Centerfield

I find it trouble that a former Hitler Youth and Wehrmacht veteran has been elected Pope. He committed no crimes, but displayed no heroism either.

I see him as having all the negatives of John Paul II, and lacking the many positives that made John Paul II a great man. It appears that the new Pope believes that even George W. Bush is going to Hell.

He upset many Jews with a statement in 1987 that Jewish history and scripture reach fulfilment only in Christ — a position denounced by critics as “theological anti-semitism”. He made more enemies among other religions in 2000, when he signed a document, Dominus Jesus, in which he argued: “Only in the Catholic church is there eternal salvation”.

No more Pope-Smoke webcam? What shall I do with myself?

Ratzinger was the Tom DeLay of the Vatican for over two decades. Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (aka "the Holy Office of the Inquisition"). Hard-liner conservative, enforcer of doctrine. JP2's right-hand man and best buddy. Dean of the College of Cardinals.

But to be fair, he was by all accounts an extremely releuctant Nazi. He had no choice at all in joining either the (mandatory) Hitler Youth at 14 or being drafted into the Anti-Aircraft Corps at 16, and he deserted as soon as he was posted to Hungary.

Yeah, not Catholic, shouldn't care, but can't help but be a little disappointed. It looks like they picked the status quo. All the media outlets are reporting Ratzinger's belief in strict uniformity with Church doctrine... The Trouble is that some of that doctrine is based on outdated tradition.

Hmm, they went old school, which is what i expected.. This is classic from the catholic playbook. I guess they didn't bother with any market research. Probably afraid they'd get told all the things they don't want to hear.

Yeah,

But if you really DO buy into Catholicism, "They" had no say in determing who would be Pope.... it was Divinely Ordained for them.

Let the Catholic bashing begin!

I urge everyone to avoid educating themselves in Catholic doctrine and theology. It's so much easier to hold fast to hyperbole and generalizations.

My problem with this papal choice is not really in the fact that he's more conservative (a conservative Catholic in the Vatican? No...), but that he represents an out-dated idea of the Catholic Church.

Now, I'm not Catholic, but I still think the importance of the Pope (and who the Pope is) cannot be understated. An African or Latin American Pope would have made more sense demographically, not to mention he would be better equipped to deal with the challenges of the Third World through a Catholic lens, which will be possible the most relevant task for this Pope, and which is something Ratzinger has little first hand experience with.

I think Sully says it well:

"It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning."

I think Sully says it well:

"It would be hard to over-state the radicalism of this decision. It's not simply a continuation of John Paul II. It's a full-scale attack on the reformist wing of the church. The swiftness of the decision and the polarizing nature of this selection foretell a coming civil war within Catholicism. The space for dissidence, previously tiny, is now extinct. And the attack on individual political freedom is just beginning."

I am specifically critical of the new Pope, and his role in silencing Hans Kung, who I regard as a very wise theologian. I'm at this moment thumbing through my copy of Kung's Theology for the third Millennium, which starts with a description of how the writings of the Catholic theologian Erasmus were placed on the index of proscribed books despite his remaining with the Church rather than joining the Reformation. I wonder if Kung will remain in the church now that his nemisis is in charge.

I find it very hard to believe there will be a revolution within the global Catholic Chruch over the election of this Pope. I can see a few American and maybe European Churches making a fuss and perhaps even breaking off, but don't ever forget: the Pope is the Pope. Catholics are very accepting and loving of the Pope and, from what I can tell, he tends to be revered more as an idea than as a man.

Art is right...the Pope is the Pope. American Catholics overwhelmingly flaunt certain teachings of the church (i.e. birth control), but revere the Pope. That will not change.

And he's 78, so his reign as Benedict XVI may not be all that long.

Well, I am (nominally) Catholic, and I can say his choice is very disappointing to me. Catholicism is in deep trouble in most of the "first world," and would likely be even worse off had it not been for JP2's early work as Pope.

I have found myself growing farther and farther from away from the Catholic church - at just the point in my life that I was becoming more willing to accept its flaws as those of its merely human caretakers. The scandals of the last several years, and the church's reactions to them, have been extremely troubling. I see the new pope as being more a part of those problems than their solution.

Why is it more troubling that the Pope was in the Hitler Youth when he was 14 than that a US Senator was an executive in the KKK at age 29?

I support the death penalty, voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, I’m pro choice, I think priests should be allowed to marry and women should be allowed to become priests—in short the new pope and I are on the opposite side of most major issues that he will face. But still I am glad Ratzinger was chosen because it appears that he will do more to stand up to authoritarian regimes that are oppressing Christians in the middle east and in China.

ROA brings up an interesting point. Rick only attacks people he perceives to be conservatives—No Enemies on the Left or something like that. The left is the new center.

By the way, Rick you might want to look at Yellow Line’s take on the Ratzi’s a Nazi meme.

