Not at all, it’s your argument that’s weak. Times change and people change, and attacking people for their former associations in different times, without any evidence that they retain the objectionable beliefs, etc., is a bad idea. Granted, the young socialists and communists of the Depression were not REQUIRED to attend/join, but I’ll bet Ratzi was taught some VERY objectionable things during his mandatory Hitler Youth days, and it’s beliefs, not the ticket that got him in, that people object to.
I think the problem with your comparison is that it doesn’t matter whether McCarthy’s victims were reformed non-Communists, had never been Communist or were in fact hardcore Communist supporters (last time I checked, America had freedom of thought, right?). Are you actually making a broader point here, or are you simply trying to dig at those conservatives who try to both accept the pope and exonerate McCarthy. And if the latter, why do so on these boards, where I’ve yet to see anyone either defend McCarthy or attack Ratzinger for Nazi Youth.
I’m taking a dig at conservatives who try to both accept the pope and exonerate McCarthy, AND I’m taking a dig at liberals who try to both attack the pope and attack McCarthy. Both stances are logically inconsistent.
I agree with of those points, and with what you’re saying in general- but we do still need some criteria for past behavior staying relevant.
Minor point: when Benedict was new on the job, some posters said that Hitler Youth enrollment wasn’t totally compulsory, so there’s been some debate about that. In this post, I found an article saying that Ratzinger was enrolled in the group by a school director.
Yeah, all us Catholics are eeeeeevulllll. But our bishops and cardinals have real cool uniforms and we have a giant spider in the Vatican How many people can say they have a giant spider? 
That may be, but McCarthy also went after people who weren’t Commies. That’s how and why he was finally brought down.
So, since Alger Hiss was a Communist spy, does that mean the Pope should be ridden out of Rome on a rail (sorry, the alliteration was hard to resist)?
The OP still seems like a non sequitur with a tu quoque sidecar.
Once again, we have an epidemic of point-missing here. My point is, if it’s wrong to judge people by associations formed in the distant past when times were different, and if there’s no evidence that such associations continue, then you have to say it’s wrong to call Ratzinger on being a Hitler Youth back in the 40s, and it’s wrong to call all those American intellectuals for being communists and socialists back in the 30s, back in the 50s.
Are we all on the same page now?
This is not an attack on Ratzinger, or Catholicism. If I want to criticize either, I’m perfectly capable of going at them straight on, as some of the links here indicate.
Some of you may not understand how limited our resources were back in the 1950’s.
I grew up in the rural South in a town of 2,000 people. We had a radio and after I was seven, we had a television that received one television station. The network was NBC and the evening news was fifteen minutes long. Our daily newspaper came from Memphis – a hundred miles away. We didn’t even have a library except at school.
My father helped me to sort through the McCarthy hearings and the Cold War rumors without my becoming terrified. It would have been very difficult to have thought things through for myself.
It really is very different now for young people who have such access to info and debate.
Huh. I wasn’t aware anyone was still trying to get political mileage out of Ratzinger’s background. It’s even less significant than looking into Kurt Waldheim’s background, and that was a waste of time, too.
Woah, woah, woah, GIANT SPIDER? Why was I not informed? I mean I knew you had the stolen Nazi gold and secret alien warships and satanic protestant-baby-eating rituals, but a giant spider?
This changes everything.
Apart from Evil Captor in the OP, neither was I.
Of course, if EC can come up with an example of someone who was persecuted by McCarthy for being involuntarily forced into a Communist organization when he was fourteen, there might be a debate here. Until then, it strikes me as another example of the Jeff Gannon sort of argumentation of which EC is so fond.
Regards,
Shodan
The problem is that, like most other issues in life, the answer is “it depends”. If there is anything true to intuition, you can simply not trust that a person has been reformed, but do in the other case.
Most of the time it’s BS. But that doesn’t mean judging one person and not another person in two cases that seem to be equal is always wrong.
Unless you like rabid crossdressers performing fellatio.
…and now back to your regularly scheduled debate.
I don’t know if anyone’s still necessarily getting mileage out of Ratzinger’s history. I DO think that when something goes wrong, people will convenently point to it and say “a-ha, that’s the reason right there”.
Wasn’t Ratzinger the head guy that helped cover up/clear up/buy off altar boys over the molestation scandals?
I could be very wrong or way over the top. I’d be more than willing to bet that I’m way over the top.
Couple cites to mull over for my wild and outlandish claims:
There’s tons of stuff on the subject, but I’m sure it’s hard to wade through without bumping into bias.
Ratzinger was quoted in the early stages of the breaking scandal that the percentage of priests who were guilty of abuse was constant with the percentages in society at large and that the media hoopla was an American phenomenon. For this he rightly deserves to be criticized.
He also responded to the meeting of the American Bishops in Texas with the caution that some of their actions were a violation of due process. His point was claimed by some to be intended to “protect” abusers, but the same point was also noted by those bishops who were seeking to establish clear standards rather than the whitewashing that some of the bishops in Texas were attempting. For this Ratzinger legitmately invites closer examination of his motives, but not automatic condemnation.
However, once the information began to be sent to the Vatican–a move initially criticized as being an attempt to hide the evidence, but which has actually resulted in the Vatican actually looking at the evidence–Ratzinger’s whole approach to the issue changed. Much is made of Ratzinger’s “refusal” to pursue charges against Marcial Maciel Degollado of the Legionaries of Christ in Mexico, but it was Ratzinger who, having conducted further inquires behind the scenes (i.e., “in secret”), reopened the case against Maciel.
Ratzinger’s statements between 1999 and 2002 were very much in the way of a “circle the wagons” mentality, but there is no evidence that he did not take the issue seriously.
The leaders of the lay group assembled in the U.S. to address the issue found Cardinal Ratzinger more receptive to addressing the problem than many in the U.S. hierarchy .
While head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, (the Inquisition, if you must), Cardinal Ratzinger sent a letter claiming competency within the church to address issues of pedophilia. He also extended the period of the statute of limitations. This action was (ignorantly or maliciously) turned on its head to indicate that the church was going to hide all the legal records regarding the abuse, when what it actually did was extend the church’s internal investigations to allow the church to pursue such matters beyond the older “expiration” period. I cannot find the article at the moment, but it was reported that Cardinal Ratzinger undertook to personally review every claim. It was under the direction of Ratzinger that the Vatican called for an end to statute of limitations in abuse cases for Vatican inquiries.
He is not above criticism, but much of the criticism is off base. (Reading through the enormous numbers of stories out there, it struck me that the vast majority of them referred to events prior to 2002. (Many of the stories are dated 2004 and 2005 as people speculated about his possible or recent elevation to the papacy, but the actual events are generally older and refer to things that occurred before he had the opportunity to personally review the material.)
And a giant pine cone!
Don’t forget the giant pine cone!
If everyone seems to be missing your point, maybe (just maybe) you haven’t explained it very well. Ever consider that?
Who are these conservatives and liberals you’re talking about? Name names, give quotes and cites, and maybe you can get this debate out of second gear. However, it seems likely that no one on this board is going to fall into either of the categories you describe.
Do you have cites for [ul][li]where Ratzinger said this, []what percent of priests had been ascertained to be guilty at that point, and []percentages for the general populace?[/ul][/li]
Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan