Should Ratzinger apologize for being in the Hitler Youth + Luftwaffenhelfer?

Bannasidhe

Cossax wrote: »

I said you built the case for a child being brainwashed in your paragraph, I never said he was.



Maybe it was but I'm not going to criticize a teenager for attempting to shoot down one group of war criminals bombing his country because said country was run by another group of war criminals.




Take your mocking tone and strawmen elsewhere, I never insisted anything.



Have you ever heard Benedict XVI spout anti-Jew propaganda? I don't know if he has or not but if he did, attack him for that or any number of reasons (there are plenty) but because he was a teenager in Germany during WW2 is hardly a stick to beat him with.

As for the youth resistance groups, good for them. Not everyone has the courage as an adult to stand against the State and potentially die/be tortured/imprisoned for it, nevermind as a child.

So as long as he doesn't actually make an anti-Semitic statement there are no grounds for discussing if the indoctrination he underwent as youth in Germany, which de did not at the time reject, had a lasting impact on how he views the world?

Oh - that's ok so. Obviously, he's better now. After all he did absolve the Jews of the crime of killing Christ...or did he?

Pope Benedict says the "Temple leadership" was responsible for Jesus' death, "not Jews as a whole," says Dan Amira at New York. Pointing out that "plenty of Jews were off doing other things at the time" is unlikely to unravel centuries of anti-Semitism. "If some people out there are still holding a grudge after nearly two thousand years, they're probably beyond convincing at this point."

http://theweek.com/article/index/212757/pope-benedict-absolves-the-jews-a-major-step-forward

Not quite - he said some Jews did it, but not all Jews. Of course this ignores that crucifixion was a method of execution was reserved for the sole use by the Roman State to punish treason against the State - or to put it simply - the Jews weren't allowed to crucify anyone for any reason - if Jesus had been killed by the Jews he would have been stoned.
Historical Fact.

The Pope should have said 'some Romans killed Jesus, but not all of them'. Instead he continued to blame the Jews - just not all of them. :rolleyes:

But he understands the pain caused by Anti-Semitism - why he has suffered in the same way himself according to his Father Cantalamessa - the only man allowed to preach to the Pope.

At a Good Friday service in St Peter's Basilica in Rome, the Preacher of the Pontifical Household compared criticism of the Church over abuse allegations to "the collective violence suffered by the Jews".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8601389.stm

WTF? Criticism of the hierarchy of the RCC for failing to act to protect the children in it's care and protecting the guilty to avoid tarnishing it's reputation is kin to rounding people up and systemically murdering them?

Saying the RCC needs to clean house, apologise, acknowledge it's failure, and make recompense to the victims of child sexual abuse is the same as committing genocide??
Seriously???

Of course the Jews were the only victims of the Nazis - and he is trying to build bridges so that's ok.....oh, hang on...

According to estimates, more than 50,000 homosexuals were arrested by the Nazis. It is not known how many were murdered in concentration camps, but estimates put the figure at several thousand at least. Gay rights activists have long complained that the persecution of homosexuals during the Third Reich has been overlooked. The Nazi-era law persecuting homosexuals remained on Germany's books until 1969.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/remembering-different-histories-monument-to-homosexual-holocaust-victims-opens-in-berlin-a-555665.html

Pope Quotes:

'The homosexual inclination is however 'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'.

'In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.'

'Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder'.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Homosexuality

' One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws said the man who was in the Hitler Youth and the Luftwaffenhelfer....

He has the bare faced cheek to speak of conscientious objection when it comes to extending people's rights - where were his own conscientious objections to taking people's lives? - it was in a Hitler Youth uniform saluting the Fuhrer that's where it was.

Looks like Ratzinger's apple didn't fall so far from Hitler's tree as his supporters would like us to believe...

robindch

decimatio wrote: »

[...] I can't hold him responsible for his participation in the Nazi regime.

If he weren't pope, and waffling on all the time about the moral absolutism, I'd be inclined to let his past transgressions slip without much comment. However, he is pope, and like it or not, he should hold himself to the highest moral standards - something he hasn't done yet.

One thing that I think would have helped Germany and its people recover their compromised moral authority -- particularly for people who were only tangentially or involuntarily involved (probably as Ratzinger was) who went on to offices which require their holders or have or to pretend to have the very highest moral standards -- is something like South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The basic idea of the TRC being that you admit doing whatever morally questionable actions you carried out, you do so honestly and fully, you admit the reasons for doing them, admit that they were wrong and then you apply for an amnesty based upon those admissions.

Perhaps Ratzinger wouldn't have been made pope if he'd done that, but then again, at least there would be few, if any, questions like this hanging over him either.

Cossax

I'm on my phone so can't make a detailed reply, not that I'll need to given where you're gone with your reply.

That looks like perfectly good material to criticise him for. Much better looking than him being in the Hitler Youth IMO.
That being said and given the history of Christianity/Catholicism re: Jews though I'm not sure how much of that you can attribute to his upbringing and how much is Church thinking/tradition/teaching. I'm sure there were plenty of other bigots/popes/hierarchy members who blamed the Jews or the gays for various things long before the Nazis did it.

I don't have to look far to see that very prejudice against Jews as there was a priest led pogrom in my own city about a hundred years ago, give or take.

decimatio

robindch wrote: »

decimatio wrote: »

[...] I can't hold him responsible for his participation in the Nazi regime.

If he weren't pope, and waffling on all the time about the moral absolutism, I'd be inclined to let his past transgressions slip without much comment. However, he is pope, and like it or not, he should hold himself to the highest moral standards - something he hasn't done yet.

I think I misinterpreted the issue slightly.

I don't feel he is responsible for his actions because he was indoctrinated into it as a child and because of the totalitarian nature of the reich. But I do believe he should apologise for his participation regardless of how that participation came about.

The reason I take this position and the reason I detest totalitarianism in all its forms, political or religious, is partially because of how evil I feel the manipulation and control of others is.

Purely from the perspective of responsibility I would consider the actions undertaken by an indoctrinated child (turned adult) under such circumstances of control to be very similar to the actions of a mentally ill individual.

jank

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I'm not aware of the stats for those who refused to co-operate. But i know for certain one who didn't and who remained involved right up untill the point where his unit ceased to exist. You can dress it up as a young boy forced into military action all you like, but forced or not he stuck with it till the bitter end. And as has been stated by others and ignored by you several times - this is the fúcking pope - gods right hand man - he should not be judged by the standards of other 17 year olds.
When i was 17 i was only concerned with taking ecstasy and bedding as many teenage girls as i could get my grubby little hands on, and that's fine for me cos i'm not the pope now! Would you brush off ratzinger doing that as a teenager, or do you think that as the foremost moral authority on the planet and what with being hand picked by the big man himself - he should have fúcking known better!!

And why should atheists not hold a man, who fronts the richest organisation in the world, on the very basis of his moral superiorty, up to high moral standards? The fact that christians don't is absolutely mind boggling!!

Sorry jank - absolutely not good enough. He's the goddam pope ffs - not just the average wankaholic teenager. He claims to be better, he tells billions how to live morally (without so much as a giggle by the way). He's the steve jobs of religion, taking in tens of millions a day in the most audacious display of style over substance the world has ever seen. If you don't see the problem with him being just another teenage nazi then you need to have a another think about it! Seriously!!

I have covered most of this already so I am going to summarize briefly.

He was 6 years old when the Nazi State came into being, therefore he grew up in an environment where no one here can possibly comprehend or truly understand. It is very easy to judge 70 years later saying he should have done that, or he didn't do enough even if he did resist some aspects of Nazi rule.

To equate him to the leaders of the Reich? Come on, it preposterous. Most 17 year olds today wouldn't survive a day in such a country never mind orchestrate some kind of resistance movement that would be acceptable of today's peers.
We often have a habit of looking back in the past and setting the social standards of today to very different times in the past.

