

Heidegger and de Man were NAZIs, yet they were rehabilitated, why not the Pope?

Don't pull my de Man chain, now. He was never a Nazi. He worked for a collaborationist paper. He wrote some obnoxious things. But his participation didn't rise to Heidegger's, or even Ratzinger's (tho at least PdM was of age). And to say he was "rehabilitated" is dubious; deconstruction was probably on its way out anyway (too apolitical), but PdM's work for Le Soir & his article on the Jews in contemporary lit were the stake through the heart. You have to look far & wide for much serious discussion of PdM any more, alas. His "negative theology" of literary meaning was interesting if depressing.

[liberal japonicus]

"what sort of obligation does one have to refer to him as "Pope Benedict XVI"?"

While not directly in answer to that, one has to remember that changed names are also used as a way of figuring out who is in the in group. For example, there are a number of rules for referring to the emperor, and after he dies (I hate this 'when he passes' euphemism) his name changes, and one of the points is that if you can't figure out what to call him, your opinion can be safely dismissed because you don't really understand Japanese culture.

[NeoDude]

On whose authority?

Those who assert it!

(Then those who disagree try to take it away)

[Macallan]

Don't be ridiculous, Mac.

It isn't a matter of going too far in excusing him; it is that some are going too far in accusing him. This entire line is downright foolish. The Nazi's came to power when he was a very small boy. Apparently his first adult oriented decision was to enter the seminary, an act of resistance in and of itself one would imagine. I doubt Catholic seminaries were the hot ticket for the fast track in the SS. What is ridiculous is the weird need to smear the guy with the Nazi label.

BTW, I don't think Ghandi did much resisting of British rule between the ages of 11 and 17. Sorry, those comparisons are just silly.

[NeoDude]

What the rabidly orthodox kids are saying:

One of the tv commentators was saying that Cardinal Ratzinger chose the name Benedict XVI for this reason. Ratzinger is feared by liberals in the church because he is a conservative (though his conservatism has been overstated--see below). Benedict XV (1914-1922), succeeding Pius X who had waged a campaign against modernity, said he wanted to bring an end to the conflicts over doctrine and bring the Church together again. So, by calling himself Benedict XVI, Ratzinger is assuring liberals that he's no Pius X.

From:
View from the Right
The passing scene and what it's about viewed from the traditionalist politically incorrect Right.

For some interesting discussions of the upcoming conclave see the pieces by “Sandro Magister,” an Italian journalist with a pen name, at www.chiesa. It appears from the April 7 and April 14 articles that a rather strong party, led by Ratzinger and other top cardinals, is proposing quite forcefully less outreach of the Assisi variety and a much stronger emphasis on Catholic distinctiveness and decisiveness, especially in opposition to secular modernity. We shall see.

UPDATE: So Ratzinger himself has been chosen as the revolutionary leader/sacrificial lamb. I was surprised. Quite possibly he was also surprised. A Catholic journalist, I forget who, saw him in St. Peter’s Square a day or two before the conclave and described him as “happy and relaxed,” which suggested to me he thought there would be someone good as pope but he wouldn’t have to step forward himself and maybe could go back to writing books about theology. As it was, I thought he looked rather ill as he was greeting the crowd as Benedict XVI, at least when he wasn’t directly facing the public. He needs our prayers.

From:
Culture, politics, tradition and Catholicism

[Katherine]

He wasn't a hero of the resistance. But as a minor he did no more than he was compelled to by law & threat, and when he got to the age where we even begin to think people are adults, he refused to collaborate at risk to his life. That's not nothing. It's more than most 17 year olds did, I would imagine.

There is no need to make it into something it's not, in either direction.

What I find interesting is the difference in how he and, e.g. Bernard Haring reacted to growing up in Nazi Germany. He doesn't seem to understand that the individualism and relativism and resistance to ideology and refusal to submit to authority he holds in such contempt, have become widespread in Europe in large part because people will do anything to avoid the blood soaked horrors of his youth.I mean, how could the spectre of the 1968 protests appear to be a threat of anywhere near the same magnitude of 1938-44? I just don't understand it.

You could argue that you need an organized hierarchy to oppose an organized hierarchy, but anyone who believes that the Catholic hierarchy did a better job resisting Nazi Germany than individuals following their own conscience despite the risks--that's not an accurate view of the history. It's just not.

