New Pope

[nordicrunner]

If you're not watching any news station right now, a new pope has been elected (white smoke, bells ringing) but has yet to be announced). i wonder who it is and what name he will take.

to me, it seems more like a sports event, the way they are announcing it.

what is your opinion on this matter?

[MoMo]

Yeah, why couldn't they have just sent out an e-mail, or posted it on a blog or something? Oh, these quaint rituals. ;)

[Biscuit_AQ]

I'm hoping for Gregory.

[Biscuit_AQ]

Benedict XVI....I'll go look for info on past Benedicts.

[jersey_guy]

I was hoping for Scott Thomas.

[nordicrunner]

Benedict XV was a liberal pope during WWI.

that was mentioned on CBS.

[Zat0pek]

As a convert to Catholicism twelve years ago, I personally am thrilled with this selection. He was the one I wanted.

[MoMo]

I dunno, zat. His record is as a sort of Tom DeLay of the Catholic Church... "God's rottweiler," they call him.

Not sure I'm too comfortable with that. Seems like a leap into the 18th century.

[Zat0pek]

I dunno, zat. His record is as a sort of Tom DeLay of the Catholic Church... "God's rottweiler," they call him.

Not sure I'm too comfortable with that. Seems like a leap into the 18th century.

That's because you're looking at a religious figure through largely a political lens (even your analogy was to a political leader), as many people make the mistake of doing. You're also making the mistake of assuming that some things aren't essentially timeless.

[MoMo]

Some things aren't. The church didn't denounce slavery until the end of the 19th century, and its record on Judaism wasn't great during World War II. We don't need a pope who embraces "traditional" values TO A FAULT.

[deluge]

I dunno, zat. His record is as a sort of Tom DeLay of the Catholic Church... "God's rottweiler," they call him.

I thought I remember hearing he was often referred to as John Paul's 'right hand man' and he was on track with alot of the Pope's conservative beliefs.

[Biscuit_AQ]

I think you and MoMo might be saying the same thing from different viewpoints

[TJPatriot]

I thought I remember hearing he was often referred to as John Paul's 'right hand man' and he was on track with alot of the Pope's conservative beliefs.

That would be a good reason to elect him.

A lot of people liked the last Pope and how he acted, so I don't see why not to elect someone who is similar.

[jrun]

As a convert to Catholicism twelve years ago, I personally am thrilled with this selection. He was the one I wanted.

A convert from.....?

(If I may ask)

[Kalaby]

My money (not literally) was on Ratzinger all along. At this time, he's the right man for the job. Presumably he'll serve out a relatively short term given his age, while stabilizing the Catholic base and laying the groundwork for the next Pope. The next Pope will be the really interesting pick. Most experts put it at 50/50 that the next Pope will be from outside of Europe, and I'm inclined to agree with those odds.

[Zat0pek]

A convert from.....?

(If I may ask)

Protestantism, generally. Baptized Methodist but when my family moved when I was three, they joined a Presbyterian church. The minister in that church had a doctorate in theology and was one of the most brilliant and compassionate people I have ever known.

[mzungu]

on ratzinger's membership in the hitler youth:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050419/en_afp/vaticanpopegermany

[Jwaksman]

As a Jew, I don't think it's right to criticize his membership in the Nazi youth. Back then, you were forced to join or face terrible punishment. He eventually deserted from the German army, at the risk of execution. And since WWII he has been a huge outspoken opponent of what the Germans did.

So, that's not a reason to criticize him.

A better reason would be that he is just like Pope John Paul II all over again on social issues. John Paul was Pope so long that he basically appointed everyone with a say in this Papal election, which means that we were guaranteed to get another Pope with his point of view. Ratzinger will attack abortion rights, birth control, and homosexuals - just like John Paul did. Also, he has tried to brush the Priest scandals under the rug, calling them a "media conspiracy."

That is the problem I have with this Pope - which has nothing to do with his actions in Germany during WWII.

[MoMo]

JP2 did indeed appoint nearly every cardinal.
But he didn't appoint Ratzinger.

[nordicrunner]

for pope john paul II, i think that people liked him more as a man more than the things he was saying. they kind of looked past it because of the thing he had been through, i guess.

[Kalaby]

As a Jew, I don't think it's right to criticize his membership in the Nazi youth. Back then, you were forced to join or face terrible punishment. He eventually deserted from the German army, at the risk of execution. And since WWII he has been a huge outspoken opponent of what the Germans did.

So, that's not a reason to criticize him.

A better reason would be that he is just like Pope John Paul II all over again on social issues. John Paul was Pope so long that he basically appointed everyone with a say in this Papal election, which means that we were guaranteed to get another Pope with his point of view. Ratzinger will attack abortion rights, birth control, and homosexuals - just like John Paul did. Also, he has tried to brush the Priest scandals under the rug, calling them a "media conspiracy."

That is the problem I have with this Pope - which has nothing to do with his actions in Germany during WWII.

Ratzinger's/RC Church's stance on social issues doesn't directly affect you since you are not Catholic, so it really isn't a big deal IMO, though of course you're entitled to your opinion just like anybody else. I will take issue where you say that Ratzinger will "attack abortion rights"; in response to that I say that he will continue to speak for the rights of the unborn. Do you honestly think the Church will EVER soften their stance on abortion? Hopefully you are not waiting for that to happen, because (thankfully) they never will, no matter who the Pope happens to be. As far as other issues, like married clergy, etc. that day may come again, but definitely not under Ratzinger's Papacy.