The pope was forced to join the German army as a boy and soon after deserted. What is the concern today, 60 years later?

ROA,

I would not want Senator Byrd, the former Klansman, to be my President.

The new Pope was not a Nazi, but he was a member of a Nazi organization. With so many conservative Cardinals available, why did the conclave have to pick the only one who had been a member of a Nazi organization? Apparently, they did not think it was a big deal. I do. Symbolism matters.

I am a Jewish-American. I know that many Jewish organizations have said nice things about the new Pople. They're being diplomatic.

To be a little more substantive, Pope John Paul II distinguished himself as a resistant against Naziism and Communism? In the new Pople's biography, I don't see any evidence that he distingiushed himself in resisting evil authority. The fact that young Ratzinger did not resist the Nazi regime, out of fear, is understandable, but does not show the moral courage I would hope for in a spiritual leader.

Alf,

You slanderously accuse me of really being a liberal. It's true that since the election, I have almost exclusively criticized conservatives. That's because the conservatives have the power in this world. They run the government that dominates the world and the religious institutions with the most power in the world. I do from time to time suggest liberals move to the center, by taking religion more seriously for instance, supporting reasonable limits on abortion, but liberals aren't listening to me, so I don't waste my breath for the most part.

Being a centrist does not mean agreeing with conservatives half the time. It means staking out a positive that is location between liberals and conservatives. But with conservatives pretty much running the world, yes, I am to the left of the established authorities.

[start sarcasm] Yeah, let the whining about "catholic bashing" begin as soon as anyone says anything remotely critical of catholics. I strongly urge all catholics to whine about such criticisms instead of doing the hard work of addressing genuine issues raised by this choice, such as the stifling of dissent. [end sarcasm]

ROA, who said anything about Ratzinger 's background being more troubling than some senators KKK background? I don't remember anyone saying that except you. Building a little straw bashing platform are you?

I think Ratzinger 's background in the Hitler Youth is worth remarking upon for the purposes of discussion. IMO, such a discussion really only brings to light that there's no reason to think he was anything other than a victim of the circumstances of his times.

I doubt Ratzinger as Benedict 16 will have much long-term effect despite his obvious penchant for the hard line. In the modern age, educated people generally feel much freer than in past ages to simply take a church's recommendations under advisement, as opposed to considering it as divine gospel. It's definitely true of Americans, according to this poll. The Catholic church can ignore this if they want, but they should really listen to their marketing department if they genuinely want to grow.

I expect that at 78 this guy is something of a caretaker/placeholder, someone to please his generation. If I had to guess, his reign will be a last stand before the church begins to move towards some moderate reforms with the NEXT pope, such as allowing priests to marry, and perhaps ordination of women. Condemnation of homosexuality might be at least toned down, too. People like to think of the church's teachings as timeless and unchanging, but I have my doubts. I expect slow generational evolution. This gets managed in a "two steps forward, one step back" fashion. Benedict 16 is the "stepback" pope.

BK
My point about the KKK was that I didn’t recall anyone who was upset about Ratzinger’s past being upset about Senator Byrd’s KKK participation. I realize there are different moral standards for Pope and Senator, but Senator Byrd’s KKK participation was so much more egregious than Ratzinger’s Hitler Youth participation people who were offended by Ratzinger should have voiced some qualms about Byrd.

Rick,
Benedict was 6 when Hitler came to power and 14 when he was forced to join the Hitler Youth. Please explain where he was supposed to get the moral convictions you are demanding he have. In contrast, John Paul II was 7 years older than Benedict and Polish so a 1 to 1 comparison of their actions at that time seems a little unfair.

Back to Byrd; he was 29 when he was in the KKK. And he wasn’t just a low level member; he was a leader. While the American south in the 1940’s wasn’t a bastion of equality, there were definitely more voices pointing out the evils of racial discrimination than there were in Nazi Germany.

Where was the moral indignation of everyone who mentions Pope Benedict’s Hitler Youth past when Senator Byrd was trashing Condoleeza Rice in the US senate? Ms. Rice grew up in Atlanta and knew one of the girls that was killed in the explosion set off by some of Senator Byrd’s former KKK compatriots. For him to lead the fight against her confirmation was truly disgusting, but there were almost no complaints against his participation by the same people who are so upset by Benedict’s actions when he was 14.

In 1944 at the age of 17, Ratzinger deserted from the German army. The penalty for desertion was death. The penalty for aiding a deserter was death. Unlike us, the Nazis were not in the least shy about enforcing these penalties, even on mere suspicion--and on the spot.

Is there anyone who sincerely thinks that it took no courage at all for him to desert when he could? Ratzinger was never a Nazi. He was simply a German seminary student caught in circumstance, and a reluctant soldier at best.

You slanderously accuse me of really being a liberal.