[Bernard Yomtov]

As for those who don't--what sort of obligation does one have to refer to him as "Pope Benedict XVI"?

What about common courtesy? Should we not call people by the names they prefer, absent a very good reason not to?

Do you call the former heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali, or Cassius Clay?

[sidereal]

"This entire line is downright foolish."
I'm mostly in agreement. My problem is with going too far and saying it was simply impossible for him to do anything else. That's an unnecessary and inaccurate defense.

"What is ridiculous is the weird need to smear the guy with the Nazi label."

He was, at one time, a Nazi. This fact obviously makes many people very uncomfortable. Obviously when you dig into the story a bit more he's more or less exonerated, but you can't blame people for being uncomfortable.

11 what? Ratzinger was 16 when he joined Hitler Youth. I'm sure a little study will find a number of people who joined resistance movements at that age. I'm not saying he should have become Gandhi. I'm saying it was physically and mentally possible for him to resist and that he chose not to. I don't think it's a big deal, but I also don't like your implication that it was impossible. It's a bit cynical.

[Katherine]

(Kieran Healy has the definitive reaction.)

[liberal japonicus]

I doubt Catholic seminaries were the hot ticket for the fast track in the SS.

While I agree that this whole argument isn't very helpful, there is a large literature on the linkage between the Church and the Third Reich. Steigmann-Gall's book _The Holy Reich_ is interesting in this regard.

link

[nous_athanatos]

Anderson--And to say he was "rehabilitated" is dubious; deconstruction was probably on its way out anyway (too apolitical), but PdM's work for Le Soir & his article on the Jews in contemporary lit were the stake through the heart.

Stake through the heart? Only in the culture war. Theory lives and deconstruction lives and has moved on and changed. All that really died was the deconstruction fad, which needed to die anyway, since most applied it so poorly and shallowly in the first place.

As for Heidegger...yeah, he was implicated. That doesn't invalidate his arguments. Modern theories of government cant get rid of Carl Schmitt either. He's too much a part of the whole discussion of sovereignty and the state of exception.

[CharleyCarp]

Calling Benedict XVI "Ratzinger" is not the equivalent of calling our 42d president "Clinton." It is the equivalent of calling him "Blythe." (And just so no one thinks I'm trying to slander the man, or his late mother, the same logic would require one to refer to our 38th president as "King.")

Lots of names get changed by public (and other) figures: George VI, Lenin, Mark Twain, John Wayne. We use these names in communication because it is the convention, and because the point of communication is to be understood. Yes, Bob Dylan sang that you can call him "Zimmie," but actually doing so is a silly waste of everyone's time, at best. At worst, it strikes me as an invocation of his ethnic background, for purposes one could only guess by the context . . .

[Macallan]

I also don't like your implication that it was impossible.

I wish I knew what you're talking about.

[Macallan]

While I agree that this whole argument isn't very helpful, there is a large literature on the linkage between the Church and the Third Reich. Steigmann-Gall's book _The Holy Reich_ is interesting in this regard.

May I humbly suggest you read your own link?

Richard, I think because of a lot of recent attacks on Pope Pius XII and his failure to do enough in support of European Jewry, we also have a somewhat distorted picture of the relationship between Nazism and the Catholic Church. You make it clear that was mutually hostile from the word go

[BadTux]

All Hail Pope Panzerfaust I, "God's Rottweiler"! Yes, it definitely was time for a former Hitler Youth to become Pope... ah yes, just like old times, when Catholic bishops marched with Nazis. The good old days, yessirree!

- Badtux the Catholic Penguin,

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"there is a large literature on the linkage between the Church and the Third Reich. Steigmann-Gall's book _The Holy Reich_ is interesting in this regard."

By "the Church" you apparently mean the Protestant movement which has a rather long running rivalry with the Catholic Church. As such, it probably won't do as evidence that the Catholic Church was particularly linked to the Third Reich. They certainly didn't resist much, but that is a different story.

[liberal japonicus]

mac
'is interesting in this regard' means that you might want to read the book. In fact, if you would read the entire link, you might come across this passage:

Richard, can we turn to the I think very ambiguous and ambivalent connection between Nazism and Catholicism. A lot of the Nazi leaders, Hitler and Himmler originally, Goebbels, are baptised Catholics, but there’s a lot of ambivalence from the word go about the Catholic Church, even to the point of some of these Catholics being quite pro-Protestant. So, quite open to Luther, for example.

Richard Steigmann-Gall: Yes, absolutely. You hear a lot about the fact that the Nazi leadership seemed to be disproportionately Catholic. Again, through the device of positive Christianity, when I looked at this concept and tried to explore it a little more deeply, what I discovered was that these Nazis, even the Catholic Nazis – especially, as odd as it may sound, Hitler himself – suggested that while everybody, Protestant and Catholic alike, could be embraced under the banner of positive Christianity, when you look at the actual discussions that they have of Protestantism and Catholicism, they keep privileging Protestantism over Catholicism. They believe that if Catholicism is an international religion, with a leader who is not part of Germany – obviously in Rome – that by contrast, Protestantism is more innately amenable to nationalist politics. They cast Luther as not just the first Protestant, but also the first German. Hitler’s saying this, but it’s certainly not new. What is notable about it, is that even nominal Catholics – as you point out, like Hitler – seem to have a greater appreciation for at least the political and social dimensions of Protestantism than they do their own nominal faith Catholicism. And so again, it’s no surprise when you look at it that way, that Hitler obviously had long before 1933, when he comes to power, stopped attending Catholic church; for him, Protestantism was more valued. Now, because he was a politician, and he wanted to get Catholics on board his movement, he wasn’t about to convert to Protestantism, but when you look at his private conversations behind closed doors – when the curtain of Nazi performance, if you will, comes down – what you hear Hitler saying over and over again, is among other thing, a much higher estimation of Protestantism as what he calls “the natural religion of the German”.

If you want to suggest that there were two sides, Catholics versus the Nazis, that's your privilege, but you are making it in the absence of any knowledge of the historical facts.

evidence that the Catholic Church was particularly linked to the Third Reich

I try to be careful about what I write, and if my 'is interesting in this regard' was taken to mean 'and there is a particular link between Catholicism and the Third Reich', my apologies. As I noted, I think that the whole thing in relation the Ratzinger isn't very helpful, and I was just pointing out that it isn't as clear as some believe it is. One should also realize that the German dioceses had (and still have, I think) a much greater degree of autonomy from the Vatican which was a result of the Reformation and formalized in church-state treaties known as concordats.

[Macallan]

That's funny LJ, you quoted one of the other passages I considered quoting...

[Anarch]

Whether the set of people eligible to be Pope should or should not draw from that small minority is Catholic sausagemaking I have no business involving myself in.

I think that's a completely reasonable position to take, and one that I more or less agree with (not being Catholic myself). I do, however, strongly agree with Anderson and Paul that such a man might not be the best choice to lead Church whose dealings (and subsequent obfuscations thereof) with the Nazi regime were... less than optimal.

That said, if the College of Cardinals wishes to promote a former Hitler Youth member to the office of the papacy, it's their business and not mine. Here's to hoping that Ratzinger's elevation will be a showcase for the power of redemption rather than the alternative.

[Anarch]

One should also realize that the German dioceses had (and still have, I think) a much greater degree of autonomy from the Vatican which was a result of the Reformation and formalized in church-state treaties known as concordats.

Another useful venue is to note that there was no equivalent of the Lateran Treaty between Germany and the Catholic Church, and to ask what developed in its stead.

[liberal japonicus]

Good point, Anarch. One might also look at the Reich Enabling Acts and the demise of the Catholic Center Party as well.

[DaveC]

Wow, a "The Pope's a Nazi" thread.

Now,
I Am Not A Philospher
and
I Am Not A Theologian

But, I have personally met Martin Heidigger, and I's like to make some observations.

First of all, from my experience, Heidigger was not rehabilitated in any way.

a) The Lecture on "Phenomenolgy and Hermeneutics" was a secret, closed lecture.

b) Now, I didn't get to see the real fireworks after the lecture because I was forced to leave, but the gist of the lecture was that there are certain individuals that can actually understand Plato and the classics. They understand in a both an intellectual and intuitive way the true meaning of the basis of philosophy.

I think that kind of colored his views about the Reich.
Christianity, whether Catholic or Protestant had very little to do with it.

[Katherine]

I have a very serious question:

how would one go about officially leaving the Catholic Church & make sure that one is no longer counted as a member?

Do I write to the archdiocese of Boston, or do I have to track down the Church where I was baptized, or what?