In terms of Ratzinger's Hitler Youth days, you have placed it in its proper context as a non-issue. Unfortunately, others will try to make something out of it that doesn't exist.

[Zat0pek]

on ratzinger's membership in the hitler youth:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050419/en_afp/vaticanpopegermany

You're right on schedule!

I've known for a week that, if Ratzinger was elected, the libs would be in overdrive on the Hitler Youth thing. Its really fascinating to watch them trot out their playbook at times like this in order to advance their agenda.

The best one was a radio report I heard on the way home tonight. I think the phrase "Hitler Youth" was uttered within the first ten words or so of the report. Of course, you had to listen to the rest of the story because they saved for the very end that he was conscripted against his will, that membership was compulsory, that he defected from the German army and defied the hierarchy despite the fact his life could have been on the line for doing so.

You follow the playbook well. Your post headline is simply that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth. If one bothers to read the story you link, you learn little tidbits like these, which wouldn't be expected given the headline:


When membership of the movement became compulsory in 1941, Ratzinger's older brother Georg joined and the future Pope Benedict XVI was then enrolled, against his will, he has said in a number of interviews.

When the US troops reached the town, they used Ratzinger's house as their headquarters. "As a child, he grew up in an anti-Nazi family. Nonetheless he was forced to join the Hitler Youth movement during the Second World War," the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center's founder and head Rabbi Marvin Hier told AFP."

Another Jewish activist group in the United States, the Anti-Defamation League, said the new pope had "atoned" for the Nazi links of his youth.

"The fact that he comes from Europe is important because he brings with him an understanding and memory of the painful history of Europe and of the 20th Century experience of European Jewry," the group said, alluding to World War II.

Virtually every German male his age has Hitler Youth on their resume. Not like there was much choice.

But I digress. Its just that I've always been fascinated by secular political analysis of religious events. Its a remarkable dance to watch if you actually understand the choreography of both sides of that dance. Sadly, very few do.

[jrun]

Question:

What would Christ say about this whole 'Pope' selection process?

[jersey_guy]

Of course the liberal media on both sides of Atlantic will use any occasion to rip on the Pope:

http://www.drudgereport.com/pr.jpg

[Kalaby]

Question:

What would Christ say about this whole 'Pope' selection process?

Treading on the age old Christian and/or Protestant versus Catholic debate.

Catholics generally offer up Matthew 16:18 as support, while non-Catholics offer up other Biblical passages to reject the notion of the Papacy.

The belief and following of the faith (at least to me) is the primary thing here, not so much the administration of the faith.

[jersey_guy]

I don't know, JG, "Papa Ratzi" is a decent pun.

I was focused more on the Hitler Youth part.

[jrun]

The belief and following of the faith (at least to me) is the primary thing here, not so much the administration of the faith.

Exactly.

But, it's just interesting that so many could believe an entire church was built upon a sinful man, Peter, who himself needed a Saviour, Jesus Christ.

[Kalaby]

Exactly.

But, it's just interesting that so many could believe an entire church was built upon a sinful man, Peter, who himself needed a Saviour, Jesus Christ.


That's your interpretation as a non-Catholic. Suffice it to say, Catholics like myself see it another way, so let's please just leave it at that and move on. I had a prolonged and ugly debate with TrackDaddy a year or two ago about this and I'm really not in the mood for the "sequel" that I sense is about to begin with your latest line of posts.

[jake]

Ratzinger will attack abortion rights, birth control, and homosexuals - just like John Paul did. Also, he has tried to brush the Priest scandals under the rug, calling them a "media conspiracy."

That is the problem I have with this Pope - which has nothing to do with his actions in Germany during WWII.

I think Zat summed up these issues well. There is room for modernizing the Church, there is room for more liberal ideas, however, for the most part, that doesn't include the issues you mentioned above, at least any sweeping changes of teaching. My opinion is many non-Catholics, and many Catholics themselves, don't really understand Catholic theology. The idea that the Church needs to modernize its stand on an issue like abortion is ridiculous. To do so would be to admit they aren't the Church they claim to be. You can't analyze Catholic moral teaching from an American, secular, lens. That doesn't mean you can't disagree, just that if you disagree with the Church's teachings on these issues, you'll contnue to have a problem with every pope.

[leighpeas]

I was hoping for Scott Thomas.
My uncle's name is Thomas Scott.

[Jwaksman]

jake, the church eventually gave in on things like the Earth revolving around the sun and evolution. And that was after hundreds (or a thousand) years of people saying that giving in on those issues would force them to "admit that they aren't the Church they claim to be." They can only stand in the way of freedom and science for so long - eventually they will give in.

[jrun]

jake, the church eventually gave in on things like the Earth revolving around the sun and evolution. And that was after hundreds (or a thousand) years of people saying that giving in on those issues would force them to "admit that they aren't the Church they claim to be." They can only stand in the way of freedom and science for so long - eventually they will give in.

What's the science that may change the Church's stance on abortion? Allowing abortions until a certain point when science may say that 'now it's a living being'?

[KenA55]

Science pursues its ends, the church pursues its ends. Freedom all around, neither has the political clout to impose its will on the other. Doesn't that describe the situation in the USA today? Some might argue that the church puts undue influence on it's members; hogwash. Members make their own choices politically and do not answer to the church on political matters. If government chooses to restrict freedoms, or restrict scientific endeavor in certain areas, its not because of the influence of any church or religion. Its because of the influence of votors, public opinion.

