Once a Nazi, Always a Nazi?

by Edward

Now I feel foolish. I had stood up to the folks, many of them liberals, who criticized the new Pope when he was installed. I openly insisted they not call him "Pope Rat" and asked them to appreciate that although he had been a member of the Nazi party as a youth that the circumstances deserve our consideration. I argued that he deserved to be treated with the respect his current position demands of all people. He's the leader of a major religion, and his followers deserve that we treat him with respect as well.

Like I note here, though, now I feel foolish. It appears Ratzinger may have learned a few tricks in his younger days that have stuck with him.

Investigators appointed by the Vatican have been instructed to review each of the 229 Roman Catholic seminaries in the United States for "evidence of homosexuality" and for faculty members who dissent from church teaching, according to a document prepared to guide the process.

The Vatican document, given to The New York Times yesterday by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

In a possible indication of the ruling's contents, the American archbishop who is supervising the seminary review said last week that "anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity or has strong homosexual inclinations," should not be admitted to a seminary.

The Church is defending this effort to "purify" itself as a response to the child abuse scandals that have plagued it of late. They point to a study (one they commissioned, mind you) that found about 80 percent of the young people victimized by priests were boys. Others have noted, however, that perhaps "a disproportionate percentage of boys may have been abused because priests were more likely to have access to male targets - like altar boys or junior seminarians - than to girls." Either way, the Church knows full well that homosexuality and child abuse are not synonymous, so this rationale is as illogical as it is vile.

More than a false premise, however, the Pope's actions are very likely to make the Church less open and thereby less compassionate:

The Rev. Thomas J. Reese, a sociologist who resigned in May as editor of the Jesuit magazine America under pressure from the Vatican, said that with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians.

"You could have somebody who's been in the seminary for five or six years and is planning to be ordained and the rector knows they're a homosexual," said Father Reese, now a visiting scholar at Santa Clara University in California. "What are they going to do, throw them out?

"It's much healthier if a seminarian can talk about their sexuality with a spiritual director, but this kind of policy is going to force it all underground."

According to the NYT article cited above, the estimates of how many current priests are gay range from 10 to 60 percent. Purging them from the priesthood means the Church will need to increase its already ineffective efforts to recruit. The types of men who, knowing how intolerant the Church is leaning, will still then sign up, promises to make the institution that much less human.

Now, I know full well the posting rules prohibit calling someone a Nazi outright, unless they truly are a Nazi, and I know Ratzinger denounced the Nazi party and has been a man of God much longer than he was a Hitler Youth, but if he continues down this path of scapegoating and "purification," I will not hesitate to call him what it looks very much like in his heart he may still be.

Comments

[Gary Farber]

Entirely sympathetic to your views, which I am otherwise in agreement with, it seems to me that in this case, ringing in Nazis is entirely gratuitous. He's not a Nazi, and he's not acting like a Nazi, and saying otherwise doesn't make it so. But it's wildly untrue. He has no SS slaughtering people. He has no concentration camps. He has no death camps. He has no state control of industry. And so on and so forth. One might as well call him a Martian, with equal connection and validity.

What he is is anti-homosexual (homophobic, if one prefers). And doubtless other labels can be fairly applied to various aspects of his Papacy. Why not simply denounce him for his wrongs, rather than calling him a Martian or Communist or Nazi or KKKer or member of Falun Gong or other apparently random epithet?

[Edward_]

He's not a Nazi, and he's not acting like a Nazi, and saying otherwise doesn't make it so.

Wrong. He is systematically seeking out and purging one class of people as a means to promote his right-wing agenda. You can call it anything else you like, but for me it was one of the defining markers of Nazism.

[Frank]

Gary- Devils Advocate here: There was a time in germany's history when the National Socialist party existed before it had done any of those things. Does that mean they weren't Nazis yet? Similarly Pope Ratzinger says that he has renounced his Nazi past, but his actions suggest he hasn't regected (at least) some of his Nazi views.

Im sure you denounce Republicans when they comment on Senator Byrds past ties to the KKK, but I would think they were germain if Senator Byrd were fighting against civil rights or making comments about the survivors of hurricane Katrina needing to show more personal responsibility.

[wilfred]

I wouldn't call Pope Rat a 'man of God' just because he wears that costume and heads the church. Neither would I call many who have held his position 'men of God'. I was born and raised Catholic and have worked hard to try and see the institution realistically and much of it isn't pretty at all. Here is yet another example. The best I can hope from Pope Rat is that he might, just might speak out about African Catholics killing their gay brothers and sisters, and only that if we're lucky.

[liberal japonicus]

Glad to see you back, sorry that it is a story like this that occasions your return.

There's a few things to note. The first is that a foundation underlying this is denial. Doesn't make it right, but it should be noted. It would be difficult to say that Nazis persecuted the Jews out of denial, (I think), which makes me wonder if the title/theme obscures rather than clarifies. I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

The second is that this seems to be directed at the US alone. I recall discussion immediately after Ratzinger became pope that if there were a target demographic for the Church, it would not be in the US and Western Europe, but 2nd and third world countries. This seems to underline the truth of those observations. Also, note the presence of pushback

The Vatican document, given to The New York Times yesterday by a priest, surfaces as Catholics await a Vatican ruling on whether homosexuals should be barred from the priesthood.

[hilzoy]

I look forward to their purge of the proud, the covetous, the slothful, and the angry. And then to their closing all the seminaries and folding up the priesthood for lack of sinless candidates.

(Obvious note: the assumption that homosexuality is a sin is theirs, not mine; just noting the double standards.)

[Katherine]

I understand the anger. This made me so furious. I actually wrote to the Catholic Church and asked them to destroy my baptismal record and no longer count me as a member last spring. But if I hadn't done it already I would do it now.

But, as Gary pointed out, it's not accurate. And you're liable to spark a discussion over the epithet rather than the content of what you're saying and the Church is doing.

Here's a little thought experiment for people here:

1) Do you believe homosexual orientation is immutable?
2) Can you explain how a loving, committed gay relationship between consenting adults harms any other person?
3) Given the evidence that orientation is immutable and harms no person not involved, is it legitimate to forbid homosexual behavior? Do you believe that the person you spend your life with and form a romantic and sexual relationship with is as fundamental to one's identity as your religion? Would it be more any more legitimate for the government to force you to divorce your wife than to renounce your faith?
4) Are the following two statements from Thomas Jefferson about religion equally true of homosexuality when one makes the appropriate substitutions?

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

I assume it is quite obvious to everyone how I answer those questions.

This is why, when I hear a hateful statement about gays (or "radical homosexual activists" or "sodomites" or what have you), I mentally substitute the word "Jews" in my head, and ask what I would think of the speaker if he had said that.

Of course the Catholic Church doesn't allow Jews to become priests for obvious reasons, so the analogy doesn't work perfectly in this case. But there's quite a parallel in the statements about gay parents raising children. Benedict XVI wrote this back when he was Cardinal Ratzinger:

Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Compare that to this:

The Vatican instructed the Catholic church in France not to return Jewish children to their families after the Holocaust, according to a letter dated November 20, 1946, that was published Tuesday in the Italian daily Corriere della Sera.

The letter containing these instructions was sent by the Holy Office to Angelo Roncalli - later Pope John XXIII - who was then the papal representative in Paris.

"Please note that this decision has been approved by the Holy Father," the letter emphasizes, referring to Pope Pius XII.

The letter reveals how the controversial wartime pope sought to restrict the number of children the church returned to their families by, among other things, instructing that baptized children "may not be entrusted to institutions that are not in a position to guarantee them a Christian upbringing."

But note that I think that the moral equivalence is to anti-Semites, not Nazis.

[Gromit]

Well, purging this or that class of people as a means to promote a right-wing agenda is a very expansive criterion that can include anyone from the followers of Joseph McCarthy to the Boy Scouts. Purging homosexuals, while certainly a characteristic of the Nazis, is not in any way unique to the Nazis.

On the other hand, I wonder how I would feel if Pope Ratzinger had instead taken to delivering anti-Semitic diatribes? Would be more fair to say that he has renounced only some of the habits of the Nazis?

Folks went ape-sh*t over Durbin's suggestion that leaving prisoners hog-tied in pools of their own filth in extreme heat was more characteristic of Nazis than of what we'd expect from the U.S. military. His critics' arguments were very much along the lines of Gary's: the U.S. military wasn't gassing millions or lining women and children up to be shot. But does this mean the Nazis get a pass for the instances in which they did beat folks and hang them from their wrists, or terrorize them with dogs or threats of execution? Does this mean Neo-Nazis who intimidate this or that group by defacing property or committing small-scale acts of violence are not, themselves, acting like Nazis? I'm really confused about what standards we are establishing here.

[Edward_]

Doesn't make it right, but it should be noted. It would be difficult to say that Nazis persecuted the Jews out of denial, (I think), which makes me wonder if the title/theme obscures rather than clarifies. I'm not sure, I'll have to think about it a bit more.

I'm gonna stick with my analysis. What a Nazi means to this or that person can be debated to death. For me, the horror that Nazism represented was how other people stood around and let them scapegoat this or that minority. These other peole knew better, but let the Nazis bully them into obsequiousness.

Today it's purging them from the seminaries, tomorrow it's purging them from the mass...and all the while good people will sit there and watch and split hairs about whether or not this yet qualifies as Nazism????

I'm not waiting.

[Slartibartfast]

He is systematically seeking out and purging one class of people as a means to promote his right-wing agenda.

I know the line between purge as in eliminating from membership, and purge as in rounding up and killing in large numbers, is a fine one, but it's there nonetheless.

I rather doubt the Catholic Church would tolerate anyone admitting to being a practicing homosexual in its membership; is it really a surprise that the priesthood is under scrutiny?

[Edward_]

I rather doubt the Catholic Church would tolerate anyone admitting to being a practicing homosexual in its membership;

From what I know this is not true. Anyone?

[Slartibartfast]

I could be wrong. I mean, the Church used to excommunicate members for divorce, but that was way back when. Maybe they're kinder and gentler with their disapproval now.

[Katherine]

Slarti, one of the bishops made it clear that they are talking about the orientation itself, that even if a man has been celibate for ten years or never engaged in gay sex he may still be barred.

And they'll count anyone in their membership. You're baptized, you're in. It's a big production getting kicked out or withdrawing. Openly gay people are not supposed to get communion, but that doesn't make them not members of the Church.

[Katherine]

(Since contraception is considered a mortal sin, and most American Catholics use it unrepentantly, if they were to start excommunicating people for things like using birth control or being gay, the Church would shrink to a tiny fraction of itself.)

[Edward_]

Maybe they're kinder and gentler with their disapproval now.

Unless you've dedicated years of your life to serving them and just so happen to be homosexual...then, you'll be kicked to the unemployment line.

Why I'm really furious about this is I have some friends who are gay Priests. They're hardworking, compassionate, intelligent, and very very human. To think they'll be driven underground or drummed out of the profession they've selflessly devoted themselves to for years make me want to kick the Pope in his ass. What an ungrateful pr*ck he is.

[Slartibartfast]

You're baptized, you're in.

Yeah, I know. I'm still in, even though I'm not, you know, in.

Ok, I'm probably completely wrong on this.

[liberal japonicus]

I'm really confused about what standards we are establishing here.

The whole Godwin thing prevents establishing a standard. I still think a better title might have been "I didn't expect a Spanish Inquisition".

I would also point out for the record that Chas invoked the Nazis in his Eeuuw post, and no one jumped on him about it. Either we, the liberal commentariat, go over and pile on Chas, or we go easy on Edward...

[hilzoy]

Katherine: and, as I implied earlier, contraception and divorce are still within the range of the broadly sexual sins, which historically were not the most serious sins, by a long shot. And for good reason: the sins that involve an orientation not towards sex with people of one's own gender, which if you are Catholic is something God has forbidden, but directly towards evil and rebellion against God Himself -- sins like pride, for instance -- are of course more serious.

And no one has ever suggested excommunicating the proud. (The cruel, the violent, or people who focus on any of the mortal sins other than lust. And there, not even the heterosexually lustful. They may have excommunicated divorced people, but never people who just took lovers.)

[Slartibartfast]

Since contraception is considered a mortal sin

Well, not all contraception. Just contraception that has a prayer (sorry) of working. I, myself, am a product of Church-approved contraception. As are one of my brothers and one of my sisters.

[Katherine]

I mentioned the sexual sins because:

1) they're straightforward are you/aren't you questions.
2) people are more likely to think that the Church teachings on these questions are just wrong, and hence they not only sin but they sin openly and don't repent.

The Church is a lot harder on dissent than on sin.

[Anarch]

Count me among those who think using the term "Nazi" is inappropriate (not to mention inapposite) here.

[Slartibartfast]

Good points, hilzoy. This hooks quite firmly into why I'm not more vocal with my beliefs. Not that I've got the Bible memorized, but I don't recall ever seeing any heirarchy of sin. We as people make moral distinctions between different kinds of sin, but Christianity is at least supposed to be about what God demands of us. And God demands both sinlessness and abdication of judgement to God. As well as several hundred other apparently mutually contradictory things, of course.

[hilzoy]

Slarti: until now I've never had a good word to say about the Church's policy on contraception. Thanks for proving that there's an upside to everything ;)

About Godwin's law: I've always thought that it shouldn't apply to things that really, truly are Nazi-like, where being 'like' the Nazis does not mean having something in common with them (I mean, I assume that most of them thought that 2+2=4, and so do I, but calling me Nazi-like on that account would be wrong, since that belief just is not one of the salient features of Nazism.) The salient features being one of the things that made them so completely appalling.

Saying that Pol Pot was 'like Hitler' would not, imho, be a violation, and by the same token, I think, Charles' post wasn't. (Mengele's experiments being one of the few things other than the concentration camps that I think make the Nazis who they were, and thus one of the few things that, if replicated, make comparison appropriate.)

I am less comfortable with Edward's comparison, though.

[hilzoy]

And needless to say, there's a corollary to my view of Godwin's law, namely: though there are exceptions, one should be very careful before invoking them in support of one's own writing, since no doubt everyone thinks that what he or she says is appropriate, and so it's hard to allow exceptions w/o making the law just go away. I tend to use it in assessing other people's posts, not mine, for that reason.

[Gary Farber]

"He is systematically seeking out and purging one class of people as a means to promote his right-wing agenda. You can call it anything else you like, but for me it was one of the defining markers of Nazism."

And yet there are fields of historians, you know, who actually professionally study Nazism, and if you can find any consensus that "systematically seeking out and purging one class of people" from a religious organization is sufficient to define that organization or leader as a "Nazi," well, good luck with that. This is not something actually subject, in discussion with others, to subjective interpretation.

Na·zi (nät'sē, năt'-) pronunciation
n., pl. -zis.

1. A member of the National Socialist German Workers' Party, founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler.
2. often nazi An adherent or advocate of policies characteristic of Nazism; a fascist.

adj.

Of, relating to, controlled by, or typical of the National Socialist German Workers' Party.

Or here:

The Nazis opposed communism and free intellectual inquiry. Desiring to form a master race that would rule the world, they fought the influence in Germany of peoples not of “pure” descent. Their power was particularly directed at controlling Jews in Germany and in the countries that Germany conquered in war. After depriving Jews of their property and confining them in concentration camps, the Nazis employed the Final Solution of killing them in large numbers; an estimated six million Jews lost their lives (see Holocaust). Also marked for extermination were the mentally and physically handicapped and “enemies of the Reich” such as Slavs, communists, Gypsies, homosexuals, Christians who resisted the government, and defenders of intellectual freedom.

So. The Pope isn't trying to form a master race. He isn't celebrating racial superiority. He is not trying to control or persecute Jews. He is not depriving people of their property because of their religion, race, sexuality, or political opposition. He is not killing anyone. He is not engaged in aggression against neighboring countries. He is not achieving political control over industry. He is not engaged in creating a powerful military. He does not have a secret police organization arresting and torturing people. He does not make use of any of the symbology of Nazism or fascism (despite being ensconced in, or surrounded by, Italy).

In short, off all these defining characteristics of Nazism, he meets not a single one. Not a one. He is only engaged in the entirely nasty act of purging homosexuals from the religious organization he was duly chosen to head, and carrying on a tradition long established in his church.

To you, that single act makes him a "Nazi." In which case, I'd have to say that pretty much any politician anywhere who has engaged in an of bigotry is equally a Nazi. George Bush is a Nazi for all his militarism. Rudolph Guiliani is a Nazi for his attempts to ban displays of art that offends him. Tipper Gore is a Nazi for seeking to purge material she doesn't like from popular entertainment. The guy on 57th St. who is mean to his customers when he serves soup is a Nazi.

Also, Nazis are proven to have drunken water. For me, that was a marker of Nazism.

I'm sure that's a sufficient argument to convince you if I point to someone and explain that that makes them a Nazi, in my view.

"For me, the horror that Nazism represented was how other people stood around and let them scapegoat this or that minority."