Yes he is the pope and tbh his social conservatism and lack of openness and reform offers plenty of reasons on its own to criticize him. I have no fondness at all towards him. To say that because he is the pope he must some sort of perfect and child/teenager being with an unbleshmished past is unrealistic. Pope John Paul II did alot more to resist the Nazi's. Did it curry favors here in A+A? Hell no. People will find things to give out about regardless even if was a Nazi hunter Chuck Norris style.

robindch

jank wrote: »

To equate him to the leaders of the Reich?

jank - it would help your rep here on A+A if you didn't misrepresent the points that people are making to you.

Try addressing what people are saying, instead of what they aren't.

Lantus

decimatio wrote: »

I really dislike Herr Ratzinger and the CC as a whole but I can't hold him responsible for his participation in the Nazi regime. He was only a boy when they would have started brainwashing him. I think most of us here are aware of what brainwashing (like in religion) can do to people and we are also aware that some people are more susceptible than others.

It's one of the reasons that I dislike religion so much.

Noone would blame a dog that had been trained to attack if it attacked someone. They would blame the owner.

Regardless of our intelligence relative to other animals we should not forget that we are animals and we can be 'trained' just like an animal can.

I disagree with the term brainwashing. It implies being strapped to a chair and hypnotised.

We are all products of our environment and where we live. We reflect the values, language and ideas of those around us. If you grow up as a child in nazi germany then you are a nazi, if you grow up as a head hunter in the amazon then thats what you are. Does that make you evil or bad? NO. If that is all you know and have been taught then to those people those actions are normal.

If you were to say to an eskimo if they could have anything what would they want? They would not say an Ipad, or walk down a sandy beach. They have no concept of those things in the slightest and cannot imagine them.

We need to all learn to reach out to people and understand them.

We cannot outlaw tradition....but we can outgrow it...

Jame Gumb

No he shouldn't.

Pope Benedict was a child back then and everyone was in those organisations.

All if us would have been in them had we been German and of a certain age during that era.

Penn

Jame Gumb wrote: »

No he shouldn't.

Pope Benedict was a child back then and everyone was in those organisations.

All if us would have been in them had we been German and of a certain age during that era.

Question is though, would we apologise afterwards?

Jame Gumb

Penn wrote: »

Jame Gumb wrote: »

No he shouldn't.

Pope Benedict was a child back then and everyone was in those organisations.

All if us would have been in them had we been German and of a certain age during that era.

Question is though, would we apologise afterwards?

I wouldn't.

If for some bizarre reason being a member of the boy scouts became mandatory for all boys in Ireland and then some years later the world was almost destroyed by the government that made it so, I wouldn't feel obliged to apologise to anyone for being a member of said organisation when I was a nipper.

Penn

Jame Gumb wrote: »

I wouldn't.

If for some bizarre reason being a member of the boy scouts became mandatory for all boys in Ireland and then some years later the world was almost destroyed by the government that made it so, I wouldn't feel obliged to apologise to anyone for being a member of said organisation when I was a nipper.

Difference between being a nipper (maybe 4-10 years old) and being a teenager (joined Nazi army at 14 and stayed until just before he was 18). Even if I was a "nipper" I'd still apologise. Why wouldn't I? Yes, it was mandatory. Yes, maybe I didn't want to join but was forced. Maybe during my time I never even fired a gun. But like it or not, I'd know that I was a part of it.

I accidentally broke my sisters arm when I was 3. I have no knowledge of it, no memory of it. I wouldn't have even known about it until our mother mentioned it 20 years afterwards. So I did the right thing and apologised to my sister. I'd much rather apologise and ask people to forgive me than to try and pretend it never even happened. An apology costs nothing.

Gbear

Penn wrote: »

Difference between being a nipper (maybe 4-10 years old) and being a teenager (joined Nazi army at 14 and stayed until just before he was 18). Even if I was a "nipper" I'd still apologise. Why wouldn't I? Yes, it was mandatory. Yes, maybe I didn't want to join but was forced. Maybe during my time I never even fired a gun. But like it or not, I'd know that I was a part of it.

I accidentally broke my sisters arm when I was 3. I have no knowledge of it, no memory of it. I wouldn't have even known about it until our mother mentioned it 20 years afterwards. So I did the right thing and apologised to my sister. I'd much rather apologise and ask people to forgive me than to try and pretend it never even happened. An apology costs nothing.

That's kinda besides the point though. It's nice to apologise for breaking your sister's arm when you were 3, but you were scarcely sentient at that point so I don't think it's something that should've been expected of you.
The salient point is that, unlike the Pope, you don't hold yourself as a supreme moral authority and god's representative on earth.

It's kinda like being vetted by the Gardaí if you work with children. Some positions need to be beyond reproach.
For the Pope not to be a massive ****ing hypocrite he needs to either apologise or shut the fuck up.

Undergod

I came in thinking 'this is a non-issue for me', but good points have been raised about apologizing and moral relativism.

K.Flyer

Also interesting is that before becoming Pope, Ratzinger was, from 1981 to 2005, the head of a section within the Vatican known as;
"Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".
Which was previously known as;
"Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith".
Which was previously known as;
"Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office".
And before that known as;
"Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition"
where we get the commonly known names of the Roman Inquisition, Spanish Inquisition and Holy Inquisition from the 16th Century.

Certainley they, (the C.C.) never did know when or how to say sorry.

I don't remember starting this thread. :pac:

Lantus

Penn wrote: »

Difference between being a nipper (maybe 4-10 years old) and being a teenager (joined Nazi army at 14 and stayed until just before he was 18). Even if I was a "nipper" I'd still apologise. Why wouldn't I? Yes, it was mandatory. Yes, maybe I didn't want to join but was forced. Maybe during my time I never even fired a gun. But like it or not, I'd know that I was a part of it.

I accidentally broke my sisters arm when I was 3. I have no knowledge of it, no memory of it. I wouldn't have even known about it until our mother mentioned it 20 years afterwards. So I did the right thing and apologised to my sister. I'd much rather apologise and ask people to forgive me than to try and pretend it never even happened. An apology costs nothing.

Its a tricky one to get your head around but you are apologising for something that in the culture you grew up in would be considered 'wrong'.

We have grown up with that value system and so we uphold those values, in your case through an apology, even though you had no concious memory of it.

But what if in years to come we understood that all social 'crimes' could be easily identifed and corrected through education and systematic approaches that renders our current criminal system obsolete. Would you apologise on behalf of your sociey for all the people that were caged like animals and incarcerated for years if not their entire lives? What if another culture looked down on us and even victimised and marginalised us for this savage behaviour?

It could easily be a german person had the war been won arguing that our value systems are obscene, the fact that we even tried to resist them could be considered a crime.

Many of our problems are that we cannot understand the value systems of other cultures sufficiently that we can prevent war or conflict. We assume that people will approach things in a rational and logical manner but that would require those people to uphold that same value systems as us which obviously in many if not most instances is not the case.

If the children who grew up in nazi germany are guilty then we need to round up every head hunter and primitive tribe and ship them
to a large prison and incarcerate them.

Of course that would be a crime in itself but you really need to better understand human behaviour to know that.

(I dont mean you in particular, you as in everyone of us.)

recedite

Not all primitive tribes are head hunters you know.
(Just thought I should say that on their behalf, seeing as they are unlikely to have internet access themselves)

Secondly, putting "lesser races of people" in concentration camps is what kicked off the nazi problem, so its hardly going to be some kind of a belated solution.

jank

robindch wrote: »

jank - it would help your rep here on A+A if you didn't misrepresent the points that people are making to you.

Try addressing what people are saying, instead of what they aren't.

Robindch, you said that he used the Nuremberg Defense and was guilty of attempted murder.

There was no trail or treaty after the war, signed on behalf of the German people that expressed a collective punishment for crimes permitted by the state under Nazi rule. I think the term "Nuremberg Defense" is being misrepresented here deliberately given its severe negative connotations.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

Robindch, you said that he used the Nuremberg Defense and was guilty of attempted murder.