Welcome to the club, Rick. I get that all the time from the other direction. I think the real difference with both of us is that while we might have "leanings," we sincerely believe in dialogue and solutions, not doctrine and dogma.

I support the death penalty, voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide, I’m pro choice, I think priests should be allowed to marry and women should be allowed to become priests

So, Alf, you're an Episcopalian? :-)

I've seen the date of his desertion variously listed as 1944, and April or May 1945. 1944 seems extremely unlikely, as he almost certainly would have been caught and executed. Hitler committed suicide on April 30, 1945. Before that time, desertion was dangerous--but no more dangerous than falling into the hands of the Red Army. In the 8 days between Hitler's suicide and VE Day, the main priority for many Germans was to get into the zones that would be occupied by the Americans or British rather than Soviets.

I don't believe he's ever claimed he deserted out of opposition to the regime. He deserted when everyone else did, as the regime was falling apart.

Ratzinger seems to fit into the mold of the "Good German" who may not have liked the regime, but was obedient to it until it collapsed.

ROA , I wonder how encyclopedic your knowledge is of these critics you speak of so broadly and without name. Who are these people, and how sure are you that they, to a person, were entirely mum on Byrd and vocally critical of Ratzinger?

But I think it's fundamentally misguided to turn this into some argument about keeping score. If Byrd deserves condemnation (and I think his past reflects poorly upon him) then fine. But this thread isn't ABOUT him.

If anyone chooses to to criticize Ratzinger, then such criticism should be evaluated on the basis of its substance, not upon the basis of the logical consistency of the critics.

So what if some of the critics of Ratzinger are being hypocritical? You can be hypocritical in general, and still be right on target with any one of your criticisms, and the validity of your criticism in that case would exist entirely independent of your logical consistency.

BK – Your right, I can’t give you names of everyone who criticized Ratzinger and was quiet about Byrd.

But criticizing Ratzinger for joining the Hitler Youth at age 14 is similar to criticizing you, or me, for being in school at age 14. Both were mandatory. Neither says much about the type of person we will be when we become an adult.

BK,

There is no doubt that the doctrines of the Catholic church have changed over time. However, I more then a little amused by all the people whining for the church to change to be more in tune with thier social mores. If a person REALLY is a devout believer in Catholicism (and I'm going to give most of the church heiarchy the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are) then you know that doctrine (at least core doctrine) is NOT determined by any human being or group of human beings.... it's the direct revelation of gods will. To a truely devout Catholic, asking the church to change or moderate it's views on core issues is like asking the ocean to moderate or mathematics to change the way it works because 2 + 2 = 4 no longer conveniently fits with social mores.

It's really not upto the church to change. It is upto people to decide whether they are willing to accept the Church or not. There is no wiggle room. The Church isn't about to start advocating what it views as sin just to become more popular or make peoples lives more convenient.....and folks should stop expecting it to.

P.S. I'm not Catholic, I'm agnostic... and I am enough of a historian to realize that the church has been a very political animal in the past...and doctrines have changed back and forth. However, if you are a true believer there really is no room for compromise here. Homosexuality, abortion, etc don't cease being sins just because the polls say they should.... God, not man determines what is sin.... and God communicates that to man through his divine messenger, the Pope. You either accept that or you don't....and if you don't, guess what.... you're not Catholic.

Tully;

So, Alf, you're an Episcopalian? :-)

Hey, no picking on Episcopalians here...lol ;)

Rick Heller says the pope was part of the Hitler Youth, without also mentioning that membership in this organization was mandatory for all people his age -- age 14!

The unfortunate omission of this key fact gives readers the false impression that the pope's membership was a sign of conspicuous enthusiasm for Nazism.

He likewise fails to mention that his membership in the military was due to a mandatory drafting in the last few months of the war, and that his family would have faced terrible reprecussions for not following through. He was only 18 at this point, and barely finished basic training when the war ended.

Those who do not wish to unfairly smear his reputation, should be careful and clear in discussing these facts.

If we are going to submit this guy to the "exceptional resistance to nazis test" (at age 14-18!), well, very many jews failed this test as well.

Pope Benedict XVI was the architect of the ideological policy for the Vatin to recognize, and have full relations with Israel. He authoritized a 2002 report that expressed regret that certain passages in the Christian Bible condemning individual Jews have been used to justify anti-Semitism. He personally prepared Memory and Reconciliation, the 2000 document outlining the church's historical "errors" in its treatment of Jews.

Perhaps his experience with Nazis is an asset, rather than a weakness. The experience might help him to understand evil, sympathise with its victims, and confront it more forcefully.

Cengel,

Sure, if you really believe that the church and its principles are unchanging. But they aren't. Most of the divine doctrines are interpretations. Sooner or later a savvy pope leads to the church through some cautious adapting to come more in line with the people. And the people pushing for such changes know that's how it really works.

