Any chance that a call for civility re: this new Pope will be heeded?

[WilliamPitt]

Apparently, this new Pope has a Nazi past.

Just great.

That means two things:

The people in the DU arguments these last weeks who don't much like the Catholic church, the former Pope or the canon now have something they can really (and arguably justifiably) sink their teeth into. Ratzinger is about as bad a choice as could have been made, for several reasons.

It also means the DU Catholics (who are almost certainly 10x as disgusted by this pick as any non-Catholic DUer) who have been arguing the other side now have this wretched albatros hanging around their necks.

Memo to everyone: You're all right, and you're all wrong. Arguing about religion is like trying to squeeze sand. But it's going to happen, and it should.

Can we perhaps keep the bloodletting to a minimum?

Remember my DU axiom: If you find yourself screaming in rage at someone who agrees with 95% of what you believe in, you may be a zealot or in need of a breather. Religion is but one aspect of the DU experience, so let us not forget that we are surrounded by allies, brothers and sisters in arms, in a struggle that will need everyone.

Play nice, in other words.

*ducking, hoping*

[WilliamPitt]

1. Like a brick

[Pithy Cherub]

2. Bobbing & weaving.... Alas, the sanity

of what you are saying will not take hold until the horror is fully absorbed and emoted. Unfortunately, there will be a lot of hurt feelings today for a variety of reasons.

To thine own self, be true!

[Nite Owl]

3. We need to know more about

him. This doesn't sound that bad really:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3504388

What are his stands about war, the death penalty and fairness for the poor and working people?

Those are the issues he needs to be strong on. I wasn't expecting any big changes like priests being allowed to get married or changes on birth control anyway.

Let's just hope for the best.

[babylonsister]

4. I'm still waiting for someone to document

that he was a bona fide nazi. I heard this topic was splashed across the front of an English news rag, but thought it was all a bunch of hooey. Proof would be nice.

[yvr girl]

13. They said on the news that he automatically became a member of

Hitler Youth/Nazi Youth in high school (and that he asked to be removed from the list, but wasn't.)

I don't know if it's true, but he was a teenager during the war. I'm also pretty sure that membership was mandatory.

[Lone Pawn]

15. The Times isn't exactly a news rag.

[smoogatz]

21. He would've been 14 in 1940

So if anything a member of the Hitler Youth. A future Nazi, but not a Nazi per se.

[BuyingThyme]

32. There's no such thing as a Nazi. Just ask any Nazi.

They've all got stories to prove that they never really existed.

[bloom]

5. You know the drill

People will say what they say.

If this guy was in charge of some religion with 12 people - he would no have no influence over the world (at least for a couple hundred years :) ), and we woudn't have heard about it.

It is political, after all.

[bobthedrummer]

6. Let's go to The Lounge Will.

This is reactionary time in the other forums.

[WilliamPitt]

7. Yeah

I have work to do, anyway.

This was my King Canute moment for the day.

Roll back, tide!

:(

[LoZoccolo]

10. I did that for two months.

And look what happened!

[efhmc]

8. Protesting for sanity in the face of so much insanity is insane.

[smoogatz]

9. You could look at the Ratzinger thing two ways

On the downside for the Church, it's clear that the cardinals are completely unconcerned with public opinion in the US--believing instead that what's needed is a firm hand on the moral tiller. The upside is that at least they're consistent--clearly, they believe that the future of Catholicism lies in a very conservative, dogmatic Papacy.

[Zenlitened]

11. Would a simple "Told you so" be considered uncivil?

Let's just remember that deserved criticism does not equal incivility.

If an institution -- any institution -- insists on embracing people and ideals contrary to progressivism, then expect commentary on a progressive discussion board.

[Don Claybrook]

12. Sorry, can't do it

It's not a matter of religion for me, it's a matter of global power structures and who occupies those structures. I won't give the neocon a free pass.

[necso]

14. No chance.

However, it's a done deal... And there is little point in whining about the past. (And certainly, none of us is going to influence what this Pope does... positively, anyway.)

Eh, what can you do -- besides give it a few days -- it passes for entertainment (etc) for some.

[Walt Starr]

16. It could've been worse

They could have elected Cardinal Law.

:shrug:

[Arugula Latte]

17. The thing is

this is not just about religion. It's about political control over great portions of the planet.

[G_j]

19. and life and death issues, such as AIDS

still, civility is important

[Bridget Burke]

18. Some of these folks were raised to hate Catholics....

Remember the stooge who didn't know that "Papist" was rude? They & Ian Paisley would rail against the Church, no matter what.

And they'll also demand the 14-year-old Ratzinger should have sought martyrdom rather than join Die Jugend.

Ratzinger appears to lack JPII's personal charm. If he continues to fight the future during his short reign, the reaction might have good results. By the time the faithful gather to watch the smoke once again, change will be overdue.

[derbstyron]

49. NO. Some of us were just raised to hate Nazis

And their sympathizers.

And those who then won't even show the moral backbone to apologize for their mistakes in doing so.

who knew?

[VelmaD]

20. The Hitler Youth thing wouldn't bother me...

if he was anyone else on the planet. I understand the social pressures that must have weighed on him at the time. But I would have hoped for more from someone who wants to be the moral leader of over a billion people. I would feel much better if a) someone could ever show me where he talked in depth about the experience and what impact it had on him as a person and b) he wasn't such an arch-conservative now.

That said, I don't intend to get into this subject much. I'm just not in a good place to go arguing about religion again so soon. I am, however, very interested in what the DU Catholics and lapsed Catholics think about all this and will be reading voraciously.

[me b zola]

22. Be heeded or beheaded?

:shrug:

[11 Bravo]

23. Two chances, Will. And sadly, you know what they are. n/t

[sandnsea]

24. It's just reactionism

I'm learning to stay out of this stuff for the first few days something like this hits. Lots of very legitimate reasons for people to be quite furious with the Church. When the Church hands them rocks, they're going to throw. Based on his writings, there is room for him to moderate, but I don't have hopes that he will. We'll see.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fujiyama]

26. Nobody is blaming Catholics

either on DU or elsewhere.

The church and the the cardinals are the ones that shot themselves in the foot. They showed how out of touch they are. This is a huge step backward for the church.

Oh well, it just means the church will be increasingly irrelevant. Frankly that's ok. I don't like religious institutions having too much influence on society anyways.

[The Whiskey Priest]

27. If you can get past the smoke of

Of the incinerators of Auschwitz, Bergen-Belson, Dachau. Then of course we can be civil.

Better to die...than to assist evil.

[ConsAreLiars]

28. This is the guy who told Catholics to vote against Kerry.

The Nazi youth group and military service attest only to his failure to resist fascism. His more recent actions are evidence of his active support for theo-fascism. That is the issue. The fact that he is a member of the Catholic Church is irrelevant (other than with respect to his qualifications for the post). The Berrigan Brothers and many others who have fought for justice were Catholic.

The choice of this man tells us a lot about who holds power in that organization, but nothing about "Catholics" in general.

[hlthe2b]

44. I agree with you, totally.

Catholics-- with whom I have close personal ties in my past-- have my support in an ever increasingly difficult task of reforming the Church. I strongly support your efforts and am saddened at what appears to be a major setback with the choice of this man as Pope.

[adwon]

29. But we Catholics are eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil

:eyes:

FDR gets guilt by association, too. After all, he only quoted a papal encyclical in the 1932 election that suggested a third way between lassez-faire and communism.

Someday, I hope the Catholic haters out there learn that there is a huge and gaping difference between the hierarchy and the laity. I borrow the sentiment, if not the words, from Andrew Greeley: Many people are Catholic in spite of the clergy. That's not an apology or an excuse; just a fact.

[The Whiskey Priest]

31. I don't blame the laity

It is the organization of the church that stands condemned...when did you last hear your parish priest condemn the atrocities committed by wealth?

[adwon]

33. Most of my life

It was subtle because it was a fairly wealthy parish, but it was there.

[The Whiskey Priest]

39. Subtle chiding

Is an anemic response to the berserk rampages of avarice.

[adwon]

47. Uh

Sure, rant and rave and chase off the whole parish.

Attacking people head-on is the quickest way to lose. Subtlety is indirect and has a nasty habit of changing belief without letting people it's being changed.

[BuyingThyme]

30. I've seen very little "arguing about religion."

Actually, I've seen none.

The only thing being discussed is how evil the new Pope is.

He's a man defined by hatred and supremacism, he's a pedophile, and he's a Nazi.

He's so evil that nobody even bothers to discuss his religion.

[ngGale]

34. After my day of pure grief and pain, I've seen the light...

the plus side of this Pope - nothing he can do will surprise us.
We have low, to no expectations for him to live up to. :scared:

[WilliamPitt]

35. Yup

And then he'll be dead, and we'll have to do this shit all over again.

Sic semper 'transitional pope.'

[tavalon]

38. Be careful of those low expectations

remember the low expectations thing with Bush. And he still manages to surprise with just how stupid and awful he is.

[shanti]

36. nope

there are many of us who dislike "religion", ritual, and everything about it. he won't get a pass.

[Tace]

37. I'll Bet The Selection Came Down To An Exercise of Raw Earthly Power

He's probably got the most goods on the most-powerful people in the world, and he plays ball with the most unsavory elements.

Just my take.

[Inland]

40. I disagree only about arguing religion. It isn't needed at all.

I never found GD or GD:P the place to have debate over religious beliefs as opposed to politics by or for religious groups.

Religious doctrines of infallibility, married priests, even sexual conduct just are what they are. A lack of belief is what it is. Nobody is going to "win" these discussions, and they always end up divisive, lowest common denominator and distracting from what matters: politics, and public civil life. If you don't think politics matters more, there's other fora.

[Squeech]

41. No fan here

Ratzinger is a loon. The Nazi stuff isn't even necessary.

He's all about enforcing orthodoxy, and stifling dissent. He said himself that he wants a smaller, purer church.

He hates homosexuality. He won't allow women any authority in the church.

Not too long ago he spoke out against admitting Turkey to the European Union, on the grounds that Turkey didn't share Europe's Christian heritage. How many of the Epistles were written *to congregations in Turkey*? Where did the events in Acts take place? Does this chowderhead not even know how to read a map?

And he wonders perhaps why his "ecumenicism" gets low marks from the Eastern Orthodox church?

As has been said elsewhere, you're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts.

[DinahMoeHum]

42. Let's just say the Vatican and the Papacy are living proof. . .

about the necessity of the Reformation in history.


:evilfrown:

[Bridget Burke]

50. Your mask slipped just a bit...

Ratzinger has his bad points, but your obvious hatred of the Catholic Church goes back much farther.

[DinahMoeHum]

54. Let's rip the whole mask off, then. They've covered up for pedophiles

for too long and their actions have been too little, too late. They're not in a position to preach to the rest of us about morals, OK??

OK.

:evilfrown:

[Bridget Burke]

58. The Pope's not preaching to you.

And you were raised to hate Catholics.

[cry baby]

43. I made this suggestion last night, but all I got was

my first deleted message as a reply. I was even nice and I'm pretty sure I was insulted. I didn't get to read the deleted post. I high-tailed it to the lounge!

[gordianot]

45. Given his views this Pope deserves as much civility as given to Bush.

I suspect he will have as much contact with civilians as Bush has with his constituents. Although I would never meet the criteria to hear Bush in person or meet him personally, I would be civil if this (extremely unlikely) were to happen. The same would apply to this Pope, I have read enough to form an opinion and it is not positive.

The beauty of forums like DU is that it allows people to vent providing cathartic release. With the advantage on anonymity people write things on a computer they would never say in person. Not being Roman Catholic I intend to leave the Pope (rants) alone unless he tries to intervene in American political agenda. Even if that were to happen he is just another obstacle among many to personal liberty.

I strongly believe in constitutional separation of church and State and reject the idea of a religious (Christian, Islamic, Buddhist, etc,) Republic. Those who promote such religious views, even when they coincide with your own, are not friendly to the U.S. Constitution. I also suspect this view is not a minority view in America.

[lonestarnot]

46. Does that mean no blowing smoke up anyone's ass? LOL

[Cuban_Liberal]

48. None whatsoever, Will.

Catholic bashing is just too popular here...

[derbstyron]

51. I don't see this as Catholic Bashing

I think it's just a valid exercise in forming each person's opinion on the selection of the pope.

Rightly or wrongly the Pope holds sway with many people. And the Catholics choice to take his position is a noteworthy, newsmaking event.

[Lone Pawn]

53. I'm a Catholic and I'm exceedingly disappointed with Benedict XVI.

[Cuban_Liberal]

57. I'm disappointed, too.

I was merely remarking on the well-known phenonmenon here at DU...

[porphyrian]

52. The time for civility in America has past.

However, we needn't fight each other. The problem is the amount of anger over our current situation and our apparent inability to do anything effective about our plight. Of course, we aren't as impotent as we are being led to believe, but every newly killed soldier, every fascist bill passed into law, every republican lie broadcast for weeks as truth, is another gob of spit in our faces. And I, for one, lost my patience long ago. I am rude and unapologetic, because I want these fascists out of my country now, and I'm tired of waiting.

[Zenlitened]

55. Any chance that people will stop serving as knee-jerk apologists...

... for an institution that opposes so many progressive ideals?

:shrug:

[The White Tree]

56. Check out this article

It is from the Christian Science Monitor (which, interestingly enough I find to generally be a pretty balanced paper compared with most - although this particualr piece is an editorial)

It is not exactly about the Pope, but more about Religion and the Democratic party. I think it fits with what your are saying which is why I'm posting it hear.

Losing our religion
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0420/p09s02-coop.html>

And that's why the Republicans keep winning. We live in the most devout wealthy democracy on the face of the earth. You might celebrate that fact, you might deplore it, but you cannot deny it. For a policy to be right or wrong, there must be a reason. And for the vast majority of Americans, that reason will involve their faith.

Instead of telling Republicans to leave their religion out of the judicial nomination battle, then, the Democrats should challenge the nominations on religious grounds. One of the nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, has suggested that minimum-wage laws might be unconstitutional; a second one, William G. Myers III, has cast doubt upon the constitutionality of the Endangered Species and Clean Water acts. All of these federal regulations interfere with the "right to property," you see, which these jurists view as sacrosanct.

But there's another view, derived from Scripture itself, that says they're wrong; that poverty and pollution - like slavery - insult the majesty of Heaven; that God shall save the children of the needy; that the meek shall inherit the earth; and that Jesus was more than a utopian dreamer. It says that the Lord wants us to share our wealth, and to care for each other.

And if the Democrats can't bring themselves to say that, God save us all.