A little perspective on the Pope

[demiurgent]

A lot has been made of Benedict XVI's time spent in Hitler Youth and then as a conscript soldier for the Germans during WWII. These are matters I don't think anyone should put much interest in at this stage -- there are things one has to do under a totalitarianism that one would not otherwise choose to do.

No, if we're going to spend time in grave concern over the new Pope, it should be over his written stance that any pro-choice advocate or politician should be denied communion. In particular, womens' rights advocates and the aforementioned pro-choice advocates should be considering this at best a call to arms, and at worst a sign of things to come.

In the matter of the child abuse scandal, which Benedict XVI's office was directly investigating, the Holy Father stated that the press was to blame for an intentional campaign to discredit Catholicism with these scandals. Now, I happen to live in a town where one of the Priests in question was installed. I'm not Catholic, but I'm friends with Catholics who had to deal with the sudden shock. And the Priest in question is someone I knew, someone I saw at the store. Someone I helped set up with a computer, in fact. After his removal, they actually sent a bishop in to re-consecrate the Church (shifting it from Saint Cecilia to Saint Katherine Drexel in the process).

I think a scandal where multiple churches needed to be re-consecrated and rededicated, where children were abused horribly and traumatically, and where the Church's response through the years has all too often been to quietly move the Priest into a new parish without censure (and often promoting him in the process) deserves better than to be thrown back onto the press that's reporting it. And I think a Cardinal who is so inflexible on Choice that he wrote a position advocating the denial of communion -- for all intents and purposes a silent interdict and the denial of Heaven itself -- to Catholics who voted or advocated pro-Choice positions highlight significant areas of concern not just to Liberals and Liberal Catholics, but to the world. It signifies a potential shift from traditionalism -- the word most often used to describe Benedict XVI -- to a more conservative and orthodox position. That, coupled with the new Pope's characterization of other Christian faiths as deficient and an active position that the Catholic Church is the only Church -- a position that is certainly more conservative than John Paul II's -- leads me to have certain concerns going into this that are all tons more acute than what may have happened to a boy trapped in a horrific country during a horrific moment in our history.

But, on the other hand, he now gets to talk to God. Maybe God will have something to say about all this.

Comments

[cpip.livejournal.com]

Very well put.

[archangelbeth]

What cpip said. Yes.

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

I've found it very funny that news orgs feel the need to say 'member of Hitler's Youth' then VERY quietly.

[cpip.livejournal.com]

The news media doesn't operate under Godwin's Law; they know the more they trumpet Hitler, the more attention they get.

[adders.livejournal.com]

I doubt he got out by becoming a priest - he was six when the war started...

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

I don't know, that's just what I think I heard last night on CBC and CTV.

[adders.livejournal.com]

I believe he was an enforeced member during childhood, was conscripted into the anti-aircraft group within the German army in the closing days of the war, when they were conscripting children, but never actually saw action.

[dvandom.livejournal.com]

Well, in 1945 he'd have been 18, and they were down to using 11 year olds by that point, so I expect he wasn't really a "child" by the time he got conscripted.

In any case, other stuff I read indicates he was a progressive sort of guy until the 1968 student riots, at which point he did his flip to the dark side.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

If I understood it correctly he was drafted into the Hitler Youth at the age of 6 and into the air defense at 14 or something. Then he was released when he entered the seminary in 1943. This is from memory of a new show I saw last night, so appologies if the details aren't all perfect.

[ocarina.livejournal.com]

Article with full story on the Hitler Youth thing (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19376016.htm). The internet has all the answers! Anyway, it's still very like the media to play this up.

[dansr.livejournal.com]

You're so eloquent, whereas I am not.

I have personal experience with German's who were part of the Hitler Youth and who fought in the war, not because they believed in what Hitler was saying, but because it was manditory and to not do it would have resulted in their deaths. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI had this same experience does not phase me.

Like you, I am more concerned with what he actually stands for. You said, "on the other hand, he now gets to talk to God. Maybe God will have something to say about all this."

