Is That Legal?

C

For what it's worth...

I'm Catholic. I wish the best for the new Pope.

And I don't feel any bashing is taking place.

I believe Eric is justified in his questioning.

I still can't believe that this endless series of posts comes down to "He mentioned he joined the Hitler Youth at fourteen, but he never mentioned that he might have been in the junior branch before that!"

Instead of those three or four paragraphs, which i would appreciate myself, we get him ranting about how the Holocaust was anti-Catholic, rather than anti-Semitic--among other things.

Criticizing a man who is in a prominent position, especially as a religious leader, for having explained away his connection to Nazism as "mandatory" is in no way anti-Catholic. I think yours are the best posts I've seen on the subject. Yes, explaining away these things is only human. And yes, one expects more from a man whose very job is to encourage people throughout the world to examine their consciences and strive to live up to their highest values.

I say this as a Catholic whose in laws also grew up in Germany at that time. My father in law, in particular, always impressed me precisely because--unlike the Pope--he always answered questions and explained his experiences in a way that drew attention to the distinction between his motivations then (fear, compulsion, being very young, being willfully ignorant--"I didn't know what would happen, but I knew it would be very bad") and his understandings now ("I think we chose not to know"). That is the proper response: honesty without excuses. Few of us are heroes; but those of us who aren't should admit our failings.

So basically, if the Pope doesn't explain things to exactly to your satisfaction, you'll keep nit picking what others (i.e. his brother) say or what the Pope doesn't say? Nice.

Winter, My Paternal Grandmother lost her entire Family in Poland, all Lutherans and Catholics. Make no mistake: The Holocaust specifically targeted the Jews, but your statement makes it seem as if only Jews were the only ones to die, which is not the case. (And No, before someone thinks so, I'm not Anti-Semitic or Anti-Anything...) When did the Pope Say the Holocaust was an "anti-Catholic" tragedy?

Bitchphd, "Few of us are heroes; but those of us who aren't should admit our failings."? My point is, Prof. Muller seems to want him to make a Detailed Mea Culpa to his Exact Specifications. What's should the Pope give a Detailed apology for next?

“For this victimization, there is a very simple remedy.”
I'm curious: What would that Simple Remedy be: Go away and ignore what you and others others are posting?

If that’s the case, Prof, I’d be a more than a little surprised. You seem willing and able to discus things you don’t like and have a great history of encouraging people to do the same, so what, pray tell, do you mean by that?

If you want me to NOT post my opinion here, That's fine. It's your Playground and I'm a guest here, but as mentioned, I'd be somewhat surprised.

Amusingly enough, If you don't directly respond to that last point, should I get upset by what you are NOT exactly saying? Like the issue you seem to have with the Pope?

"So basically, if the Pope doesn't explain things to exactly to your satisfaction, you'll keep nit picking what others (i.e. his brother) say or what the Pope doesn't say?"

Precisely, S.D.! You've got it!

I'm curious: What would that Simple Remedy be: Go away and ignore what you and others others are posting?

Precisely, S.D.! You've got it!

You complain of "victimization" in a forum you are choosing to visit and a conversation thread that you are choosing to participate in. If you feel victimized by it, then end your victimization by leaving. Don't expect that the rest of us are going to change the way we talk about things here so that you feel comfy.

I think Eric's post on the subject are at a refreshing height compared with many of the hysterical stuff that can be read on other blogs. Here in Germany there was no serious discussion of this subject until parts of the UK press picked it up. Actually, there's still no serious discussion, it's more a pandering to some form of nationalism. Most Germans (myself included) probably didn't think there was anymore meaningful to discuss. The distinctions between those who followed and those who believed and commited crimes are in place. "Nuance", no doubt to some, but helpful not only for mere self-protecting.
With regards to Eric's "nitpicking", I find it unlikely that the new Pope will say the words that would make him feel better, even should he visit Israel or other places (like former concentrations camps) with a comparable symbolism. Instead, he will likely continue his former work as a cardinal, trying to improve relations with Jewish communities and the people. As many of them seemed to have welcomed his election, much of what is written about him these days on the left-leaning blogs I read seems quite bizarre to me.
Eric's posts on this subject are however reasonable. I think we shouldn't overemphasize the symbolism involved, but it's a legitamte concern to have. Me, other things trouble me more, like Benedict's stance on homosexuality or birth control, but then my relatives weren't deported to concentration camps, mine fought in the army that protected them.

I'm surprised Prof. If someone disagree's with what your doing, According to you, They should just go away.

Done.

"If someone disagree's with what your doing, According to you, They should just go away."

Actually, no, that's not at all what the professor wrote. In fact, he welcomes the disagreement. (Why else would he have comment threads?)

He merely objected to your self-pitying victimization. It appears it is you, S.D., who have a problem with people disagreeing with you. Just because someone doesn't disagree with you doesn't make you a victim.

Speaking for myself, what I object to is S.D.'s insinuation that Eric Muller is engaging in the bashing of Catholics. I am a practicing Catholic and I think Muller's discussion is hardly bigoted.

"[Ratzinger] was assigned to a manufacturing facility where [he] witnessed from close range the suffering of slave laborers."

I hadn't heard this, although it's plausible. Cite?

"But four years later, his whole class was drafted into the Flak, an antiaircraft corps, specifically into a unit that was to defend a nearby BMW auto plant. There he saw slave laborers from the Dachau concentration camp."

Winter, My Paternal Grandmother lost her entire Family in Poland, all Lutherans and Catholics. Make no mistake: The Holocaust specifically targeted the Jews, but your statement makes it seem as if only Jews were the only ones to die, which is not the case. (And No, before someone thinks so, I'm not Anti-Semitic or Anti-Anything...) When did the Pope Say the Holocaust was an "anti-Catholic" tragedy?

I'm probably going to come off as abrasive, but so be it: i'm bisexual and gender-ambiguous--two groups with had highest death rates in terms of percentage in the Nazi death camps--myself. I did not specifically mention that but that does not mean i do not think it happened; nor do i think it irrelevant to the discussion of Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and his history and positions.

My point was very specific, and i will emphasize one thing to clarify:

Instead of those three or four paragraphs, which i would appreciate myself, we get him ranting about how the Holocaust was anti-Catholic, rather than anti-Semitic--among other things.

Why do i suggest this? My reasoning is that when called to denounce the Nazi regime Ratzinger specifically explained he opposed them because of their anti-Catholicism and no reference was made to anti-Semitism despite the fact that the Jews were the primary victims of the Nazi regime in terms of raw numbers. He seems to view the Holocaust as objectionable primarily (or even exclusively) because of its anti-Catholic bent.

This sort of non-defense does nothing to ease my fears and leaves me with the sense that Ratzinger/Benedict XVI views the entire world as though it revolves around him. The Nazis were bad because they disliked Catholics, anything else is a side point.

Anyway, let me re-iterate: Ratzinger could have made a statement along the lines suggested here but he did not. Instead he made one that almost completely ignored the reality of the "question" at hand. Considering many of the places in which Ratzinger lines up nicely with the Nazis he sounds to me as though he's not objecting to a whole bunch of stuff that's quite serious (indeed: so terrifically serious that we still fear it after a half century has passed) but instead goes straight to one of the individual points that, in comparison, is not as significant.

It isn't as though he was just talking about how the Nazis were anti-Catholic and i'm dragging his lines out and saying he shouldn't talk about that. I think that discussion is vital. However: that is not a response to questions about his adherence to other parts of the Nazi (or more realistically: generic-fascist) ideology.