This is the same thing that John Paul II said in Crossing The Threshold of Hope.
My translation - You are all Roman Catholics whether you know it or not.
Maybe I should reword this to - You are all Roman Catholics whether or not you know it, provided, of course, that you are right in your thinking.
I think everyone is misunderstanding what really happens after death. Catholics claim that everyone is catholic, whether they know it or not, and thus will go to heaven If they are good people. What a ridiculous claim. As the Prophet has revealed to us, some people simply are not going to go to heaven. That is because they make the blasphemous claim the Jesus, was not just a wise teacher, but the very literal son of Allah. Such is contrary to what he revealed of himself.
(Translation: Just because the church say they are the only way to heaven, that doesn’t make it true. So do other groups, but none have real proof of such an extraordinary claim. You might recall a thread called Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. A question about Islam v. Christianity.)
I do recall it. One more effort to do unconsidered quote mining to shore up your shallow dismissal of religion. There are good arguments against religion(s) on this board, but you have yet to contribute any.
Tom, you seem to think that my dismissal of religion is shallow. I, however believe that if any religion says anything contrary to common sense, then it is a legitimate thing to complain about, no matter the apologetics and sophistry concocted to explain it away. A religion I was part of, for example, called “god”, omnipotent, and all-loving. However, such a “god” would not kill my favorite pet. I suspect that is an example of a “shallow, easily dismissed argument” However, I see no problem with it, for it invalidates the definition of god as shown by my religion. Now, so as not to hijack this thread any further, I invite you to post to any threads you have disagreed with me in the past, as I believe such arguments where settled to my satisfaction, but not to yours. For example, What things are like in my world. How about yours? ended with you posting an unexplained non-sequitur. In every case of your posting a counter-argument to mine, the best you can do is “You haven’t studied enough.” Well, you seem to be convinced that studying more would bring me to either religion, or a some sort of conclusion about religion’s role in the world, different from the one I currently hold. Well, the cardinals said the decision of who the next pope would be was already decided by god, but that does not make it true.
P.S. The fact that the posts I have made represents argument you have not seen here before is no rebuttal. If you had seen a satisfactory rebuttal to the idea of religion, one would hope you would have the intellectual honesty to go along with the logical conclusion, and no longer be religious.
P.S. Sorry everyone for the hijack. Should anyone wish to discuss this, however, the thread I linked to, “What things are like in my world.” seems a good place to discuss them.
You’re misunderstanding the Pope’s position in regards to relativism. He says that it’s wrong…that there is an objective, universal right or wrong. However, that doesn’t mean “there’s no consideration offered because of the sinner’s youth or circumstance”. A person’s circumstances, his maturity, and his mental state can still affect his culpability and the gravity of a sinful act.
Snap!
It seems that those who generate laws, contracts, specifications, or doctrines always need an escape clause.
Well, yeah, but it’s better than the alternative, which is not taking into account motives and circumstances at all.
So you think he’ll be a one-term Pope?
And so it ever will be, I’m sure. But I do understand what Captain Amazing is saying here.
There doesn’t appear to be any objective record of Joseph Ratzinger’s activities and service as a young man. (According to Wikipedia, “Most information about Ratzinger’s wartime activities is based on his own memoirs and accounts from his brother, Georg.”) Which is not to say it’s false; I haven’t heard about anything contradicting the idea that he joined the Hitler Youth because he had to or felt he had to. While there are a bunch of differences, to me this is comparable to Sen. Robert Byrd - the events we’re talking about are far in the past and I don’t see any evidence that at the present, they still hold any hateful beliefs. Seems like it’s not a big deal to Jewish groups, and I don’t think it should be.
In other news, the AP is reporting the following:
They also noted that a number of times, then-Cardinal Ratzinger asked John Paul II to let him retire, and was turned down. So that’s kind of an interesting twist. I got the sense they were looking for brief papacy, but if the Pope himself is saying it’ll be short, perhaps it’ll be even shorter. Also, I found it odd that the AP called Benedict XV’s reign “short.” The average Pope reigns for 7 1/2 years, and Benedict XV was Pope for 7 years and 4 months. 
So do I but it sure does allow a lot of bending of the strict “absolute morality” position. And I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing.
Sure, if a 10 year old intentionally kills someone it is morally wrong. However the punishment in that case is a lot different than if a 40 year old intentionally kills someone. To me this means the “morally wrong” stance is mainly of theoretical interest.
Can we at least do the math correctly?
Ratzinger was born on April 16, 1927. However old he was when he joined the Hitler Youth, he turned 18 before the war’s end.
I’m personally not following the whole ‘Nazi, schmazi’ business*, but ISTM it’s perfectly reasonable to consider the morality of a person’s choices at the tender age of 17. Until recently, some American states were still trying to execute people for what they’d done at that age. I wouldn’t go that far, and I wouldn’t deny the papacy to someone for what they’d done at age 17 - assuming that they’d publicly come to grips with it if it was serious enough to warrant it.
*Call him a Nazi, he won’t even frown… 
By the time the war was over, he had deserted his post in the German army.
He was 14. According to This New York Times article, he did not join the Hitler Youth voluntarily: the director of the school he attended automatically enrolled all of his students. It - like the Wikipedia story about Benedict XVI - characterises his father as a vocal anti-Nazi. So it would not be surprising if his home and religious upbringing conflicted with Nazism. He apparently did not attend Hitler Youth meetings, and he deserted the army late in the war. Although I’m sure some real Nazis did that as well. If he was making moral choices at that point, we can see what they were.
But is it still reasonable, when the person in question has reached the age of 78?
And he’ll be followed by the Bill Clinton of popes. That’ll be fun.
Heck, maybe he’ll be followed by Bill Clinton as Pope. He’s got a lot of time on his hands.
Anyone know the Latin word for Bubba?
"Few See Taint In Service By Pope In Hitler Youth" NY Times, 04/21/05
You can click on the link and read it if you like. The parts quoted below are the ones I thought were relevant to the point several people have tried to make.
Normally I wouldn’t quote such large sections from another source but felt it necessary in this case.
Let’s be real. The ADL, the Jerusalem Post and the people at Yad Vashem think this is a non-issue.
Like I said before, there are many other things about this pope that cause me concern. His years during WW2 clearly don’t.
Sorry RTFirefly, I can do the math correctly. He was born in 1927. He was enrolled in the Hitler Youth in 1941. Let’s see…1941 - 1927 = 14.
Like I said.
Was there a point you were trying to make that I missed?!?