Karohemd&#39;s World

Hmm, I don't think anyone (or at least, anyone sensible) was associating compulsory membership of the Hitler Youth with being a Nazi. I certainly don't associate Germans with Nazis, and I know that Germany these days is probably one of the most vehemently anti-fascist countries in Europe...

...but...

I was talking about this with

bridiep last night.

Just as a bit of background, her family on her late father's side are of Austrian Jewish origin. Her Dad got out of Austria just in time; most of the rest of his family didn't. Some of them killed themselves the day the Nazis marched into Vienna, some were killed later in concentration camps. One of the concentration camp survivors is still alive today, lovely person, won't talk about that time at all. Bridie's Dad died last month, liberal socialist humanist to the last; I don't know what he would have made of the new Pope, but he went to his grave convinced that religions were responsible for most of the world's evils, so I suspect his suspicions would have been confirmed.

Anyway, we eventually agreed that despite membership in the HY being compulsory at the time, that didn't mean that those who were inducted into it had no choice, or that Ratzinger didn't have a choice later when he fought for the Axis army against the Allies. Life might have been made very difficult for him had he refused. He might well have ended up in the concentration camps himself. But the truly ethical man would have taken those risks into consideration, and refused to join either the HY or the army. Anything less, to my mind, can be justified in an ordinary person -- but not in a man who supposedly sets the moral compass for a fair chunk of the world in his later life. There were always other options than joining the Hitler Youth and the army simply because he was ordered to do so.

I don't think his membership of the HY and the Axis army makes him a Nazi, but I do think it makes him too weak-willed to be Pope. But then, I don't agree with the Catholic idea that one can sin as much as one likes, so long as one confesses, so what do I know?

From:

lsur.livejournal.com

There were always other options than joining the Hitler Youth and the army simply because he was ordered to do so.

What other options were there? I don't think it took much for a person to be denounced and get on the wrong side of the authorities in those days. Not everyone was in a position to emmigrate either.

From:

They certainly had more options than the Jews did, frankly. Resist. Revolt. Escape. Even just loudly speaking out against the Nazis at every opportunity -- see Martin Niemoller -- would have been a stronger ethical stance than simply capitulating. Niemoller was a fervent anti-Nazi activist, despite having initially supported Hitler in the early 1930s, and ended up in concentration camps because he spoke out. Anyone who did less may well have been a perfectly acceptable human being, but certainly should not be considered for the position of Pope.

Which is better, if the authorities are Nazis? To be on the right side of them, or to be on the wrong side of them?

From:

lsur.livejournal.com

I would have thought being alive was best, or certainly a strong temptation. It's easy to see things in a broader perspective with hindsight. But, at the time, who could have predicted what was to happen? People live day to day, pretty much in a fog, just doing their best to manage their own lives. None of us really see the bigger picture until we look back. Even then, it's not always so simple. That's why we have historians. Who then argue amongst themselves.

It's too easy to expect others to behave in an heroic fashion. If people were really like that, there would be no injustice in the world. It's not how we are, realistically.

From:

"But the truly ethical man would have taken those risks into consideration"

A boy of 14 (the age he was forced to join HY) is, in no ways, a man.

As to the 16 year old being made to man an AA gun and then go out and lay tank traps, I'm pretty sure that this is the MAN (who had now attended a seminary) who, when he saw Jews being herded into death camps, deserted. Doing anything other than deserting would have been a very good way to get himself shot. Which, I find, is a very bad way to make a positive change.

From:

He deserted a few days before the war ended -- perhaps he saw the writing on the wall?

A 14-year-old is capable of telling right from wrong in law.

From:

A 14 year old should not be expected to be ready to die for his beliefs.

He did desert a few days befor the end, he was conscripted around the same time they were useing slaves to man the guns and woudl shoot someone if they even hinted they felt there might be defeat. At this time he would have been killed, not sent to some concentration camp. It would be a futile gesture. Far better to survive and make sure such things never happened again.

