Ouch (>_<) woman attacked Pope Benedict XVI

Re: Ouch (>_<) woman attacked Pope Benedict

I see that even this early the report is she's 'mentally unstable'. How the hell do they know? She might be utterly Compos Mentis.

Peter
 
Father Federico Lombardi said the woman appeared to be "unstable." She was taken away by Vatican security. The pope was helped back to his feet and, apparently unharmed, continued the service, Father Lombardi said.

Oh, too bad, eh.
 
Was she trying to get a hug? Did she hand him a record or a letter or anything?
 
Huh. Maybe she is mentally unstable. :rolleyes:

well, she did choose to go listen to an old nazi who claims to have a personal relationship with some imaginary guy who lives in the sky. i would imagine she even bases her life's decisions partly on this nutter's opinions. doesn't seem particularly sane to me.
 
:laughing:


But is he a nazi? Didn't know that yet! :confused:
Not that I care all that much anyhow...

Accounts vary.

http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

The question of Joseph Ratzinger’s involvement with Nazi Germany and the Hitler Youth is important: there is reason to think that Ratzinger has been less than fully candid about his past.

Ratzinger’s father was critical of the Nazi government, and as a result the family had to move four times before he was ten years old. None of this is remarkable, however, because the same happened with other German Catholic families.

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when (he and his supporters inaccurately claim) it became compulsory for all German boys. They state that Ratzinger did not attend any of the meetings.

While Ratzinger was not a Nazi, there is more than enough reason to question his handling of his past. It appears that he hasn’t been honest with others — and probably not honest with himself — about what he did and what he could have done.

It’s simply not true that resistance was impossible at the time. Difficult, yes; dangerous, yes. But not impossible. John Paul II participated in anti-Nazi theater performances in Poland, yet there is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger even doing this much.

Ratzinger may have done more than many others to resist, but he also did far less that some. It’s certainly understandable that he wouldn’t have had the courage to do more and, were he any average person, that would be the end of the story.

You don’t have to be morally perfect to hold such a position, but it’s not unreasonable to expect such a person to have come to terms with their moral failings, even the moral failings that occurred in youth when we don’t usually expect a great deal. It was an understandable mistake or failing not to do more against the Nazis, but still a failing that he hasn’t come to terms with — it sounds rather like he is in denial. In a sense, he has yet to repent; yet he was still considered the best of all the candidates for the papacy.

Resistance to the Nazis was dangerous and difficult, but not impossible. Elizabeth Lohner, a Traunstein resident whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, has been quoted as saying, “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others. The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”

It’s curious that one of the lessons which Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, draws from the experiences of German Catholics under the Nazis is that Catholics should become even more obedient to their ecclesiastical leaders rather than more free to adopt independent courses of action.

Joseph Ratzinger’s claims about the Hitler Youth are not true. Compulsory membership was first defined in 1936 and reinforced in 1939, not in 1941 as he says. Ratzinger also says that he was “still too young” at the time, but he was 14 in 1941 and not too young at all: between the ages of 10 and 14, membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk (a group for younger children) was mandatory. Yet there is no mention of Raztinger belonging. If he had managed to avoid the required membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk, why did he suddenly join the Hitler Youth in 1941?
 
Accounts vary.

http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm

The question of Joseph Ratzinger’s involvement with Nazi Germany and the Hitler Youth is important: there is reason to think that Ratzinger has been less than fully candid about his past.

Ratzinger’s father was critical of the Nazi government, and as a result the family had to move four times before he was ten years old. None of this is remarkable, however, because the same happened with other German Catholic families.

Joseph Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941 when (he and his supporters inaccurately claim) it became compulsory for all German boys. They state that Ratzinger did not attend any of the meetings.

While Ratzinger was not a Nazi, there is more than enough reason to question his handling of his past. It appears that he hasn’t been honest with others — and probably not honest with himself — about what he did and what he could have done.

It’s simply not true that resistance was impossible at the time. Difficult, yes; dangerous, yes. But not impossible. John Paul II participated in anti-Nazi theater performances in Poland, yet there is no evidence of Joseph Ratzinger even doing this much.

Ratzinger may have done more than many others to resist, but he also did far less that some. It’s certainly understandable that he wouldn’t have had the courage to do more and, were he any average person, that would be the end of the story.

You don’t have to be morally perfect to hold such a position, but it’s not unreasonable to expect such a person to have come to terms with their moral failings, even the moral failings that occurred in youth when we don’t usually expect a great deal. It was an understandable mistake or failing not to do more against the Nazis, but still a failing that he hasn’t come to terms with — it sounds rather like he is in denial. In a sense, he has yet to repent; yet he was still considered the best of all the candidates for the papacy.

Resistance to the Nazis was dangerous and difficult, but not impossible. Elizabeth Lohner, a Traunstein resident whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, has been quoted as saying, “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others. The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”

It’s curious that one of the lessons which Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, draws from the experiences of German Catholics under the Nazis is that Catholics should become even more obedient to their ecclesiastical leaders rather than more free to adopt independent courses of action.

Joseph Ratzinger’s claims about the Hitler Youth are not true. Compulsory membership was first defined in 1936 and reinforced in 1939, not in 1941 as he says. Ratzinger also says that he was “still too young” at the time, but he was 14 in 1941 and not too young at all: between the ages of 10 and 14, membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk (a group for younger children) was mandatory. Yet there is no mention of Raztinger belonging. If he had managed to avoid the required membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk, why did he suddenly join the Hitler Youth in 1941?

Thanks for your response! :)

I didn't know any of this yet, so it was great to read.

It's indeed a very difficult question, nazi or not nazi, or however to put it.
To me it doesn't matter so much, because I can't stand the catholic church anyhow. So if he is/was a nazi or not, I already dislike him anyway.
En passant, to be a member of the catholic church you have to be some type of "nazi" anyway...at least you have to be into oppression and despotism and all that. I hope it's possible to understand what I mean.
 
En passant, to be a member of the catholic church you have to be some type of "nazi" anyway...at least you have to be into oppression and despotism and all that. I hope it's possible to understand what I mean.

Agreed. It sounds like Ratzinger's conduct as a Nazi Youth could have been worse, could have been better. I think it's a bit of a grey area and somewhat dated, so I don't dwell on it too much. It's not an open and shut case of damnation. But like you, I have plenty of other things he's done that are more recent to dislike him immensely for. Such as:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do

"Pope Ratzinger's policies aided, concealed priestly child abuse"

The Pope played a leading role in a systematic cover-up of child sex abuse by Roman Catholic priests, according to a shocking documentary to be screened by the BBC tonight.

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety.

The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

Five years ago he sent out an updated version of the notorious 1962 Vatican document Crimen Sollicitationis - Latin for The Crime of Solicitation - which laid down the Vatican's strict instructions on covering up sexual scandal. It was regarded as so secret that it came with instructions that bishops had to keep it locked in a safe at all times.

Cardinal Ratzinger reinforced the strict cover-up policy by introducing a new principle: that the Vatican must have what it calls Exclusive Competence. In other words, he commanded that all child abuse allegations should be dealt with direct by Rome.

Patrick Wall, a former Vatican-approved enforcer of the Crimen Sollicitationis in America, tells the programme: "I found out I wasn't working for a holy institution, but an institution that was wholly concentrated on protecting itself."

And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases#Crimen_Sollicitationis_controversy

"The Vatican responded that the document was not only widely misinterpreted, but moreover had been superseded by more recent guidelines in the 1960s and 1970s, and especially the 1983 Code of Canon Law."

(But then the document is secret, not at all transparent, so we don't really know if they're lying or not. Also, why was the document updated in 2001?)



http://www.secularism.org.uk/113418.html

"Pope blames atheists for global warming"


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/opinion/18wed2.html

"Pope on condoms and AIDS in Africa"
 
This thread would be more interesting if the Pope had punched the lady.

He'd just need to claim Gawd told him to do it, and he'd get a free pass. Or confess and say 10 Hail Marys.


*EDIT* Curious that this Pope is supposedly known for strictly following dogma and eliminating dissent, but for him they changed Midnight Mass to 10pm, unlike his older and more ailing predecessor.
 
Last edited:
Tags
m manson ftw the secret
Back
Top Bottom