Completely correct on the Nazi Youth thing; I've worked alongside former members- you weren't exactly offered the choice to decline.

[Zat0pek]

There is room for modernizing the Church, there is room for more liberal ideas, however, for the most part, that doesn't include the issues you mentioned above, at least any sweeping changes of teaching. My opinion is many non-Catholics, and many Catholics themselves, don't really understand Catholic theology. The idea that the Church needs to modernize its stand on an issue like abortion is ridiculous. To do so would be to admit they aren't the Church they claim to be. You can't analyze Catholic moral teaching from an American, secular, lens. That doesn't mean you can't disagree, just that if you disagree with the Church's teachings on these issues, you'll contnue to have a problem with every pope.

Well said. I get a good chuckle every time someone says the church needs to change because their political agenda conflicts with the church's doctrine. They have it backwards, but they'll never understand that.

On the primacy of the pope in general, I don't think a theological dissertation here would be beneficial, but I will share a few things from my perspective as a former protestant now Catholic.

When I went through the RCIA program (Rite for Christian Initiation of Adults, the process through which one joins the Catholic church), I did a considerable amount of outside reading of both early church history and doctrine. I quickly learned that my gaps in understanding of such things as papal primacy were stupendous. Suffice it to say, there is far more scriptural support than simply Matthew's account of Peter's profession and Christ's "on this Rock I shall build my Church" response. What is really interesting to read is the writings of the apostles and other very first Christians immediately after the Resurrection and for the next hundred years or so. It is very, very clear that they understood that Peter had been left in charge of the church on earth, something that even the remaining apostles wrote about over the course of their lives. Their struggle was with defining what that really meant over the next couple of centuries.

For anyone interested, there is a great book by Dr. Scott Hahn titled Rome, Sweet Rome. Hahn was a brilliant Presbyterian theologian that converted to Catholicism, and the book is the story of his conversion. Hahn is a wonderful writer, meticulous researcher and a great mind. Heartily recommend all his work, and he is very prolific.

And don't get me started on the doctrine of infallibility. That is so wildly misunderstood its not even worth addressing here. And the notion that the Catholic Church disregards science and reason is almost laughably uninformed. But again, that is not a discussion that will be in any way fruitful, so best to probably let it lie as well.

[jaygray]

Scott Hahn is a mentsch; arguably one of the finest biblical scholars anywhere.

How many have actually been to the Vatican? I have, and it was pretty moving. The pieta is sorrow in stone. I guess I was most impressed by the Raphael room.

[herr]

I actually saw the last pope in person when I visited St Peters. He was riding in the then open Popemobile. I waved. It took me a while to realize that everyone didn't have that experience.

Catholics, along with socialists and communists, were staunch opponents of nazism prior to their coming to power. Political Catholicism did not voluntarily obey the Nazi command to dissolve their political operation once the Nazi's won the election in late 1932. Catholics voted for the Nazis in miniscule numbers. Post war German democracy was built by German catholics. German catholics were not enthusiastic about the Nazis--ever

I am not a fan of Ratzinger, but the Nazi thing is a total canard

[Zat0pek]

Catholics, along with socialists and communists, were staunch opponents of nazism prior to their coming to power. Political Catholicism did not voluntarily obey the Nazi command to dissolve their political operation once the Nazi's won the election in late 1932. Catholics voted for the Nazis in miniscule numbers. Post war German democracy was built by German catholics. German catholics were not enthusiastic about the Nazis--ever

I am not a fan of Ratzinger, but the Nazi thing is a total canard

And yet it's the headline. Hmm. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

[Biscuit_AQ]

I've been to the vatican, and found it very moving in spite of my generally non-religous nature.

[exjersey1]

You're right on schedule!

I've known for a week that, if Ratzinger was elected, the libs would be in overdrive on the Hitler Youth thing. Its really fascinating to watch them trot out their playbook at times like this in order to advance their agenda.

The best one was a radio report I heard on the way home tonight. I think the phrase "Hitler Youth" was uttered within the first ten words or so of the report. Of course, you had to listen to the rest of the story because they saved for the very end that he was conscripted against his will, that membership was compulsory, that he defected from the German army and defied the hierarchy despite the fact his life could have been on the line for doing so.

You follow the playbook well. Your post headline is simply that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth. If one bothers to read the story you link, you learn little tidbits like these, which wouldn't be expected given the headline:








Virtually every German male his age has Hitler Youth on their resume. Not like there was much choice.

But I digress. Its just that I've always been fascinated by secular political analysis of religious events. Its a remarkable dance to watch if you actually understand the choreography of both sides of that dance. Sadly, very few do.


:)

Apparently you were on the same schedule as mzungu by leaping rabidly to the defense, no?


Regarding jwaks' comment that since the end of WWII, he has been an outspoken critic of the Germans, well, who the he!! wasn't? Agreed that none of us were there to live through that time, but it's easy to be courageous when the bully/enemy is dead and gone. I'd have more respect had he done what others did and stood up at the time for his beliefs, and not waited until it was safe.

Remember, if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Does all of the Hitler Youth stuff make him a bad guy now? No, but don't anoint him for Sainthood just yet, please.

[Jwaksman]

People are spoiled by the liberties that we have in the rest of the world today due to our extinguishing of Nazism. In Germany, if you were asked to join the Nazi army and you declined you were shot. He deserted from the army in late 1944 (or early 1945?) under the knowledge that if he was found he would be killed.