[Anderson]

how would one go about officially leaving the Catholic Church & make sure that one is no longer counted as a member?

Is there a big list somewhere? I'd like to know that myself.

Joining a non-Catholic church probably works, but I see your point about whom you'd let know.

(Hope that Benedict XII's not the last straw. I would hate to see the left & center Catholics abandon the RCC and leave it to the righties. Then again, I don't have to live in the RCC, either.)

[Anderson]

Gasoline for the flames?

Here's a pilfered comment from "cvcobb01" at Yglesias:

On a local NPR newscast here in Los Angeles, a theology student from Germany did mention the Hitler Youth issue, said it really was a non-issue. According to the student, the bigger problem for Ratzinger in Germany vis a vis the Nazis is that, during his days as a professor he taught that it was futile to resist the Nazis.

Hm. How do you say "Resistance is useless!" in German?

The student went on to say that in Germany (and everywhere else I presume), that stance compares unfavorably with Lutheran minister Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who chose to resist the Nazis and in so doing lost his freedom and life at the hands of the Gestapo.

We will doubtless be hearing all about this kind of thing, including its veracity or lack thereof, in coming days.

(Generally, I always thought that the Catholics came off better than the Germans under the Nazis, but there's plenty of shame to go around.)

[Katherine]

I had already decided to leave. I'm converting to Judaism. I'll make it official next year, and I figured, no use rushing into anything until I do, in case there are last minute pangs of doubt.

Here's what Benedict XVI made me realize: even if I do find out, to my complete shock, that I'm Christian after all, I can never, ever be Catholic. I'd probably be Epicopalian.

But I kept hearing them talk about "66 million American Catholics", and I realize--they're still counting me in that, because I was baptized. And I am not willing to be counted and used for the purposes of the Catholic hierarchy for a day longer. (Seriously, I wish I'd thought of this before the archdiocese's office closed--I got the answering service when I called & I didn't want to harass the poor woman so I just said I'd call back tomorrow.)

And really the only thing I can do for the good people who haven't given up yet is to vote with my feet publicly rather than silently. I'm sure Benedict XVI is perfectly willing to see the membership dwindle to preserve his own warped version of the Church's purity, but my guess is the curia & the American bishops are not made of such stern stuff. I get this desperate need to do SOMETHING, and it's the only thing left to do.

[DaveC]

How about Quakers?

You just kind of sit there, and if you feel moved to say something, you say it ;)

Seriously, Protestantism really has quite a few traditions. It seems like most people here tend to think about Protestant denominations that have the same hierarchical organization as the Catholic church. Espiscopalians & Lutherans, for instance. (And Methodista are darn close, what with the bishops and all that.)

There are other denominations, descended from the Anabaptists and Hugenots and so forth, that have a single church as the unit, where the members have some more say in the business and even in the content of the message presented.

Now, these denominations might seem a little strange. the larger ones might seem Disneyesque and the smaller ones might seem quite austere.

[liberal japonicus]

during his days as a professor he taught that it was futile to resist the Nazis.

Given the timeline, I don't think that works out, unless as a professor after the war, he argued this
Also, here's a link about the Catholic church and the rise of Nazism.
and this quote might be along the lines of what the student is thinking.

German bishops released a statement that wiped out past criticism of Nazism by proclaiming the new regime acceptable, then followed doctrine by ordering the laity to be loyal to this regime just as they had commanded loyalty to previous regimes. Since Catholics had been instrumental in bringing Hitler to power and served in his cabinet, the bishops had little choice but to collaborate.

On the subject of conversion, I had a roommate who said that if he did convert, it would be to Russian Orthodox because it was "smells and bells". (not meaning to be sarcastic about such a decision, of course)

Also, the whole thing about lack of central authority always interested me, being a Methodist from a small mississippi town filled with Baptist churches. Great softball teams, I tell you. And as for 'Disneyesque', in my college town, they built a huge Baptist church on the outside of town that a few irreverent folks (like me) used to call "Bapco".

[DaveC]

Where I grew up, a nearby Baptist liberal arts college was referred to (even by some Baptists) as "Bible Tech". Which it was not, really.

[Anarch]

Given the timeline, I don't think that works out, unless as a professor after the war, he argued this.

That's certainly how I read the remark. A better phrasing would have to be: "during his days as a professor he taught that it had been futile to resist the Nazis."

