Well, there goes the Catholic Church. . .

[xiphias]

So, we went from a Pope who, in WWII helped a Jewish refugee, to a Pope who, in WWII, was a Hitler youth.

Any bets how long until the majority of American Catholics form a schismatic church and just get away from Rome?

My money's on fifteen minutes.

Comments

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

He was a German kid, weren't they required to be Hitler Youth? (I don't like that he didn't protest it, but kids aren't always very morally driven.)

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Yah. Legally. He got out of it because he was going to Seminary.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Thought he got out of it by deserting the army in 1944?

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

No, he got out of the /army/ by deserting in 1944.

Hitler Youth was essentially political Boy Scouts with guns.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Right, but the bios I've seen haven't said he got out of Hitler Youth, but instead that he was required to join like everyone else.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

Oh. Yes. Sorry.

The bio I read said he had to join in '39 or whenever (hm '41, later than I thought), and got out some time later (I'm not sure how long) by pleading seminary duties. (Wiki doesn't say anything about the seminary thing, just that he refused to attend meetings. Um, whatever.)

Then he deserted the army (after being drafted) in '44. So two different methods of fleeing-but-not-denouncing-or-working-against.

[whuffle.livejournal.com]

Yeah, make sure your passport is up to date. And consider having all the legal paperwork on hand to file for assailum on short notice.

[vuurvasthouden.livejournal.com]

THAT is what it was I'd temporarily forgotten about him.

Well, that's good then--maybe people will start to re-think something about Catholicism, especially with his writings and stuff. Can't really say that that's all "the past", considering that the papers damning all other non-Christian/Catholic religions came out in what...2000?

[lietya.livejournal.com]

If I were still Catholic, I'd be headed for the hills now. (And considering it was JP II's policies that sent me away, and that Ratzinger is unlikely to be *less* conservative.... yeah.)

[mactavish.livejournal.com]

Someone I know who's in a seminary says lots of the franciscans there are actually in tears.

[lietya.livejournal.com]

Yeah. It's weird, I haven't been Catholic in about 10 years, but I have the impulse to cry myself. The Franciscans are a gentle order; Ratzinger is counter to much of what they live by.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

If I were still a Catholic, I'd be leaving the church now.

Fortunately, I decided that long before the death of JPII.

Sickening. Truly sickening.

[sethg]

1. Why would American Catholics be motivated to make the effort to form a new church instead of doing what they've been doing for the past generation, i.e., continue to attend church and label themselves "Catholic" but ignore those parts of doctrine they find inconvenient?
   
2. If the American Catholics did "get away from Rome", would Rome care?
   

[solipsistnation.livejournal.com]

And what would we call them? We can't call them Anglican... Americiglan? Americolic?

[sarianna.livejournal.com]

There already IS an "American Catholic" church, actually.
And Rome doesn't give a fuck.

Also, I officially renounce Catholicism. Back to reading Choosing a Jewish Life...

[sethg]

I should also note that when [insert JP2's original name] "helped a Jewish refugee", he was merely following canon law, which stated that since a child does not have enough judgment to choose to convert, unbaptized children should be returned to their parents.

Canon law also holds that when a child is baptized, even in error, he or she is under the guardianship of the Church, not the heathen parents. Thus, Edgardo Montara, a Jewish child who was baptized by a Catholic servant, was taken away from his Jewish parents, and Pope Pius IX rebuffed appeals to return the child. Pius IX was later beatified by...drum roll please...Pope John Paul II.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

The fact that Ratzinger was a Hitler Youth isn't that disturbing, I think, because all German boys were required to be, and it isn't his fault that he was a boy in Germany at that time. Many people who were Hitler Youths went on to be vocal opponents of the Nazis. The fact that Ratzinger also served in the German army during the war is more disturbing, though he was evidently in an anti-aircraft unit and therefore almost certainly not involved in any atrocities.

Ratzinger's status as an ultra-conservative Catholic is much more disturbing to most people, I think. I mean, seriously--Catholics are generally much more concerned with how the Church deals with Catholics than how it deals with Jews, and that's hardly surprising. I think Ratzinger is going to have a lot of work to do if he expects to receive the same kind of respect from the Jews that his predecessor did, but that would be true even if he weren't German and an ex-Hitler Youth.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

Ratzinger's opposition to liberation theology disturbs me quite a lot. That was in the 1980s. He was old enough to know better, and had lots of power. There were a lot of priests in Latin America trying to advocate for the poor, and work against oppressive regimes to protect members of their congregations, and Ratzinger argued that it was none of their business...that the Catholic Church should not have anything to do with political stuff like that.

Seen in combination with Ratzinger's recent advocacy of denying communion to US politicians of whom he disapproves (such as John Kerry), it is not just a matter of conservative *theology*. This is someone with huge secular power, eager to silence those who disagree with him. That's scary.

[mattblum.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind, too, that Ratzinger--excuse me, Pope Benedict XVI--is 78 years old, so it's not as though he's likely to be Pope for that long a time. 27 years would seem to be pretty much out of the question.

[(Anonymous)]

For those who want a very short bio of the new pope, CNN.com has this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/04/19/ratzinger.profile.ap/index.html

As for the whole "American Catholic Church" thing... Well, that will take more than 15 minutes. If it happens at all, it'll probably be a couple of years. Most Roman Catholics in this country will wait to see what Pope Benedict XVI actually says and does, now that he's pope. Being elevated to that post has been know to change attitudes, sometimes dramatically.