Pope Benedict was Pope JP2's advisor. The things he believed in as JP2's advisor are the same things he believes in now. Pope Benedict wrote those books/letters/documents when he was still Cardinal. He had the ear of the Pope, and I'm guessing of God as well. Even if God says something to Pope Benedict now (that he's in power) I doubt Pope Benedict will listen.

Slightly off topic, but here's something I'm wondering about. When Pope JP2 was elected, how long did it take people to refer to him as Pope JP2 (I mean news/media). It's interesting to me that thus far I've seen very few references to Pope Benedict with that name. He's constantly referred to as Cardinal Ratzinger. For example, there's a new article on CNN about Pope Benedict where for most of the article he's referred to with his new Pope name, but further down the article he's referenced as Ratzinger. Why is that? I mean, it just seems like it's a lack of respect in a way. I notice that in politics as well. The Shrub that would be President is almost always referred to as President Bush, while his enemies are only referred to by their last names, no title given. The media and current Shrub in Power have created an aura of fear surrounding everything opposed to the US, that I'm guessing they're doing that to lessen an image of power . . . it's just something I've noticed.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

Slightly off topic, but here's something I'm wondering about. When Pope JP2 was elected, how long did it take people to refer to him as Pope JP2 (I mean news/media). It's interesting to me that thus far I've seen very few references to Pope Benedict with that name. He's constantly referred to as Cardinal Ratzinger.

I've very consciously referred to Benedict XVI as such. The technique of referring to him as Ratzinger stems from a certain desire to examine the man instead of the office, "before he takes office," much like we still called President Bush (and before him President Clinton) "Governor" instead of "President-Elect." We've become accustomed to having a period to examine our new officials. It is disingenuous, however, because Benedict XVI already is Pope, and always will be Pope, as long as he lives.

There is also a certain clinging to the mystique of John Paul II as somehow still being Pope by not acknowledging his replacement. And there is a technique of diminishment -- so long as they can continue to refer to him as Ratzinger, they can make puns on his name and cast aspersions without actually mocking the Church or the Pope. It's easier for news organizations to avoid the wrath of Catholics by employing these techniques.

As for me, I prefer to look the issue in the eye. He is Benedict XVI, now. He is not Pope-Elect, and there is no mechanism for referendum by the constituancy here. This is a monarchy, after all. The sooner we all face the fact that he is the actual Pope, the sooner we can figure out what that actually means in our lives.

[dansr.livejournal.com]

Now that makes a lot of sense. I've also been referring to him by his title, because that's who he is now. I hadn't thought about people referring to him at Ratzinger as a way to examine the man instead of the office.

<

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<the [...] lives.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Now that makes a lot of sense. I've also been referring to him by his title, because that's who he is now. I hadn't thought about people referring to him at Ratzinger as a way to examine the man instead of the office.

<<The sooner we all face the fact that he is the actual Pope, the sooner we can figure out what that actually means in our lives.>>

Hear, hear. If I haven't said this before, you're quite an astute man.

[dangerpest.livejournal.com]

So much speculation about Benny16... I don't think he's going to institute any major reforms while in power, but I also don't think he'd piss away any of the goodwill that JP2 created.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I dunno. I don't think you promote the head of the Office of the Inquisition (under, admittedly, a different name, now, though the same office) in hopes he'll keep his light under a bushel.

I would expect Benedict XVI to be forthright about his intentions.

[dangerpest.livejournal.com]

10 points for the parable reference.
Even as the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was working on behalf of JP2, Not on his own. It's all "wait and see" at this point.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

It's all "wait and see" at this point.

Very, very true.

[akhenaten.livejournal.com]

Quite.

As for the child-abuse thing, it always strikes me as odd how the church takes such a hard line on freakin' birth control--not abortion, not baby-killing, not morning-after pill, but condoms and the pill--but seems to only partially try and make up for child abuse and molestation. In the latter case it always seems they consider their priests innocent until really really really really really proven are-we-sure-we're-sure? guilty but on any other issues there's a knee-jerk reaction that it's all terribly, horribly wrong.