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

There were always other options than joining the Hitler Youth and the army simply because he was ordered to do so.

He was only 14 years old at the time -- it seems a bit harsh to hold that against him! And 16 when he was drafted into the army -- from which he deserted when he was 18.

Is it reasonable to say that a lack of the will to martyrdom in your teens should disbar you from a post of moral authority in later life? If so, then we have generations of people, who didn't resist being drafted into unjust wars, to rule out of leadership.

From:

There's a difference between "will to martyrdom" and "standing up for what is right."

I'm not saying that a person who did not stand up for what is right as a teenager should be barred from all forms of leadership for life. I am saying that the Pope -- who is not just a leader, but, if you believe the hype, is God's spokesperson, God's authority, on Earth -- should have been willing to stand up for what is right at any time in his life, even before he was made Pope. You are, of course, at liberty to disagree.

From:

So no possibilities of redemption in your philosophy? No possibilities of not judging without knowledge of all the facts? No possibilities of people changing as they grow? No possibilities of forgiveness?
I thank you for being kind enough to grant me the liberty of disagreeing with you, because you certainly don't seem to give people too many other chances...

Certainly, Biblically, God's spokespeople in the past have been lifted from such disparate groups as tax men, prostitutes, murderers and traitors, all of whom have come to redemption late in life.
Isn't there that quote: "There is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth...etc"?

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

If that were the principle, then Peter would never have become the first Pope, and I don't suppose many of his successors would have got much of a look-in either!

Catholic doctrine has it that humans are naturally prone to sin, but that sins committed can be repented and penance done for them. From what you say above, you don't agree with this doctrine -- fair enough, but as it is Catholics who choose the Pope and whom he serves, you can't really criticize them for acknowledging it in their decision.

You may not accept Ratzinger's moral authority yourself, but you can't (logically speaking) rule him out of authority over the Catholic world on that basis.

From:

Anyway, we eventually agreed that despite membership in the HY being compulsory at the time, that didn't mean that those who were inducted into it had no choice, or that Ratzinger didn't have a choice later when he fought for the Axis army against the Allies

He deserted the army. As a deserter he would have been summarily shot had he been caught. What sort of further moral stance do you expect from a 17 year old boy?
He had been raised in an atmosphere of blind loyalty, political absolutism and trust and was inducted into the army to defend his homeland against what would have been perceived as an invading army. And still he refused, at risk of his own life.
Just what, I ask you, what more would you have a 17 year old do?
What would you have done?

The more I read, he strikes me as a remarkably brave and wise teenager. Certainly a great deal more than I or, I believe, anyone I know would have been.

From:

As mentioned above, he deserted a few days before the Nazis lost anyway... who knows whether that was a principled stand, or a practical one?

The question isn't "what would you or I have done?" It's "what would the most moral, Christian, upstanding person on the planet have done?"

From:

I don't know what the most moral, principled, and upstanding person in the world would do. What I can tell you is that no matter who the most moral, principled and upstanding person in the world is, I can guarantee you it isn't a 17 year old boy of any creed, colour, race, or nationality.
Judging a person with no evidence either way for actions taken as an adolescent more than sixty years ago smacks to me more of trying to find evidence to support prejudices rather than trying to make any sort of informed opinion on who that person is now.

From:

I can guarantee you it isn't a 17 year old boy of any creed, colour, race, or nationality.

Damn stright, I'm nearly 26.

From:

See? Proof!

From:

undyingking.livejournal.com

No-one's saying that Ratzinger has been "the most moral, Christian, upstanding person on the planet" at every point throughout his life -- just that they (presumably) think that he is at the moment.

By your reasoning it would be practially impossiblke ever to have a valid Pope. Jesus is the only person whom it is claimed was consistently "the most moral, Christian, upstanding person on the planet". Popes are not supposed to be equivalents of Jesus, just his representatives.

From: