On the New Pope

Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.

Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.

The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn't have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he's likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.

Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don't call him a Nazi.

•  I will never call him a Nazi.

  I will, however, call him the Inquisitor Pope. And given that he ran the modern version of the Inquisition up until his election, I believe that this is both accurate and fitting.

  by maxomai on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:57:12 PM PDT

  •  folks, i have this to say...

    i'm a former protestant whose family was minimally involved with organized religion.

    with that said, i don't know why catholics'll bitch about benny 16.

    he might have what's called moral suasion, but that's all. it's not like he's gonna round up dissenters and burn them at the stake, or confiscate your money to build a new cathedral in the vatican.

    now if he could get away with doing those things, THAT'S power.

    the catholic church is a top-down, authoritarian organization. has been, is now, and ever will be.

    just boycott church.

    hell, i bet a lot of you practicing catholics use contraception and do non-procreative sex, which is sinful in that church's teachings.

    if you really believed it, you'd follow it as much as you could. if you didn't, you'd leave.

    you don't need priests and organizations to be good and religious and holy.

    by Bingo 505 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:03:37 PM PDT

    •  2004 Election: Refusing Communion to Kerry

      So where do you think that came from?  

      by VAdem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:05:32 PM PDT

      •  Francis Cardinal Arinze...

        ...the Nigerian Cardinal who was Prefect of the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the most conservative Cardinal mentioned as a likely contender for the Papacy.

        Why?
        

        by cdicely on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:31:15 PM PDT

        •  Both Arinze and Ratzinger

          addressed the issue of communion for Politicians who supported abortion rights

          jc's designs

          by jaysea on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:43:00 PM PDT

          •  cdicely is a liar

            There's no other word for it. None. I and others have corrected him a multitude of times, and he keeps regurgitating this crap.

            Ratzinger believes in excommunicating all pro-choice Catholic voters.

            http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/04-07ratzingerommunion.htm

            [blockquote]
            Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

            by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

            1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

            2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to `take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

            3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

            4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

            5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

            6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

            [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
            [/blockquote]

            by Smallbottle on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:56:44 PM PDT

      •  Ratzinger

        He was partially behind that, to be sure, which angers me. Still, I'm in complete agreement with ct here. Just what I wanted to say. No need to call him a Nazi. That's resorting to their tactics. We are not the GOP.

        Pacific NW Portal - Regional Politics At Your Fingertips

        by MountOlympus on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:58:54 PM PDT

        •  Ratzinger Not a Nazi........But

          I agree with Kos. While a reactionary and  a strict doctrinaire conservative, Kos explains Ratzinger's background correctly and historically.  Calling him a Nazi is hotheaded, wrongheaded, and just perpetuates another form of bias.  There is no expectation that this Pope will do anything to advance the cause of birth control, women's issues, marriage for the priesthood, or for that matter, anything progressive in the Church. But calling him a Nazi is stupid.

          by morris1030 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:12:36 PM PDT

          •  newsflash.

            I doubt in 500 years you'll see a Pope do any of those things.

            by devtrash on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 09:14:22 PM PDT

          •  calling him a Nazi is stupid

            Agreed, calling the new Pope a Nazi is stupid, because he is probably without culpability in this regard. However, those among us Americans who have lived/worked in Germany have long since grown wary of the cliched and oft-repeated assertions that there there were no Nazis in the Wehrmacht, or in civilian German society, or in the various youth organizations,(even among those children who "ratted' on their parents to the Gestapo) and, further, that no German citizens, even those living in close proximity to the concentration camps, were aware of what evils transpired there, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Isn't it truly amazing how Uncle Adolph and a small minority of the German nation were able to control the thoughts and actions of so many in that country?
            To the point: What's worse; the assertions of the new Pope's Nazi past or the boring and predictable responses to them, all of which only serve to obfuscate the serious issues raised by the appointment of  Taliban-type of strict constructionist/fundamentalist leader for the Roman Catholic Church?

            by Murnien on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 11:59:51 PM PDT

            •  Are Hitler Youth Nazis?

              If so then its pretty clear this Pope was one.

              http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667,00.html

              by pawlr on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 11:59:51 AM PDT

      •  he's another Fristian/Swiftboater who needs pie

        Hitler/Schmitler....this guy tried to swing the US election, using his Christian base. Talks like the whole Pedophilia/Priest thing was a creation of the SCLM.

        And now, he suddenly becomes what? infallible?

        A delicious pie would make me feel much better about this guy.

        Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens. --Michel de Montaigne

        by seesdifferent on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 10:41:50 PM PDT

        •  enjoy your pie

          and be happy

          by juergendopp on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 05:44:38 AM PDT

    •  Its not like anyone really listens to the pope is

      Most Cathloics I know use contraception, eat meat on Friday etc.  They know how to distinguish Pope made rules from God made rules. I think people are giving this pope thing more credit than it diserves because we are in the middle of an ultra-Religious phase in our culture.  Right now we have religion on the cultural brain.  It's like when you get "Its a Small World" stuck in your head all day at Disney World.  It'll pass...=)

      by lawstudent922 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:07:59 PM PDT

      •  If the catholic church

        wasn't such a huge opponent to condom use, it is safe to say that millions of Africans would probably be alive right now.

        So while our lives won't change much in the states, there is a guaranteed few more years of obstructionism on that issue in Africa.

        by decembersue on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:16:05 PM PDT

        •  I thought that much of the problem

          with not using condoms was that the guys--being guys--did not like to use condoms.  

          I'm a Catholic agnostic who goes to church maybe once a year and I also dislike the official positions on bith control . . . but it is too simplistic to pin millions of AIDS deaths on the Vatican.

          by rhubarb on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:55:19 PM PDT

          •  Problems with condoms

            Yeah, like I'm SURE that's what causes millions of deaths in Africa.  Just a bunch of black dudes on the down low.  Can't figure out for the life of me how those WOMEN and CHILDREN are getting AIDS down there.  Must be the water.  Or their insufficient faith.

            by corvo on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:57:26 PM PDT

            •  Uh, what?

              Condoms protect women... and therefore children... I'm not getting you.

              That said, doesn't the Church have more to do with limiting condom accessibility in Latin America than in Africa?

              Case in point: when I was in Nicaragua, I was asked by a group of women why it was that N. American women had so few children, given that we did not use birth control.  We said, we do use birth control.  They were shocked, saying their priest had lied to them and said N. American women were just less fertile and womanly.  Sigh...

              by renaissance grrrl on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:09:58 PM PDT

              •  they have blocked policies

                through lobbying at high levels all over the world. They have provided funding to organizations that block these policies. And there is the matter that they refused to take leadership and outright promote these policies in order to save lives (remember, they're supposed to be helping people. It's part of their mandate. Not like some churches that focus on just converting.)

                by decembersue on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:04:16 PM PDT

              •  Aha--

                Sorry, read your response too quickly and thought you were referring to guys using condoms with guys (must've been the repetition of the word).  Otherwise I'm happy to note that we agree, and I regret the confusion. :-)

                by corvo on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 06:25:47 AM PDT

          •  I disagree...

            I found these articles during a similar discussion last week.

            Considering the fact that Three-quarters of all Africans between the ages of 15 and 24 who are HIV-positive are women. link I think the Church downplaying/forbidding one of the only proven ways to prevent AIDS does count as an important issue in their lives.

            African Bishops Slam Condom Use

            Vatican Says Condoms Don't Stop AIDS

            This particular article had some interesting points.  Sorry but I don't know how to do block quotes.

            The church's position has forced an AIDS teaching center in Kenya to stop distributing condoms, with some priests saying the contraceptives ``are laced with HIV/AIDS,'' the center's director, Gordon Wambi, said in the documentary, according to Bradshaw. In another scene, a Catholic nun advised a choirmaster infected with HIV against using condoms because they couldn't stop the virus from infecting his wife, Bradshaw wrote.

            The WHO, a United Nations agency, said women in particular suffer a loss of human rights when they are denied protection from HIV. ``Condoms need to be more widely accepted, available and used,'' according to the WHO Web site.

            by christine in nj on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:34:24 PM PDT

            •  Thank you...

              Someone who finally talks about the impact that backwards thinking has for Catholicism.

              And for African peoples, this is nothing less than genocide.

              Some clerics know little about common sense and how to save lives.

              I'm a fan of the Brother Cadfael series from Britain that used to run on PBS.  Brother Cadfael was played by Sir Derek Jacobi.

              What I really like about the series is not simply the historical background but the many ways in which this brother Benedictine (!)is a bit of a liberal, while his superior, Prior Robert, is always insisting that him and others submit to strict adherence to the rule of St. Benedict--that is, authority.

              I'm just wondering how Arinze (among others) can sit up there in authority and watch scores of African peoples die.

              by blksista on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:21:07 PM PDT

            •  That was a thoughtful answer

              Thanks!

              by rhubarb on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:12:24 PM PDT

          •  RE: guys being guys

            "thought that much of the problem with not using condoms was that the guys--being guys--did not like to use condoms."

            man - "It is a sin to use a condom. Do you want me to go Hell. Do you want to go to Hell?"

            It is that get out of "jail free" card which is so disgusting about the CC's stance on condom use.

            by enchanter on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:40:33 PM PDT

          •  If you have a chance

            take a look at the case of Uganda with just about the lowest AIDS infection rate in the world now. Compare that to the rest of Africa. See what standing up to the church and launching sex education campaigns and encouraging condom use with free distribution can do.

            by observer393 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:08:05 PM PDT

        •  this is true

          its our Gov. too.  Jacking up the abstenance only programs in Africa was one of the first things Bush did in office.  It appeased the religious extremists while not hurting anyone that votes for him.  Sick that he has that much power.  

          by lawstudent922 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:50:39 PM PDT

      •  American Catholics are different

        A lot more liberal than the rest of the world's Catholic population.

        by Aexia on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:32:07 PM PDT

        •  except for european catholics

          and economic issues.  but yes, american catholics are often more socially liberal than third world catholics

          by XPat on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:20:13 PM PDT

          •  by the way..

            you rated a question I asked someone a 2!!! how can you rate a question a 2?  It was an honest to god question with a question mark and everything..... makes no sense at all.

            by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:02:25 PM PDT

    •  Actually...

      "he might have what's called moral suasion, but that's all. it's not like he's gonna round up dissenters and burn them at the stake, or confiscate your money to build a new cathedral in the vatican."

      As the false prophet, he will do things similar to that before his tenure is over.

      by independentchristian on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:40:33 PM PDT

      •  Jesus wept.

        By all the gods (even yours), this Sibyl foresees your prophecy to be... false.

        Here's hoping -- for the sake of your future well-being -- that America won't become enough of a Theocracy to follow the Old Testament dictates about killing false prophets.

        Even the silly merit safety, and the right to write their nutty notions.

        The idea that any particular Pope is THE false prophet is but the self-aggrandizing doctrine of a few modern men.  Don't believe them!

        In the meantime how about letting the love of Jesus enthrall all fear and hateful suppositions right out of ya?

        Jesus might just weep
        tears of joy for you.

        by Civil Sibyl on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:11:58 PM PDT

    •  NB

      I'm not a Catholic either. I am, however, going to smack this guy down when he misses the point. I consider this my job.

      by maxomai on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:13:55 PM PDT

  •  Maybe,

    Pope DeLay?

    by justme on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:25:42 PM PDT

    •  hehehe

      by Cat4everrr on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 09:56:34 AM PDT

  •  He may not be a Nazi...

    But I find his choice of Benedict interesting.  Benedict XV earlier this century doesn't seem to have made much of an impact, but Benedict XIV was a man after Ratzinger's heart.

    In two bulls "he denounced the custom of accommodating Christian words and usages to express non-Christian ideas and practices of the native cultures, which had been extensively done by the Jesuits in their Indian and Chinese missions. An example of this is the statues of the ancestors - is honor paid to the ancestors to be considered the unacceptable 'ancestor worship' or something more like the Catholic veneration of the saints - and can a Catholic legitimately 'venerate' an ancestor known to not have been a Christian? The choice of a Chinese translation for the name of God had also been debated since the early 1600s.

    The consequence of these bulls was that many of these converts left the church."

    Ratzinger's rigidity makes it likely that history will repeat itself.

    by mkfarkus on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:35:49 PM PDT

  •  I'll call him a nazi

    Never once in his career has he denounced them.

    by Lefty Malone on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:15:36 PM PDT

  •  Here's the deal..

    Think of Ratzinger as Cheney to JPII's Bush, it's John Paul II WITHOUT a human face...

    by sjs1959 on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:23:04 PM PDT

  •  well said ct

    Attacking the pope for things beyond his control when he was a boy will not change his policies, or the policies of the church.

    But lashing out might make you feel good.

    Unlike the church, I have no problem with the physical kind, but ideological masturbation drives me crazy.  

    by mortgaged on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:58:59 PM PDT

  •  Let me see......

    1. Hitler Youth = not a Nazi.
       
    2. Wehrmacht = Not a Nazi.
       
    3. Deserted when illusions failed.
       
    4. Fished out and rescued by US diligence = Not a Nazi.

    Hitler himself was a minor landscape artist. Why can't you people remember that?

    by Heteraetcaetera on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 10:58:49 PM PDT

    •  Hitler himself was a minor landscape artist. Why c

      what do you want to say with that? that every minor participant was just as bad as hitler because hitler was also just "a minor landscape artist"? that's ridiculous and shows your lack of understanding; hitler was a true believer who fought out of inner motivation until he had reached the very top; whatever he did until he got into politics, by the time he became german chancellor (certainly by the time the war broke out) he thought of himself as some semi-divine, infallible leader of Germany and the Aryan world and was fanatically committed to his goals; it makes no sense at all to compare this to a 15 year old boy who by the force of law has to attend the HJ and is then drafted into the Wehrmacht;

      by max22 on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 02:55:49 AM PDT

      •  A minor, misunderstood, landscape artist.

        <snark>

        by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:24:19 AM PDT

      •  Then, of course, there's the weird

        co-incidence, totally inexplicable no doubt, that 2000 years of Church Dogma accuses "the Jews" of killing their Messiah. You may not recall, being young, that Catholocism officially hated Jews. That priests preached against Jews (and FreeMasons, let's be fair), and, erm, oh yes: communists (poor Jews) and Jewish Bankers (rich jews).

        So on the one hand you have appalling demagoguery passing itself off as the religious belief of a Christian Church and on the other you have appalling demagoguery passing itself off as Nazism. I cannot vouch, the way you are able, for the inner state of Adolph Hitler.

        Nevertheless, a young semanarist under these conditions may be able to detect a splendid opportunity to settle historic matters, handily.

        by Heteraetcaetera on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 07:34:43 AM PDT

•  Thank You.

  And for shame Armando and all of the others who did call him a Nazi.  

  by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 12:58:32 PM PDT

  •  Well he WAS a Nazi

    There is nothing inaccurate about that.

    I doubt he is a Nazi nowadays, and that is the important part.

    by I disagree with the GOP on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:05:35 PM PDT

    •  Yes, There's LOTS Inaccurate About That

      Obviously you haven't read the previous threads to know why it's inaccurate to say he was a Nazi.  Why don't you take a look...assuming, that is, you're actually interested in understanding the issue rather than just spewing.

      by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:07:11 PM PDT

      •  Right

        They couldn't find a Nazi. So they chose Ratzinger.

        by SqueakyRat on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:15:14 PM PDT

      •  True, and

        ... I want to add that the German military was in fact one of the centers of German resistance to Hitler's regime. Read Fest's "Plotting Hitler's Death"; he argues, convincingly, that in terms of national guilt the widespread, under-appreciated German resistance mitigates contemporary guilt about Nazism. At least as much as the French resistance mitigates French collaborationism, if not more.

        by Marshall on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:43:33 PM PDT

        •  Catholics Specifically

          Stauffenberg (who planted the bomb under the table in the July 20, 1944 plot) was a devout Catholic, as were many of his co-conspirators.  Several members of the White Rose were Catholic.  And in general, Catholics were (along with trade unionists) the segment of the German population least likely to join the Nazi party, vote for it or support it.  There were a few Catholic areas of moderate to significant Nazi support--along the Czech border for instance--and a lot of Austrians from the Tyrol joined the SS, but for the most part the Catholic areas weren't very pro-Nazi.  The least Nazi area in the entire country, despite Muchich being the birthplace of the Nazi party, was Bavaria, which is also the most Catholic part of the entire country.

          Consistent with Ratzinger, many German Catholics are socially quite conservative.  However, they were not as likely to be Nazi members or sympathizers as were members of just about any other demographic group in the country.  

          by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:52:09 PM PDT

          •  Stauffenberg? Give me a break . . .

            You mean that guy who fought bravely for the Nazis for nearly a decade until he finally began to act like he'd seen the light?

            Boy, you apologists get desperate fast.

            by corvo on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:55:47 PM PDT

            •  Hmmm...

              14 total comments over your first three days at Daily Kos, 13 of them slamming religion and/or the RCC, and one claiming Lincoln was our worst president ever.  

              You're getting off to quite an auspicious start there...

              by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:02:38 PM PDT

              •  Res ipsa loquitur

                You didn't say how many of 'em are incorrect. :-)

                by corvo on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:12:28 PM PDT

          •  And to be Clear...

            ...I am NOT exonerating the Roman Catholic Church from coddling up to dictators, or from Roman Catholics from supporting fascist movements.  In the Medeteranean countries it was primarily Catholics who supported the fascists (like Franco, Salazar and Action Franciase).  And the last theocracy before Khomeini's Iraq was the Nazi puppet-state of Slovakia.  And the Franciscans had close ties to the Croatian Ustashe who were responsible for mass autrocities against Serbs, Bosnians, Jews, Roma and others.  But in Germany, in part because of Nazi policies regarding the Church and the deeply anti-Christian nature of Nazism, Catholics were not only less likely to support the regime, they were more likely to oppose it.

            by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:57:49 PM PDT

            •  Why blame the Church

              DH? Why even bring it up? That is unfair to Ratzinger. I mean WHY is that even a concern?

              It is as relevant as Ratzinger being in the Hitler Youth and guarding Nazi slave camps?

              In other words, STFU.

              by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:02:25 PM PDT

              •  What Is Your Fucking Problem?

                Really, Armando?  Why do you vacillate from martyrdom to pointless obnoxiousness anymore?  

                Doesn't it bother you when a dozen or more people criticize you for repetitive one and two line comments that add nothing to the discussion and fail to engage the points of others?  

                Do you actually enjoy this "nah nah, I-know-you-are, but-what-am-I stuff?"  

                It seems utterly pointless to me, and more than a little boorish.  I've got better things to do with my time than indulge whatever psychic itch of yours that you're trying to get me and others to scratch.

                by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:07:19 PM PDT

                •  Hmmmm

                  I think I make a point DH.

                  Why is it important for you to clarify you are not absolving the Church of its shameful conduct during WWII? Because it is part of the equation.

                  And it is precisely why Ratzinger's conduct during that very same war is important to clarify.

                  As for being boorish, Jesus said 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' DH, you don't qualify as without sin in that respect.

                  You certainly need to take a long look in the mirror my friend. you are having difficulty reconciling things I see.

                  by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:21:47 PM PDT

                  •  Well...

                    ...in my entire time here I don't think I've ever had a single comment that was rated by more than three people that came out with an average rating under 2.5.  That's over the entire 18 months since the shift to Scoop.

                    How many comments of yours have been rated under 2.5 today?  

                    by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:33:35 PM PDT

                    •  Sigh

                      Of course that proves that you are NEVER EVER boorish DH.

                      Yes indeed.

                      Let's line up our ratigns shall we? Or unzip our pants.

                      That will make the point.

                      Look, I am an asshole. But let me in on a little secret, you are one too. Not as big a one, I'll grant you. But still also an asshole.

                      One of the smartest and most insightful. Truly one of the best political writers there is, in any medium.

                      An unbelievable asset to this site, to your wonderful Next Hurrah site and to the Democratic Party.

                      Buuut, you are a bit thin skinned and a bit blind about your own personality traits.

                      In any event, I'm sure we can be good friends again.

                      I cry peace and ask for forgiveness.

                      by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:39:10 PM PDT

                      •  sensibility

                        Your last two lines
                        just said no
                        to the tortuous.

                        "Welcome back to the fight... [Our proper fight.]
                        This time I know our side will win."

                        May you and DHinMI both one day work together at
                        the "Casa Blanca."
                        

                        by Civil Sibyl on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:44:25 PM PDT

                        •  in

                          a very small office.

                          by Austin in PA on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:35:12 PM PDT

                  •  Armando

                    I carefully read all the posts in that other thread.  I think it would be wise for you to consider taking a break from the keyboard and going for a walk and getting some fresh air. Now go ahead and shoot the messenger, or prove me wrong and take my advice.

                    by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:34:08 PM PDT

                    •  None of the above

                      I'll neither shoot the messenger nor take a walk.

                      Why should I exactly? Do you expect this raging debate will stop if I go away?

                      by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:40:10 PM PDT

                      •  Honestly

                        This isn't about the pope. It's not a raging debate.  It's you being angry and a lot of folks getting angry at you. And yes, if you go for a walk, that anger will dissipate, and I think you will be able to engage folks in a wiser manner.

                        by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:44:11 PM PDT

                        •  Siigh

                          You really think MY taking a walk will cool their anger?

                          I got bad news for you, I am not angry. People are angry with me. And they will be if I come back and post WHAT IT THINK an hour from now.

                          But there is good news, the world will not end because of a few rough words.

                          by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:56:55 PM PDT

                          •  Well

                            I think people here have great respect and love for you, so yes, I think it would cool their anger. The world might not end because of a few rough words, but relationships do end for that reason, and you have established a remarkable one with folks here. What is your motivation for putting it to the test?

                            by Blue the Wild Dog on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:07:18 PM PDT

                    •  Blue

                      You are probably a really nice, intelligent person with well thought out views and a mind that craves others opinons.

                      However as to you basically telling Armando or anyone else to STFU ..

                      GFY

                      And have a nice day.

                      by cdreid on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:04:36 AM PDT

                      •  cdreid

                        Sorry, but you don't know me, and you are wrong. Have a nice day yourself.

                        by Blue the Wild Dog on Fri Apr 22, 2005 at 01:52:27 PM PDT

                •  If you want to talk repetitive

                  you've been making the same point again and again all day, with all the "engagement" of a battering ram. New Pope no Nazi. We get it.

                  by QueenMizz on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:24:10 PM PDT

                  •  My point

                    on the question of being without sin.

                    I admit my boorishness. DH is blind to his own.

                    by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:25:42 PM PDT

                    •  Amongst the hierarchy...

                      
                      ... the Catholic church was quite complicit with Nazis and the Shoah.  That's a fact.  There were Catholic resisters, too, but there were far more collaborators.  Yes, the Catholic center party was the last democratic obstacle to Nazi power, before Hitler dissolved all political parties.  But, again and again, the general conformism in Nazi Germany is the sad and horrific fact.

                      In any case, Christian denominations, throughout Europe, were complicit in fascism, war crimes, and genocide during World War II.  This guilt caused the general decline of religion as a moral authority in post-war Europe -- well, in the West in general.

                      The Christian socialist movements that sprang up in Europe during the 1940s and 1950s -- and built much of the modern social security states, I might add -- tried to address this guilt.  But these movements didn't last.

                      Ratzinger's stance on liberation theology is just sad and depressing.  At a Catholic, I can only shake my head in disbelief about our new pope.  And I don't anyone who served in the Nazi war machine should serve as a spiritual leader of a global church.  It's not that guilt can't be absolved.  But if anyone should be sensitive to religious symbolism, it should be Catholics.
                      

                      by quaderni on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:43:07 PM PDT

                      •  I'm Going to Quibble About Something

                        In general, I agree with your comment, and with your head-shaking.  I'm appalled that it's Ratzinger, and can only hope he was picked because of his advanced age.  

                        But the quibble concerns all the Christian denomonations.  In general, you're correct.  And you're also correct that for the most part, where the RCC "did the right thing" it was led mostly by middle-and-lower ranking officials (although the future John XXIII did get pretty busy issuing papers for Hungarian Jews that were used by Raoul Wallenberg).  However, there were a few instances where (non-Catholic) churches were important.  One was Denmark, which you probably know is about the only place in Europe where the people can hold their head high, for almost all strata of society were at a minimum non-compliant, and many parts of Danish society were quite active in facilitating the escape of the Danish Jews to Sweden, including the Danish churches.  

                        The other place was either Bulgaria or Romania (I can't remember which).  The Romanians were absolutely brutal with Soviet Jews, but from King Carol down they resisted the Nazi calls for the deportation of Jews.  And it was either in Romania or Bulgaria that the patriarch of national Church issued a statement against any member of the church abetting the deportation of that nation's Jews.

                        Like I said, in general you're correct, but like so much about the Shoah, the exceptions are often quite important, especially to show how when (other than in Poland and the USSR) local authorities refused to comply with Nazi demands to assist in the Shoah, it was either much harder for the Nazis to collect, deport and kill that nation's Jews, or--as in Denmark and Romania--it proved impossible.  

                        In short, the exceptions are important because they establish an even more damning record against those nations and institutions that didn't do enough, especially after mid-1943 when it became fairly clear that the Nazi regime would eventually be destroyed.

                        by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:24:12 PM PDT

                        •  You are correct

                          
                          Yes, there were numberous Christian groups that resisted throughout Europe, and this shows the complexity of complicity - if you will pardon that awful alliteration - in terms of the Shoah.  Place and tradition meant everything.  

                          One typographic error might have altered the meaning of my posting though: I meant to type "As a Catholic", not "At a Catholic."  Just for clarity: AS a Catholic, I must shake my head in disbelief at our new pope.

                          THanks for raising the objection in such an engaged but friendly way.
                          

                          by quaderni on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:08:36 PM PDT

                        •  You are correct

                          Yes, there were numberous Christian groups that resisted throughout Europe, and this shows the complexity of complicity - if you will pardon that awful alliteration - in terms of the Shoah.  Place and tradition meant everything.  

                          One typographic error might have altered the meaning of my posting though: I meant to type "As a Catholic", not "At a Catholic."  Just for clarity: AS a Catholic, I must shake my head in disbelief at our new pope.

                          THanks for raising the objection in such an engaged but friendly way.
                          

                          by quaderni on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:09:02 PM PDT

                  •  You've Got It Backwards

                    I've been RESPONDING to the same point, new pope=Nazi, made over and over and over again.

                    by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:39:29 PM PDT

            •  so what was Vatican II about ?

              People seem awful quick to defend the Catholic Church over its appeasement of fascism.

              Part of Vatican II was apologizng for their collaboration. Certainly Mussolini and the Church were tight.

              The end goals of WW 2 fascists and the Church might have been different, but their common hatred of Jews and Communists brought them close.

              by bigbay on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:07:26 PM PDT

              •  That Was a Defense of...

                ...appeasement of fascism?  What do you want, for me to say that the Catholic church committed ritual murders of Jewish babies and served their blood at mass?

                Jeeze...

                by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 03:14:23 PM PDT

          •  You're joking right?

            You're a knowledgeable and very intelligent person.

            And very conveniently forgetting that the Catholic church was one of the main benefactors of Nazis trying to escape germany?

            by cdreid on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:02:05 AM PDT

      •  Perhaps i dont understand something

        How is it unfair to call someone a nazi if they were ummm ... a nazi?

        Does that mean that if someone joins the Neonazi skinheads or the KKK but then.. stop after the FBI raids them... they arent neonazis or racists?

        And as far as im aware being part of the Hitler Youth was NOT universal and only at the end of the war were the Hitler youth used as combatants. If you listen to documentaries men who Were part of the hitler youth tell you why they did it. Reasons like they were treated special, got great uniforms, got to gang beat other kids.. etc etc etc.

        I dont have a dog in this fight as im not a Catholic

        But i honestly dont see why we have to continue the "truths which must not be spoken" foolishness for fear of offending.

        So how does joining one of the most extremist parts of the Nazi party make you Not a nazi?

        by cdreid on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:00:14 AM PDT

    •  Some sense!!!

      thanks... Thats what I was thinking.  He was a Nazi... did he believe what they were preaching probably not.  There are plenty of people who are members of certain organizations that they disagree with but the fact is there were people his age that did not join the Hitler youth.  What would Jesus have done?

      by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:07:42 PM PDT

      •  He would have recognized

        that people are not perfect- even young men in Nazi Germany. Why do we insist that our Pope be exalted to an unreachable height where men make no youthful mistakes in judgment? Christianity is about growth and forgiveness beyond sin and wrongdoing, something I have always felt was a central tenet of progressivism.

        by BrianVA on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:15:07 PM PDT

        •  He should be near-perfect...

          The man is supposed to be Christ's vicar on Earth.

          by Fro on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:25:29 PM PDT

        •  Nope

          According to the anti-religious and anti-Catholic among us, the new Pope had to be without sin.  How is that for irony?

          by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:27:39 PM PDT

          •  I hope you'll agree

            that one can be disgusted with Pope Benedict, his past, and his election, without necessarily being anti-religious or anti-Catholic.  Those who love the Church have much to fear and loathe.

            by fishhead on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:40:15 PM PDT

            •  I would agree

              yes....but there are MANY here that would not.  They hate religion.  They hate religious people.  And they have been very vocal today.

              by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:42:14 PM PDT

              •  Hate religious people?

                I haven't seen any of that. Many, many haters of religion, and particularly organized religion, to be sure. Not considering your choice of religion when I decide how to talk to you? That too. Looking down on religious people as weak-willed and superstitious? Some of that. But I haven't seen anyone come out and say that they hate religious people, or even that they hate catholics.

                by Rupert on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:48:54 PM PDT

              •  I hate STFU

                and you are a master practitioner.

                For shame DD. For shame.

                by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:04:10 PM PDT

                •  I say STFU when your actions

                  deserve it.  Calling him a Nazi was both morally and factually wrong.  Calling him a member of the Hitler Youth, if you give the context, is right.  

                  That is NOT what we saw today.  Today we saw the anti-religious here take glee in bashing the man as a Nazi.  

                  It was disgusting.  And it is why Frist just maybe right about a few of you.

                  by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:18:19 PM PDT

                  •  I called him a former Hitler Youth

                    correcting my error.

                    For shmae on you for misstating what I said.

                    As for us being what Frist said, that is a troll's comment from you. Truly despicable. You should retract that immediately.

                    You are truly behaving atrociously. A little decorum please.

                    by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:24:28 PM PDT

                    •  Ok

                      You corrected yourself, fine.

                      But I will not take back the other comment.  Frist was wrong to say it, but indeed he may be right about the anti-religious group in the Democratic Party.  And that group DOES exist.  We, as Democrats, need to destroy that group before it destroys us.  

                      If you consider me a troll, Armando, so be it.  My foot is half out the door on this site as it is.  

                      by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:50:41 PM PDT

                      •  Your foot is hafl out the door?

                        How big a baby are you exactly?

                        sheesh.

                        by Armando on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:59:21 PM PDT

                      •  Whoa -What the Hell are you Saying?!?!

                        the anti-religious group in the Democratic Party.  And that group DOES exist.  We, as Democrats, need to destroy that group before it destroys us.

                        That "group" you want to destroy
                        is primarily comprised of SECULARISTS, AGNOSTICS, and ATHIESTS.  These are people who live and breathe the ideals that founded America and are fighting vigorously to keep them alive.  

                        The founding fathers knew there is a place for religion in life, home, church, and community.  But not in government and the law.  
                        Personally, mixing religion and the law debases religion and corrupts the law.

                        If you "destroy", "purge", "marginalize", "silence"  us, America will be a Fundamentalist Protestant Theocracy faster than you can say "I'm building a people of power"

                        Just because that site makes me nauseous doesn't mean I'm "anti-religious".  I just prefer religion focused on personal spiritual salvation instead of on attaining earthly power.  

                        http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm

                        by enchanter on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 05:04:13 PM PDT

                  •  Wow!

                    "And it is why Frist just maybe right about a few of you."

                    THIS, my friends, is one of the reasons I am not, and never will be a Democrat.  When you have people like Delware Dem here saying that because we criticize the choice of an ex-Nazi, such as Ratzinger, we hate "religious people"; and then go on to say that the theocrat Bill Frist maybe right about us, you only make your party look as foolish and retarded as the Republicans.

                    indie for life. :)

                    by FtheNaysayers on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:28:05 PM PDT

                    •  Indie gets it

                      by Cat4everrr on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 10:03:34 AM PDT

                •  It's not STFU...

                  It's SBFA.

                  by Omar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:28:21 PM PDT

                  •  make that

                    SBAFA.

                    by Omar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:28:43 PM PDT

                    •  Huh?

                      Spell it out please

                      by Delaware Dem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:46:41 PM PDT

                      •  SBAFA:

                        Stop being a fucking asshole.

                        by Omar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:50:11 PM PDT

                        •  but...

                          not you.   (Did I need to say that?)

                          by Omar on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:54:58 PM PDT

              •  Raised a Catholic...

                altar boy, elementary school, high school.  I even sold sodas at bingo when my father was head of our Holy Name Society.

                I don't buy any of it---religion is bullshit.  People can be thoroughly ethical without subscribing to these fairy tales. Religious true believers have caused vastly more problems in history than they have solved.   I love and respect many religious people, but I know they'd remain terrific people if they abandoned religion.

                As for the new Pope:  Hitler Youth to doctrinal enforcer isn't much of a journey.  I was looking for John XXIII.

                by steveb on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:24:45 PM PDT

                •  you take what you need and you leave the rest...

                  i too was raised catholic - elementary and high school.  I no longer go to church - i no longer find God there. I find God all around me in the miracle of existance, but i digress from my point which is that  I still identify strongly with Catholicism - but as my CULTURAL heritage more than my religion.  While I haven't stuck to them rigidly, allowing them to stifle my own spiritual and moral development, the teachings of the Catholic church (not all - but the essential teachings of Jesus) are the bedrock of my moral compass and consequently a large part of my political ideology.  I think maybe you used the word "bullshit" too broadly, or maybe i misunderstand you? The true message of Jesus is powerful and revolutionary and it has inspired some of the greatest and most progressive individuals to grace the earth (Ghandi, M. Teresa, MLK, the martyrs of South America). I long for the day the church returns to that message - and then i will call it my own.

                  Also - Why ridicule so many Americans' devotion to Jesus when if we remind them of his true message, nearly all we kossacks hope for will come to be? Jesus has been hijacked by Ralph Reed and the corporate machine (along with the flag)  - we need to get them back.

                  And finally -  those of you throwing around "Nazi" are childish and ignorant.  Its also becoming difficult to sift through the real bullshit here to find good posts... i'm disappointed in the church as well as many who posted here today.

                  by fartofliving on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:22:13 PM PDT

                  •  Jesus's message

                    "Love your enemies" remains a revolutionary message, no doubt about it.  

                    But the rest of it---Adam and Eve, Noah's ark, transubstantiation, Papal infallability and much, much more---is pure hokum.  

                    by steveb on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 01:07:03 AM PDT

                    •  True

                      But the rest of it isn't Jesus' message - he never spoke of Adam and Eve, pope's, etc.  The "rest" has been added over the millenia by the political church... twisted and perverted into yesterday's crusades for the "holy" land and today's crusades against tolerance and untraditional lifestyles.

                      I think Jesus' revolutionary message is best expressed in what are known as the beatitudes - laid out in his "sermon on the mount" (below).  And before anyone accuses me of evangelizing, here, let me say i am not a member of any organized religion - i post these in order that people may consider their political implications - imagine a world where people lived accordingly...
                      And I wonder how the likes of Pat Robertson, Bill Frist and Pope Ratzinger can jive "Blessed are the peacemakers" with their support for Bush?

                      The Beatitudes

                      And seeing the multitudes, He went up on a mountain, and when He was seated His disciples came to Him.

                      Then He opened His mouth and taught them, saying:

                       Blessed are the poor in spirit,
                          For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
                       Blessed are those who mourn,
                          For they shall be comforted.
                       Blessed are the meek,
                          For they shall inherit the earth.
                       Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
                          For they shall be filled.
                       Blessed are the merciful,
                          For they shall obtain mercy.
                       Blessed are the pure in heart,
                          For they shall see God.
                       Blessed are the peacemakers,
                          For they shall be called sons of God.
                       Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake,
                          For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
                       Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.
                       Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

                      by fartofliving on Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 08:16:05 AM PDT

          •  Ha

            So because I show you up, you troll rate ALL of my comments in the thread?  You are indeed a douchebag Delware Dem, you're signature only backs up that claim.

            by FtheNaysayers on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:45:14 PM PDT

          •  how can you vote...

            for a pro-choice democrat if you honestly believe the Pope, who continually speaks out against abortion, is a messenger from your God?  If this guy represents everyday Democratic ideas I am not going to vote anymore...

            by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:13:57 PM PDT

            •  Well, because the Pope said so...

              for a pro-choice democrat if you honestly believe the Pope, who continually speaks out against abortion, is a messenger from your God?

              Maybe because the last Pope, through his doctrinal spokesman the current Pope, said that a pro-choice candidate could be voted for for "proportional reasons".

              Or, alternatively and/or additionally, because Catholics don't believe that the Pope is a messenger from God in the sense that, say, an angel or Jesus is. Because, you know, we don't.

              by cdicely on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:20:22 PM PDT

              •  loop holes are awesome....

                so are you pro-choice?  If you are you are not a mainstream Catholic by any stretch...

                by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:26:41 PM PDT

                •  Whaaa???

                  A majority of American Catholics ARE pro-choice, by almost the same exact margin as the general public.  

                  by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 04:50:45 PM PDT

                  •  You don't dare take communion, do you?

                    Because if you vote pro-choice you an accessory to evil, in the words of Ratzinger:

                    
                    Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles

                    by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger

                    1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgement regarding one's worthiness to do so, according to the Church's objective criteria, asking such questions as: "Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?" The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction "Redemptionis Sacramentum," nos. 81, 83).

                    2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorise or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a "grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. [...] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to `take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'" (no. 73). Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. [...] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74).

                    3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

                    4. Apart from an individuals's judgement about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

                    5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person's formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church's teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

                    6. When "these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible," and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, "the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it" (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration "Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics" [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgement on the person's subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person's public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

                    [N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
                    

                    by Smallbottle on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:04:07 PM PDT

                    •  Who Cares If I Take Communion?

                      Are you disputing my claim that a majority of American Catholics are pro-choice, at least in that they support the continued legalization of first-trimester abortions as laid out in Roe v Wade?

                      Does my proximity to accuracy somehow hinge on my religious practice?  And are you going to base claims about how Catholics actually practice their faith on what Ratzinger (or any other Papal authority) tells them they should believe?  If so, you're clearly uninformed about American (and Western European) Catholicism as it's actually practiced by Roman Catholics.

                      by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:12:43 PM PDT

                      •  I am referring to the endless repetition

                        of the lying talking points defending Ratzinger on communion.

                        Straight up: If you vote pro-choice you're excommunicated. Period. End of story. That's his position, in his words. You can only weasel out if you're voting for a pro-choice candidate but you're not pro-choice, but it's a narrow exception.

                        In other words, the Pope says you're not a mainstream Catholic.

                        Yet his explicit position keeps getting whitewashed here over and over and over.

                        And I had 12 years of Catholic education, thanks, so I know what the fuck I'm talking about.

                        by Smallbottle on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:47:22 PM PDT

                        •  Oh, and most Catholics

                          do not think the church should change its position on abortion.

