Nazi Ratzi, McCarthyism and Picking Your Battles

There are a lot of conservatives out there who would say that it is unfair to bring up the current Pope’s former membership in the Hitler Youth as a point to be used against him. Many of these would also argue that McCarthy did the US a great service in the 1950s by rooting out Communists, although the vast majority of people who were harmed by his activities were folks who were drawn to socialixm and communism in the 1930s, when capitalism so thoroughly failed many Americans that they starved to death in the land of plenty. Twenty years later, when they and the nation had both moved on, here was Senator Joe McCarthy asking them “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

You see my point? If it is wrong to bring up decades-old beliefs and associations for one person, it is wrong to do so for another. Those who would give Ratzinger a pass over his past must do the same for those who were persecuted by McCarthy. And the obverse is true: if you are inclined to attack Ratzinger for his Hitler Youth past, you must concede that Tailgunner Joe was justified in his attacks on American intellgentsia back in the 50s.

I personally go with the “McCarthy was scum, so Ratzinger gets a pass” option. What’s yours? Or would anyone like to try to wriggle out of this one?

Seems a slightly odd post. I know of no-one who has either attempted to exonerate McCarthy (since he was no more than a publicity-seeking windbag whose wild and unfounded accusations did more to hurt innocent people and America as a whole than the actions of all the Communist agents he “exposed” put together could have done- I’d add “IMO”, but I think that’s all factual), or has condemned Ratzinger for membership of the Hitler Youth (a membership that was far from voluntary- wasn’t membership compulsory?- which he abandoned as soon as it entailed actual advancement of the Nazi cause, ie. serving at an anti-aircraft gun, and with which he has never since shown any sympathy whatsoever). Furthermore, to compare the two seems a little strange.

It depends on whether or not ( and how much ) the person has changed.

Example 1 : Man joins the KKK as a youth, then leaves. Later, as a Congressman, he consistantly votes against the interests of minorities, and has been caught telling racist jokes in private.

Example 2 : Man joins the KKK as a youth, then leaves. Later, as a Congressman, he promotes civil rights and marries a black woman.

While I can’t read minds, I’d feel safe in thinking that person 1 hasn’t really changed, and person 2 has. The first should have his previous KKK membership held against him, while the second can write it off do to being young and foolish.

I’ve never heard that McCarthy ever changed or repented, so I wouldn’t forgive him for anything. I think that Pope Palpatine is still pretty scummy, so I don’t forgive him either.

On what grounds? (Don’t say “Catholicism”, please. You [and I] may consider it incorrect, but it doesn’t call his moral character into question). Has he ever shown any signs of Nazi, racist or fascist sympathies?

The reasons I don’t like Pope Benny have nothing to do with his time in the Hitler Youth. Membership was mandatory, and even if he was a sincere Nazi as a kid, I wouldn’t hold it against him.

Joe McCarthy’s lies and persecution ruined the lives of many harmless people. He was an evil smear artist.

Now, these conservatives Evil Captor mentioned who say it’s unfair to attack Pope Benny for what he did long ago, are they the same ones who cut John Kerry to pieces for protesting the Vietnam War long ago? I thought that was pretty darned unfair, too. And what about the Smear Boat Veterans for Bush? Were those conservatives as evil as Joe McCarthy? Yup.

I’m not accusing him of Nazism, but of being a jerk in general. For example, I recall he claimed that the cause of the child molestation priests was American moral corruption, and that it happened nowhere else.

Yes, nominally the whole youth was organized in the Hitler youth from 1936 on, the details of the service were regulated in a 1939 law. He automatically entered the Hitler Youth on the 4/20/41 (Hitler’s birthday, the official date for that event) 4 days after his 14th birthday.

While I am not a fan of Pope Benedict, his HY membership occurred when he was 14 under the compulsion of law.

While I destest McCarthy, his victims were generally in college or in their early 20s when they voluntarily flirted with Communism.

So the comparison is a bit weak.

And, of course, you have to go to Ann Coulter or people of her ilk to find supporters of McCarthy, so I am not sure what this thread was attempting to discuss.

The pope was a child, in a country where HY membershio was mandatory. Whether he ever believed in it or not, membership was required. On the other hand, McCarthy was fully aware of what he was doing, was an adult, and was acting of his own free will. Other than that, I think this is just another “all religions suck” OP.

Don’t forget “All conservatives suck!”. Well, not Ann Coultner. That would just be…ew…mental image problem here.

Or all Catholics suck, to be more specific. This from the guy who tried to convince us that John Roberts would be one too many Catholics to have on the Supreme Court. Especially since he is a “hardcore” Catholic.

I think you’re misreading the OP. He’s comparing the pope, not to McCarthy, but to those McCarthy prosecuted for having been affiliated with the Communists in their younger years.

Then you haven’t been paying attention. Do a Google search for “Joe McCarthy” and “rehabilitate” for more.

Oh, there’s a TON of stuff out there along those lines. Here’s an example. Google “Ratzinger” and “Nazi” for more.

[/quote]
Furthermore, to compare the two seems a little strange.
[/QUOTE]

What part of my comparison didn’t you understand?

OK, following the links I see your point. But I don’t see anyone reasonable (ie. not Ann Coultner or some equally loony left-winger) doing so. Furthermore, the fact that Ratzinger appeared to have completely repented his actions, if he ever indeed believed in the Nazi cause, whereas Joe went to his deathbed believing in his action’s righteous nature would seem to draw clear lines between them.

There are some former Dixiecrats who were, if not KKK members, at least VERY BOLD advocates of segregation and STRONG opponents of civil rights inthe 50s and 60s who later opposed minority programs on other grounds (“Affirmative action is racism!”) I would say it is valid to view with suspicion such a person, but only in light of strong evidence that they haven’t changed their stripes. There’s no evidence that I know of that Ratzinger remains a Nazi, though his approach to religion is very,. um, rigid and hierarchical. I personally dislike Ratzinger, but I don’t think you need to throw Nazism into the mix – that would be gilding the lily.

By the same token, many of the former socialist-meeting-attending, Communist-Party-short-termers were liberals when they were called before HUAC, but there was no evidence that they remained Communists.

It seems that the OP is asking whether Benedict should be given a pass even if he was a Hitler Youth. The question is a little more complicated than that. His going along as a boy and making with that ridiculous semaphore salute doesn’t make him a bad man. But what, if anything, has he done as a man that would mark him as having Nazi sympathies? His being in the Catholic hierarchy doesn’t alone clean him of any stain, of course. But aside from his “membership” in the HY, I haven’t heard anything else against him. *Is * there anything? Unless I’m mixing up my popes (I’m not a Catholic), Pius XII aided the Nazis during WWII. Neither his Catholicism nor his Christianity led him to seek humane treatment for Jews nor shield them from the Nazis. Now him I’d hold responsible. Benedict as a boy. . . probably not.

Now, as to “tail gunner Joe,” he was fully formed, fully informed and an adult when he perpetrated his evil deeds, and I wouldn’t give him a pass regardless of any attitude toward the current Pope. McCarthy should have been drowned at birth.

Just my two cents.

I’m not comparing Ratzinger with McCarthy, Tom, I’m comparing him to McCarthy’s victims.

Seems reasonable.

Hence my statement addressing his victims.
I still think the comparison is weak.

I’m giving a reason why I think Ratzi should be given a pass for his HY membership, John, just like I think the people McCarthy attacked should have been given a pass. How does your post relate to what I’m saying?