Other people make a lot of the Church's stand on homosexuality, women's rights, even the forced celibacy of the priesthood, but I wonder, if they can't get past the idea of sex as good for anything except making little Catholics, then how could those more radical ideas even take root?

[have-you-seen.livejournal.com]

Yes, and the whole child abuse thing seems like they are so much more worried of the "good name" of the church and losing a priest instead of the abused children. They just try their best to hush it up.

[akhenaten.livejournal.com]

Also, being Christian but not being Catholic, I don't see how it's a special priveledge of the Pope to get to talk to God. I do it all the time.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

As an agnostic, I confess I was being somewhat facetious.

[elmo-iscariot.livejournal.com]

Being a baptized-Catholic cum practicing-skeptic, the percieved difference is that to the Pope, God talks back.

[e-monk.livejournal.com]

In related news:
http://www.nothingnice.com/index.php?pageNum_Recordset2=245&totalRows_Recordset2=246

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

In the matter of the child abuse scandal, which Benedict XVI's office was directly investigating, the Holy Father stated that the press was to blame for an intentional campaign to discredit Catholicism with these scandals.

In an effort at fairness I would like to point out that Pope Benedict moved away from the position you described after looking further into the issue. The article you cite is from 2002. The first source for that I can give you offhand is this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/international/worldspecial2/20american.html?hp&ex=1114056000&en=3e5dd86d90988e27&ei=5094&partner=homepage) but a quick search should bring you a lot better ones. So that suggests to me that he the "circle the wagons" instinct that is common in human beings, but is willing to adjust his position when the situation calles for it.

[demiurgent.livejournal.com]

I'll check that article out. And I'll confess a certain relief. Certainly, I'll do my best to not damn a person for opinions once held that are not held any longer.

On the other hand, even the initial reaction was, to my mind, shockingly inappropriate.

[the-iron-troll.livejournal.com]

Certainly not the Pope that I would have chosen, but also being agnostic, I can't pretend to a great level of involvement in all of this. My concern is for the Catholics, especially the ones I know, who are going to have to put up with this man. It doesn't seem like the time to be a Liberal Catholic.

[forvrin.livejournal.com]

I think the abortion is a non issue; the Catholics teaching on it is concrete, realized, and settled. Changing it requires a change in the fundamental way the Church defines and conceptualizes life and humanity -- something I don't see happening.

I'm really annoyed with a lot of the coverage of the Church that refuses to acknowledge the Church's stance on the nature of Truth (that it is Objective and Permanent) even though it doesn't mesh with their own. Its infuriating to listen to, largely because it makes any kind of informative dialogue, or criticism, impossible.

The issues I hope for from the new pope largely center on internal reforms and honorable practices. I want thorough and deep changes in the way the Church handles its own.

[orikes13.livejournal.com]

I think my worry with the new Pope is that at best, things will remain status quo for the church, and at worst, they'll take steps backwards. There is a great deal to be said for tradition and ceremony, but the Church is still not weathering the modern age very well. I guess time will tell.

[mrbankies.livejournal.com]

"but the Church is still not weathering the modern age very well."

More to the point is, does the Catholic Church want to handle it well? I have my doubts, as personally, it seems to me the Vatican would prefer it to be 1005 instead of 2005.

I expect them to take further steps to eradicate the progress that came from Vatican II.

[elvedril.livejournal.com]

How do we define "progress" and "weathering the modern age"?

I would argue that the church is weathering the modern age just fine in that it's still existing, and in many places growing, as an institution. It's a religion, one based on tradition and a view of truth as an objective constant. As such the Church, IMO, couldn't care less if it's 2005 or 1005. All that the Church is trying to do is to show people the truth in a way that is appicable to them. That's what's bothering people. People expect everything to have progressed in ten centuries, "if something was true back then we must have found something ten times more true by now." Dogma isn't, and can't be, like that. Instead the essential truth has to stay relatively (though not completely) constant while events like Vatican II can change the presentation of that truth to fit realities.