He hasn't shown any evidence of anti-semitism, so let's not throw around terms unless there is evidence. It's just as bad as when campus leftists throw around terms like "racist" and "sexist" and "imperialist" at anyone who disagrees with them, with no way to back any of it up.


Attacking someone personally just means that you are refusing to address the real issues that they're bringing up.

[Kalaby]

:)

Apparently you were on the same schedule as mzungu by leaping rabidly to the defense, no?


Regarding jwaks' comment that since the end of WWII, he has been an outspoken critic of the Germans, well, who the he!! wasn't? Agreed that none of us were there to live through that time, but it's easy to be courageous when the bully/enemy is dead and gone. I'd have more respect had he done what others did and stood up at the time for his beliefs, and not waited until it was safe.

Remember, if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Does all of the Hitler Youth stuff make him a bad guy now? No, but don't anoint him for Sainthood just yet, please.

That's a very simplistic and narrow way of looking at this situation IMO; particularly the "if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" statement. It's very likely had he stood up against the Nazis at that time then there wouldn't even be a Cardinal Ratzinger or now a Pope Benedict XVI. Outward resistance equaled death in most instances under that regime. Ultimately, he now has the chance to do more good and contribute more to this world than had he defiantly stood up to the Nazis and been executed as some nameless teenager in Germany. There's a time and a place for martyrdom, but sometimes survival is the best choice.

[exjersey1]

That's a very simplistic and narrow way of looking at this situation IMO; particularly the "if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" statement. It's very likely had he stood up against the Nazis at that time then there wouldn't even be a Cardinal Ratzinger or now a Pope Benedict XVI. Outward resistance equaled death in most instances under that regime. Ultimately, he now has the chance to do more good and contribute more to this world than had he defiantly stood up to the Nazis and been executed as some nameless teenager in Germany. There's a time and a place for martyrdom, but sometimes survival is the best choice.

To borrow a phrase, What would Jesus have done?

[Kalaby]

To borrow a phrase, What would Jesus have done?


In fulfillment of the Scriptures, Jesus was to be put to death and rise again on the 3rd day. Ratzinger would've just been another dead 16 year old kid at the hands of the Nazis. Big difference.

[TrackDaddy]

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

1 Timothy 2:5

[Biscuit_AQ]

all I saw was "blah blah blah I know people are sensitive, but I'm starting trouble for no reason blah blah blah"

[Zat0pek]

"For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."

1 Timothy 2:5

Absolutely true. But the pope is not a mediator. He is a CEO.

[exjersey1]

In fulfillment of the Scriptures, Jesus was to be put to death and rise again on the 3rd day. Ratzinger would've just been another dead 16 year old kid at the hands of the Nazis. Big difference.


You didn't answer my question, so I'll try phrasing it more clearly.

I don't want to know what Jesus Christ actually (or legendarily) did on or around 0 BC.

I want to know what you believe he would have done, based on what you know of his life and his teachings, in 1940's Germany. Would he have covered his own butt and joined with the Nazis because "everybody else was doing it" or would he have stood up for what he believed?

Remember, this is supposedly somone who said to turn the other cheek to anger, not to turn a blind eye toward evil.

[mzungu]

first, i'm somehow being faulted for posting a link to a highly newsworthy story, because it's not often that a member of hitler youth becomes pope? that's crazy. i didn't know he was a member and the story was written in such a way as to give him the benefit of the doubt completely.
ratzinger was 17, i believe, at the end of world war ii and by joining the hitler youth and remaining there he disqualified himself forever from being MORAL LEADER TO 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE, in my opinion. great moral status requires great moral courage. moreover, i have my doubts as to whether his membership was compulsory and even more that death would have resulted from refusal. but i'll check that out when i get a chance on it.

as far as ratzinger's recent career, he's established himself as a conservative by catholic standards, which is to say that if he supports most of jpII's policies, he will exhibit a great deal of compassion, he will apologize for various events in the history of the catholic church, he will continue the rapprochement with jewish leaders, he will emphasize again the poverty of christ and the need to help the poor. however, he will also sustain various disastrous policies concerning sexuality, gender, and reproduction. at 78, he's unlikely to be pope particularly long. this can be likened to the soviet gerontocracy at the end prior to liberalization or glasnost. that is, i take ratzinger as a transitional pope, like andropov, after which there may be, if the appointed cardinals ever look realistically at the status of the church around the world, a movement into the contemporary world that also responds to the issue of the 18 million catholics with HIV, etc.

edit:
this is from a website and the information seems pretty reliable; membership in hitler youth became compulsory in 1936 and especially so(whatever that means) in 1939. full hitler youth title comes in at age 15 to 18. refusal to go did not mean death, but rather some ostracism from other students, apparently, but if the parents refused, then the child could be taken away from them.
"The NAZI shoe parliament in December 1936, made membership in the Hitler Youth obligatory for all boys and girls between 10 and 18 years of age. On March 25th, 1939, the "Zweite Durchfuehrungsverordnung zum Gesetz ueber die Hitler-Jugend (Jugenddienstverordnung)" was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt, vol.1 , p.710 and put the provisions of the law into effect. This required boys to join regardless of whether somebody wanted to join or not, whether the parents approved or not.


It could be dangerous to refuse to become a member, although there are no records of any child ever being killed for not joining. It was mainly bad because your friends and everyone in school was usually a member, and if you were not, they would make fun of you, tease you and often not even speak to you. Some children and their families were very brave and did not become members, but most did join did. Many boys loved it, and some were very afraid--especially boys who were not athletically inclined.


It was particularly dangerous to avoid participating in the Hitler Youth after it became mandatory in March 1939. When membership became mandatory, parents were warned that the kids would be taken away and sent to other homes or orphanages. Parents, who were found guilty of keeping their children out of the HJ were sentenced to severe prison sentences.


Membership in the HJ was remarkable. In 1932, 107,956 boys were enrolled. The end of 1939 enrolled almost 8 million boys enrolled in the HJ. Part of the reason enrollment grew so fast was that Von Schirach knew how to effectively play on the sympathies of the youth. He had gone through the youth movement as well and was only 26 years old upon being appointed leader of the HJ. He knew that sport, outdoor activities, and independence was important to the youth. He also knew that they had a striking nationalistic attitude. They were against the Weimar government and so were the NAZI’s."

[jersey_guy]

this can be likened to the soviet gerontocracy at the end prior to liberalization or glasnost. that is, i take ratzinger as a transitional pope, like andropov

Andropov was the head of the KGB for 20 years before becoming the Communist leader and sent thousands of people to death, so your analogy is really to the point... I guess JP2 was Brezhnev then, but I don't know if liberals like you mean it as a complement or an insult.

[mzungu]

jersey, you're again looking at a narrow comparison and applying it beyond where the author (myself) applied it. no one said ratzinger is comparable to andropov qua kgb activity. but in sustaining the outdated policies of a gerontocracy, that's andropov and likely ratzinger.

[jersey_guy]

jersey, you're again looking at a narrow comparison and applying it beyond where the author (myself) applied it. no one said ratzinger is comparable to andropov qua kgb activity. but in sustaining the outdated policies of a gerontocracy, that's andropov and likely ratzinger.

I know they took analogies out of SATs, but here's one for you

Andropov is to Ratzinger as Hitler is to Clinton (both elected on the wave of economic resentment and without winning a majority and have nothing else in common)

[mzungu]

That's a very simplistic and narrow way of looking at this situation IMO; particularly the "if you ain't part of the solution, you're part of the problem" statement. It's very likely had he stood up against the Nazis at that time then there wouldn't even be a Cardinal Ratzinger or now a Pope Benedict XVI. Outward resistance equaled death in most instances under that regime. Ultimately, he now has the chance to do more good and contribute more to this world than had he defiantly stood up to the Nazis and been executed as some nameless teenager in Germany. There's a time and a place for martyrdom, but sometimes survival is the best choice.

Outward resistance did not equal death in many instances FOR NON-Jewish Germans. For example, when the Nazis were euthanizing the old and the sick GERMANS, their 'ethnically-German' relatives began to protest and far from being killed, the protesters succeeded in getting the Nazis to abandon the program after roughly 40-80,000 had been euthanized. The Nazis immediately moved the gas chamber technology to the death camps. And, as the quotes above indicate, refusal to join the Nazi Youth did not involve death or even in all likelihood imprisonment. So, it is plausible to say that Ratzinger wanted to join, or at least (much weaker) that if he opposed it, as he said, then he did not show any moral courage when faced with minor penalties at most. I saw the quote about the U.S. military using his parents' house, but that is meaningless. You have to understand that after the war everyone raced to establish anti-Nazi credentials so that they would not lose their jobs, etc.

[mzungu]

I know they took analogies out of SATs, but here's one for you

Andropov is to Ratzinger as Hitler is to Clinton (both elected on the wave of economic resentment and without winning a majority and have nothing else in common)

Nice analogy, except that the relation between the two terms is supposed to be the same in section one and section two, which is not the case, and of course clinton never had popularity ratings anywhere near as low as bush, who was elected for the first time in 2004.

[jersey_guy]

Nice analogy, except that the relation between the two terms is supposed to be the same in section one and section two, which is not the case, and of course clinton never had popularity ratings anywhere near as low as bush, who was elected for the first time in 2004.

I bet my friend $5 that you would say "Bush" in the reply so thanks for making me richer.

[Biscuit_AQ]

oooh, cutting return. Gonna blow a raspberry next?

[Jwaksman]

I hate to do this on a thread about the Pope, but... mzungu, please stop making things up. Clinton's approval ratings during the Lewinsky trial were far, far below anything Bush has seen. He had ratings in the 30's from some polling companies. Gallup, generally considered the definitive polling company, had Clinton around 42-45% for a while during his 2nd term. Meanwhile, some polling firms had Bush's approval rating drop slightly below 50% just before the 2004 election, but nowhere near the levels that Clinton was down to.


And, you may not like the rules of our elections, but Bush won in 2000 according the rules in place. You are welcome to try to change the rules for future elections, but you cannot change them retroactively. Because you know that if it was Gore who lost the popular vote and then won the electoral vote (which actually seemed like the more probably scenario, until all the evangelists stayed home and Bush squeaked out Florida) that you would be calling the election legitimate. You don't consider it illegitimate because a President won without a majority - you consider it illegitimate because a Republican won without a majority. That's a big difference...

[Dyenimator]

Didn't I make it a law where Jwaksman and mzungu never spoke to one another?

