The Next Pope: a Hitler Youth?

Every child had to be a member of the Hitler youth at the time. It wasn't optional, like the boyscouts. Someone who would refuse wouldn't just be looked upon as weird, like a homeschooler here, but not going would be grounds for investigations of your family and severe penalties.

A better index of support for nazis would be becoming a nazi party member - of which about 10% of society was, or being a leader in the Hitler youth where they voluntarily stepped up to take an active role. You didn't have to do much to have your patriotism challenged in that society after 1937 when the party became entrenched. Of course, I'm speaking as someone whose mother was in the hitler youth in kindergarten.

Special Dispatch Series - No. 892
April 14, 2005 No.892

Saudi Columnist: President Bush Should Nominate Rumsfeld for Pope


Dr. Ali Al-Tawati of the Saudi Daily Okaz wrote an article for the Saudi Daily, Arab News, on April 12, 2005 titled "Rumsfeld for Pope?" The following is the article: [1]


"Now that President George Bush has nominated John Bolton as American ambassador to the United Nations and Paul Wolfowitz to head the World Bank, we shouldn't be surprised if he repeated his achievements and named a new pope.

"Considering the present state of the world, Donald Rumsfeld is surely the best choice for this extremely important international position. Like Bolton and Wolfowitz, he is a firm believer in democracy, America's new religion.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/hitleryouth/hj-prelude.htm

December 1, 1936 is the critical date, when Hitler required all children over the age of 10 to join, with parents threatened with prison sentences if they did not join

even so, it appears evident that there was some passive resistance afterwards, with some people joining, and paying dues, but not participating:

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/hitler_youth.htm

"Youths could avoid doing any active service if they paid their subscription but this became all but impossible after 1939."

Note also, the first link mentions how Hitler Youth participated in the violence of Kristallnacht

So, it raises a lot of interesting questions: when did Ratsinger join? in the 1930s or later, conscripted during World War II?

did he join before 12/1/36, when he could have remained outside within what was left of the Catholic youth organizations (still allowed to exist under agreement with the Reich)?

did he join after 12/1/36, and particpate, or did his family just enlist him to avoid potential criminal punishment, and pay dues, while keeping him at home?

if he participated, was he directly or indirectly associated with some of the violent activities of Hitler Youth during the pre-war period?

and, of course, this leaves aside the fact that, maybe, the Church would be better lead by someone with a background of resistance to fascism and communism

and, it raises a lot of interesting questions about Ratsinger as an adult in Catholicism

has he been part of Opus Dei? does he have a history of associating and supporting people like Franco and Pinochet, as others have done (such as John Paul II, directly and indirectly, as noted here: http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro04082005.html)?

and, if so, how should we read such a life against his youth?

basically, as with other issues involving the Church and the Church hierarchy, how much do we know, and how much has been concealed or recast in a light favorable to them?

--Richard

has he been part of Opus Dei? does he have a history of associating and supporting people like Franco and Pinochet, as others have done?

such as John Paul II, directly and indirectly, as noted here: http://www.counterpunch.org/navarro04082005.html

Yes, the catholic church had a reprehensible role during the nazi period. I wouldn't know the name of the pope, but that pope, and the german catholic leaders all would be the primary societal power that would have been capable of turning around the people against the government (in a way a single individual couldn't), but they failed. They totally permitted or even endorsed what was happening - minus a few catholic leaders here or there who were carted off to camps. Now, very few people attend church in central and western europe. I hope that church realizes that they should give the pope hat to a noncentral european. Anyway, there is probably a lot more in that guy's current openly stated positions that should be criticized, or the catholic leadership of the 30s.

Counterpounch is a pack of lies and manipulation.

[RWF
by Sefarad Wednesday, Apr. 13, 2005 at 10:19 PM

Counterpounch is a pack of lies and manipulation.]


. . you can read the article as well as anyone else

what does the article say that is false?

for example, does the article falsely say that John Paul II openly supported the people in the Popular Party in Spain that had links to Franco?

similarly, does it falsely say that John Paul II visited Chile under Pinochet and said nothing to speak out for freedom and democracy?

or, does it falsely associated John Paul II with Opus Dei?

in any event, you also display some confusion about what is actually posted on the COUNTERPUNCH website

I went through this before with someone several months ago

the articles posted there, with the exception of those written by Cockburn and St. Claire, are not attributable to COUNTERPUNCH

instead, they come from a variety of sources, blogs, newspapers, academics, journals, etc.

so, impugning the integrity of COUNTERPUNCH is irrelevant to the credibility of the author of the article

--Richard

Permit me I answer you by parts, because I don't know if I have much time now.