                          Poll released today. FYI.

                          by Smallbottle on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:48:05 PM PDT

                        •  I Think You Have Some Issues

                          If you actually think what the pope says about abortion matters in terms of rank and file Catholics' standing in the Church, you only listened in catechism but not to your then-fellow Catholics.

                          And you still didn't answer why you think you have a right to question my religious practices.  Are YOU now going to be the defender of the faith?

                          Maybe you ought to find some therapy for ex-Catholics or something.

                          by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:26:15 PM PDT

                    •  Besides

                      What business is it of yours whether I take communion?  

                      by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:18:33 PM PDT

                  •  I would be considered a Catholic in a poll!!!....

                    I was confirmed... so if I was polled I could be counted as a Catholic who is pro choice.  And further more polls are such shit!!  In the words of Kip Dynamite "Like anyone could ever know that...."!!

                    I had neighbors with signs that said "Catholics Against Kerry" and in smaller letters on the same sign it said "Catholics against abortion".  

                    Anyway just to let you know I dont like abortion.  Not because some ex-nazi, i mean pope, says it.  I still think someone should be able to choose though... See what a lot of Christians dont get about Muslims is that they take that shit real seriously.  It seems like most of you guys act like you are at a Picadilly picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe.  Do you not have to accept everything the Pope says?  Or do you get to say look he's anti war!!! and ignore all the other dumb ass things he says?  

                    The catholic church, and all religions, were a way of explaining things before real science.  Now we have actual facts to tell us why shit happens....  Let it go!!!!

                    by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 07:57:14 PM PDT

                    •  You're a Bigot

                      And my pro-choice Muslim friends would join me in that assessment.

                      by DHinMI on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:16:05 PM PDT

                      •  are you saying....

                        the average Muslim and the average Christian practice their faiths to the same extent?  I take serious issue with that considering it is much harder to be a Muslim than it is to be a Christian.  The amount of prayer and everything.  All of my friends who GREW UP Muslim said how much dedication it takes...

                        I am not sure why I am a bigot but at least I didnt serve in Hitlers Youth organization....  I think my friends whose parents are muslim and my friends whose parents are christian would agree that I did not in fact serve in Hitler's Youth Organization.  

                        Take a pill and calm down.  I respect the fact that you have the right to be religious.  I dont agree with you though.  Sorry if I said something that you didnt agree with but I dont think anything I typed equals some sort of hate speech.  

                        I do ponder how quickly Jesus would hurl such a charge though.....

                        kidding.  

                        I came across harsh and because I dont like typing for too long I probably did not convey my point as best I could.  Sorry.

                        I offer my best wishes to the Pope as I do hope he helps people and I hope all Catholics can like him for what he does with his power.  I shall now go to bed.

                        DHinMI I just blew you a kiss....

                        by Sausalito on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 08:37:32 PM PDT

                •  you can be a pro-choice Catholic

                  Being pro-choice means being pro-abortion rights: women have a choice to have an abortion.  This is in the realm of laws.

                  And you can believe, that, personally, abortion is wrong.  And believe, at the same time, that not everything you view as wrong in the realm of morality should be made illegal.

                  A simple example:  I believe that, say, worshipping Charles Manson as god is wrong.  I would advise anyone wishing to worship Charles Manson that I thought their proposed course of action was very highly misguided and even immoral.  However, I would not support a law banning the worship of Charles Manson.

                  Thus, it's fully possible (indeed, this is the position huge numbers of Americans do in fact support)to be pro-choice (in a political and legal sense) while believing that abortion can be the morally wrong thing to do.

                  by burritoboy on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:42:43 PM PDT

                  •  Then they are excommunicated

                    They cannot be pro-choice as Catholics, whether or not they are personally anti-abortion. That's the decree.

                    by Smallbottle on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 06:49:20 PM PDT

        •  Now wait a second...

          Ok, I agree the "Ratzinger the Nazi" tag is out of line.  Absolutely.

          But you're applying a standard of forgiveness to His Newly Minted Holiness that he isn't willing to apply himself.  You're saying that Ex-Nazis (who have repudiated their views) are worthy of forgiveness, and can be exalted in the eyes of God.  You're saying that people can be forgiven their sins if they make a sincere effort to live a pious and faithful life.

          Fair enough.  But Ratzinger explicitly denies this theological argument.  For him, gays, women who have had an abortion, and Democratic voters are unworthy of redemption in the eyes of God.  I mean the man would simply reject your argument if it applied to one of his less favored groups.

          This isn't an attack on you, but it's more of an illustration of the hypocrisy underlying Pope Benedict's position on denying communion.  Catholics around the globe are asked to forgive him for participating-- in his own young, small way-- in one of the greatest acts of evil the world has ever known.  Yet he refuses to practice that virtue himself.

          by ChicagoDem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 01:49:19 PM PDT

          •  The forgiveness of Christ

            which Christians are meant to imitate isn't a conditional form of forgiveness. Turn the other cheek and all that...

            Sometimes our faith leaders can only take us so far.

            by BrianVA on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:02:46 PM PDT

          •  Chicago

            You know less about Catholic theology than you think. Nothing about abortion, gays, etc renders them unforgivable in the Church's eyes.

            And using the phrase "ex-Nazi" is clever, especially since there's no evidence that he ever was one.

            by mkrempasky on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:07:58 PM PDT

            •  What?

              Nothing about abortion, gays, etc renders them unforgivable in the Church's eyes.

              Hey man, that's the new Pope's line not mine...

              by ChicagoDem on Tue Apr 19, 2005 at 02:16:38 PM PDT

        •  well one...

          hes not my pope!  Two, its one thing to jack-off or throw back a few too many.  Its another to be a part of the Hitler Youth!!!  Are  you guys serious?  I remember when the left was trying to say that Bush was shady because