Just to be clear, I use the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish between the members of that church and the members of other churches which are Catholic, but not Roman Catholic. Another discussion for another time. I alo use the term Roman Catholic to refer to those who actually are practicing Roman Catholicism at this time, as distinguished from those who were raised Roman Catholic, or otherwise were Roman Catholic at one time, but who are not now actually practicing that faith. "Practicing that faith" involves regular attendence at Sunday Mass AND participating in the life of a church community. I intend no criticsm of those who aren't doing this; I just want to be clear about the group of people to which I refer. As for agreement on principles... well, the real rules about that are a lot more complicated than I have time to go into now.

From what I read in the papers, a lot of folks who describe themselves as "Catholic" don't fit the description of what the Roman Catholic Church recognizes as "Catholic", so the Church won't care one way or the other what those folks do. Then there's the group of practicing Roman Catholics who are really upset with the way the teachings of Christ and the Church are being interpreted by the hierarchy of the Church. We usually think these folks are the ones seeking liberalization of the Church, but there also are a good chunk of folks who want the Church to become even more conservative.

Those practicing members of the Roman Catholic Church in America who favor liberalizing the Church are the folks most people think of when they talk about the possibility of an "American Catholic Church". One frequent misconception is that these more liberal Roman Catholics represent the opinion of the majority of Roman Catholics, both in this country and world-wide. In this country....maybe. World-wide? No way. Most practicing Roman Catholics world-wide are much more in agreement with the hierarchy than those in this country. And there are significant numbers of practicing Roman Catholics in this country who don't agree with the more liberal members.

What would happen if the more liberal members of the Roman Catholic Church in America decided to "vote with their feet"? Probably some temporary upheaval, a number more of parishes closing, then relative calm. There have been such divisions many times before in the history of Christianity, and although there's usually a fair amount of acrimony involved, all parties generally survive quite nicely without one another.

If the departing members decided to form a church called the American Catholic Church, that would be up to them, but it's unlikely in the extreme that such a church would have any relationship at all to the Roman Catholic Church. We'd have an old-fashioned schism on our hands. (Might be exciting...)

Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to go to the trouble of starting a whole new church from scratch. The changes that the more liberal Roman Catholics are seeking have already been made in the Episcopal Church, so it seems like it'd be easier just to change affiliations. But it may be that some people wouldn't feel comfortable "converting" in that way.

As for me, well, I have this whole thing about the REAL teachings of the Church as opposed to the teachings of what I term the "folk Catholic church" that most people in this country think are the real thing. The REAL teachings of the Church aren't nearly as narrow-minded as many might think, including some of the Church hierarchy. Another long discussion for another time. - Felis Sidus

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

Please see the article I posted from the Jerusalem Post.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I saw it. They neglect to mention that, while the Hitler Youth was indeed formally compulsory, there were plenty of people including some of Ratzinger's personal friends who refused to join. They were not arrested, harmed, or threatened in any way. He knew that at the time, and still decided to join.

I don't think it makes him a Nazi, just a coward who has far more determination to stand up for his belief in correct technical doctrine than his belief that mass murder is wrong.

[alaria-lyon.livejournal.com]

Perhaps. He was 14 when he first joined. I know when I was 14 I wouldn't have the guts to defy the government. Actually, when I was 18 or 21 I'm not sure I would have. I guess that makes me a coward too. As a Jew, I likely would have hid with Christians, rather than fight in the resistance. But that's just me.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Big difference between hiding and actively participating. But maybe it is just you. At fourteen, I would certainly have hidden from certain death if I had the chance, but I would not have participated in something reprehensible if I knew that people who said no were left alone and not bothered. He was in no danger and he *knew* he was in no danger, of anything except losing his tuition assistance. Evidently, innocent life does have a price to this Pope, and it's not terribly high.

Re: Well, there goes the Catholic Church. . .

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

oh please. people were not "left alone". refusing to join the hitler jugend could have serious consequences -- and insiduously, not just for the refuser, but for the parents. we're not just talking about defying the government, but also about getting your family in trouble. it's real easy for people from the safety of today's comfortable life to criticise those who didn't join the resistance. what i've seen in the US after 9/11 makes me understand the ordinary germans under hitler a lot better. most people are extremely easy to fool and cow.

there is plenty for which one can blame ratzinger, but the "nazi supporter" cries are unreasonable IMO. and no, i don't like him at all, and am deeply disappointed (though not surprised) that they elected him pope -- john paul II pretty much set it up for this. i just don't think blaming him for his mandatory HJ and wehrmacht service is the right tack.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Well, my one devoutly Catholic close friend has already said that the Congregationalists are looking real good to her as an alternative right now.

[copperpoint.livejournal.com]

I keep hearing two things:
1) He was in the hitler youth.
2) It was mandatory at the time.

Of course the people who keep pointing out that it was mandatory and how little he enjoyed it are himself and the people who elected him pope. I know normally I'm pretty cynical, but I don't think he's spent years hiding his anti-semitism just to reveal it now that he's pope.

[temima.livejournal.com]

Apparently, I am not the only one wondering if there will be a repeat of the Anti-Pope (as in different people elect as pope and not agreeing).

[temima.livejournal.com]

And here is the Wikipedia article about what I am talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-pope.

[anhelometuo.livejournal.com]

Wait until the media gets ahold of it...then I'd say close to five minutes, followed by 60 days of endless news coverage...erm, in addition to the news coverage that has been going on. Thankfully, I don't have a TV!!! :)

Completely unrelated, I plan on writing a gurps character generator program (when I have the free time). If you are interested, let me know. The first design will be in C++, and will be Command Prompt (don't care to spend 20 weeks learning graphics right now...will wait for the summer for that, maybe), the second design will be in java, and *will* have a GUI.