Betting On The New Pope

Ratzinger was born in Marktl am Inn, in Bavaria, the son of a police officer who was staunchly anti-Nazi. In 1937 Ratzinger's father retired and settled in the town of Traunstein. When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth , but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until he deserted in April 1944 (an offence punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary. On June 29, 1951, they were ordained by Cardinal Faulhaber of Munich. His dissertation (1953) was on Saint Augustine, his Habilitationsschrift (second dissertation) on Saint Bonaventure.

Ratzinger was a professor at the University of Bonn from 1959 until 1963, when he moved to the University of Münster. In 1966, he took a chair in dogmatic theology at the University of Tübingen, where he was a colleague of Hans Küng but was confirmed in his traditionalist views by the liberal atmosphere of Tübingen and the Marxist leanings of the student movement of the 1960s. In 1969 he returned to Bavaria, to the University of Regensburg.

At the Second Vatican Council (1962 – 1965), Ratzinger served as a peritus or chief theological expert, to Cardinal Joseph Frings of Cologne, Germany.


LAW REQUIRED ALL CHILDREN TO JOIN THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT.

Ardross could be bothered to inform himself and shot from he hip and hit is foot,not for the first time.
 
Unutterable rubbish from both of you. He is a very conservative choice . His comments before the conclave were almost medieval in their suggestion that there was only one true way . What is proposed on here - religious censorship ? I am entitled to criticise him and I will not hesitate to do so.

I regard the recent history of the Catholic church as extremely chequered and the last pontificate for all his personal qualities as having put the Catholic church back .Look for example at the complete collapse across Europe of entrants to seminaries .

Polly Toynbee's recent Guardian article listed many of the Church's failures.

I will not forget how it washed its hands in the Second World War and did nothing as a church ( as distinct from nay brave priests ) to stop the Holocaust .
 
No Ardross,

You said 'How nice to have a Pope who was once a member of the Hitler Youth.'

You can wriggle and ponce around as much as you like, but that was an improper statement.
 
Here is a recent statement from the Cardinal .

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.]
 
As both of you are incapable this evening of any rational remarks I am deleting all your personal abuse.

What a surprise Derek's cheerleaders pop up to be abusive too Merlin and 221bar1 - good bye to their abusive postings too .
 
Well,the frst sentence takes care of you then.

No mention of the Hitler Youth movement either.
 
Forget about Cardinal Ratzinger's teenage years, I think that it's a great shame that the cardinals didn't elect a pope for the twenty-first century rather than one whose views seem stuck in the nineteenth.
 
I missed all of the mud-slinging & insults, but on reading the thread minus the rows I do feel that Ardross' comment was in poor taste - as already pointed out on here, The Pope cannot be held responsible for belonging to the Hitler Youth as it was compulsory. Whatever your feelings about Catholicism, I do believe this comment was not fair and that if a similar comment were to be made with regards to another religion, for example Islam, it would be deleted as a rascist comment.
 
That with respect Dom is nonsense it isn't in the slightest bit racist . Unfair quite possibly . What else was compulsory in Germany during the war ? Does that make it right ? No it doesn't .

I am sorry if you find it in poor taste and as you are capable of making a rational comment about it I will edit my post which was posted in frustration . I find the election of this Pope immensely depressing .

Derek and Merlin - if you continue to be abusive I will just keep deleting your posts .
 
Adross.
How do you reconcile your views in your last post,with your views on Fox Hunting and the law.
 
I am not a legal positivist . There is a great deal of difference between laws made by a democracy and by the Nazi regime.

I note that I am not the only person unimpressed

BBC
 
22bar1, I find it strange how you only ever appear when there is a witch hunt. You aren't seen from one week to the next until you want to join in pilloring somebody.
 
What else was compulsory in Germany during the war ? Does that make it right ? No it doesn't.

So blame those making the rules, not the victims forced to follow them.
 
Gareth - who elected the Nazis in the first place? Daniel Goldhagen's book Hitler's Willing Executioners is a chilling description of the complicity of the German public .

Which makes the re-invention of post war Germany and the acceptance by the German State of responsibility all the more laudable .
 
Dave G,
For your information I have spent a lot of time out of the country and just returned from Malaysia & Thailand.
Can you point out any abusive postings that I have made ?
Can you also explain the witch hunt ?
 
No need to apologise - I agree with some of your points on Ratzinger, I just think there's plenty you can criticise him about without resorting to his childhood.
 
Back
Top