There was no trail or treaty after the war, signed on behalf of the German people that expressed a collective punishment for crimes permitted by the state under Nazi rule. I think the term "Nuremberg Defense" is being misrepresented here deliberately given its severe negative connotations.

That's not my memory of what Robin said - my memory is of a reference to the 'Nuremberg Defence' in terms of 'I was just following orders therefore I am not responsible for my actions'

Where did anyone say Ratzinger is guilty of attempted murder?

jank

.

robindch wrote: »

. Even if he can't apologize for membership of the Hitler Youth, at least he might try to find it within himself to apologize for supporting the murder of, and perhaps evening making his own attempts to murder, Allied airmen during his time at an anti-aircraft battery at a Bavarian munitions factory during his membership of the Luftwaffenhelfer.

MagicMarker

jank wrote: »

.

Might want to check your prescription there jank.

robindch

robindch wrote: »

[...] he might try to find it within himself to apologize for supporting the murder of, and perhaps evening making his own attempts to murder, Allied airmen [...]

jank wrote: »

you said that he used the Nuremberg Defense and was guilty of attempted murder.

Jank - the word "perhaps" changes the meaning of the sentence; ie, the difference between "was perhaps doing something bad" and "was doing something bad".

Would you like to correct your misrepresentation?

recedite

jank wrote: »

There was no trail or treaty after the war, signed on behalf of the German people that expressed a collective punishment for crimes.

Nobody mentioned "collective punishment."
We are comparing the historically documented actions of individual people. We had examples of Irish doctors trying to save thousands of lives at Belsen, and we had young Ratzinger manning a Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gun.
The former individuals never sought or received any kind of recognition. The latter individual now claims to be the foremost moral authority in the world.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

Nobody mentioned "collective punishment."
We are comparing the historically documented actions of individual people. We had examples of Irish doctors trying to save thousands of lives at Belsen, and we had young Ratzinger manning a Luftwaffe anti-aircraft gun.
The former individuals never sought or received any kind of recognition. The latter individual now claims to be the foremost moral authority in the world.

That is the crux of the matter.

On the one hand this 'foremost moral authority' is telling Catholics the 'One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.' ' when it comes to civil Gay marriage.

Yet, this same person as a young man (not a small boy - a man) did not 'exercise the right to conscientious objection' while living in a State that openly advocated and undertook genocidal policies against those it deemed unfit to live.

Joseph Ratzinger had a choice, he could have (as many of his fellow German did - it is not correct to say that all German's supported the Nazis) exercised the right to conscientious objection - and yes, he would have faced the possibility of death in a Camp - or he could have donned the uniform, participated in training to become a good solider of the Reich, taken part in the public abuse and humiliation of Jews as the Hitler Youth are known to have done.

He chose the latter.

What he has failed to do since is admit he was wrong, what he has done is claim his heart wasn't in it. Really? His body was very much present, in uniform.

He continues, as Pontiff, to issue statements - esp. on homosexuality, that would make the Nazis proud.

Surely, if he had rejected the hate message of National Socialism as his apologists claim, he would examine his views and reassess his position. Instead he continues to follow the Nazi route of attempting to portray sections of society as having a 'a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil' and calling them 'objectively disordered'.

jank

robindch wrote: »

Jank - the word "perhaps" changes the meaning of the sentence; ie, the difference between "was perhaps doing something bad" and "was doing something bad".

Would you like to correct your misrepresentation?

Well perhaps I am guilty of murder and you are guilty of pedophilia.
Why say something with such an "out" clause. It brings nothing to the topic.

jank

There is massive historical revisionism in this thread. A point I made earlier was not addressed by anyone. John Paul II actively helped people escape Nazi persecution in the war, do you think that will change anyone's mind of him here in A+A, no it wont. Therefore even if Ratzinger fought and spilled blood fighting against the regime it would make no discernible different in the opinion of the majority here. It is just another stick to beat him with.

Bannasidhe

jank wrote: »

There is massive historical revisionism in this thread. A point I made earlier was not addressed by anyone. John Paul II actively helped people escape Nazi persecution in the war, do you think that will change anyone's mind of him here in A+A, no it wont. Therefore even if Ratzinger fought and spilled blood fighting against the regime it would make no discernible different in the opinion of the majority here. It is just another stick to beat him with.

Do you even know what the term 'historical revisionism' means? Or is it just another catchphrase you like to fling about to distract from the fact that you are defending the indefensible?

historical revisionism means exactly what it says - to return to the primary source material and determine if the information contained in secondary source material - history books, articles biographies etc is supported by the documents written at the time of the event.

Why is this required - because politics and religion (in particular) like to put a little spin on history and claim it for themselves producing biased interpretations which they then sell as 'truth'.

It's an essential system of checks and balances contained within the discipline of history. If a published work is found to be supported by the sources - there is no need for it to be revised. If it is found to be objective, ignores established facts, in contradicted by the sources the it absolutely must be reassessed - or revised to ensure it does accurately reflect what the sources say happened.

Do the historical facts support Ratzinger's version?

No they do not.

So if anyone is engaging in the type of revisionism (i.e changing/ignoring the facts to create a version of history that paints the subject in a particular way) you accuse us here of - it is you with your nonsense about him being a small boy at the time and claims there was no resistance to the Nazis in Germany.

The only person who has mentioned JP II is you.
No-one else on this thread has either praised him or condemned him. But I wonder how he would have felt having a man who tries to fudge, limit and misinform about his involvement in a regime that perpetuated some of the greatest crimes in history as his successor?

robindch

jank wrote: »

Well perhaps I am guilty of murder and you are guilty of pedophilia.

I think you left out the second "perhaps".

I brought up the possibility that Ratzinger had fired weapons on behalf of Hitler because I think it's a reasonable possibility, based upon the fact that Ratzinger was a member of the Luftwaffenhelfer, manning an anti-aircraft gun close to a munitions factory.

Are you saying that it's impossible that Ratzinger fired the gun?

Actually, more generally, what on earth are you saying?

muppeteer

I don't think I could personally blame the Ratzinger for doing what he did. I say this as I couldn't say with certainty that had I been a teen brought up in that climate that I would have been able to resist, to see through the propaganda and go against the culture, as perverse as it was.

Now whether or not Ratzinger knew enough to see through the propaganda is something only he knows. But what he cannot now do is deny is that he did participate willingly in evil and this is something he should regret and apologise for despite the mitigating circumstances of his youth.

Also I can't blame him for encouraging others to be contentious objectors despite the fact that he did not do so himself, provided he acknowledges that he himself did not previously live up to his current standard. If he has acknowledged this then fair enough. If he hasn't then he can be condemned for hypocrisy.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I think you left out the second "perhaps".

I brought up the possibility that Ratzinger had fired weapons on behalf of Hitler because I think it's a reasonable possibility, based upon the fact that Ratzinger was a member of the Luftwaffenhelfer, manning an anti-aircraft gun close to a munitions factory.

Are you saying that it's impossible that Ratzinger fired the gun?

Actually, more generally, what on earth are you saying?

Indeed, Jank would have us believe that an 18 year old in the Luftwaffenhelfer stationed with an anti-aircraft unit close to a munitions factory did not engage in anyway in performing his assigned duties and suffered no repercussions. He was not arrested. He was not shot.

Jank would have us believe Ratzinger did not fire a weapon, he did not load a weapon, he did not participate- perhaps he sat there praying for the souls of those murdered by the regime he was defending or for the souls of his fellow German youth who resisted the regime even though this often led to their torture and deaths.

As one can see - every person assigned to a flak gun had a role to play. It simply does not make sense that one could just not 'help'


Or read this description of the role of the Luftwaffenhelfer by another young man who was involved and tell me how Ratzinger could have avoided participating while remaining in uniform?
http://www.gustave-roosen.de/hamburg-e.htm