While playing around earlier with Google I came across this:
Wait, by joining in the army (whether or not he claims to have "fired a shot"), wasn't Ratzinger actually defending the Third Reich?
"On the contrary, precisely because they are iniquitous the Church makes an urgent call for freedom of conscience and the duty to oppose.
"A law as profoundly iniquitous as this one is not an obligation, it cannot be an obligation. One cannot say that a law is right simply because it is law."
He called on municipal officials asked to perform gay marriages to object on grounds of conscience and to refuse to go through with the ceremony, even if it meant losing their jobs.
He said: "They should exercise the same conscientious objection asked of doctors and nurses against a crime such as abortion.
"This is not a matter of choice: all Christians... must be prepared to pay the highest price, including the loss of a job."
What's difficult to believe, that teenagers sometimes make the wrong decisions or that complaining about it from relative safety, comfort, and the additional historical perspective of sixty intervening years is quite a bit easier than actually facing the choice yourself?
If that's the way you judge the world, I certainly hope that you haven't made any mistakes even in the past ten years.
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
Aristotle on 2005-04-23T10:48:20
What stance is he taking now about his participation in the military? Does he admit to it openly and denounce it as an error in judgement?
I am merely watching this from the sidelines, so I cannot answer these question, but that is the criterion by which he shall be judged.
Not perfection is required, but ability to take responsibility one’s actions. Credibility is dependent upon this alone.
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
chromatic on 2005-04-23T19:17:51
I don't understand the idea that it's hypocrisy to denounce an action that you yourself performed decades earlier. Could there be any debate technique less interesting?
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
Aristotle on 2005-04-23T20:15:25
Hm? There is a misunderstanding here somewhere. I intended to express that if he does not openly own up to his service in the military and does not openly denounce it as an error in judgement, but also holds the quoted positions, then that is hypocrisy.Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
sigzero on 2005-04-24T00:11:42
He doesn't need to openly do anything. Why do you think he does? Because now he is the Pope. That is the only reason. When he was a cardinal, you didn't give a cr**. Now becuase he is Pope he has to suddenly apologize for something he did in his teens? Forget about what his life has stood for for the past 60 years.Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
merlyn on 2005-04-24T14:32:29
This is similar to the situation I face in explaining my felony convictions.I'm occasionally asked "do you believe what you did was wrong?", to which I must reply:
I think the same could be said for the new Pope. He chose as he did, perfectly, given what he was aware of at the time. And since then, he's acquired different knowledge, and would choose differently.If you're asking "would I do it again?", I would have to ask "knowing only what I knew then" or "knowing what I know now". To which the answers are then correspondingly: "yes", and "no".I don't believe I made an error in judgement. I made an error in how much (or little) I knew about my environment. I made perfect decisions regarding faulty information. I have since learned a few things about my environment that will affect future similar decisions. (The fact that this is now true, and could have been handled with a discussion with my client instead of a criminal prosecution for which I continue to suffer permanent and ongoing losses, is the tragic consequence of the story.)
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
phillup on 2005-04-25T19:54:29
If that's the way you judge the world, I certainly hope that you haven't made any mistakes even in the past ten years.
I'm not running for pope.
These aren't positions where you walk out on the street and accept the first candidate that meets some minimum criteria. They are supposed to be the "best of the best".
If I were Catholic, I would consider it an affront to God that they could not find the time to search for a better candidate. Message to God: We spent a day, hope that is good enough. I would also feel personally insulted that they at least didn't pretend to have tried harder.
If there truly is no better candidate, the church is screwed. (As is America if Bush is "the best of the best".)
This man can't expect the youth of today to show more conviction than he did in his own youth. The example he sets is: exceptions are justifiable.
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
chromatic on 2005-04-26T05:00:04
When I was learning to cook, I put too much oil in a pan one day and didn't cover it properly as it heated and it splashed out. Instead of covering it and turning down the heat, I immediately tried to mop up the mess with a dishtowel. As it soaked up oil, I brought it too near the heat and the towel ignited in my hand.
I say this not as a warning to you, because my best understanding of your point is that by having made this mistake, I don't have any moral authority to warn you to be careful when cooking with hot oil, but so that I can laugh at you when you make this mistake, having refused to learn from my example in a grand, toothless attempt to catch me in some sort of imagined hypocrisy.
Re:Newsflash: People Are Imperfect!
phillup on 2005-04-26T20:55:29
Dude, that is one cool analogy.
But... the repercussions from the lesson are evident. There is absolutely nothing to support the idea that what the church suggest is wrong really is wrong. The repercussions are NOT evident, they require an act of faith.
Yet somehow, they believe that people really should do something wrong... disobey the law. That is the hypocrisy. In order to avoid some "possible" wrong you are required to commit a definite wrong.
And since we have learned from the pope that exceptions are justifiable, would it not be prudent to obey the law? Actually, wouldn't it be OK to ignore the church any time it was convenient? Exceptions being justifiable and all...
"The highest price" seems to stop short of not joining an army whose cause you don't believe in.
Looks like he didn't want to be a martyr.
I suspect that the "price" of not joining the army at that stage in the war was getting shot. I may be wrong. Whereas I doubt anyone is going to get killed in modern Spain for expressing their beliefs (well, strictly, the church's beliefs. Not that the two are supposed to differ.)