The Jerusalem Post says he's a good choice. Clearly they think his (mandatory & compulsory) childhood affiliation with the Nazis is not a liability, particularly in light of his work on Vatican/Israel relations.

He is what he is, a traditionalist. I find it less than surprising that the head of a 1600+ year old institution believes that the people should follow the ways of the Church, and not the other way around. We don't have to like it, but it isn't in the least surprising. If it were the other way around, now THAT would be startling.

Abel? I was baptized and confirmed Episcopalian, so I'm entitled (despite my agnosticism and habitual heresy). ;-)

Susan,

I stated the facts. I never said he was an enthusiastic supporter of the regime.

No, I don't believe that membership in Hitler Youth itself means a person is terrible. I've met a former member of Hitler Youth through an organization called One by One which brings together families of Holocaust survivors and families of ex-Nazis for reconciliation.

My problem with Benedict is that I'm not convinced he's "cleaned up his act." Yes, he seems to have purged himself of the anti-Semitism and racism of the environment in which he was raised. But he has retained the authoritarianism. His notions of leadership and obedience are not quite fascist, but seem closer to that of the Kaiser's imperial rule than they do to democracy.

Those of you who never heard of Ratzinger before last week may wonder why I don't give him a chance. Well, he has a chance. But in his first 78 years, he has served as an intolerant repressor (non-violent to be sure) of the teaching of theologians whom I do admire, such as Hans Kung.

I can understand the conservative movement in the United States greeting the election of a fiercely conservative Pope. But as I see it, conservatives are giving short shrift to values such as democracy and freedom of expression, which they supposedly are seeking to export to the Middle East.

Rick – Only 34 percent of Catholics come from North America or Europe so it is quite possible the current Pope’s teachings do represent the majority of Catholics.

His notions of leadership and obedience are not quite fascist, but seem closer to that of the Kaiser's imperial rule than they do to democracy.

So what? The Pope's NOT a democrat, and the Church is NOT a democracy. The Papacy is indeed the autocratic head of an independent nation, as well as head of the RC church. It is under no obligation to adjust itself to anyone's ideas, or change its traditions. Should the Rabbis of Jerusalem change their theologies to please Christians in San Francisco? Should the Mullahs of Tehran change their theology to please Buddhists of Tibet?

You may not like the actions and decisions of the Vatican, or their rejections of "new" theologies, but once again, so what? You're not even a member of the church.

Yes, the Catholic Church is not a democracy, and I'm not a member of it. Nor am I a Muslim. But with 1 billion Catholics and 1.5 billion Muslims, we all have a stake in the political philosophies of those communities.

In particular, when I was born in 1959, I was on the hook for having killed Christ. Vatican II let me off the hook, and I don't think Benedict is going to back off on that, because he participated in that council. But his view that homosexuality is "intrinsically evil" strikes me as quite a bit like the attitude toward me when I was born.

I know that it's impolite to criticize religion, but let me be clear, I am not criticizing Catholics, I'm criticizing the hundred or so men who rule the Catholic Church. They have a great deal of political influence in the world, so they are fair game.

To be balanced, let me criticize some Orthodox Rabbis. There are indeed Rabbis in Israel, and even in New York, who act as political bosses, who can deliver blocks of votes by telling their followers who to vote for. There is even a scandal involving Hillary Clinton having gotten a block of votes from a Hasidic community in return for arranging a pardon.

I will critize Protestant, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim leaders upon request.

And can you think of one single head of a major religion to whom your criticisms of being non-democratic and authoritarian would not apply? Because if it's universal, it's not the man you're criticizing, it's organized religion in general. And I don't have a problem with that--I'm probably more guilty than you--only with the expectations that church heads will be anything else, or should (in context of being church heads) give a hoot what "the heathen" think.

I don't have to like what they believe, but given the constraints of organized religion itself, I don't see why your opinion or mine of their internal theological debates makes a dime of difference, or why they should care.

The Southern Baptist Convention is wonderfully democratic in its organization. Here is its constitution.

Rick,

I don't think anyone is debating your right to criticize these folks. I think what we are questioning is the assumption that your or anyone elses opinion should make a spit's worth of difference in determining what is Church doctrine.

Certainly it is very valid for your opinion to count when considering whether said doctrine should have any bearing upon public policy or upon peoples voting decisions....and I'll be 100% in your corner in that debate. If your local town regulations are based upon Elks Club bylaws...your beef shouldn't be with the Elks Club bylaws nor should you expect any say in changing them....your legitimate beef should be with the moron public officials AND voters who are allowing a private clubs rules to dictate public policy.

Rick, You have not demonstrated that the pope does not represent the views of the majority of Catholocs. I really doubt that Andrew Sullivan is the poster boy for many Catholic congregations.