Ratzinger's the Pope

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

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

Comments

[Macallan]

But since even those with no sin in their hearts also die

Does one of those exist? Don't ask me though, nobody's gonna elect me pope or mistake me for theologian.

[DaveC]

Any of y'all planning to change churches, the Baptists would say "Come on in. The water's fine."

(An attempt to insert levity. I'm not proselytising. IANAGC.)

[Catsy]

It clearly isn't the just the person that you dislike. You don't like the institution.

I don't make any secret of what I think of the Catholic church, Sebastian, but that is not the whole of my problem with this pope. The problem is that the pope wields, through his position, an enormous amount of power to influence the views of people across the world. Those views spill over into my life when the people who look to him try to turn their views into law.

The pope is also /the/ central figurehead of the Catholic church. As such, the kind of person he is and the way he is viewed by the rest of the world /matters/, in a very real-world way. For all the noise that conservatives make about the prominence of divisive extremists in Islam--whose sphere of influence of in East Fumbuckistan pales in comparison to the pope--you and Mac are sure exhibiting a selective blindness to the effect an extremist religious leader has when he's not Muslim.

So no, this is not, as you allege, simply my contempt for the Catholic church. It's the fact that the pope wields enormous power for good or ill in the world--and I think this man's contributions will fall heavily on the side of ill. And no small part of that is due to the sheer divisiveness of his views and his past.

[Slartibartfast]

Baptists use the same Bible as most of the rest of Christianity, DaveC.

[Catsy]

Still, Leviticus prescribes death for engaging in homosexual behavior, which seems to be a bit harsh for "ritually impure".

Seems a bit harsh to me, too, but do keep in mind the contemporary views. Texas may have put in an express lane for death row, but back then it was mass transit. :>

[Macallan]

you and Mac are sure exhibiting a selective blindness to the effect an extremist religious leader has when he's not Muslim.

Exactly what "extreme" position does the new pope hold? You seem to confuse traditional with extreme. For instance, to use your example, Wahhabism was a tiny fringe cult up until the British decided the guys in the Saud tent would win the royalty lottery. Today's Wahhabists are quite extreme in comparison to mainstream Islam of one hundred years ago. Is Pope Benedict Ex Vee One extreme in comparison to mainstream Catholic theology from a hundred years ago? How about in comparison to Vatican II?

[Macallan]

Additionally, what extreme position does he hold that differs from his predecessor?

[Slartibartfast]

If my comments caused some to make up meaning completely disjoint from what I actually said, I'm wondering if Mac's last couple of posts offer more, or less, wiggle-room? Anyone? Bueller?

Always looking to improve the product, me. For extra credit and a discount coupon book, how many of you took Mac's last couple of comments as a recommendation that they should just lie back and enjoy the ride?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"For all the noise that conservatives make about the prominence of divisive extremists in Islam--whose sphere of influence of in East Fumbuckistan pales in comparison to the pope--you and Mac are sure exhibiting a selective blindness to the effect an extremist religious leader has when he's not Muslim."

You are using a disturbing lack of distinction in your uses of the phrase "extremist religious leader" if you are trying to apply them to both the new pope and extremist relgious leaders such as are found in Iran or in the person of Osama bin Laden. So far as I can tell, the new pope is not calling for jihad, is not calling for homosexuals to be stoned, is not calling for teenaged girls whose parents sold them into prostitution to be hanged for unchastity, does not support honor killings, and is not interested in retaking large portions of Europe under the historic claims of the Holy Roman Empire. So far as I can tell, the new pope is going to be very much like the old pope, only less charismatic. Kind of interesting that you accuse me of moral blindness when you are manifestly incapable of making some very elementary moral distinctions. Splinter meet log.

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

SH, the new pope did, however, try to influence directly the american presidential election. Since, the last time I checked, the US military was occupying an Islamic country, and the presidential election involved significant debate on that occupation, you might want to recognize that the pope is meddling not only with american politics but how those politics affect members of other religions.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Meddling? You mean like Chirac or Schroeder? You are being awfully vague. Was he asking that the US topple walls on homosexuals in Islamic countries? Did he ask that we please allow honor killings? Did he want the US to command Muslim women to get veils?

Good heavens, he isn't even trying to arm China. What exactly am I supposed to be acknowledging? Am I supposed to acknowledge that he opposed the US war in Iraq. Acknowledged. And yet that changes absolutely nothing of what I have said in the thread above. I disagree with disagreeable world leaders all the time. What does that have to do with the thread?

[Fitz]

With the exception of Sebastian NO one on this thread has expressed even a cursory understanding of Christian thought much less Catholicism, much less Church Doctrine.
Even the History of our latest Pope has been horribly twisted as has his statements concerning the last election.
I cant even begin to answer all the false understandings presented here.
I don’t say any of this out of pride (i hope)
But I’m reading this, marveling, not knowing were to begin.

[Fitz]

Perhaps Casy's comments regarding homosexuality are a good place to start. (since they directly answer mine)
No serious theologian or student of History would even ATTEMT to justify the notion that homosexuality was not considered a sin from the first days of Judaism/Christianity.
Those denying that contention are usually homosexual apologists or revisionists attempting to create a new mythology on the subject. This is in order to sound authoritative and knowledgeable as if mainstream thought is widely in dispute.
This is a common tactic of propagandists, that hoplessly confuses a subject matter with the attention of making all historical claims seem subjective and arguable.
Perhaps has Casey just been roped into this unknowingly, and is playinfg the perfect Christian foil. Never the less, his examples and approach are well known and can be easily debunked by a simple google search.
This also is true (to a lesser degree concerning historical views on sexuality, chastity, celibacy and the esteem given sex – that have been brought up.
Do your homework people- really it makes for a better discussion.
Its not true - its a lie (that simple)

(I said)
No one EVER said being Black or a women is a sin.
(casey wrote)
This statement is historically ignorant, and prima facie false.

Its hardly false on the face of it. The contention was that backs and women were considered inferior – (but not having “sinned” simply because they were blacks or women)
(as contrasted with homosexual acts, that are considered sinfull)

[DaveC]

With the exception of Sebastian NO one on this thread has expressed even a cursory understanding of Christian thought much less Catholicism, much less Church Doctrine.

I think I have at least a passing understanding of Christian thought, at least in terms of the majority variety of Christianity in the U.S., although it is pretty much at odds with Catholicism, especially with regards to the Commandments numbers 1 and 2.

[Catsy]

No serious theologian or student of History would even ATTEMT to justify the notion that homosexuality was not considered a sin from the first days of Judaism/Christianity.

You are apparently neither, since you continue to display ignorance in the matter. You made a specific, demonstrably false statement about Judaic/Levitical law. I corrected you.

Those denying that contention are usually homosexual apologists or revisionists

Or people with a more accurate grasp of language and a study of the Bible beyond the level of someone who mouths the Psalms and parrots the pastor.

You know, someone who makes an effort to understand what he's talking about.

This is in order to sound authoritative and knowledgeable as if mainstream thought is widely in dispute.

You didn't make a claim about mainstream thought. If you had, my answer would have been that yes, most people who claim to follow the Bible do in fact incorrectly believe that the Old Testament calls homosexuality a sin, that "abomination" is a remotely accurate translation of to'evah, and do display a profound degree of hypocrisy about which Levitical laws they take seriously. They are indeed "mainstream" views. That doesn't make them either right or moral.

No, as I said, you make a specific claim. I refuted it. You are now backpedaling and have spent at least half a dozen of what it pleases you to consider paragraphs calling me a propagandist and apologist without actually trying to refute the facts that I laid out for you.

Never the less, his examples and approach are well known and can be easily debunked by a simple google search.

Then do it. If what I said is that easily debunked, then it should be the work of a minute for you to do so. Specifically, I defy you to demonstrate that my assertions about Leviticus and Judaic law are not supported by a clear reading of the original passage in context.

In other words, put up or shut up. I'm sick of your propensity for spouting unsupported BS to justify your own bigotry.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Specifically, I defy you to demonstrate that my assertions about Leviticus and Judaic law are not supported by a clear reading of the original passage in context."

You weren't defying me, but personally whether or not homosexuality was considered a 'sin' under Mosaic law isn't particularly interesting to me considering that whatever label you used, breaking the restriction was punishable by death.

Now if you want to point out that we don't follow lots of the rules in Leviticus, that would be a different issue....

[NeoDude]

"The pacific tone of Rome in the United States does not imply a change of heart. She is tolerant where she is helpless. Says Bishop O'Connor: 'Religious liberty is merely endured until the opposite can be carried into effect without peril to the Catholic world.' …The archbishop of St. Louis once said: 'Heresy and unbelief are crimes; and in Christian countries, as in Italy and Spain, for instance, where all the people are Catholics, and where the Catholic religion is an essential part of the law of the land, they are punished as other crimes.'

"Every cardinal, archbishop, and bishop in the Catholic Church takes an oath of allegiance to the pope, in which occur the following words: 'Heretics, schismatics, and rebels to our said lord (the pope), or his aforesaid successors, I will to my utmost persecute and oppose.'" -Josiah Strong, Our Country, ch. 5, pars. 2-4.

From:
http://www.inbookseast.org/bookstoreadpage/ap/apchapter35page.html

[Phil]

Did God really destroy an entire city because they were rude to visitors?

Pff. God sent a bear to eat some kids after they made fun of one of his prophets. He drowned everyone in the entire world because he was feeling pissy. He allowed a guy's family to be slaughtered and the same guy to be inflicted with all sorts of maladies just to win a bet. It's not as if he wasn't known for fits of pique.

And why did Lot offer his daughters to the mob?

Why did he have sex with them later? (Or, more accurately, vice-versa?) Doesn't seem to be the most sexually healthy bunch around, IMO.

Sebastian, Ratzinger "meddled" in the last election by specifically ordering US bishops to deny communion to John Kerry. You don't think that's "meddling" in another country's election? OK. Noted.

[NeoDude]

It is an old anti-papist critique, but it is still taught among the orthodox and fundementalist Protestants.

Roman Catholic urges to follow the Pope seem sinful.

Funny thing, those evil "urges".

[Phil]

As an aside, I just want to note my full support for Mac's sudden preference for -- or, at least, indifference to -- expedienct acquiescence over principled opposition. Or if I'm misreading, then I register my amusement that principled opposition is important when one is giving out rubbers and birth control pills, but not necessary when one is thinking about resisting the goddamned Nazis.

[nous_athanatos]

Fitz--This also is true (to a lesser degree concerning historical views on sexuality, chastity, celibacy and the esteem given sex – that have been brought up. Do your homework people- really it makes for a better discussion.
Its not true - its a lie (that simple)

"If 'it is good for a man not to touch a woman,' it is bad to touch one...'because of fornication,' as if one were to say, 'it is good to eat the finest wheat flower,' and yet to prevent a starving man from devouring excrement, I may allow him to also eat barley...the reason why he says 'it is better to marry' is that it is worse to burn...It is as though he said, 'it is better to have one eye than to be totally blind; it is better to stand on one foot and support the body with a cane than to crawl upon broken legs."--(Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum I,7)

I can get you similar examples from Augustine (who I referenced), the Hali Meithad, and many other texts along the same lines. Good to know that not only have I not done my homework and am lying, but the primary sources from the Church fathers are too.

[Edward]

As an aside, I just want to note my full support for Mac's sudden preference for -- or, at least, indifference to -- expedienct acquiescence over principled opposition. Or if I'm misreading, then I register my amusement that principled opposition is important when one is giving out rubbers and birth control pills, but not necessary when one is thinking about resisting the goddamned Nazis.

Uh oh. You in trouble...heh heh.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Ratzinger "meddled" in the last election by specifically ordering US bishops to deny communion to John Kerry. You don't think that's "meddling" in another country's election? OK. Noted."

I didn't say it wasn't meddling, I am suggesting that if meddling is enough to bar someone from becoming a leader, there are others that would be in serious trouble--say Chirac.

Furthermore the dynamic of denying communion to a barely practicing Catholic who embraces 'his' religion when the polls show that Catholic votes are sorely needed is rather interesting. I might argue that Kerry was the one who was turning Mass into a political statement, but frankly I don't care. What bothers me about Islamic scholars is not that they are trying to inject religion into politics, but the content they are trying to inject. Which brings me back to my original point. Your problem isn't with the current pope, your problem is with the ideas that the Catholic Church wants to express. And that is fine, but you don't have to demonize the pope (either the recently dead one or the current one) to note that you prefer easy access abortions.

The funny thing is that I don't even like the church yet it is quite obvious to me how unfair this thread has been.

[Katherine]

"Sebastian, Ratzinger "meddled" in the last election by specifically ordering US bishops to deny communion to John Kerry. "

I'm pretty sure this isn't true. He allowed it, but he didn't require it, told them they should speak about the matter privately with the politician first before making a decision, and he specifically disallowed telling Catholics they could be denied communion for voting for Kerry. He's ridiculous more lenient about rightish interference with politics than leftish--I mean, to plan to fire Oscar Romero, and let Michael Sheridan off without even a reprimand, is absurd. But as far as direct meddling; no. Ratzinger is nobody's patsy. He's much too smart and too ornery.

The highest ranking participant in the election shenanigans was Cardinal Arinze. I'm sure this had NOTHING to do with the RedStaters' devout hopes Arinze would be chosen. Heh.

[Katherine]

"Furthermore the dynamic of denying communion to a barely practicing Catholic who embraces 'his' religion when the polls show that Catholic votes are sorely needed is rather interesting."

Support this or withdraw it please.

[Fitz]

nous
That seems (cursory glance) to be Jerome quoting Paul.
Notice the emphasis on fornication, when he states It is “better to marry than to burn” - Paul was specifically relating to "come and follow me"
This was to his followers - He required all his disciples to be celibate (a consistent church teaching for priests -{teacher)] The interpretation is - Come help me convert everyone to Christianity (it a righteous calling) but you have to be celibate-If you cant handle that, than you should probably get married (its better than ending up fornicating instead & burning)]
(hope that gives you a better Idea of the attitude's , not at all different than today!)

CASY
The Levitical Law
(Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)
Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable [or, 'an abomination'].

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable [or, 'an abomination']. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Traditional Position:

Under Levitical Law, homosexuality was one of many abominable practices punishable by death.

Pro-Gay Argument:

The practices mentioned in these chapters of Leviticus have to do with idolatry, not homosexuality.

The Hebrew word for "abomination," according to Boswell, has less to do with something intrinsically evil and more to do with ritual uncleanness.[80] The Metropolitan Community Church's pamphlet, "Homosexuality: Not A Sin, Not A Sickness," makes the same point:

The (Hebrew word for abomination) found in Leviticus is usually associated with idolatry.[81]

Gay author Roger Biery agrees, associating the type of homosexuality forbidden in Leviticus with idolatrous practices. Pro-gay authors refer to the heathen rituals of the Canaanites-rituals including both homosexual and heterosexual prostitution-as reasons God prohibited homosexuality among His people. They contend homosexuality itself was not the problem, but it is association with idolatry and, at times, the way it was practiced as a part of idol worship. In other words, God was not prohibiting the kind of homosexuality we see today; He forbade the sort which incorporated idolatry.

Response #1:

The prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus 18 and 20 appear alongside other sexual sins-adultery and incest, for example-which are forbidden in both Old and New Testaments, completely apart from the Levitical codes. Scriptural references to these sexual practices, both before and after Leviticus, show God's displeasure with them whether or not any ceremony or idolatry is involved.

Response #2:

Despite the UFMCC's contention that the word for abomination (toevah) is usually associated with idolatry, it in fact appears in Proverbs 6:16-19 in connection with sins having nothing to do with idolatry or pagan ceremony:

There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable [an abomination or toevah] to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Idolatry plays no part in these scriptures; clearly, then, toevah is not limited to idolatrous practices.

Response #3:

If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned only because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No serious reader of these passages could accept such a premise.
From http://www.narth.com/docs/dallas.html
or
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/adf_resources/default.aspx?mid=750&cid=3212

[Phil]

Sebastian, I have to ask honestly, do you even pay attention long enough to know who you're arguing with anymore? Because when you respond to my very first post in a thread with, "Which brings me back to my original point. Your problem isn't with the current pope, your problem is with the ideas that the Catholic Church wants to express," I have to imagine you don't. I didn't express any opinion on popes current or former, or the Catholic Church; other people did. I noted that the new pope tried directly to affect US election results. That's it. Take up your other point, such as it is, with the people who are affected by it.

[Fitz]

PHIL
The current Pope never tried to "influence an election"
What he did was clairify that Catholic politicians who openly support abortion CAN be denied communion IF their (A) Bishop were they are recieving it thinks its prudent
(B) Has communicated the Church teachings to the Catholic politician - giving him a chance to repent, or seek forgivness..ect.

[Macallan]

As an aside, I just want to note my full support for Mac's sudden preference for -- or, at least, indifference to -- expedienct acquiescence over principled opposition. Or if I'm misreading, then I register my amusement that principled opposition is important when one is giving out rubbers and birth control pills, but not necessary when one is thinking about resisting the goddamned Nazis.

That you find this perplexing, or even remotely analogous is of little surprise.

[Katherine]

An alternate take on the passage from Leviticus, from an Orthodox rabbi no less.

I assume he's unusually liberal for an orthodox rabbi. Nevertheless I would trust his understanding of Hebrew & interpretation of the Torah over those of the Alliance Defense Fund and NARTH.

[Fitz]

Its Orthodox or Reform Rabbis'
An orthodox rabbi can be more liberal in interpretation than a Reform raddi. (they both have liberal & conservative branches)
Its like Catholic & Protestant.

[nous_athanatos]

Fitz--(hope that gives you a better Idea of the attitude's , not at all different than today!)

Yes, that is a modern interpretation of the passage which Jerome cites. What it is not is any sort of engagement with what Jerome is actually arguing. If you were to actually read Jerome, you would see that these biblical quotations are used entirely divorced from their original context--a practice not limited to Jerome, but common to most of the early Church fathers. In fact, you won't see much quoting with context until the start of the scholastic movement (about 100 years before Lateran IV, interestingly enough).

What Jerome is saying (rather than what Paul was saying) is that marriage is to celibacy as being blind in one eye is to being fully sighted. Not exactly the most glowing endorsement of marriage.

A bit more involved than, 'Paul said x-we believe that he meant 'this' by x - Jerome mentions x- therefore Jerome must have meant 'this' as well.

[Fitz]

Nous
Jerome was a monk right, he seems to be arguing for the superiority of his chosen way of life. Just as Paul did. To this day a Catholic Priest will tell you that his vow of Chastity makes him a better Christian. (and I would agree)
But that’s not to say that he thinks sex is unlawful or wrong for married couples.
(how would we get babies to Babtize)

[Fitz]

Here's more on Orthodox Jewish Rabbi's interpretations od Torah (and from a friendly source)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_jortho.htm

[Phil]

I'm glad to be a beacon of consistency for you, Mac.

[crionna]

Its like Catholic & Protestant.

Wait, you see the difference between Protestants and Catholics as a difference in the libearality with which they view the scriptures?

[Slartibartfast]

Which of the two is supposed to be liberal? Catholic religiosity is largely fiction, compared with some brands of Protestantism.

[kenB]

I think fitz was saying that there are liberal and conservatives within both Orthodox and Reformed Judaism, and the relationship between them is similar to that between Catholicism and Protestantism.

[nous_athanatos]

FItz--Jerome was a monk right, he seems to be arguing for the superiority of his chosen way of life.

Well, no, he was not part of any monastic order, so not a monk. That (monasticism) came much later. He was, however, typical of the ascetics of his time. He believed, as did most Christians up to Augustine, that there was no need to make any babies to be baptized because Jesus was coming back Any Minute Now. It was not until Augustine that theologians began thinking about a Christianity built for the long haul rather that for a world about to end.

[Dantheman]

"I think fitz was saying that there are liberal and conservatives within both Orthodox and Reformed Judaism, and the relationship between them is similar to that between Catholicism and Protestantism."

Much as it pains me to say so, fitz is right about one thing. The branch of Judaism which is least literal about scripture is Reform, not Reformed.

[kenB]

Oops, pardon my ignorance. Actually it didn't seem quite right when I typed it, but I didn't bother to double-check.

[Katherine]

Isn't it actually Reconstructionist?

Reform Judaism is like Protestantism in the emphasis on the individual conscience & relationship with God.

But overall Judaism, in all its forms, is much, much, much more like Catholicism than Protestantism. And reform Judaism is becoming more concerned with the ritual mitzvot as the years pass.

Here is the list of 613 commandments by the way.

They are all over the place in every way imaginable.

I don't know how the Orthodox deal with the more morally problematic ones, i.e. "to keep the Canaanite slave forever", the six death sentences, "that the violator (of an unbetrothed virgin) shall marry her" (not such a good deal for the virgin), "to slay the inhabitants of a city that has become idolatrous and burn that city", "Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations", "To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel", etc.

I guess the notable lack of Canaanites these days helps, but it seems like the open advocacy of slavery and genocide would seem to indicate that you don't necessarily want to read and follow all of these literally.

[hilzoy]

Katherine: you do know that there are still Philistines, right? (One of my favorite ever discoveries.)

[Anarch]

Computer woes, so this will be brief:

A cite of where I lambasted anyone with specious allegations?

Look upthread:

No you didn't label him a Nazi, but apparently you want to pander to those who would.

I could probably shag two or three more from other currently active threads but it's not worth it; a cite was asked for, and a cite has been provided.

[BTW, I suppose you could attempt to claim that this wasn't lambasting or the allegation wasn't specious. But you would be wrong.]

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Because when you respond to my very first post in a thread with, "Which brings me back to my original point. Your problem isn't with the current pope, your problem is with the ideas that the Catholic Church wants to express," I have to imagine you don't. I didn't express any opinion on popes current or former, or the Catholic Church; other people did. I noted that the new pope tried directly to affect US election results.

You were making an objection to a thread of thought well in progress by the time you got to it. When I say "which brings me back to my original point" I am refering to my original point in the discussion. The fact that you were not the original adressee is not relevant to my original point. If you don't think it is relevant, fine. But I bring it to your attention because it seemed as if you didn't understand my point (which admittedly was far up the thread from what you quoted.)

[Jesurgislac]

Sebastian: I might argue that Kerry was the one who was turning Mass into a political statement, but frankly I don't care.

How was Kerry "turning Mass into a political statement"?

Phil: As an aside, I just want to note my full support for Mac's sudden preference for -- or, at least, indifference to -- expedienct acquiescence over principled opposition. Or if I'm misreading, then I register my amusement that principled opposition is important when one is giving out rubbers and birth control pills, but not necessary when one is thinking about resisting the goddamned Nazis.

Macallan's support for pharmacists who prefer forcing their religious beliefs on others to doing their jobs really is not in conflict with his support for Ratzinger joining the Nazis and guarding slaves from Dachau working at BMW: he is supporting the idea that people should be forced, against their will, to follow principles that others have determined for them.

[Slartibartfast]

That was way out of line, Jesurgislac. I think a retraction is in order. I know making up positions for others and then giving them a hard smack is irresistable to you, but this crosses the line.

[NeoDude]

How else are godless liberals to act?

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Jesurgislac, you are temporarily banned. The Nazi comment to Macallan is way out of line. Please see the posting rules.

[Macallan]

[BTW, I suppose you could attempt to claim that this wasn't lambasting or the allegation wasn't specious. But you would be wrong.]

I doubt it. Look at his response; he continued to argue why he felt it was important to appeal to those who will mischaracterize the pope as a Nazi.

Look, I understand it is embarrassing to be caught in obvious factual errors, particularly slanderous ones, but that's no excuse to turn it into an attack on the person who points it out.

[votermom]

Fer crying out loud. Even Ratzinger acknowledges he was a Nazi. A junor Nazi. That's what being a Hitler Youth is. Unwilling, maybe, but he was on the list. Obviously, not all Nazis were as bad as others. Ditto Baathists or whatever. Lots of regular folks are forced or coerced into positions they would not volunteer for. Good for him for getting out when he did. Much better if he had found a way to get out earlier, or never join in the first place. But that's between him, his confessor, and God.
To quote Ursula, the sea witch "Life is full of tough choices, baby."

What's potentially scary about Ratzinger is that he, of all people, who saw first hand what blind faith and orthodoxy (to the Fuhrer) could be used for, does not encourage the free debate of theology within the church. Or maybe that was just him being Inquisitor, and as Pope we'll see his more open side.

[Macallan]

To quote Ursula, the sea witch "Life is full of tough choices, baby."

Baby is perhaps more an apropos term here than you meant it.

The Nazis came to power in 1933 IIRC, which would make Ratzinger 6 years old. Please tell me at exactly what point a small boy is supposed to make that tough choice? Should he have stormed the barricades at 6? How 'bout 7? Is he ready to stand up and get shot like a man at 8? At exactly what age is someone supposed to, as a matter of conscience, be dragged off to prison or get shot by the dictatorial regime that has dominated the only life he's ever known? At what age is he demanded to risk not only his life, but also his parent's and his brother's?

I look forward to all you armchair freedom fighters educating me on this matter.

[Edward]

FWIW, I think that as much as it horrifies many people (and those on the other side really need to acknowledge the validity of that) to think that the Pope was once, for whatever reason, a Nazi, he was a boy at the time.

We make a distinction between the actions of children and adults for very good reasons, including autonomy, maturity, and realistic alternatives. I know I'd not want the mistakes of my youth to haunt me forever.

There are plenty of issues on which to criticize Ratzinger without suggesting that remnants of the evil of Nazi Germany will guide his actions as Pope, which at this point is the only real reason to object to his involvement as a child.

[Phil]

Holy crap, now Macallan subscribes to the chickenhawk meme. ("armchair freedom fighters") Did I wake up on Mars? That's a critique that I know for a fact you, as a supporter of the Iraq war, would never accept, but you suddenly feel comfortable jumping on a high horse busting it out against people talking about resisting the Nazis? Holy effing crap.

Sorry, but I had too many relatives die in Nazi gas chambers and slave labor camps to be terribly forgiving towards so-called "good Germans" during the war years. I would certainly expect a 15- or 16-year-old budding seminarian(!!!!!) to understand the difference between right and wrong, and to not place a high value on going along to get along. And I would definitely, definitely expect a person of any serious moral sensibility whatsoever to not devalue and shit on the memories of brave resistance fighters across Europe by telling people that resistance was futile.

I also seem to recall some figure central to Catholic theology making remarks about there being no greater love than a man laying down his life for another, and other such folderol.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I think you're being a little harsh on votermom here, Mac.

Her main point seems to be that Ratzinger saw, up close, the possible consequences of rigid and unquestioning adherence to ideology, and she is dismayed that this seems not to have influenced his thinking.

Seems sensible to me.

[Slartibartfast]

On the other hand, this is the Catholic Church we're talking about. Since when has open theological debate been invited in that camp? You know, questions like "Just where did this purgatory idea come from, anyway?" or "You know, I just read the Bible for the 23rd time and I STILL can't find a reference to a Pope, never mind papal infallibility".

[Catsy]

I look forward to all you armchair freedom fighters educating me on this matter.

Coming from a charter member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders, this is not only blatantly disingenuous, but simultaneously the funniest thing I've read all day.

There are plenty of issues on which to criticize Ratzinger without suggesting that remnants of the evil of Nazi Germany will guide his actions as Pope, which at this point is the only real reason to object to his involvement as a child.

I'm more or less on board with that, Edward. But aside from my pragmatic objections to the wisdom of poping Ratzinger, what bothers me about his youth as a Nazi is that his attitudes as pope seem very informed by this juvenile past of which we're supposed to absolve him. Even as Catholic leaders go, he's unusually authoritarian and intolerant towards difference and dissent. Is this from his religious beliefs, a product of the environment in which he grew up, or a result of the areas of overlap between the two? We don't know, and certainly don't know enough to go calling him a Nazi, but we /can/ look at his track record, his public statements, and say reasonably that he doesn't seem to have learned from the horrors of his youth.

[Macallan]

Her main point seems to be that Ratzinger saw, up close, the possible consequences of rigid and unquestioning adherence to ideology, and she is dismayed that this seems not to have influenced his thinking.

No offense (really), but are you kidding me? I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that the only people ever considered for pope had "rigid and unquestioning adherence" to what they deem a universal truth. It's sort of the GED minimum qualification I imagine. If you're not rigid and unquestioning of Catholicism, I doubt you're a cardinal let alone a candidate for pope.

Now, if you or she means, that living up close under a murderous fascist tyranny would influence his thinking, he's apparently stated many times that it does influence his thinking.

[Katherine]

Jeanne d'Arc at Body & Soul made an interesting comparison: there are plenty of 14 year olds Ratzinger is perfectly willing to say must risk their lives to avoid complicity in evil & mortal sin. And "the fetus will certainly die anyway" is not considered any sort of excuse.

[Edward]

yikes...Jeanne D'Arc hits one out of the park

[Katherine]

I think that what's disturbing is not that Benedict XVI learned to like totalitarianism, but that he didn't learn to distrust it. I know he thinks he learned, but I think his actions say otherwise. Contrast him & Haring.

I'll make one comparison to Mac & the Catholic Church: his tolerance and compassion & demand for understanding of the hard choices that other human beings must make, depends almost entirely on whether he sees them as similar to him or not. If you're in the club any excuse will do. If you're not, no excuse will do.

[Macallan]

I'll make one comparison to Mac & the Catholic Church: his tolerance and compassion & demand for understanding of the hard choices that other human beings must make, depends almost entirely on whether he sees them as similar to him or not. If you're in the club any excuse will do. If you're not, no excuse will do.

Excuse me? Project much?

[votermom]

Since when has open theological debate been invited in that camp?

*grin* You're so right, Slarti. Still, one would think, specially after JPII actually apologized about the whole Galileo thingie, that they'd be a tad more -- I don't know -- laid back or something. Oh well.

I'm still hoping that the person that is Pope Benedict XVI is slightly different from Cardinal Ratzinger. Less focus on the ideological purging and more on the ethical/moral purging would be a good start.

[Slartibartfast]

specially after JPII actually apologized about the whole Galileo thingie

To be an utter dweeb, now you've calibrated the settling time between commission and admission of error: nearly four centuries.

[votermom]

If you're not rigid and unquestioning of Catholicism, I doubt you're a cardinal let alone a candidate for pope.

Recent counter examples: John XXIII, John Paul I.

And technically you don't have to be a Cardinal, or even a priest, or even a Catholic, to be elected Pope. You just have to be a man. Whoever the Holy Spirit tells them to pick.

Now, if you or she means, that living up close under a murderous fascist tyranny would influence his thinking, he's apparently stated many times that it does influence his thinking.

I think it influences him is ways he does not really see, you know.

[Macallan]

I think it influences him is ways he does not really see, you know.

Fair point, though I imagine that is true of all us.

[Slartibartfast]

Whoever the Holy Spirit tells them to pick.

Shah. As if.

And I say that with all due respect, etc to the religious beliefs of Catholics (which is something I share with Katherine: I was born a Catholic, and no longer am one), but the probability of someone outside the priesthood being elected pope is pretty remote.

There hasn't been a non-cardinal elected pope for over six hundred years, I think.

[votermom]

That's just 2 hundred years more than the Galileo thingie. Practically last week, in Vatican years. ;P

[NeoDude]

Slartibartfast and Katherine,

You are both, still Roman Catholic. Bad Roman Catholics, but you are still considered members until you ask to be struck of those baptism roles.

I wish the federal government would audit ALL churches roles and then we can see how mnany folks are members of multiple churches.

It's a tax thang.

[Macallan]

I'll make one comparison to Mac & the Catholic Church: his tolerance and compassion & demand for understanding of the hard choices that other human beings must make, depends almost entirely on whether he sees them as similar to him or not. If you're in the club any excuse will do. If you're not, no excuse will do.

BTW, just so I'm clear Katherine I find that statement incredibly offensive and expect an apology.

[Catsy]

BTW, just so I'm clear Katherine I find that statement incredibly offensive and expect an apology.

I'd say it's pretty solidly supported by the body of evidence that is your accumulated written words. Of particular note is the embarassing contrast between things I've seen you write about the responsibility of Iraqis to rise against Saddam or Muslims to combat extremists in their community, and the litany of excuses you've offered for why Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler youth.

[Edward]

Catsy, please let Mac and Katherine work this out. They've known each other for quite some time, in blog years, anyway.

[Anarch]

Look, I understand it is embarrassing to be caught in obvious factual errors, particularly slanderous ones, but that's no excuse to turn it into an attack on the person who points it out.

And yet you continue to do so. Funny, that.

[crionna]

I'm still hoping that the person that is Pope Benedict XVI is slightly different from Cardinal Ratzinger.

Don't hope, expect. IMHO, he had a role to play with JPII. I'd bet that he's looking forward to playing some of JPII's role and getting someone else to do his old job. I'd be interested to see just how liberal that fella is and if the role changes him or he changes the role...

[Anarch]

Having finally been able to attend to matters of fact, I need to modify my construction above: Ratzinger was not "a guard" at a prison plant where slaves from Dachau were working; he was, as Jes correctly noted, "enrolled in a military unit protecting a BMW plant where slaves from Dachau worked." [Ratzinger's knowledge of the factory workers is unknown AFAIK; I've read too many conflicting sources of late to feel confident one way or the other.] I had thought I had read somewhere that military units were frequently conscripted into prison guard duty -- Ordinary Men has a chapter on one such assignment, for example -- but this does not appear to apply here.

[Macallan]

Catsy,

When you need to make things up to make your point, chances are you don't have one.

[Phil]

And just to back up what I said in my post above, here is Macallan from a Tacitus comment:

Like most fools who attempt the chickenhawk canard they ignore that this formulation equally excludes them from making any comment on matters of war.

I'll wait eagerly for Macallan's explanation of how his own glorious freedom-fighting past entitles him to exercise this chickenhawk variant on others, or alternately on how his formulation above does not also preclude him from having an opinion on the matter of Ratzinger's decisions during the war.

[Bernard Yomtov]

No offense (really), but are you kidding me? I'm not Catholic, but I would assume that the only people ever considered for pope had "rigid and unquestioning adherence" to what they deem a universal truth. It's sort of the GED minimum qualification I imagine. If you're not rigid and unquestioning of Catholicism, I doubt you're a cardinal let alone a candidate for pope.

No, I'm not kidding. My understanding of Catholicism is limited, so I welcome (well, not really welcome, but accept) correction. But as I understand it there are certain beliefs that are the core, the foundation of what it means to be a Roman Catholic. There are others that, while promulgated by the Vatican, and most members of the hierarchy, are not quite so essential to the faith, and the degree of their importance varies quite a bit. There further seem to be matters on which theologians actually dispute Catholic orthodoxy. So my point is not that Benedict ought to be encouraging debates about the Resurrection, but that on other matters, where there is some room for differences of opinion, he ought to be more open to dissenting views, and to be willing to reconsider the wisdom of church doctrine.

Sorry for the vagueness, but I'm not sure where these lines are, though I feel confident they exist.

After all, as votermom points out, one of the most celebrated Popes of our time, John XXIII, was plainly unafraid of change, of rethinking orthodoxy.

[Macallan]

I'll wait eagerly for Macallan's explanation of how his own glorious freedom-fighting past entitles him to exercise this chickenhawk variant on others, or alternately on how his formulation above does not also preclude him from having an opinion on the matter of Ratzinger's decisions during the war.

Reading is fundamental. Opposite to your silly chickenhawk squack, I didn't say any of you Armchair Freedom Fighters couldn't comment or advocate a position. Quite the contrary, I specifically asked you to comment and advocate a position.

[Macallan]

Sorry for the vagueness, but I'm not sure where these lines are, though I feel confident they exist.

No need to apologize, I'm no theologian, let alone a Catholic one, so I'm sure your correct at some level.

After all, as votermom points out, one of the most celebrated Popes of our time, John XXIII, was plainly unafraid of change, of rethinking orthodoxy.

Which is ironic, given that I've been led to believe that he was elected as a caretaker pope and surprised the heck of the College of Cardinals.

[Phil]

Well, no, what you did was use a rhetorical flourish -- a variant of the "chickenhawk"/"101st Fighting Keyboarders" slur -- to insinuate that people were out of line for discussing what Ratzinger should and shouldn't have done if they had never been in his shoes. You can delude yourself into thinking that your words don't have implications if you'd like, but the context was pretty clear. I'd better not even hear you so much as squeak the next time somebody refers to armchair warrior bloggers. (A formulation that I have spoken out against when used against pro-war bloggers, just as I am opposing your use of it here, in case you were thinking of accusing me of inconsistency.)

"Armchair freedom fighters." Jesus.

(Me, I like to think I would have resisted the Nazis, but since my father was Jewish, I would have most likely been dead or sent to a camp before I ever had the chance.)

[Macallan]

You can delude yourself into thinking that your words don't have implications if you'd like, but the context was pretty clear. I'd better not even hear you so much as squeak the next time somebody refers to armchair warrior bloggers.

Actually the delusion might be your own… or perhaps it's mine, let's see. Phil why don't you step down from Attack Mac mode for a second and see if you can see where you're straining for an analogy that simply doesn't fit. The Chickenhawk formulation isn't analogous because we aren't talking about debating a policy; people are criticizing someone's specific actions. For the Chickenhawk squawk to be analogous, it would have to be used in situations where someone who hadn't served was critical of a specific soldier's action. I've never actually heard it used in that context, it's only been used in the 'you've never served so you can't advocate sending young men to die' context.

I don’t know about you, but I think in a scenario of someone being critical of a soldier's actions there is some validity in a Chickenhawk like question, particularly if the complaint was that the soldier failed to perform bravely or above the call. I think it would be fair and reasonable for someone to say something like, 'Do you know what it's like to be in combat with live bullets and mortars being fired at you? Why do you think you're qualified to judge what a soldier should and shouldn't do in that situation?'

Do you think a question like that is reasonable?

[Phil]

If people were limited to discussing only the rightness or wrongness, appropriateness or inappropriateness, morality or immorality, of activities to which they themselves had once been participants in, then nobody could ever discuss much of anything. (And hilzoy would be out of a job.)

So, no, I don't think it is a particularly reasonable question; it's intent appears, generally, to be a bludgeon used to prevent people from applying their own moral judgement to a situation the bludgeoner approves of.

[Catsy]

When you need to make things up to make your point, chances are you don't have one.

Then it's nice to know you'll be there to point it out when an occasion arises where I actually have. That not being the case, however, I stand by my statement.

[Macallan]

If people were limited to discussing only the rightness or wrongness, appropriateness or inappropriateness, morality or immorality, of activities to which they themselves had once been participants in, then nobody could ever discuss much of anything.

Again, nobody has been limited or "bludgeoned" into not discussing or offering their views. Quite the contrary, I want to know from everyone who is condemning the young Ratzinger's actions a specific gauge of what age we should hold a Nazi era German accountable to his or her standard of moral conduct.

[Phil]

More to the point, Mac, ask yourself this: Would you have considered even for a single second referring to someone who unequivocally approved of Ratzinger's war-era decisionmaking as an "armchair freedom fighter?" If not, then you've essentially answered your question, and made my point about bludgeons and rhetorical flourishes, all on your own.

[Macallan]

I'm sure that makes sense to you Phil, but it doesn't make any to me.

[Phil]

Quite the contrary, I want to know from everyone who is condemning the young Ratzinger's actions a specific gauge of what age we should hold a Nazi era German accountable to his or her standard of moral conduct.

