joannejacobs.net

Jo, to be fair, I think only one of the commenters at my thread made the implication that Ratzinger's membership of the Hitler Youth (which was compulsory) was evil. Much of the discussion's been quite interesting.

And far from being a matter of concern only to Catholics, the policies of the Pope have wide ramifications - in world politics and public health to name only two areas.

Mark -
Re: comments on your blog, I noticed early on all the blogs I mentioned that there had been expressions of concern over the Hitler youth history. There may only have been one or two comments on your blog, but collectively there has been the record of that question across a variety of blogs. Also, while I accept there were comments defending Benedict because he was "compelled" to join (his father was even apparently staunchly anti-Nazi), I'm not at all sure this exonerates him in terms of the appropriateness of him being papabile. I rather think any association with an organisation that committed mass genocide would be disqualifying. And when you consider Ratzinger's views on other forms of Christianity (let alone other religions - including judaism), the logical choice would be to avoid promoting such extremism to the head of the Church.

But that aside, I'm also going to contest your notion of the importance of the Pope to world politics. Certainly Pope John Paul II was regarded to have been strong in his influence over the end of the Cold War, and this has been celebrated since the old boy's death. But I'm not really sure how much influence he had over the event. Pope JPII had a habit of turning up at the last minute on a variety of issues and taking the credit for actions which were the culmination of a great deal more than listening to some benign words about the need for peace. How much influence did the Pope have over the US invasion of Iraq? None. How much influence has the Pope had on social and economic change in the West? None. How much influence has the Pope had over tensions in the Holy Land? None. And why? Because he's functionally irrelevant in these areas.

I think the Pope is given a lot more credit than he is actually due in world politics. If it is convenient to the major political interests, and if his views align with the major players, they say he has influenced political action. But more often than not, when his views have not aligned (most recently with the Terry Shaivo case) he is simply (yet respectfully) ignored.

I argue that the new Pope will meet with the same smiles when it suits, and voluntary deafness when it suits. His actual influence in world affairs I calculate to be slight.

From elsewhere, regarding the new Pope's WWII history...

Regarding his history during WWII...he was 14 when he was forced to join Hitler Youth, and deserted the German army, risking his life, by age 17.

> I rather think any association with an organisation that committed mass genocide would be disqualifying


*cough*the Crusades*cough*


Thoroughly agree with JJ, except for one small problem; it seems as if Bush's administration could be considered the closest we could come to a militarily powerful Western religion-driven body since... ooh, the 14th century? It's almost as if we yet again have another milites Christi... or at least that's the image Bush hasn't tried to hide *cough*William Boykin*cough*.

As I mentioned last time; Bush has given Benedict XVI the seal of approval.

Unless the Papa Ratzi (dear oh dear, thank you, The Sun) immediately comes out saying "Thank you George. Now get your people out of Iraq", isn't there going to be a perception of reciprocal approval?

Maybe (pretty near certainly?) the Pope is thoroughly irrelevant as far as world politics or policies (outside the Catholic Church... or maybe even just the Vatican City)... but the bad news is there's a partial proxy sitting in the White House.


I wonder why it is the word "jihad" has such negative connotations, when the English translation of the term is basically a (religious) "crusade".


Re: Mark Bahnisch's comment of wide ramifications: SBS's "Insight" had a piece last week regarding the implications surrounding the Pope-to-be-selected; one disaffected Catholic member of the forum stated that the Church was becoming more and more separated from the needs of the average person, that they were separating themselves from the people, that the decisions were being made by a bunch of middle-aged men (his quote, not mine) who knew nothing about things like, say, sex and contraception.
A far more fundamentalist member of forum responded that this wasn't the case, that it was the sinners (no, really) who were in fact splitting the Church. Fascinating to see how widely interpretable one phenomenon can be by two ideologically opposed members of, theoretically, the same faction can be.

Clearly I'm wrong, though. After all, the same God guides us all, especially those of us who listen to Him...


... doesn't He?


Oh, He doesn't. So sorry. My bad. Gosh, I wonder what that implies then...

I don't know, Jo, you'd disqualify anyone who was born in Germany prior to say 1932 or thereabouts by that logic. It strikes me as guilt by association.

I'm not a big believer in the JP2 brought down communism theory, but the Vatican has serious influence by virtue of its membership of the UN and its status as a sovereign state. Why else would the Chinese government bother to call for Benedict to cease recognising Taiwan? And you can look at the closeness of the Vatican's position on the Iraq War to that of many European governments, as well as the Vatican's stance on Palestinian statehood. It may not be obvious but the influence is real.

Mark,

I don't know, Jo, you'd disqualify anyone who was born in Germany prior to say 1932 or thereabouts by that logic. It strikes me as guilt by association.

Yes actually that's my point. I would do that. 600 million Catholics world wide are disqualified from ever being papabile by virtue of their birth - as females. If you have the sort of doctrine that disqualifies people on the basis of birth, then I have no problem with disqualifying people on the basis of guilt by association, even if the circumstances which led to that association were effectively bad luck.

RE: The UN... fair point, and I accept that in the UN the Vatican has strong influence... although after the US invaded Iraq, I really wonder how much influence the UN will ever have on issues that really massively affect human rights.