[Kalaby]

Outward resistance did not equal death in many instances FOR NON-Jewish Germans. For example, when the Nazis were euthanizing the old and the sick GERMANS, their 'ethnically-German' relatives began to protest and far from being killed, the protesters succeeded in getting the Nazis to abandon the program after roughly 40-80,000 had been euthanized. The Nazis immediately moved the gas chamber technology to the death camps. And, as the quotes above indicate, refusal to join the Nazi Youth did not involve death or even in all likelihood imprisonment. So, it is plausible to say that Ratzinger wanted to join, or at least (much weaker) that if he opposed it, as he said, then he did not show any moral courage when faced with minor penalties at most. I saw the quote about the U.S. military using his parents' house, but that is meaningless. You have to understand that after the war everyone raced to establish anti-Nazi credentials so that they would not lose their jobs, etc.

Speculation at best on your part about Ratzinger's intentions/motives in this particular case. Plenty of other stories and direct witnesses indicate far greater ramifications of resisting Nazi will for German or non-German alike. I love how people are Monday morning quarterbacks on stuff like this, with their talk of "moral courage" yada yada yada. I'd love to have seen what you would've done as a young kid under the same circumstances. It's really easy to judge when you are 60+ years removed, and on the other side of the Atlantic. Everybody has great courage and impeccable morals when they're that far removed from the threat of harm/death.

[xcrider]

Back to another part of the thread. While I completely disagree with the Catholic church on most things based on the Bible, I wholeheartedly agree that there is no need to modernize the church. Losing members, liberal movements, and all do not mean you change the church to fit them. If you are a believer the words of Jesus said "the words I have spoken will judge you". That has not changed. There is no sin committed today, that wasn't committed in the 1st century. Read Matt 7:21-23. Again while I believe the Catholic church to be wrong, I hope they remain true to their stance on abortion, and homosexuality(being that the practice is wrong, not to hate the people that make that choice).

[MoMo]

The rules in place???

If everything had been subject to clear and undebatable rules, there wouldn't have been a seven-week crisis over the election outcome.

The fact is, Republicans like Kathleen Harris were either making up rules as they went along, or INTERPRETING those rules to their own party's benefit. Do you think that if Democrats had controlled the levers of power in Florida in 2000, that those same rules might not have been subjected to a different set of torturing manipulations?

These rules were hardly bright lines in the sand. Just think of the famous pictures of exhausted vote counters studying ballots for hanging or dimpled chads.

[KenA55]

I want to know what you believe he would have done, based on what you know of his life and his teachings, in 1940's Germany. Would he have covered his own butt and joined with the Nazis because "everybody else was doing it" or would he have stood up for what he believed?


At age 14 or whatever he would have obeyed his parents direction.

[MoMo]

Yeah, I'm sorry, he was a 14-year-old kid.

How many 14-year-old kids are going to stand up and defy a Hitler?

Personally, I'd be more interested in knowing the circumstances of his desertion from the German Army. Was this an act of courage, of principle, of confusion or of cowardice?

[Zat0pek]

Personally, I'd be more interested in knowing the circumstances of his desertion from the German Army. Was this an act of courage, of principle, of confusion or of cowardice?

Hmmm. Let's see. U.S. soldiers used his house as a headquarters and he came from what even Jewish leaders refer to as an anti-Nazi family.

Whudda you think?

[Jwaksman]

MoMo, no one on this side of Mel Gibson's Conspiracy Theory character doesn't agree that Bush won Florida, which means that he won the election under the rules in place. If you want to get rid of the Electoral College in the future then that's fine, but you can't change those rules retroactively.


Frankly, this is all just sour grapes. During the recount in 2000 I was rooting for Gore to pull it out cause I figured he was the lesser of two evils - but he lost, and I don't really care. You're just so bitter cause your guy lost.


Answer me this honest question: If the roles were reversed and Gore had been the guy who won under identical circumstances, would you be calling it a fraudulent election? If the answer is "no" then you really have to question your credibility and your ability to get past simplistic partisanship...

[MoMo]

Well, soldiers on both sides used whatever house they needed.

As implied by my comment on him being 14 years old at the war's start, I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Yes, his family was known as anti-Nazi.

Only he will ever know his real motives. But I don't think we can necessarily infer that it was an act of principled rebellion or resistance.

[Zat0pek]

Only he will ever know his real motives. But I don't think we can necessarily infer that it was an act of principled rebellion or resistance.

Considering the whole of his life, the only way you can't do it is if you simply lack objectivity. There isn't one single piece of evidence that indicates otherwise, and a number that indicate the virtue in his motives.

[MoMo]

Well, not to be obstreperous -- as I said, I tend to defend his early actions -- but it seems to me that your GUESS at his early motives can be nothing but subjective.

War is hell. Crazy things happen. People get frightened and run, sometimes not even knowing why. A lot gets lost in the fog of war. And a lot of what people claim later to have done -- a lot of the chest-beating stories told by some veterans, and most often those not closest to the action -- is surely tinged by shady memories, or a desire for glory, or a need for self-justification.

[MoMo]

wackman, my point -- made fairly clearly, i thought -- was that rules are subject to very elastic interpretation.

as i said, the dems would have stretched them in their own direction had they been in power.

i've answered you on the substance of your comment. if i were to go one step further, i would merely note that your comments -- "sour grapes" ... "you're just so bitter" ... "question your credibility" ... "simplistic partisanship" -- don't really seem to fit the new steveu-directed spirit of the lounge. they roll off my back, but they might not roll off his.