The KKK are Nazis. The Japanese are Nazis. The Chinese are Nazis. The Americans are Nazis. How many organizations, people, and nations, on Earth, have ever scapegoated, or allowed the scapegoating of someone or someones? They're all Nazis! Everyone is a Nazi, with a few exceptions!

Yes, this is very useful, and particularly so when objective definitions, and the consensus view of professionals in the field, are utterly tossed out, and it's all brought down to "What a Nazi means to this or that person can be debated to death." It's all subjective. Everyone's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

This is, I suggest, not at all a useful way to approach, well, anything.

"Today it's purging them from the seminaries, tomorrow it's purging them from the mass...and all the while good people will sit there and watch and split hairs about whether or not this yet qualifies as Nazism????"

Well, sure. Also, people are starving in Sudan, and are in shelters in Texas, and are fighting in Nepal, and all you want to do is watch and split hairs and blog????

Edward, this isn't rational debate: it's pure emotion. I'm sorry you're upset at the Pope's actions. I'm sorry the Pope is acting this way.

But this isn't Nazism, and your emotions and personal feelings are, in the context of discussing what Nazism is and isn't, purely irrelevant.

On the personal side, I repeat again that I entirely sympathize, and empathize with your understandable feelings and reaction.

But feelings aren't an argument.

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks for proving that there's an upside to everything ;)

That you consider that an upside...I appreciate that.

I really think The Meaning of Life pretty much nailed Catholic birth control, at least effective a few decades ago. My mother was quite the Pez dispenser until my dad, not the practicing Catholic, took the Final Cut.

Unrelated humor: my brother's urologist who administered his Final Cut was Dr. Blank. I am not making this up.

[Fraser]

I don't think homosexuality is immutable, any more than heterosexuality. People can give up heterosexual sex (in some faiths way back when they even castraded themselves to make sure), they can experiment with a same-sex lover. I've had a couple of friends who were married for years, then later decided/admitted they were gay (and yes, they were having sex in the marriage). That doesn't make it true of all gays, but definitely of some.
But immutability is also irrelevant. Religious faith is mutable: People can switch from Catholic to Protestant, Christian to Jew, Baptist to Muslim, but forced conversion--or forcing someone not to practice their faith--still violates a fundamental human right. Saying homosexuals can change doesn't alter the fact that they have every right not to change.

[Gary Farber]

Today it's purging them from the seminaries, tomorrow it's purging them from the mass...and all the while good people will sit there and watch and split hairs about whether or not this yet qualifies as Nazism????

I'm not waiting.

Do you regard yourself as Catholic, by the way, Edward?

[Edward_]

I am less comfortable with Edward's comparison, though.

I took care to note I'm still one step away from that direct comparison myself. Clearly I did the issue a great disservice by noting it at all.

In the end, though, this Pope strikes me as a very dangerous man.

One can hide behind the Church's doctrine in dismissing his actions as "to be expected," but I'm talking realworld consequences for people here, not theory or theology. He's a monster in my book, and I won't hesitate from calling him one.

Were I to meet him, I'd have much harsher words for Ratzinger than anything alluded to here.

[Gary Farber]

"To think they'll be driven underground or drummed out of the profession they've selflessly devoted themselves to for years make me want to kick the Pope in his ass."

Is their profession being a religious minister, or being a representative of the Catholic Church in an official capacity?

Because if it's a, obviously the Pope can't affect their profession; they're free to pursue it, just not to speak for the Church for which the Pope duly speaks.

If it's the latter, are we now all voting on what is proper doctrine for all the world's religions? Or what? What general principle are we drawing upon in instructing religions in what their doctrine may and may not be, please?

[Edward_]

He is not depriving people of their property because of their religion, race, sexuality, or political opposition.

Gary,

Your rant seems as emotional to me as you claim mine does to you. The Pope is indeed depriving people of their jobs, and via that their place in the world, their sense of self worth, their identity, their livelihood, etc. etc.

What do you think ex-Priests, kicked out because of their sexual orientation, can expect in terms of support from their families, congregations, etc? Do you think they'll be ostracized in some places, perhaps?

What Ratzinger is doing is malicious, pure and simple. In fact, it's evil.

[John Thullen]

"I'm not waiting."

I'll accept that. After all, "Could you pretty-please, nicey Pope, stop with the purging and the scapegoating, for crying out loud?" doesn't seem to have much purchase. It just encourages them.

If the Pope wants to rid the Church of child molestation, he ought to do a George Carlin and stand on the balcony overlooking St. Peter's Square, hands outstretched to the assembled masses and say, "Next guy who touches anyone underage in a sexual way gets his n--- exorcised. All other groping will henceforth be considered human fallibility and accorded heavenly and earthly absolution, as long as its not overly obvious. Got it? See ya. Wait. One other thing: I'm keeping my eye on fallen Protestant John Thullen for that sloth problem, not to mention I'm still a little ticked off about the Martin Luther stuff."

(Maybe Spencer Tracy)

My view on the "Nazi" H-bomb is a little like Wayne La Pierre's views on concealed weapons. You should be trained to use it; you should not hope to use it; you should only use it in extremis; but sometimes, because somebody permitted you to carry, the weapon goes off before you know it because you genuinely thought you were threatened.

I'd prefer we refer to Ratzinger as one of the head Blue Meanies sending Glovey-Dovey off on some ferocious fingerpointing, but then I'm reminded that in the year after Lennon was shot, Paul McCartney was approached from behind by an autograph-seeking fan at the front door of his London office, and he popped the guy with a hard left and the guy went down Band On The Run record-over-keester. So much for peace and love, although Paul, maybe like Edward, went back outside and brought the guy in for some tea, telling him, "you can understand why I'm just a little jumpy, right?"

[Katherine]

Gary--what do you mean? I think some religious doctrines and practices are immoral and I have no problem at all saying so.

There is a fundamental constitutional right to do this sort of thing, and I would completely oppose the government forcing the Catholic church to allow female or gay priests or not to teach what it does about sexual matters.

But in talking about "instruction" rather than "coercion" you seem to imply it's wrong to criticize it, and I can think of no good reason why that would be true.

[Frank]

Gary- Nice job on that strawman, you really demolished him.

[Gary Farber]

"Saying that Pol Pot was 'like Hitler' would not, imho, be a violation...."

There's no such thing as a "violation" of Godwin's Law. Like all such metaphoric "Laws" it is descriptive, not prescriptive. Comments like the above, which are scattered throughout this thread, seem to be based upon some imaginary prescriptive version of Godwin's Law.

This is the definitive Jargon File site (Eric Raymond's), which is the definitve source of such definitions. This is, and always has been, the definition of Godwin's Law:

“As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

How you "violate" that, I have no idea.

And, incidentally, Pol Pot and Hitler, or Pol Pot and Nazism have almost nothing in common. About all they share is the view that the Leadership can issue totalitarian orders and be followed, and that they killed a significant number of their own populace.

[Jason Kuznicki]

Disclaimer #1: I'm gay.

Disclaimer #2: I was raised a Catholic.

Thesis: If the Church finds that homosexuality is antithetical to its mission, then let purge the gays from the priesthood and be done with the whole vile business already.

I am quite familiar with the liberal interpretation of the Bible that claims that homosexuality isn't a sin--but that's not the interpretation the Church has chosen to use. And in the Catholic Church, you either play by the rules or you get out. That's how it works, and if this makes the Church look intolerant or bigoted, then fine, so be it. They made their bed, and I can assure you that they will lie in it.

Do I think that Catholicism and homosexuality can be reconciled? I'm sorry if this offends some people, but almost certainly it cannot.

We can't rightly say that the Catholic faith is only that which we like about it. It's either the whole thing--or it is nothing.

The prohibition against sodomy is ancient, and the mere fact that most Catholics have abandoned other traditional-but-antiquated rules (like prohibitions against usury, gambling, and theater), does not give more tolerant people the freedom to imagine a Catholicism that they would prefer, and then to fault Catholics for still acting according to their traditions.

What would I advise gay Catholics to do? Get out. All there is to it.

[Edward_]

Gary- Nice job on that strawman, you really demolished him.

Ahh, idoltry...if only it paid.

[liberal japonicus]

While it is accepted the the Catholic Church can discriminate when it hires people, can it create retroactive limits that would permit it to fire priests? Looking here, I see that there are BFOQ. (The Muslim one mentioned is new to me) It's going to be interesting if the church has to argue that a person who has confessed to being a homosexual (possibly under the confessional seal?) should be fired for a retroactive BFOQ.

[EB]

I believe Ratzinger has always been clear that he's in favor of "purer" Church, and that he was perfectly willing to accept even further contractions of the Church in the West to achieve that position. I'm sure that many American Catholics will find a religious version of New McCarthyism distasteful. But, really, so what? The American mindset insists on inclusion and accomodation. Ratzinger doesn't think like that.

I have spent enough time in my life railing against the Church's intolerance. I am sympathetic to the Nth degree about the crap that gay/lesbian Christians have to put up with. I appreciate the desire to steadfastly hope to change an institution from within. But I also think that there is a point at which dissenters may have to put themselves on the line to challenge authority openly, knowing full-well what the potential risks might be. It's not my place to identify when that moment is reached.

Caveat emptor: I was raised in a tradition steeped in the most liberal vein of reformation theology.

[Edward_]

And in the Catholic Church, you either play by the rules or you get out. That's how it works,

This is so far from reality, it makes my eyes hurt straining to read it...

There are countless gay priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. There have been gay popes.

The priesthood attracts gay people and has for centuries. To suggest now that gays should dismiss the precedents and understand that it's their fault the new Pope wants zero tolerance, when clearly his predecessors were not so intolerant, as if they could have predicted his rise to the papacy is assinine.

[Gary Farber]

"The Pope is indeed depriving people of their jobs, and via that their place in the world, their sense of self worth, their identity, their livelihood, etc. etc."

Isn't that in his capacity as their boss? Is that unusual for bosses to do?

"What do you think ex-Priests, kicked out because of their sexual orientation, can expect in terms of support from their families, congregations, etc? Do you think they'll be ostracized in some places, perhaps?"

Yes. This is all very bad. Very few of the bad things in the world are Nazi things, however.

"Your rant seems as emotional to me as you claim mine does to you."

Yet I'm citing facts. You're citing your feelings.

"What Ratzinger is doing is malicious, pure and simple. In fact, it's evil."

Perhaps so. Very few of the evil things in the world are Nazi things. But I certainly would never argue against the above two sentences, so perhaps you might want to leave it there, rather than insist that anything bad is Nazi, and that your upset feelings grant you the power to objectively render everything bad and evil into Nazism.

The Inquisition does seem to a vastly more apt comparison, and I daresay we might agree that it was overwhelmingly evil.

[Edward_]

Gary, again, the most horrifying aspect of what defined the Nazis for me was the way they were able to scapegoat minorities to advance their agenda, and the otherwise good people around them let them. You can dismiss that defining characteristic as unimportant to you, but it's central to why likeminded people must be stomped out to me.

[McDuff]

I have a friend who has family roots in Germany, and as such has ancestors who were killed by the Nazis (trade unionists, natch) and also who were Nazis. As she likes to point out, they didn't kill anybody, but they did take part in intimidation campaigns, in book burnings, in seeking and hounding those people of whom they disapproved.

You don't have to kill anyone to behave like a Nazi. You just have to use your power as a member of a majority to hound out and abuse a minority.

This analogy succeeds.

That said, I agree with Jason Kuznicki. You can't be a rabbi and eat pork, either. The sooner people quit trying to apologise for intolerant religions and just join the "reform" versions, the sooner those religions will wither and die and the better for the rest of society.

[Gary Farber]

"Gary--what do you mean? I think some religious doctrines and practices are immoral and I have no problem at all saying so."

Nor I. But I distinguish quite sharply between one's personal views of a religious doctrine/practice, and one's attempting to claim any sort of position from outside a religion to instruct those inside the religion as to what their religion should be.

This may not be clear on the face of it, so I shall attempt to explain a bit further.

I feel it's utterly legitimate for anyone to express any personal view as to what they believe is right or wrong, moral or immoral, about any religious belief, practice, or doctrine, anywhere.

But I don't think that grants anyone, anywhere, the right to correctly insist that any belief, doctrine, or practice, is wrong within the tenets of that religion. Only someone with authority from within a religion has the right to officially speak for and rule for, that religion.

Thus: I can say I, for instance, don't believe that a burning bush literally spoke as God to a guy named Moses. I can't legitimately say that said incident isn't part of Judaism. I can't legitimately instruct Jews of any sect or school that Judaism says that it was actually an oak tree who spoke as God to a guy named Herb. I can't legitimately issue changes to the Torah and instruct Jews that that's the standard Jewish belief. I can say that those are my beliefs.

I can denounce ultra-Orthodox Jewish sects that don't believe in evolution as factually in error. I can't legimitately insist that they must accept evolution as part of their sect's doctrine. Not because it is or isn't objectively right or wrong, but because we've switched topics from what is objectively so to what the doctrine of the sect is. Since I have no authority to speak for the sect, I can't speak for the sect.

Thus, I can denounce the Catholic Church for not accepting homosexuals. I can't legitimately claim I speak with more authority for the Catholic Church than the Pope, or even a common priest, does, and that my views of what their doctrine is are more Catholically correct than their's. I can claim that the Catholic view is unjust; I cannot complain that it is unCatholic.

I can denounce the Pope's views. I can't legitimately claim the Pope doesn't speak for the Catholic Church. I can be outraged at the injustice I see in a practice of the Church. I can't legitimately claim the Pope is getting Catholic doctrine wrong.

Does this make any more sense, or lend any more clarity as to what I'm trying to say?

[liberal japonicus]

Comments like the above, which are scattered throughout this thread, seem to be based upon some imaginary prescriptive version of Godwin's Law.

errr, Gary, 'Godwin' has only been mentioned twice, first by me when I said

The whole Godwin thing prevents establishing a standard.

Note the 'whole Godwin thing' refers to the assorted discussions that have accreted over time. Hilzoy then commented on that, so 'scattered' isn't really the appropriate term. If you are thinking that any comments about nazis are like the comments hilzoy made, I'd be interested in knowing how. I certainly don't think your complaints about the use of the term Nazi are based on Godwin, nor anyone elses complaints.

As for 'violating' a law, my understanding is that a law is 'invoked'. Interesting question how we can violate a man made law in one instance, but if it is a descriptive law of nature, it can only be violated if it is not true. (I set aside things like 'the laws of nature') The definition you cite says that you can 'invoke its thread-ending effects', but I'm not sure how one can 'invoke' effects, I think you have to 'evoke' them.

[Edward_]

Let me try again, Gary

All the items you list as defining Nazis originate in the item I'm focussing on. The Nazis could not have celebrated racial superiority, or deprived people of their property, or killed anyone, or achieved political control over industry, etc. etc., had the Germans not had demonstrated to them via the minorities the Nazi's scapegoated that enemies of the Power could be made to disappear. It sent a message that you better step in line.

Ratzinger is not going to stop with purging the gays. He's gonna go for contraception users or divorcees or whatever next. And by standing idly by while he hunts down and throws out the gays who've dedicated their lives to service, the contraception users or divorced members of the Church are enabling him to come for them next, and so on.

I was clear in my post. It's a method the Nazi's used that he witnessed firsthand.

He's not merely declaring that moving forward gay people shouldn't enter the priesthood...he's hunting down those who are already in the system.

[Gary Farber]

"what defined the Nazis for me...."

That's fine, Edward. No one is, or could, argue that your personal feelings should be different.

How your feelings are relevant to discussing an objective definition of something, though, I have no idea. I'm entirely willing to agree that you feel the way you feel. I don't grant that your feelings are or should be the source of what the world of historians and political scientists define as Nazi or not, or that they are relevant to defining things for people who are not you.

I hope you understand that I'm entirely sympathetic to your feelings. What I don't understand is why you are offering, in a discussion of fact -- what defines Nazism? -- your feelings as relevant.

Personally, due to childhood trauma, I have a significant feeling of fear and dread about cacti. But I don't offer that feeling up as evidence in discussion that cacti are either Nazi or objectively evil. Because, you know, it isn't relevant to that discussion. Neither are your personal feelings about Nazism relevant to a discussion of what objectively is or isn't Nazi.

[Tacitus]

So what we have here is a case in which an organization has always prohibited X, even though the prohibition was not consistently applied. Now the prohibition is being consistently applied, and those who got away with flouting it are crying foul.

This is "Nazism."

I guess if one views the world entirely through the prism of sexual identity, it might look that way. Yeah.

[McDuff]

Shorter Tac: it's the gays fault for finding men attractive in the first place.

[Mark]

Tac, could you elucidate on the prohibition being "consistently applied"? How does that fit with the distinction between acts and orientation?

[liberal japonicus]

Man, Edward's sexual identity really scares some people.

[McDuff]

Oh, in less flippant terms: the Catholic church has always had a prohibition against being a practising homosexual, but not against being a celibate one. Its views on being a non-practising homosexual have varied over time, much like its views on abortion.

[Edward_]

It's not Nazism because a prohibition is now being applied, Tacitus. I'm suggesting it's a method widely associated with Nazism that Ratzinger is using and (it's fair to assume) will continue to use to purge others who fall outside his conservative view of what Catholicism is.

Let's not beat around the bush here. The biggest advantage to purging gay priests out of the system lies is a political/strategic one: gay priests can identify with their gay parishinors (spelling?). Eliminate that empathy, and the gays in the Church will feel much less welcome as well.

More than that however, because they are generally persecuted (in the broadest sense of that term), gay priests are more sympathetic to others as well. They can relate, in other words.

Ratzinger isn't just drumming out the gays, he's drumming out one very liberal-leaning source of empathy. He's shaping the church via this witch hunt, to lay the groundwork for future conservative-leaning moves.

To suggest this is about, finally, being true to doctrine is either naive or disingenuous. It's about politics.

[Katherine]

Sort of, but I still think it's overstating things. It's possible to argue against a doctrine on its own terms, accepting some of its essential premises and still disagreeing with its conclusions. And since most religions claim that their doctrine is true and correct whether you believe it or not--and the Catholic Church claims such authority more than most--I don't see what's wrong with arguing "no, this is false" or "no, this is wrong." It's the doctrine of their sect because they are convinced it's true. If it's not true, that's a good argument for changing the doctrine.

I mean, you don't want to be arrogant or ill-informed or impolite about it. You should acknowledge that they're likely to know more about you than what Catholic/Muslim/Orthodox/etc. doctrine. But it is possible to argue respectfully that a position is false or internally contradictory.

Of course one of the ways to do this is to phrase it in terms like: here is why I don't believe this, here's what I find hard to accept, here's why I think this is false or wrong; here's what seems inconsistent to me about your teachings; here's what I don't understand. But that's helpful because it's an acknowledgment of uncertainty or fallibility, not because a religion is completely free to disregard and dismiss those who don't belong to it.

[Katherine]

That was in reply to Gary.

[Gary Farber]

"Ratzinger is not going to stop with purging the gays. He's gonna go for contraception users or divorcees or whatever next."

Could be. Religions do all sorts of things.

"And by standing idly by while he hunts down and throws out the gays who've dedicated their lives to service, the contraception users or divorced members of the Church are enabling him to come for them next, and so on."

I'm not clear what you're calling for here: a splintering of the Church and establishing a claim that the new sect is the True Catholic Church? A split of another sort? A call for the next Pope to establish different doctrine and practices? Or what?

"I was clear in my post. It's a method the Nazi's used that he witnessed firsthand."

Let me try to understand: the Nazis rounded up people in concentration camps, tortured, and killed whole classes of people in genocidal numbers with genocidal intent.

The Pope is investigating his employees for violations of Church doctrine as he understands it, and is firing those who in his view violate it. And those two things are the same.

It's true that the Nazi's had people fired from their jobs, but so does McDonald's. Obviously, therefore, following this logic, McDonald's management are Nazis.

"He's not merely declaring that moving forward gay people shouldn't enter the priesthood...he's hunting down those who are already in the system."

Yes, quite. And? When he's shooting them, and instituting fascistic control over neighboring countries, he'll be starting to move onto Nazi territory, not just I Utterly Disagree With Him territory.

I assume that all the Hasidic sects that try to cure or purge homosexuals are also Nazis? And all the Baptist sects? And Fred Phelps is also a Nazi, I assume.

Are there any religions that don't have rules and constraints that either we regard as unjust and evil or which result in injustice and evil that are not Nazi? Or is it all of them? Or just the Catholic Church? Or just some religions? I'm seriously unaware of what your more general stance is, or if you have one, so please feel free to establish more context for your beliefs, if you like.

[Gary Farber]

"I'm suggesting it's a method widely associated with Nazism that Ratzinger is using and (it's fair to assume) will continue to use to purge others who fall outside his conservative view of what Catholicism is."

I assume that the U.S. armed forces are also Nazi. And the U.S. government, particularly the national security establishment, were also Nazi from, say, 1946 on until at least the Seventies. I assume that the Boy Scouts are also Nazi.

If my presumptions are wrong, Edward, I assume you can explain how their use of this "method widely associated with Nazism" differs from that of Pope Benedict.

"To suggest this is about, finally, being true to doctrine is either naive or disingenuous. It's about politics."

Can you define the difference between "politics" and "doctrine," please?

[Edward_]

"And by standing idly by while he hunts down and throws out the gays who've dedicated their lives to service, the contraception users or divorced members of the Church are enabling him to come for them next, and so on."

I'm not clear what you're calling for here:

How about some support for the men who've been there for their congregations? Some loyalty?

Let me try to understand: the Nazis rounded up people in concentration camps, tortured, and killed whole classes of people in genocidal numbers with genocidal intent.

The Pope is investigating his employees for violations of Church doctrine as he understands it, and is firing those who in his view violate it. And those two things are the same.

Drip, drip, drip...it starts somewhere Gary. I know there are those who will see that as hysterical, but I'll ask them to get back to me when they're the target.

I assume that all the Hasidic sects that try to cure or purge homosexuals are also Nazis? And all the Baptist sects? And Fred Phelps is also a Nazi, I assume.

This is different. Ratzinger inherited a system in which gays have been able to serve for quite some time. The inconsistency with
which the doctrine has been applied has, like it or not, changed the perceptions among those who might join.

I've stated my beliefs repeatedly Gary. I was raised by a Protestant father and a Catholic step-mother. I have many Catholic friends, including a few Priests. Conclude from that what you wish.

[Anderson]

Jason and Tacitus are both misstating what's going on.

Let's assume that homosexual behavior is a sin. That's the RCC's premise, and it's not without biblical support.

That provides No Basis Whatsoever for excluding celibate gays from the priesthood or from the RCC.

We are ALL inclined to sinful behavior. We are ALL tempted to it. One priest's being tempted to sex with men is no more a bar to the priesthood than another priest's being tempted to sex with women.

Look at the other angle, too.

The RCC is equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

That is not only wrong, it's perniciously wrong. This effort is a huge diversion from what the RCC *needs* to be doing, that is, cleaning up its act about abusive priests, ceasing to shelter them, etc.

Very, very bad behavior. And yes, "Nazi" in the sense of demonzing and dehumanizing homosexuals in a way that heterosexuals aren't, because the mere desires of homosexual priests are being targeted in a way that the desires of heterosexual ones aren't.

(That said, the rhetorical advantage of "the Nazi card" would seem to be very, very small, or more likely a negative number.)

[Gromit]

Gary Farber: The Pope isn't trying to form a master race. He isn't celebrating racial superiority. He is not trying to control or persecute Jews. He is not depriving people of their property because of their religion, race, sexuality, or political opposition. He is not killing anyone. He is not engaged in aggression against neighboring countries. He is not achieving political control over industry. He is not engaged in creating a powerful military. He does not have a secret police organization arresting and torturing people. He does not make use of any of the symbology of Nazism or fascism (despite being ensconced in, or surrounded by, Italy).

You forgot the part about controlling and persecuting homosexuals, which the Nazis also did. And of course none of these things are unique to Nazism. Not even the symbology, which was pretty much all lifted from earlier cultures. So how much does one have to have in common with the Nazis before comparisons can be made? So far Pope Ratzinger has two things in common: he has it out for homosexuals and he was once a member of the Nazi party. Now, as I mentioned above, I think calling him a Nazi is going too far, seeing as he has renounced the party, but I'm curious if the same standard would be applied, even by me, if he did any one of the things above that you described above, even within his limited powers as pope (i.e. he started directing members of the Church not to associate with Jews, or formulated new doctrines of racial superiority, or took an active role in promoting wars of agression).

Gary, we had an argument some time back in which I argued that to refer to the Israeli prime minister as a "puppeteer" was not, absent any other markers of anti-Semitism, necessarily anti-Semitic. My argument was that it is unfair to ascribe a trait to a person based on one characteristic that, while common to that trait, is in no way unique to that trait. It seems to me that you are making the same argument here, while you discounted it (and impugned my sensitivity to the plight of the Jewish people in the process) in our discussion of anti-Semitism. What has changed since then?

[Katherine]

"The Pope is investigating his employees for violations of Church doctrine as he understands it, and is firing those who in his view violate it. And those two things are the same."

This just isn't true. Again: this is about ORIENTATION even among celibate priests. At least, it certainly appears to be based on this guy's comments:

O'Brien had told the National Catholic Register, an independent newsweekly, that ''anyone who has engaged in homosexual activity, or has strong homosexual inclinations, would be best not to apply to a seminary and not to be accepted into a seminary," even if they had been celibate for a decade or more.

Well, I suppose if the Church still considers "impure thoughts" a sin they are technically violating Church doctrine. But if that is true they are violations that basically all priests commit, and so he is not suggesting that seminarians be forbidden from becoming priests on the basis that they had impure thoughts.

The same goes for past acts of homosexuality: the church teaches that all acts of fornication are mortal sins, but heterosexual seminarians are not to be barred from the priesthood on account of past acts.

The basis is clearly the orientation. And the Church up till now had taught that homosexual orientation was "a disorder" rather than a sin.

So it's not true that he is firing employees who violate Church doctrine.

[Gary Farber]

"It's possible to argue against a doctrine on its own terms, accepting some of its essential premises and still disagreeing with its conclusions."

Certainly.

"It's the doctrine of their sect because they are convinced it's true. If it's not true, that's a good argument for changing the doctrine."

However, my own view is that for the sake of social harmony and tolerance, I find it wise, myself, to draw a line between my personal views on the factual correctness or correctness of a religious doctrine, and going on a crusade against a religious doctrine. If everyone felt it good practice to engage in a campaign against all the religious doctines in the world that they believe are untrue or wrong -- or even if a large number of people believe it a good practice to engage in such a campaign against some said religious doctrines, we're apt to have non-stop religious war and killing and suffering and all that other evil stuff that is nonethelss not partiularly Nazi.

So my general rule of what I think is healthy for society is to generally tolerate religious beliefs, practices, and doctrines, of religions of others up until the point at which the relevant injustice becomes intolerable to general society. Now, I take Edward's position to be that the Catholic Church's doctrine on homosexuality, as expressed by the current Pope and other history, is so intolerable. That's an entirely defensible stance (which has nothing to do with the Nazi flag Edward waved at the bulls), but I am curious to know how it fits into the larger context of how we should all be treating, in general, religious doctrines that offend us or strike us as unjust. In general, I tend to approach calls for religions to change doctrines with caution and skeptism, although certainly I do agree with some such calls. (I'm okey-doke with condemning human sacrifice; I'm not sure I can legitimately speak to whether it was corect Aztec doctrine, however.)

[Katherine]

But Edward--it's not clear to me that they're talking about getting rid of celibate gay men who have already been ordained. It's about not ordaining them anymore. Still very bad, but not precisely identical.

Of course that could be the next step.

I don't think your description of Benedict XVI's motivations is accurate. I think this is a genuine effort to deal with the sexual abuse crisis. I think it is an amazingly stupid, immoral, and ineffective way, but I also think it is sincere.

[Edward_]

Katherine,

I hope you're right, but I've been reading on Sullivan where even before this announcement came out, there have been rumblings that he's definitely gunning for even celibate already ordained priests.

[Gary Farber]

"How about some support for the men who've been there for their congregations? Some loyalty?"

I take that to mean that you desire the Pope to change his view of Catholic doctrine?

"Drip, drip, drip...it starts somewhere Gary."

So does dripping water. We can generally observe from society that relatively few cases of organizational firings or purges or requiring adherence to a doctrine on pain of losing one's job lead to death camps, or even just concentration camps. Not that you don't have an entirely legitimate cause for alarm and anger and outrage, you know. But "might" doesn't mean "inevitably will" or even "likely will." That you want to make your view clear is also entirely legitimate, of course.

"This is different. Ratzinger inherited a system in which gays have been able to serve for quite some time. The inconsistency with
which the doctrine has been applied has, like it or not, changed the perceptions among those who might join."

I assure you, I can give you plenty of examples of such inconsistency admidst Hasidic sects and Protestant sects. In any case, I'm unclear how inconsistency makes anyone a Nazi.

"I've stated my beliefs repeatedly Gary."

If you have a pointer to a prior statement, by all means give it.

"I was raised by a Protestant father and a Catholic step-mother. I have many Catholic friends, including a few Priests. Conclude from that what you wish."

I'm afraid I have no wish to conclude anything in this manner. I do, however, have a wish to understand what position you regard yourself as speaking from, while we are engaged in conversation. Do you identify as a Catholic, or not? Is that a complicated question?

[Gary Farber]

"You forgot the part about controlling and persecuting homosexuals, which the Nazis also did."

The Nazis locked up and killed homosexuals. The Church fires or excommunicates them. I know which one I find distinctly less evil, and I'm fairly clear on the significant distinction between these two policies.

"So how much does one have to have in common with the Nazis before comparisons can be made?"

I think you have to be acting as the government of a real country, for a start. Otherwise you've quite quickly gotten to the Soup Nazi.

[Edward_]

Do you identify as a Catholic, or not?

No. Protestant.

"How about some support for the men who've been there for their congregations? Some loyalty?"

I take that to mean that you desire the Pope to change his view of Catholic doctrine?

Not at all. With actual respect, I think the Pope can try to do what he feels is best for the faith.

I want the congregations to stand up to him though. To tell him they won't stand for having the Priests that they love, or their sons and brothers in Seminary school, hounded out of the Church.

In any case, I'm unclear how inconsistency makes anyone a Nazi.

So am I. Why do you mention it?

[Katherine]

Gary--when you talk about a "crusade" or a "campaign", what, exactly, do you mean? Writing a weblog post or a book or an article about how you think a religious teaching is wrong, or arguing about it with a friend or acquaintance who belongs to that religion & doesn't mind discussing it, is very different from going door to door handing out tracts about it, organizing protests outside churches, etc. etc. to say nothing of seeking to outlaw it or suggesting violent action against members of that religion.

[Gary Farber]

"Well, I suppose if the Church still considers "impure thoughts" a sin they are technically violating Church doctrine."

That was more or less part of my thought. But I'm not able to engage in a discussion of Church doctrine, as I feel I lack sufficient knowledge and qualification. I therefore can't discuss what is and isn't Church doctrine. I am, however, willing to believe that the Pope's views on the doctrine of the Catholic Church might presumptively hold some relevance to the question of what is and isn't such doctrine. I definitely don't feel I have standing to instruct the Pope that my hypothetical view of what is Church doctrine is correct and his is incorrect. YMMV.

[Edward_]

I pity your Catholic friends who might want your support then, Gary.

[Gary Farber]

"Writing a weblog post or a book or an article about how you think a religious teaching is wrong, or arguing about it with a friend or acquaintance who belongs to that religion & doesn't mind discussing it, is very different from going door to door handing out tracts about it, organizing protests outside churches, etc. etc. to say nothing of seeking to outlaw it or suggesting violent action against members of that religion."

Actually, they don't seem so much "very different" to me as they seem points on a spectrum of negative responses.

Which of the above Edward is calling for and which he is not is part of what I've been attempting to ascertain.

On the side, I'd note that if
Edward had not brought Nazis into the discussion, the whole discussion of what is and isn't Nazi would have been avoided; unless Edward's primary purpose was to discuss Nazism, it's possible he might have preferred the resulting discussion absent the discussion of what is and isn't inherent to Nazism. But I'm just speculating.

[Edward_]

I'm seeing that you're right Gary. The discussion could have focussed on the exact problem and not my speculation of where it might lead. I regret that decision now.

I was simply very alarmed by this move by Ratzinger. It's nightmarish to me.

[Gary Farber]

"I pity your Catholic friends who might want your support then, Gary."

My support for what?

[Gary Farber]

"I was simply very alarmed by this move by Ratzinger. It's nightmarish to me."

And I'm entirely sympathetic to that, and to your alarm, and to your pain, and to your fears. Really.

If I believed Catholic doctrine, what I understand of it, was objectively correct, I would, of course, be a Catholic. Turns out I'm not.

[Edward_]

"I pity your Catholic friends who might want your support then, Gary."

My support for what?

Your support for their responses to their church's political moves. I disagree that I have no right to comment on whether it's OK for Ratzinger to do this. I'm not commenting on the doctrine, per se, but the very realworld means he's attempting to enforce it.

[Katherine]

That seems to me like excessive deference. John Yoo probably knows more Constitutional foreign affairs law than me given that he's taught classes on it. And yet, when he writes a memo making claims about Presidential authority that entirely leaves out several relevant Constitutional provisions as well as the main Supreme Court case on the subject, I feel qualified to say: he's wrong. I've read some of Ratzinger's previous writings on homosexuality as well as the late pope's encyclicals. Also, they have not even expressly claimed that those people are violating church doctrine--they may be doing on the basis that there is too a high a risk that they will do so in the future. "Firing employees for violating Church doctrine" is your characterization of this move, not the Church's.

Also, anyone who claims to be infallible & has punished people for disputing this claim is automatically fairly untrustworthy to me, because odds are they are not asking themselves "what if I am wrong" (or "what if the Church is wrong" or "what if past popes have been wrong") nearly as much as one normally should. And since internal dissent in the Church is so heavily restricted, that's more reason for people who don't belong to it, who can't be so threatened, to make informed criticisms rather than saying "well the pope did it so it must be what Catholicism requires."

[jayann]

Edward yes, this Pope is indeed dangerous. And unfortunately the previous Pope (I have read) systematically eroded the relative liberalism and freedom of discussion that had taken at least some root in Rome -- with Ratzinger's help? I have no words of comfort for you, alas.

[Jason Kuznicki]

Edward:

I wrote, And in the Catholic Church, you either play by the rules or you get out. That's how it works,

To which you replied, This is so far from reality, it makes my eyes hurt straining to read it...

There are countless gay priests, bishops, cardinals, etc. There have been gay popes.

All of this is true, but it in no way contradicts what I have claimed: As Tacitus noted above, previously the policy was not so consistent as it is will be in the future. And, if you don't like the adjusted policy, you really should just get out.

It is not at all unheard of in Church history to expel from the priesthood not only those who are performing particularly grave sins, but also those who are overly tempted toward those sins or who have practiced certain sins in the past. Priests aren't ordinary Catholics; they are called to be exemplary, and certain temptations may well be deemed disqualifying. Heck, not having a penis disqualifies you to be a priest, which speaks quite clearly about 1) the rationality of the Church and 2) why it's pointless to argue with them.

Like it or not, what is happening now is perfectly consistent with Church practice, and it represents only a somewhat minor change in discipline, not a fundamental shift from something quasi-liberal to something quasi-Nazi.

[Gary Farber]

"I pity your Catholic friends who might want your support then, Gary."

My support for what?

Your support for their responses to their church's political moves.

That's a pretty neat mind-reading ability you're displaying in regard to my Catholic friends. How many fingers is one of them holding up while giving her response?

This is a somewhat unpleasant rhetorical technique, Edward. I'm entirely sympathetic to your feelings (although not all the conclusions they appear to lead you, at least momentarily, to). You really don't need to invoke hypothetical people from my personal life to imply that my own response to my friends must be insufficient. That seems to be switching the subject entirely from either your own feelings, or the objective facts of what Nazism is, or a discussion of proper responses to the Catholic Church, to a personal attack on my empathy, kindness, and ability to be a proper friend. This seems quite unnecessary, upset though you are, and though I'm quite sure you didn't realize that's what you momentarily switched to.

"I disagree that I have no right to comment on whether it's OK for Ratzinger to do this."

Who are you disagreeing with?

[felixrayman]

Priests aren't ordinary Catholics; they are called to be exemplary

One must assume that the Catholic church considers joining the Hitler Youth and fighting for Hitler "exemplary" then. Not to imply that those things make one a Nazi of couse, lest Gary protest overmuch.

[Edward_]

Gary, you wrote:

I definitely don't feel I have standing to instruct the Pope that my hypothetical view of what is Church doctrine is correct and his is incorrect. YMMV.

If you hadn't intended "YMMV" to apply to me, then I apologize. I took it to apply to me though, in the context of this tread. I you had meant it to mean me, then what you follow-up with is disingenuous IMO.

[Gary Farber]

"One must assume that the Catholic church considers joining the Hitler Youth and fighting for Hitler 'exemplary'then."

Alternatively, given that these were essentially mandatory acts under the Nazi state, the question as to whether these acts inherently "makes one" a "Nazi" seems not entirely clear-cut.

Presumably Felixrayman disagrees, and believes in straightforward fashion that all members of the Hitler Youth, and the German armed forces, were Nazis.

And presumably Oberst Claus Schenk, Count von Stauffenberg, was as identical a Nazi as all other Nazis, it having been established that being a Nazi is a binary thing, with no degrees of shading possible.

Presumably no German alive and over the age of 10 during the Nazi era who did not take up arms against them should be allowed to become a priest, or, indeed, allowed to run for office, or be employed by a just society, under this reasoning.

It's good to have simple answers, isn't it?

"Not to imply that those things make one a Nazi of couse, lest Gary protest overmuch."

Is this overmuch?

[Edward_]

And, if you don't like the adjusted policy, you really should just get out.

That would be defendable if the Priests already having devoted their lives to their profession were being given any way to adjust to the new policy. They're not, from what I conclude...they're being drummed out.

[Gary Farber]

"I you had meant it to mean me, then what you follow-up with is disingenuous IMO."

I was responding to Katherine, although one might aptly take my "YMMV" to apply to anyone whose mileage varies. I've previously elaborated at length on the distinction between giving a personal opinion and attempting to speak with the authority of a particular religion or sect within said sect or religion, unless one is recognized as such an authority from within the religion or sect.

[Katherine]

Gary--I think the view that religious doctrines and arguments are somehow different from other arguments, is incorrect, relativistic and harmful. A religious belief should be treated like any other deeply held belief. A religious argument about morality should be treated like any other moral argument.

It is not automatically dismissable by and irrelevant to non-believers, nor is it automatically entitled to special deference or automatically exempted from criticism. Not even a little bit.

Saying "I'm not Catholic so it's not my business" ignores the fact that the Church--like most religions--considers you, and your government, its business. As it should, really, if it takes its teachings seriously. I don't blame them for getting driven nuts by politicians who say "sure, abortion is murder but that's a religious belief, we have no right to impose it on anyone else." But if they want their moral beliefs taken seriously by people who do not share their religion--and almost every religion I am familiar with seems to--they can't cry intolerance when people say "It's not murder. Your teaching about when human life begins is wrong."

Liberals' failure to seriously engage with religious teaching--whether it's out of a view that criticizing it is intolerant or that all religion is stupid superstition--leaves them convinced we are all relativists with no morals.

[Gary Farber]

"That would be defendable if the Priests already having devoted their lives to their profession were being given any way to adjust to the new policy. They're not, from what I conclude...they're being drummed out."

Here's a hypothesis I've just come to, Edward. I'm getting the sense -- and consider this to be a question as to whether my sense is at all accurate or utterly inaccurate, please -- that your presumption and belief is that religions should be considered to be fair and just bodies of belief, practice, and people, and that where or when they are not, justice demands that society speak up to correct them in their harmful errors. Is that closer to wrong, or right, as something you assume?

I can definitely say that, on the other hand, my presumption and belief is that -- with all due respect to the many virtues of most religions, about which I've had furious arguments with anti-religious friends over many decades, so many many times -- religions are presumptively unfair and arbitrary, of course, and apt to be unjust in various ways, and if we are to live in a society of religious freedom (within certain bounds, of course), it is necessary for us to tolerate this unless boundaries are crossed either outside the religion, or of sufficient injustice inside a religion (suttee, say). Otherwise we are implicitly calling for a mass religious war to make sure all religious injustice, internal or not, is stamped out. Which means literally going to war with hundreds of millions, or at least millions, of people. I don't know how to otherwise get to the desired result of stamping out unfairness and irrationality in religion.

If this is true (and it may not be), then it's unsurprising that you look at injustice in the Catholic religion, and feel that they must change practices, and I look at injustice in the Catholic religion and say "gee, I guess I'm not going to be Catholic." (And I immediately wonder which other religious doctrines, or beliefs, or practices, you feel it is your duty to see changed.)

[Gary Farber]

"I think the view that religious doctrines and arguments are somehow different from other arguments, is incorrect, relativistic and harmful."

I agree they are not inherently different at all. I don't agree that history doesn't give us good reasons to possibly treat religious arguments as somewhat different than other arguments in some cases. I think the history of religion and religious war gives us endless reasons to contemplate approaching religious debates with caution and care different from that with which we may treat a discussion of what the capital of Iowa is.

"A religious argument about morality should be treated like any other moral argument."

I really can't do that. A rather vast amount of religious argument is the argument from authority. I don't accept the authority, so I can't argue as if I do. This doesn't apply to non-religious arguments in the same way. What I can do is accept that these folks accept this authority, and as long as their swinging arm doesn't strike anyone outside their purview, and people within their purview, their religion, their sect, are free to leave, that it's best for social harmony if I otherwise tolerate our differing views.

"Saying 'I'm not Catholic so it's not my business' ignores the fact that the Church--like most religions--considers you, and your government, its business."