"for example, does the article falsely say that John Paul II openly supported the people in the Popular Party in Spain that had links to Franco? "

Yes, it is false that the Pope supported the Popular Party. And when there have been elections the Spanish Church has never taken sides.

The Popular Party has no links to Franco. You cannot believe it but that is so, although it is true that Fraga was a minister with Franco. It would take for me to give an entire explanation on how the transition to democracy was made. I don't know if it has to do with the topic. Anyway, I can tell you if you are interested.

Another thing I have read in the article is that the dialy ABC is ultra-right, which is not true either.

"similarly, does it falsely say that John Paul II visited Chile under Pinochet and said nothing to speak out for freedom and democracy? "

This is true. And I remember I was angry with him.

"or, does it falsely associated John Paul II with Opus Dei? "

The Opus Dei depends directly on the Pope since Pio XII's times.

"Yes, the catholic church had a reprehensible role during the nazi period. I wouldn't know the name of the pope"

The Pope was Pio XII.

http://members.aol.com/johnjrh/pius.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHISTORY/PIUS12.HTM
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/piusdef2.html

JP II say nothing at Chile is totally false.
JP II speaks half hour with him (Pinocho) and say that he must dimish.
Also in National Stadium he make a public exorcism for the people that was killed in this place.
Also he touch several poor people and don't touch Pinochet's wife (she try it several times).
He say and listening all that people want yo say (no censure was done).
We (chilean) was free for a few day, remenber freedom, live freedom and finally work for it.

Many thanks for telling me. I was mistaken about that. I am so happy to know.

Muchas gracias, amigo.

A nazi is a nazi is a nazi. No way around that

Like most of germany your mother was a proud nazi ? We should have exterminated all germans and japs in 1945.

From the linked article...

"In 1986 Ratzinger issued a letter to the Catholic Bishops in which he wrote that homosexuality was a ‘tendency’ towards an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. A few years later, in 1992, he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited’. He followed up by remarking that ‘neither the church nor society should be surprised’ if ‘irrational and violent reactions increase’ when gays demand civil rights. Not a man to mince his words, Ratzinger urgently set to work to ferret out gay-sensitive clergy."

"The Cardinal is also not happy mixing religion and politics – at least not the kind of politics which suggests the Church has an obligation to assist the poor in their fight for justice. So he set out to muzzle outspoken ‘liberation’ theologians including Brazil’s charismatic Leonardo Boff. He also replaced the now-deceased Archbishop of Recife, Dom Helder Camara, with Monsignor José Cardosa – a conservative right-winger – and warned the ex-Bishop of Chiapas in Mexico, Samuel Ruiz, to preach the Gospel ‘in its integrity without Marxist interpretations’.

we a group of Catholic gays and lesbians are going to secede and refound the Church on new grounds. I am running for Papacy.

If you think this is a just cause

GIVE ME YOUR VOTE

1927 Ratzinger is born on April 16, Holy Saturday in Marktl am Inn, and is baptized the same day. Reflecting on this experience in his memoirs, he says:
To be the first person baptized with the new water was seen as a significant act of Providence. I have always been filled with thanksgiving for having had my life immersed in this way in the Easter Mystery . . . the more I reflect on it, the more this seems fitting for the nature of our human life: we are still waiting for Easter; we are not yet standing in the full light but walking toward it full of trust. [p. 8, Milestones]
Ratzinger admits it is not easy to say what his 'hometown' is. As a rural policeman, his father was transferred frequently, and his family was continually on the road.

1929 Ratzinger's family moves to Tittmoning, a small town on the Salzach River, on the Austrian border.
1932 December: Due to his father's outspoken criticism of the Nazis, Ratzinger's family is forced to relocate to Auschau am Inn, at the foot of the Alps.
1937 Ratzinger's father retires and his family moves to Hufschlag, outside the city of Traunstein, where Josef would spend most of his years as a teenager. Here he begins classes at the local gymnasium for classical languages, where he studies Latin and Greek.
1939 Ratzinger enters the minor seminary in Traunstein, the initial step of his ecclesiastical career.
1943 Ratzinger, along with the rest of his seminary class, is drafted into the Flak [anti-aircraft corps]. He is still allowed to attend classes at the Maximilians-Gymnasium in Munich three days a week.
1944 September: Having reached military age, Ratzinger is released from the Flak and returns home, only to be drafted into labor detail under the infamous Austrian Legion ("fanatical ideologues who tyrannized us without respite").
November: Ratzinger undergoes basic training with the German infantry. Due to illness he finds himself exempt from most of the rigors of military duty.
1945 Spring (end of April or beginning of May): As the Allied front draws closer, Ratzinger deserts the army and heads home to Traunstein. When the Americans finally arrive at his village, they choose to establish their headquarters in the Ratzinger house. Josef is identified as a German soldier and incarcerated in a POW camp.
June 19: Ratzinger is released and returns home to Traunstein, followed by his brother Georg in July.