[mzungu]

I hate to do this on a thread about the Pope, but... mzungu, please stop making things up. Clinton's approval ratings during the Lewinsky trial were far, far below anything Bush has seen. He had ratings in the 30's from some polling companies. Gallup, generally considered the definitive polling company, had Clinton around 42-45% for a while during his 2nd term. Meanwhile, some polling firms had Bush's approval rating drop slightly below 50% just before the 2004 election, but nowhere near the levels that Clinton was down to.


And, you may not like the rules of our elections, but Bush won in 2000 according the rules in place. You are welcome to try to change the rules for future elections, but you cannot change them retroactively. Because you know that if it was Gore who lost the popular vote and then won the electoral vote (which actually seemed like the more probably scenario, until all the evangelists stayed home and Bush squeaked out Florida) that you would be calling the election legitimate. You don't consider it illegitimate because a President won without a majority - you consider it illegitimate because a Republican won without a majority. That's a big difference...

bush's approval ratings are below 45% and have almost never been much above 50%. clinton's averaged 61% in his second term and 51% in his first term. clinton's low was 43% in june of 1993, but was very high during and after the lewinsky scandal (68-69%).

from the radical abcnews:
"Despite his prevaricating, his sexual misadventures and his impeachment by Congress, a remarkable 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Clinton has done his job — the best end-of-career rating of any postwar president (one point ahead of Ronald Reagan).

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001) 65%
Ronald Reagan (1989) 64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961) 59
John F. Kennedy (1963) 63
George Bush (1993) 56
Gerald Ford (1977) 53
Lyndon Johnson (1969) 49
Jimmy Carter (1981) 34
Richard Nixon (1974) 24

On some specifics Clinton's final ratings soar higher still. Sixty-seven percent say he's been a strong leader. Sixty-eight percent approve of his work on foreign affairs; on race relations, 73 percent approve; and on the economy — the mainstay of his overall approval — 76 percent endorse Clinton's performance.

Yet this is also a president with truly dismal personal ratings: Sixty-seven percent of Americans say he's not honest and trustworthy. Seventy-seven percent say he lacks high moral and ethical standards. And just 44 percent view him favorably "as a person."

Two Guys

It's an old story — The Tale of Two Clintons. Most people doubt the man personally, but most like his work professionally — precisely the separation that sustained Clinton through the Monica Lewinsky scandal and his subsequent impeachment.

Indeed, his job approval rating hit its all-time peak, 69 percent, just after the Lewinsky scandal erupted, and then reached almost as high, 68 percent, immediately after the Senate acquitted him of impeachment charges.

His low point, in fact, came years earlier: A 43 percent job approval rating in June 1993, as his new administration floundered and the economy remained weak."

bush in 2000 did not win according to the rules in place. he won based on the JUDGMENT of the five republican nominated supreme court justices, whose unwise decision was not to recount all of the Florida votes, CONTRARY to the Florida Supreme Court decision. the U.S. Supreme Court decision was so strange that it SPECIFICALLY ruled out the use of the decision as a precedent for any future cases. according to all but one of the press consortium recounts of Florida, gore won.

[mzungu]

Speculation at best on your part about Ratzinger's intentions/motives in this particular case. Plenty of other stories and direct witnesses indicate far greater ramifications of resisting Nazi will for German or non-German alike. I love how people are Monday morning quarterbacks on stuff like this, with their talk of "moral courage" yada yada yada. I'd love to have seen what you would've done as a young kid under the same circumstances. It's really easy to judge when you are 60+ years removed, and on the other side of the Atlantic. Everybody has great courage and impeccable morals when they're that far removed from the threat of harm/death.

There's no speculation regarding the standard treatment of teenagers (15-18) refusing to join the Hitler Youth. The source indicates that there was no threat of death or imprisonment for those teenagers. Like many of you, I was politically active as a teenager and like many of you, I showed courage in refusing to adhere to censorship, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of movement, etc. provisions set by the secret police in a totalitarian state replete with political prisoners (at age 22-24). A catholic of great political and moral courage, someone with a history like Archbishop Desmond Tutu (I'm not sure whether he is Anglican or Catholic, but I mean someone with his history), would be far better qualified as pope.

[mzungu]

by the way, ratzinger was unequivocally opposed to the invasion of iraq.

[mzungu]

Yeah, I'm sorry, he was a 14-year-old kid.

How many 14-year-old kids are going to stand up and defy a Hitler?

Personally, I'd be more interested in knowing the circumstances of his desertion from the German Army. Was this an act of courage, of principle, of confusion or of cowardice?

he would have been 15 in entering the youth officially, and 18 when leaving it.

[mzungu]

Considering the whole of his life, the only way you can't do it is if you simply lack objectivity. There isn't one single piece of evidence that indicates otherwise, and a number that indicate the virtue in his motives.

the obvious piece of evidence is his membership in the hitler youth.

[Zat0pek]

A catholic of great political and moral courage, someone with a history like Archbishop Desmond Tutu (I'm not sure whether he is Anglican or Catholic, but I mean someone with his history), would be far better qualified as pope.

I LOVE IT! An avowed atheist assuming he has any comprehension as to the qualifications for the papacy, comparing him to someone not even of the same faith only because that individual better matches his political beliefs!

And the dance goes on.

[mzungu]

what is ridiculous about your claims is that you haven't posted a single new piece of information about ratzinger that would demonstrate why he is the best man (and indeed 'man' it shall remain with him setting the rules) for the job. btw, mr. lawyer, it's a logical fallacy that you must be a member or participant in x in order to be qualified to comment on it.

[Zat0pek]

btw, mr. lawyer, it's a logical fallacy that you must be a member or participant in x in order to be qualified to comment on it.

Absolutely true.

But in evidence law, there is a distinction between the admissibility of a piece of evidence and the weight given to that evidence once it is admitted. Admissibility is a matter of law and therefore determined by the judge. Once admitted, the weight that evidence is to be given is a matter of fact and is determined by the jury as the finder of fact in that particular matter.

The Hon. Judge SteveU of the First District Court of the Dyestat Legends Lounge has clearly deemed your comments to be admissible by his failure to remove them. I enthusiastically agree with the judge's ruling on that issue.

But I, as a jury member, find that evidence to be laughable and assign it no weight whatsoever. :D

[BeamonStreet]

ratzinger was 17, i believe, at the end of world war ii and by joining the hitler youth and remaining there he disqualified himself forever from being MORAL LEADER TO 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE, in my opinion. great moral status requires great moral courage. moreover, i have my doubts as to whether his membership was compulsory and even more that death would have resulted from refusal. but i'll check that out when i get a chance on it.

as far as ratzinger's recent career, he's established himself as a conservative by catholic standards, which is to say that if he supports most of jpII's policies, he will exhibit a great deal of compassion, he will apologize for various events in the history of the catholic church, he will continue the rapprochement with jewish leaders, he will emphasize again the poverty of christ and the need to help the poor. however, he will also sustain various disastrous policies concerning sexuality, gender, and reproduction. at 78, he's unlikely to be pope particularly long. this can be likened to the soviet gerontocracy at the end prior to liberalization or glasnost. that is, i take ratzinger as a transitional pope, like andropov, after which there may be, if the appointed cardinals ever look realistically at the status of the church around the world, a movement into the contemporary world that also responds to the issue of the 18 million catholics with HIV, etc."

In terms of the first paragraph, the Catholic Church has in place its method for determining who should lead those 1.3 billion people. That group of men determined that this man was qualified. In determining I'm sure they decided that the stresses associated with being a German adolescent during the early 1940's were made up for during over a half of century of service. Mzungo, as a parallel, I guess that adolescents who commit crimes during these currently stressful times in the US should be in jail for life? Just curious .....

In terms of the second paragraph, I believe that the Cardinals have realistically evaluated how Catholics around the world feel. That just doesn't include the minority number living in the morally and ethically compromised United States.

[jersey_guy]

bush in 2000 did not win according to the rules in place. he won based on the JUDGMENT of the five republican nominated supreme court justices, whose unwise decision was not to recount all of the Florida votes, CONTRARY to the Florida Supreme Court decision.

According to the rules in place, the US Supreme Court has the precedence over any state court.

[Kalaby]

More brilliance from our resident know-it-all Mzungu. Bravo!!! He now thinks that he has a far better handle on the criteria needed in selecting a Pope than the Vatican and its cardinals. This coming from a person who is not only a non-Catholic, but an ATHEIST!!! Well done Mzungu. It's truly amazing that the Church has been able to survive for 2000 years without relying on your boundless expertise and guidance on matters such as these.

Without further ado, this is something that I should've done quite a long time ago...

Mzungu is now finally on my "Ignore List" :)

I won't go quietly Mzungu. It's not in an Irishman's makeup to do that, so I have a final parting shot for you. I've never forgotten how you called me a "freak" for simply defending my faith against the unwarranted attacks of sxyirishman a few months ago. More recently you called me along with a few others as "right-wing fanatics". Comments like that told me everything I needed to know about a hypocrite like yourself who is fond of pinning the old "ad hominem attack" label on others that dare to "insult" you. You seem to think of your philosophy and views as refined and cultured, and you have this elitist air about you that I sense comes from your inflated view of yourself and your profession. In truth, you are as nuanced and as rigid as a straight line. Your posts are incredibly predictable and pat and show a person that is far more unyielding and extreme than those that you criticize. Perhaps you should step outside your insulated little world of academia and find a job in the real world for just a while to gain some much needed true perspective on life.

You are truly a pathetic individual. Good riddance.


P.S. SteveU, I don't really care if you need to suspend or permanently ban me for this post, because it was certainly worth it.

[Zat0pek]

According to the rules in place, the US Supreme Court has the precedence over any state court.

Only on questions of Constitutional or federal law. State supreme courts remain the final aribitors of state law.

[TrackDaddy]

Absolutely true. But the pope is not a mediator. He is a CEO.Uhh...sorry. That position has been filled as well.

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church : and he is the saviour of the body."

- EPHESIANS 5:23

[mzungu]

Only on questions of Constitutional or federal law. State supreme courts remain the final aribitors of state law.

now that's what i'm talking about! share your knowledge, zat!

[mzungu]

ad hominem attacks are all right by me when deserved, but you have to distinguish them from the validity of arguments.

[jrun]

I think steveu understands the high-level of discourse routinely participated in by Lounge regulars...

mzungu, did you ever get that Catholic university job?

[mzungu]

hah! that's pretty funny. i have been working at a catholic university for the past two years! but as for a tenure-track job, no, I haven't got one at either catholic or non-catholic universities for different reasons. closest i got was last year at a secular university where the department and students were 100% for me, but the dean took a disliking to me for whatever reason--possibly just a power struggle with the department, who knows? i'm getting more and more interviews but have totally blown the nine i've had this year! no one to blame but myself.