I have no idea whether this is true or not, but that's the only way I can interpret it to be even vaguely plausible.

[NeoDude]

That's wierd, American Roman Catholics sound like German Roman Catholics...you know, admiring the mixture of Protestantism and Nationalism and the force of will and national spirit and stuff.

Anyway, ignoring death squads in Latin America or Germany is disgusting.

[Catsy]

The very fact that we are having this "Nazi pope" discussion is a case study in why his selection was criminally tone deaf. When nearly all the war and strife in the world (including the so-called "war on terrorism") can be traced back to religious conflict, surely there was a better choice than a man who intends to regress the Church further backwards in religious intolerance, and who was in the Hitler Youth? Forget for a moment that it was compulsory, that he deserted--the things that reasonable and/or informed people know and take into account. Do you think those details matter to the world's Jews, a people understandably given to uneasiness with the subject of Nazi Germany? Do you think those details matter to moderate Muslims, who must now be very concerned about an even /more/ intolerant Pope? Don't worry about the extremists--they thrive on religious conflict.

The only upshot I can personally see to this is that a man even more extreme and divisive than the last Pope can only serve to accelerate the Catholic Church's growing irrelevance and dwindling influence. I just worry about how much damage he'll do in the meantime.

[Anarch]

When nearly all the war and strife in the world (including the so-called "war on terrorism") can be traced back to religious conflict...

Ummm... you wanna qualify that?

[NeoDude]

And another thing, didn't Heidegger almost become a priest?

“A Jesuit by education, he became a Protestant through indignation, a scholastic dogmatician by training, he became an existential pragmatist through experience, a theologian by tradition, be became an atheist in his research, a renegade to his tradition cloaked in the mantle of its historian.” -- Karl Lowith

[Catsy]

Ummm... you wanna qualify that?

No, actually, I don't.

[Macallan]

The very fact that we are having this "Nazi pope" discussion is a case study in why his selection was criminally tone deaf.

No it only says something about the people trying to hang the Nazi label on the guy.

[NeoDude]

Progressives, Moderates, Neocons: Notes Before the Conclave

[...]

But it is above all from the perspective of the Church “ad extra” that their program distinguishes itself. The most fearsome conflict of the next decades, Ratzinger and Ruini have both said on numerous occasions, will not be that between the Church and Islam, but rather the cultural conflict between the Church and “the radical emancipation of man from God and from the roots of life,” which characterizes contemporary Western culture and which “leads in the end to the destruction of freedom.” For the neoconservative cardinals, the Church’s commitment to this clash centered in the West must be given absolute priority in the next pontificate.

Their scenario has three other corollaries. The first that the Church will not fight alone in this epochal conflict, but will look for and find allies even in secularist currents of thought far removed from Catholicism; for example, in those represented by Francis Fukuyama and Jürgen Habermas, the two authors cited most frequently by Ratzinger and Ruini of late.

More:
Progressives, Moderates, Neocons: Notes Before the Conclave

I thought Habermas believed neoconservativism and postmodernism to be two sides of the same coin?

[liberal japonicus]

people trying to hang the Nazi label on the guy

Anyone else have the urge to sing 'look for the nazi label'? I thought not.

his selection was...
The whole selection process is kind of amazing. I mean, they don't get dossiers or anything, right? And while they might be familiar with the people, how much do they really know? (this is not a backhanded attack on Ratzinger/Benedict, just an observation on the nature of the process) Of course, they are in an elite group and would obviously have some sort of esprit de corps, which might translate to a greater knowledge, but it is still interesting. Why doesn't someone do an exit poll? ;^)

[Anarch]

No, actually, I don't.

World War I? World War II? The US Civil War? And that's just cherry-picking the most obvious ones.

[You can also include, I dunno, the various Chinese civil wars, e.g. the KMT/CCP conflagration of the '30s-50s, as well as innumerable anticolonial wars -- which are not necessarily religious wars, though they frequently acquire a religious gloss -- as well as innumerable wars fought over greed, pride or stupidity.]

[hilzoy]

But Anarch, surely you know that both World Wars and the US Civil War were foisted on us by Rosicrucians and the Illuminati ...

[Anarch]

Well, yes, but that's not for the Lessers to know...

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Hilzoy, I'm so sorry you had to find out about that.... ;)