Why are people using Ratzinger's desertion to excuse him?

[Caution]

First off, there is this persistent "he deserted, which he could have been shot for" like the punishment for desertion is any different here than in any other standing army.

If he had been so brave as to risk death, why not do it earlier? Because he was a coward just like anyone else who fought for the German Army in WWII. The logic itself is rather amusing. Fight for a losing army for a cause that is sick and twisted and evil beyond belief, where your job is to kill other people and the main occupational hazard is being shot, OR desert and not be in any way culpable for the atrocities committed and risk being shot. Hmmm, which is the better choice?

By 1944, desertion was rampant in the German army (It is possible that there was more attrition to the German army in 1944 due to desertion than to actual wartime casualties). To accredit this move with bravery is naive at best and apologetic at worst. The choice of a man who served as a guard over a slave-labor workforce from Dachau regardless of the circumstances as pope is one of the most insulting things I could imagine the Catholic Church could do to the Jewish people. Even if you accept the idea that he was too young to make the brave decision and you believe that he hated the Nazis, this is still horribly insulting.

To my knowledge there is no evidence that this guy committed any atrocities (although I would argue that acting as a guard over slave labor is an atrocity) but honestly, what the hell were the cardinals thinking when they elected this guy?

Full disclosure: I'm an atheist and considered Ratzinger to be a menace well before this latest development in his career.

On Edit: Has anyone got any actual dates for his service? I've seen a lot of conflicting information regarding his time in the German military. A link would be helpful. I would certainly have a lot more respect for him if he had deserted within days of conscription into military service than if he had served for over a year. (I've seen both of the above timeframes cited)

[madrchsod]

1. the catholic church has always hated the jews

this is nothing new. to put a death camp guard to run the catholic church seems fitting. actually as a believer in christ`s message i could really care less who these bastards chose to run their corruption

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. I hold no one responsible on a life long basis for errors in judgement

at the age of 14.

[Sandpiper]

7. The Irony is, the new Pope's own rigid views condemn him

Being an "evil relativist," I'm willing to cut the new Pontiff a little slack for his German Army days, considering he was a conscript, rather than a volunteer.


Unfortunately for him, he fails his own test:


Christians have a "grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. <...> This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it" (no. 74)."


A fine illustration of the problems with rigid thinking and absolutism if ever there was one.

[mapatriot]

3. Benedict XVI

I guess there will always be someone who will try to throw cold water on what is otherwise a joyous moment. Today it's "caution". How possibly could our new Pope be a "menace" to an atheist.

He is human and will have failings but I look forward to his papacy, respect his very strong Christian convictions and admire the work he's done with the poor, the infirmed and, yes, his theology.

[Caution]

4. How could he be a menace to an atheist?

Try reading up on his views on atheism and other religions. Pope John Paul II had a few good qualities, among them was tolerance towards others faiths and towards those with no theist faith. This dude clearly hasn't got much in that respect.

Additionally, how is the truth ever a bad thing, particularly when it comes to the moral failings of a man who would claim to hold judgement over the morality of millions?

[Zenlitened]

5. Well, when he declared atheists the enemy...

... that had to send up a flag or two, no?

On Monday, Ratzinger, who was the powerful dean of the College of Cardinals, used his homily at the Mass dedicated to electing the next pope to warn the faithful about tendencies that he considered dangers to the faith: sects, ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism, agnosticism and relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050416121309990001

You certainly have every right to take joy in this or any other event. As a liberal and an atheist, I'll opt for grim resignation to the fact that the forces of dark-age regressiveness have once again kept their clutch on the reins of power.

[tedzbear]

6. Ratzinger deserted in 1945 after Hitler died in his bunker.

He and thousands of other soldiers who knew the jig was up.

[theboss]

10. It was 1944

Why do people keep saying '45?

And by my calculations, this means he was 17 at the oldest.

I barely had political opinions at 17. If I had been indoctrinated by the Nazis for most of my life, I probably would have eagerly served.

I find this whole argument to be a little ridiculous.

[InternalDialogue]

11. Why 1945?

I'm no historian, but I googled and got this right away.

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-death.htm

No beef with your post, but your question made me wonder too.

[InternalDialogue]

12. Sorry, misread your question.

Ratzinger's desertion, not Hitler's suicide.

Of course that brings up the question of why people are placing his desertion _after_ Hitler's death too.

[Inland]

8. Desertion clearly the better choice.

Equal chances of being killed, and the guy who choses to abandon the unjust war.

Shows he wasn't a true believer in the cause, even if it wasn't physically brave. How is that not a fact worth considering.

[Kagemusha]

9. It's a non-issue. His behavior as Cardinal is scary enough.

And indeed, his behavior long after 1944 should be the sole issue... but more than issue enough for me to turn my back on this Pope.

[saltpoint]

13. Military service, especially compulsory military service --

-- during times of international war, is less negotiable to those actually serving than to us over half a century later.

Your model would make complicit any soldier for any nation during any such war in any inhumane act. Should U.S. veterans of the Second World War be held morally accountable for the H-bomb that was dropped on Japanese cities?

That bomb killed hundreds of thousands instantly. Those other soldiers, by dint of their being in the army, according to your construct, are as guilty as the specific man who pulled the lever that dropped the hydrogren bomb.

The grocery list is plenty long on objections to Ratzinger's ideology and the argument needs to take place there rather than when he was 14 (Hitlerjugend) or 17-18 (Wehrmacht).

[Caution]

14. You make a good point

However, to tell anyone that a 17 year old serving as a guard over enforced slave labor brought in from Dachau doesn't know that what he is doing is inherently wrong is to underestimate the ability of 17 year olds. My point is that we cannot simply dismiss this time period in this man's life as immaterial in judging whether or not he is a good choice to lead the Catholic church.

The very fact of his service to the Nazi war machine makes him a very poor choice diplomatically for the millions of Jews around the world.

Additionally, the main point here was not that he is culpable as a Nazi, but more that to prop up the act of desertion in and of itself is not necessarily a brave action. If he left as an act of conscience within weeks of beginning his compulsory service that may be construed as a brave act. If however he participated in this kind of activity (no matter what his active participation in atrocities may have been) then you have to question what his motivation to stay on active duty was.

The fear of being shot as a deserter doesn't hold any water in my opinion because as a soldier in a war zone the fear of getting shot is there at all times anyways. It comes down to a matter of choice. Do I choose to serve in an evil cause or do I leave of my own free will regardless of the consequences? We know he chose to leave. I have been unable to verify dates, but I think the discussion is relevant.

His more current behavior is enough to make me believe that he is a terrible choice for the papacy, but I won't simply ignore the years he spent serving the Nazi war machine just because he was young.

[saltpoint]

15. The "if" in your discussion is the whole thing.

"If" he participated in the extermination of Jews and other "enemies" of the Third Reich, that is an entirely different question, but the London TIMES does not uncover those associations.

I agree that some 17-year olds are more socially-politically aware than others, but again, I see no documentation that positions Ratzinger at that chronological age as inspired by or participating in extermination of human beings.

The charge that he was is without merit unless persuasive documentation can refute it. None has been presented to my knowledge.

The shift of what is objectionable about his ascent to the Papacy, in my opinion, should be from his "humble origins" story to his role as "bouncer" for ultra-conservative doctrine and doctrinal "enforcement." The old term for that office was 'Inquisitor.'

That's my problem with Benedict XVI.