And yet I manage not to care. I'm also not looking up folks at a Shinto shrine to insist that their ancestor's spirit isn't physically detectable, and can't be proven to exist. If they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. If not, not. If they're burning widows, I may step in, or attempt to, but I'm also aware that I may be precipitating a war by doing so.

[Edward_]

There are two aspects of it for me Gary. The doctrinal, which I don't presume to be able to dictate, but won't shy away from criticizing, and the social, which I feel I have every reason to comment on.

Fairness within the social aspects of it, particulary when you're talking about someone's livelihood, and they have not ceased doing the same fine job they've been doing and being paid for, does seem to warrant a social response IMO.

[Edward_]

make that "Issues concerning fairness within the social aspect" so I don't look entirely illiterate.

[Katherine]

"think the history of religion and religious war gives us endless reasons to contemplate approaching religious debates with caution and care different from that with which we may treat a discussion of what the capital of Iowa is."

A rather key idea for our country is the idea that arguments are an antidote to violence, not a cause of it.

As for "what the capital of Iowa is"--that's not a moral discussion, nor a debate about which there is any dispute, nor a question that profoundly affects people's lives. It's not a fair comparison. A much better analogy would be a debate about whether the Iraq war was a good idea.

You're setting up straw men here, carelessly defining categories and choosing examples, in a way that you don't usually do.

As far as argument from authority: that's a good point. The more a religious argument is a flat appeal to authority, the less people of other religions should be convinced, the less legitimate it is as a basis for legislation, the less use there is in discussing it.

But most religions argue that God is infinitely good. Therefore an argument that "this is immoral" is a perfectly reasonable response to the argument that "God commands it" even within the framework of their religion.

And a lot of religious arguments are more than appeals to authority.

"And yet I manage not to care. I'm also not looking up folks at a Shinto shrine to insist that their ancestor's spirit isn't physically detectable, and can't be proven to exist. If they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. If not, not. If they're burning widows, I may step in, or attempt to, but I'm also aware that I may be precipitating a war by doing so."

Are you suggesting that this ban is unrelated to the Catholic Church's general teaching on homosexuality on attitude towards gay people? Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church's, and religion in general's, teaching on gay people is not harming anyone?

Your talk about the danger of religious war from critical weblog posts, speeches, articles etc. is at LEAST as overheated and unsupported by the facts as Edward's fears about what the Church is doing and what it will lead to.

[bob mcmanus]

I am closer to Edward's position than many here, in that active expressed xenophobia is more central to Nazism than military aggression or the other practices. Nor is Nazism unique. It is only a difference of degree and sophistication that distinguishes one aspect of it from St Bartholemew's Massacre or Rwanda.

Godwin's law and the reluctance to using any references to Nazism do seem to be based on some idea that Nazi Germany was unique in one practice, so unique in all. Durbin was dead wrong. Many gov'ts torture. Edward is closer.

Trying to avoid Neiwert's work however good it is, and find arguments out of what seems to me to be the most directly relevant source, Hannah Arendt's Origin of Totalitarianism. Or excerpts and secondary sources, I don't own a copy. You would think a book of such paramount importance would be freely available online by now. Her controversial assertion that Nazism and Stalinism had the same anti-Enlightenment roots does lead to insights that can be more broadly applied.

And I needn't mention the feeling many of us have that the Enlightenment is under attack yet again.

Hi, Josh! Nice to see you contributing.

[Gary Farber]

"A rather key idea for our country is the idea that arguments are an antidote to violence, not a cause of it."

Although I don't recall making an argument against argument, the above is hardly fully accurate. Arguments, obviously, both can be antidotes of violence and causes, platitudes and ideals aside.

Arguments are best settled by argument, but that's not always the result. Violence often also comes from ignoring an argument for too long, but that's not always the result, either.

"A much better analogy would be a debate about whether the Iraq war was a good idea."

Fair enough.

"Are you suggesting that this ban is unrelated to the Catholic Church's general teaching on homosexuality on attitude towards gay people? Are you suggesting that the Catholic Church's, and religion in general's, teaching on gay people is not harming anyone?"

I'm suggesting that I'm not sufficiently interested enough in the vast number of religious doctrines out there to be a student of any of them. Thus, my lack of opinion, more than not. I'm not suggesting that my lack of interest should be taken up by anyone else.

I would hope, though, that anyone sufficiently concerned about the harmful effects of religious doctrine, practice, or belief, would strive to be consistent in their application of their concern.

The conversation has wandered rather afield. I entered it to object to Edward's rather seemingly promiscuous inclination to declare the Pope a Nazi. I didn't enter it to object to Edward's preferences about Catholic doctrine or practice, and I don't.

[bob mcmanus]

"Your talk about the danger of religious war from critical weblog posts, speeches, articles etc. is at LEAST as overheated and unsupported by the facts..."

What? I didn't hear. Is the war over? Did we lose?

[Gary Farber]

"You would think a book of such paramount importance would be freely available online by now."

It was published in 1951; why would you have such an expectation? Is there an "importance" clause to copyright law? (Personally, I just don't hold that the modern extensions of copyright length are anything other than bad policy, myself, but that's not at issue here.)

[Gary Farber]

"You would think a book of such paramount importance would be freely available online by now."

It was published in 1951; why would you have such an expectation? Is there an "importance" clause to copyright law? (Personally, I just don't hold that the modern extensions of copyright length are anything other than bad policy, myself, but that's not at issue here.)

You're aware of this, right, Bob?

[felixrayman]

Alternatively, given that these were essentially mandatory acts under the Nazi state

Yet many under the Nazi state did not undertake these supposedly mandatory acts, while others did. If we are to describe as exemplary one of these behaviors, which shall it be? Does the Catholic church seem to agree with you?

Presumably no German alive and over the age of 10 during the Nazi era who did not take up arms against them should be allowed to become a priest, or, indeed, allowed to run for office, or be employed by a just society, under this reasoning.

A quite presumptuous statement, now isn't it? The question is not whether such people should be allowed to participate in society, but whether they should be considered exemplary. I don't consider them to be so. Do you?

Should people who do not lead exemplary lives be allowed to participate in society? If the part of their life that is considered non-exemplary is being homosexual, then the Catholic church under Ratzinger does not seem to believe so. If the part of their life that is considered non-exemplary is to participate, in whatever small or unenthusiastic way, in the Holocaust, well these things can be forgiven.

[Dianne]

A couple of ignorant questions (apologies if they've already been argued into inanity):
1. I thought priests were celibate, regardless of their sexual orientation. If that is so (and I'm pretty sure it is), why does it matter if a priest is attracted to men, women, children, barnyard animals, or inanimate objects? They aren't going to act on their attract to ANYONE, so why should it matter to anyone but god and themselves what sexual temptation they struggle against?
2. The vast majority of child molesters who have any adult sexual orientation are heterosexual, even those who preferentially abuse boys. So wouldn't it be safer to ban heterosexuals from the priesthood, if the concern was child abuse?
3. I know this has been discussed at length already (I've read some but not all of the comments thread), but a number of groups and belief systems besides the Nazis are homophobic, including the Catholic church, so I don't consider Ratzinger's behavior on this issue definitive proof that he's really still a Nazi at heart. On the other hand, his decision to push this side of Catholic doctrine makes me think that he is not, in his heart, really on the side of the angels, whoever they may be.

[Jason Kuznicki]

Edward,

I wrote, And, if you don't like the adjusted policy, you really should just get out.

And you replied, That would be defendable if the Priests already having devoted their lives to their profession were being given any way to adjust to the new policy. They're not, from what I conclude...they're being drummed out.

They have my deep sympathies. But it is hardly the first time that the Church has done similarly. Consider when it attacked the Jansenists, for instance (one of my historical specialties), or when it turned on liberation theology about a generation ago, or when it abolished the entire Jesuit order in 1773. In each of these cases, it turned its back on people who had devoted their lives to the cause as they understood it. To the hierarchy, there are far more important things at stake here than merely the careers of a few individuals.

Not, of course, that I agree with any of it. I just understand where they're coming from--which is exactly why I could never, never be a Catholic again.

[bob mcmanus]

You're aware of this, right, Bob?

Gary, this is not a novel or cookbook, but a foundational document for understanding the murder of maybe 100 million people, and preventing the subtle recurrence of wildly destructive ideas.

I am not attacking the ideas of copyright generally to ask that some works become public domain. I cannot imagine that Hannah Arendt would wish, for instance, that it go out of print in a royalty dispute with her heirs.

A strawman day indeed.

[bob mcmanus]

"You're aware of this, right, Bob?"

Didn't follow the link; had a window upen at that site for a half hour