But you don't want the same information from someone who approves of young Ratzinger's actions, which, again, I believe proves my point. You only request this alleged clarification from, and belittle as "armchair freedom fighters," people who think he did the wrong thing. Why aren't people who sit here 70 years down the road and yet approve of his actions as much "armchair freedom fighters" as those who condemn him? They weren't there either, after all.

[Phil]

(Hit "Post" too quickly.) I mean, on what basis are you able to make excuses for his actions, or rationalize them? You weren't there, you don't know what it was like.

[Macallan]

I mean, on what basis are you able to make excuses for his actions, or rationalize them?

Perhaps because I'm not? All I have been attempting to do is thwart spurious charges that so far no facts brought forth support. I'm not Catholic, don't particularly support him or even know enough to have a considered opinion on his suitability as a pope or human being. I do know that, based on what has been reported, it is unfair to label him a Nazi or to make blanket assertions about what he should have done. Pretty simple really.

[liberal japonicus]

Mac
You know, I wish someone who you might consider to be more on your side would have made this observation, but since no one has...

You seem to be engaged in this (especially noting your comment about not being a Catholic and not being particularly supportive of the new pope) primarily as an exercise in chain-pulling. I would suggest that this is the same dynamic that occurred in the pharmacist thread. I don't want to accuse you of arguing for a position that you don't really hold (that would be calling you a liar), but if you think there is some clear age before which people are not held accountable for their actions, why don't you argue the fact? If you don't think that there is a bright line, then you are acknowledging that the distinction is not as clear as your arguments claim it is.

[Slartibartfast]

Bad Roman Catholics, but you are still considered members until you ask to be struck of those baptism roles.

Considered members by the Catholic Church. The Lutheran church I am a currently a member of doesn't consider me a Catholic, I assure you. Nor do I. So of the three parties, only the one in whose opinion I'm not interested in the least thinks I'm a Catholic. I can live with that.

It does neatly explain the "billion Catholics" meme rather well, though: if anyone and everyone ever baptised by a Catholic priest is a Catholic, well, it makes the numbers better, doesn't it?

[Anarch]

Considered members by the Catholic Church. The Lutheran church I am a currently a member of doesn't consider me a Catholic, I assure you. Nor do I. So of the three parties, only the one in whose opinion I'm not interested in the least thinks I'm a Catholic. I can live with that.

This dovetails nicely with the question of religious imperatives operating on -- and that pun is most definitely intended -- Terri Schiavo.

[kenB]

if anyone and everyone ever baptised by a Catholic priest is a Catholic,

Well, according to Monty Python, you're a Catholic the moment Dad came...

[Macallan]

You seem to be engaged in this (especially noting your comment about not being a Catholic and not being particularly supportive of the new pope) primarily as an exercise in chain-pulling.

Defending someone from unfairly being called a Nazi is an exercise in chain-pulling?

I would suggest that this is the same dynamic that occurred in the pharmacist thread.

Arguing the importance of the 1st amendment is an exercise in chain-pulling?

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

Armchair freedom fighters:

this, again? Mac, perhaps prof. hilzoy can educate us on the ethical duty to resist evil.

The point, at least for this athiest, is simply this: Couldn't the Church have picked someone who showed a little more fortitude in the face of evil? Isn't self-sacrifice in the face of evil PRECISELY the core message of Christianity? If the Church is trying to persuade me that it's truly lost its way, it could hardly have picked a more perfect symbol that the elevation of Ratzinger, someone who failed that test.

On AFFs generally: the point of the slur is Not that those who haven't fought can't comment. The point of the slur is that combat is so uniquely awful that those who have actively avoided it, or refuse to volunteer, should have less credibility than veterans when calling for war.

It's frequently referred to as cowardice, though I think that's not quite right, especially given an all-volunteer army.

For me, it's more a breach of the social contract. Those who call out for fellow Americans to bear a heavy burden should, as citizens, be willing to bear that burden themselves. Even if Jonah G. can't be taught to fire a weapon, I bet he could learn to drive a truck.

Put simply, there something ugly about saying: "Let's you and him fight."

[Slartibartfast]

The point of the slur is that combat is so uniquely awful that those who have actively avoided it, or refuse to volunteer, should have less credibility than veterans when calling for war.

Given that this whole argument pivots on should, I'm unconvinced. Don't should me, man.

[liberal japonicus]

You seem to be engaged in this (especially noting your comment about not being a Catholic and not being particularly supportive of the new pope) primarily as an exercise in chain-pulling.

Defending someone from unfairly being called a Nazi is an exercise in chain-pulling?

Sorry, let me rephrase

You seem to continue to engage in this... For proof, I would submit the number of comments and the fact that a cursory count shows about 10% are yours. (but my math is rotten, so I may be wrong) I suspect similar numbers would be gleaned from the pharmacist thread. I say this as someone who doesn't particularly feel comfortable with the judging of a person retrospectively or the name calling involved.

[Anarch]

Given that this whole argument pivots on should, I'm unconvinced. Don't should me, man.

*shoulds you*

[Francis / Brother Rail Gun of Reasoned Discourse]

Slarti: i dunno, seems to me you deserve a cold shoulder. [aaahhh, that felt goooood.]

IANAE [i am not an ethicist], but aren't all moral arguments based on "should"? Is the best argument (returning to an old Volokh post) against torturing someone to death a moral one (we shouldn't do that) or a consequential one (we'll turn into a society of sociopaths)? any competent ethicist want to join in?

mac, your unresolved problems re pharmacy, to me, were your refusal to recognize the establishment clause problem, and your refusal to recognize that any functioning society must be able to require that people comply with laws of general applicability even if compliance violates their religious beliefs. (Church of 1% Taxation, anyone?)