more:
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/Biography.html

---------------
(caño, cañería)

Culture in Crisis (4/19/2005)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT:

Cardinal Ratzinger’s sermon on relativism at the Mass for the Election of a Supreme Pontiff hit the note most important both in his own life and in the coming life of the Church, in an age calling itself “post-modern” but perhaps more accurately described as the Age of Meaninglessness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cardinal Ratzinger’s sermon on relativism at the Mass for the Election of a Supreme Pontiff hit the note most important both in his own life and in the coming life of the Church, in an age calling itself “post-modern” but perhaps more accurately described as the Age of Meaninglessness.

In his most formative years, Ratzinger heard Nazi propaganda shouting that there is no truth, no justice, there is only the will of the people (enunciated by its leader). As its necessary precondition, Nazism depended on the debunking of objective truth and objective morality. Truth had to be derided as irrelevant, and naked will had to be exalted.

To anybody who said: “But that’s false!” the Nazi shouted, “That’s just your opinion, and who are you, compared to Der Fuehrer?”

http://www.michaelnovak.net/Module/Article/ArticleView.aspx?id=130

(peñón)

. . . in the direction of Ratzinger's mass last Sunday, things are bleak indeed

for my brief analysis, go here:

http://www.haloscan.com/comments/joewezorek/111393631646849454/#120588

and, here's Sam Smith's view, praiseworthy for its combination of brevity and insight:

[POCKET PARADIGM

JUST BEFORE he was named pope, Joseph Ratzinger issued an indictment against the "dictatorship of relativism." This is a bit like complaining about the bureaucracy of anarchism, but given the history of the man - from Deutsches Jungvolk to aging cardinal - he can perhaps be excused for seeing power only manifesting itself in one dictatorship or another. He hasn't noticed the number of beliefs - women's and gay rights, for example - that have spread without any centralized authority whatsoever. Or that those believing in democracy and human liberty have clung on even without a pope and despite quite a few of them.

Benedict XVI, like other religious fundamentalists, has offered us only two choices: the power of his own archaic truth and values or the power of believing that truth and values really don't matter all that much - in
which case pure power becomes their substitute.

In short, we are asked to choose between the morally arrogant and the
morally empty. Between "This is it" and "It depends on what 'it' is." This
false dichotomy lies beneath much of the world's current sadness and
madness, twin miseries that will only be set right when more learn to have faith without sanctimony and to make moral choices based on decent consideration rather than upon the conceit of certitude. - Sam Smith]

http://www.prorev.com

Of course, Ratzinger's greatest fear is that there will be more social movements that "spread without centralized authority". Like Bush during his presidential campaign, Ratzinger is condemning rationality itself, the ability of people to think and act for themselves, so, it is understandable why Ratzinger acted against Kerry as he did, instructing US bishops not to provide communion for him, which was, translated, a Vatican endorsement of Bush.

Expect of more of these kinds of interventions in the future, as the Church aspires, under Ratzinger, to recover the political authority that it possessed prior to the Enlightenment.


--Richard

[JUST BEFORE he was named pope, Joseph Ratzinger issued an indictment against the "dictatorship of relativism."]

I agree with him on that point. From what I can see, there are now people justifying anything and I don't believe it is good. From my point of view, all of us should have moral principles and stick to them, the main of them being not to harm others.

[This is a bit like complaining about the bureaucracy of anarchism but given the history of the man - from Deutsches Jungvolk to aging cardinal - he can perhaps be excused for seeing power only manifesting itself in one dictatorship or another.]

I don't think it is wrong for him or anybody else to complain. We know wrong things exist and are made, but why do we have to accept them in silence?

You complain about many things too.

[ He hasn't noticed the number of beliefs - women's and gay rights, for example - that have spread without any centralized authority whatsoever. Or that those believing in democracy and human liberty have clung on even without a pope and despite quite a few of them. ]

And everyone is free to have their own beliefs. I don't think the Pope is against it.

Neither is he against women's or gay rights. A different matter is that the Church has to agree that a couple of homosexuals is a marriage.



[Benedict XVI, like other religious fundamentalists, has offered us only two choices: the power of his own archaic truth and values or the power of believing that truth and values really don't matter all that much - in
which case pure power becomes their substitute. ]

Richard, you all are free to do what you think you have to do, but let the others be free too. The Pope has expressed their opinion and the Catholic Church's position. Don't they have the right to it?

[In short, we are asked to choose between the morally arrogant and the
morally empty. Between "This is it" and "It depends on what 'it' is." This
false dichotomy lies beneath much of the world's current sadness and
madness, twin miseries that will only be set right when more learn to have faith without sanctimony and to make moral choices based on decent consideration rather than upon the conceit of certitude. - Sam Smith] ]

You are right, it is we who have to choose, independently of the Pope's opinion. So what's the problem?

And don't worry, God made us free beings for us to make our own decisions.

[And everyone is free to have their own beliefs. I don't think the Pope is against it.

Neither is he against women's or gay rights. A different matter is that the Church has to agree that a couple of homosexuals is a marriage.]

Over the course of my lifetime, the Church has opposed every measure that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, and publicly associated itself with the most bigoted hateful people while doing it.

As I've said before, the Church believes that it is more important for these horrible people to have the right to discriminate than it is to enable gays and lesbians to participate in society upon equal terms.

Yes, the Church is free to say whatever it wants, but it wants to do much more than speak about morality and encourage people to follow its moral dictates. It wants to enforce its values upon the rest of us through the power of the state, and Ratzinger will make this very clear during his papacy.

For example, with gay marriage, it is not defending itself against being compelled to conduct gay marriages, it wants to enforce its perspective on the entire society, including many non-Catholics like myself, and I find this objectionable.

Right now, it is organizing a large rally against the "civil unions" measure just approved by the Connecticut legislature.

Similarly, note, for example, the Church's displeasure with the EU constitution because it does not describe the EU as "christian".

Ratzinger will accelerate the Church's regression towards its medieval values, competing with the market economy in trying to substitute for the waning power of the secular state.

--Richard

[Over the course of my lifetime, the Church has opposed every measure that would protect gays and lesbians from discrimination, and publicly associated itself with the most bigoted hateful people while doing it. ]


It seems that your experience is different from mine. I have always seen people of the Church say we have to hate nobody.

[As I've said before, the Church believes that it is more important for these horrible people to have the right to discriminate than it is to enable gays and lesbians to participate in society upon equal terms. ]

I don't know what happens in the US. Here homosexuals have the same rights as human beings as anyone else. And I haven't heard that they are being harassed.

[Yes, the Church is free to say whatever it wants, but it wants to do much more than speak about morality and encourage people to follow its moral dictates. It wants to enforce its values upon the rest of us through the power of the state, and Ratzinger will make this very clear during his papacy. ]

I don't think so. Perhaps it would be different if the Church and the state were the same thing.

For example, with gay marriage, it is not defending itself against being compelled to conduct gay marriages, it wants to enforce its perspective on the entire society, including many non-Catholics like myself, and I find this objectionable]

. Well, it is true that, according to the Catholic Church, gay marriage is not marriage. But they are forcing no government to do one thing or the other.

^[Right now, it is organizing a large rally against the "civil unions" measure just approved by the Connecticut legislature. ]

I suppose those people have the right to rally, the same as other people can rally to support other things. That's what happens in democracies.

[Similarly, note, for example, the Church's displeasure with the EU constitution because it does not describe the EU as "christian". ]

I hadn't heard of it. It is the same with our constitution, although ours is a traditionally Catholic country, and still now most people are Catholic.

[Ratzinger will accelerate the Church's regression towards its medieval values, competing with the market economy in trying to substitute for the waning power of the secular state. ]

We'll see. I have heard a Church person from here say that this Pope has been elected in order to consolidate what JP II did. According to that person, the most important matter they want to take ahead is relations with other religions (he mentioned Judaism and Islam) and also among all Christian confessions.
----

I would like to tell you something. I hope this post doesn't get removed,
I am a Christian (a Catholic exactly) because this is my civilization and my culture and education. I also think Christian principles are good. However, my personal beliefs about God have not many points in common with those of Christianism.