(no subject)

[lapsedmodernist]

OK, so I will weigh in with my two cents on the Pope, since chelvis seems so surprised that I haven't.

I haven't, largely, for two reasons:

1. Plenty of people on my friendslist, like fengi and pdanielson have posted informative and witty entries on the subject

2. As a DU forums mod, over the past 2 days I have read more on the subject (much of it in the form of flame threads that I had to lock) than I ever cared to in my life and, frankly, I was a bit po(o)ped out.

But, okay, briefly:

The Hitlerjunge thing is a red herring, it's a semiotic shortcut that stands for the batch of problems with Ratzinger. First of all, it turns into a typical Godwin-style binary point/counterpoint of "he helped Hitler murder Jews!" vs. "He Was Very Young and Membership Was Compulsory." Then the debate seizures and froths on that particular plateau. What rarely gets discussed is the fact that while screaming "Jewkiller!" about Ratzinger is retarded and can be easily refuted, for all of Ratzinger's waxing about his disgust with the Nazi regime, he neither resisted the draft, nor assisted the resistance that was happening in his own hometown. He did not claim a "conscientious objector" status like the Jehovah's Witnesses did in his hometown. So he is complicit in that system, and yes, so are many other people, the majority usually ends up complicit in the infrastructure of any totalitarian dictatorship, but he is the one who is being evaluated for the pedestal of the supposed "moral authority" of the world. I would think that the Pope, like Caesar's Wife, should have to be above suspicion.

And it's not like he is a Senator Byrd-type case either, where the Senator followed up his misguided youthful association with the KKK not only with an apology for endorsing that ideology at one point, but also with a total rejection of that system of thought with his entire life, and with all of his policy work in the subsequent decades (crossing party line to confirm Ashcroft: World of Ashcroft notwithstanding). Whereas with The Rat (a truly inventive ad hominem, rivaled in wittiness only by "Mann Coulter"), his reaction to his experiences of his youth seem to have lead him to a stance on religion that is remarkably similar to the totalitarian dogma he so disavows. The Hitler Helper or Hitler Hata? drama eclipses the far more significant fact: that of his overall fascistic ideology that has little to do with his Hitler's Youth stint, his ties with the Opus Dei, the fascist crypto-Catholic organization, founded in Franco's Spain¹, and what his persecution of Liberation Theology says about his ideological lineage.

Weirdly, his stance on homosexuality is to the right of the Left Behind books. While he calls it a mortal sin, in a shocking semantic hair-splitting twistosophistry, Left Behind postulates that homosexuality in and of itself is not a sin, but homosexual sex is. Although according to the bible it is only man who is prohibited from "lying with another man" so women can do whatever and the porn industry continues. But I am getting off-topic. Or maybe I am not, as this segues nicely into my footnote.

¹ From an Opus Dei FAQ, about Josemaria Escriva, the founder of the organization:

Q: What kind of person was Josemaria Escriva?

A: He was a priest who founded Opus Dei in the year 1928. He was born into a time of war, so perhaps his idea was to found a kind of ``army'' for God. (Many aspects of the organisation of the Opus show similarities to the structure of an army: replaceability of every member; uncritical submission to orders, ... ). According to Carmen Tapia [former member who wrote about her experiences] , he was a person with very bad manners. She writes that he could be nice and kindly at time but also very angry. He spoke derogatorily about women. He often shouted. (The most extreme example is In her book. Carmen Tapia writes: when he was angry at a woman (G.) who secretly brought her (Tapia) mail he shouted:

``And she there (G.) has to be spanked throughout. Draw up her skirts, tear down her panties and give it to her in the ass!! In the Ass!! Until she talks. MAKE HER TALK!!!'' (translated from the German edition of her book to English)

Comments

[spawnsong.livejournal.com]

"He did not claim a "conscientious objector" status like the Jehovah's Witnesses did in his hometown."

...which would explain why the man is still alive. A conscientoius objector to the Nazi regime is a minomer; you were either passive, active, or you were soon to be made dead. Besides, the Catholic Church as an institution was guilty of being complacent during the Holocaust.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. People did claim consciencious objector status even in Hitler's Germany. I mean, they had that as a legal category, no matter how ineffectual it was in reality. But it existed, and even Orwellian institutions are Orwellian only part of the time, that's what makes them so powerful, the randomness. But he did have an option. Just like in the militarily atheistic USSR, even during the apex/nadir of totalitarianism, there were priests who found ways of getting around compulsory membership in the Komsomol and then the Party. Of course, in Germany, as in the USSR such an action was fraught with danger, but, again, this is supposed to be someone above and beyond "human, merely human."

[schrodingersgnu.livejournal.com]

"conscientious objectors" were either shot or lumped together with other "political unreliables" into punishment commands - suicide battallions whose main purpose was to clear the ground for the regular troops. The average life-span once you were sent to the front was measured in weeks...

Don't get me wrong - I think ratzinger is horrible choice, and I wouldn't be suprised if he was an ardent supporter of nazi germany. I just don't think we can infer that from him not wanting to be killed...

[spawnsong.livejournal.com]

"this is supposed to be someone above and beyond "human, merely human.""

more likely, he was just a kid.

[spawnsong.livejournal.com]

Also, this from the local morning show: "Ratzinger, otherwise known as 'God's Rotweiler.'"

Joy.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

It just frustrates me because it takes away from the discourse that is really relevant and much more scary than "Hitler's Rat!" soundbites.

[spawnsong.livejournal.com]

Emperor Ratzinger (http://www.livejournal.com/users/wellreadmenace/)

[bing-crosby.livejournal.com]

Thanks for this-- this is the only informative post on this subject I've read so far. On one small point-- I thought there was condemnation of woman-woman sex in the Bible. Isn't there a passage that goes something like "a woman shall not lie with a woman as she would a man?" Or am I confusing it with the man-man parts. In any case, are you saying that there are Catholic theologians/social enforcers who make allowances for lesbian sex?

incidentally I was thinking maybe they got someone with Opus Dei ties to cash in on some Da Vinci Code popularity.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I am pretty sure it is specific just about the men. I will doublecheck with mycrust, though. I think this is an example of patriarchy trumping homophobia, at least semiotically.

In any case, are you saying that there are Catholic theologians/social enforcers who make allowances for lesbian sex?

No. I mean, I am sure some progressive/radical priests do, but I am fairly certain they are not basing it in the absence of specifically-lesbian sex prohibition in the scripture.

[twotoedsloth.livejournal.com]

There's no lesbian specific prohibition in Leviticus (or anywhere else in the Old Testament as far as I know), but there is something in Paul. I don't remember the quote... it's a little ambiguous, at least in its English translation.

[twistedcat.livejournal.com]

more information on ratzinger and opus dei here, if you need to read more about it...

[twistedcat.livejournal.com]

er, here

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

oh, cool, thanks! I am pretty sure I saw that when you posted it, as FBI connection caught my eye.

The James Martin article is also an interesting read. Thanks!

[sissyhips.livejournal.com]

Riveting read! It seems the whole business is a problem of choosing between tight shoes. I was voting for Sinead O'Connor, myself.

Oh well. He's like, what, 78? He'll be dead before we know it and we can do it all again.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I don't know, have you seen his pictures? With the Power of the One Ring he can live eternally.

[mycrust.livejournal.com]

Although according to the bible it is only man who is prohibited from "lying with another man" so women can do whatever and the porn industry continues

I often wonder about this. Was it just so obviously unacceptable that there was no reason to mention it explicitly, in the same way that the bible doesn't admonish us not to eat babies?

Or is it just that, in typical sexist fashion, lesbianism in biblical times was hardly as upsetting
as the threat of male homosexuality?

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

I was right, though, no? It does not say anything about lesbian sex, right? bing_crosby was wondering a couple of replys above and I started having doubts.

I think both theories you put forth make excellent sense. It's probably both, but also an issue of the Bible written by men for men (excuse my detour into second-wave rhetoric), but you know what I mean? Like, I would imagine women weren't even important enough to be able to be "perverted." I mean, anthropologically/ethnographically I know that's it's more complicated than that, but in terms of the paradigmatic rhetoric, that would make sense.

[twistedcat.livejournal.com]

see, a man lying with a man wastes sperm that could be used for breeding. a woman lying with a woman doesn't inhibit childbearing.

[chelvis.livejournal.com]

Much obliged anthrochica, much obliged.

I felt I only needed to mention it, and you wouldn't be able to NOT write about it.
/muu-haa-haa

Yeah, I don't believe the hitler youth criticisms that are being hinted at - talk to people who lived in dictatorships, and they'll say things like: either you went along with the regime, or you didn't get jobs, you didn't get food, you didn't get a place to live, you didn't get protection, you died. There are different levels of complicity, but simply, the new pope is not a former nazi. And, miss chica, you can't expect an adolescent to be more than human, merely human.

I, as well as tons of other people, would like to learn more about Opus Dei. I'm growing out of that stage where it's easy and fun to believe conspiracy theories, but I would listen to reliable sources about it.

So, thanks for the post. I feel like I owe you at least something, so how about a link to a funk song (http://www.funkyafro.com/music/labi_schiffe-i_got_the_blues.mp3)!

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I don't believe the hitler youth criticisms that are being hinted at - talk to people who lived in dictatorships, and they'll say things like: either you went along with the regime, or you didn't get jobs, you didn't get food, you didn't get a place to live, you didn't get protection, you died. There are different levels of complicity, but simply, the new pope is not a former nazi. And, miss chica, you can't expect an adolescent to be more than human, merely human.

The Pope, actually, WAS a Nazi, technically, by being a part of the political organizations of the third reich. While he may not be a Nazi ideologically, he is certainly fascistic in his beliefs.

And I understand the point about the dictatorships, but since he is supposed to be this super-duper-morality-superlative-person, perhaps they could have picked someone who, you know, chose to stand up to his totalitarian regime because his principles were the most important thing to him. I am just using the church's own value system. I mean, what kind of martyr for his faith would he have made?

[chelvis.livejournal.com]

ok, ok, point taken, but

"I am just using the church's own value system."

- Why would you want to do that? Their value system is irrational - I can't even get my head into it for too long, before I just, like, snap out of it, shuddering. Here's me using their value system to justify him as Pope.

To really use their value system would maybe also make allowances to the unknowability of God's universe - the distance b/w the mind of God from human understanding - and the will of God at work, through the cardinals, in choosing him as Pope - and the admittance that we should not judge a man by what he did as a youth - and that even if it was wrong, the Christian mindset would turn the other cheek, and forgive him his trespasses, and optimistically accept his repentance.

But, like I said, we should not use their crazy value system in evaluating their choice of him as Pope. We should use our own, a rational and pragmatic and skeptical frame of mind. I think you follow that path well, and are in a broad sense correct in saying that he is fascistic in his beliefs, even though I would have strived to put it more diplomatically.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

To really use their value system would maybe also make allowances to the unknowability of God's universe - the distance b/w the mind of God from human understanding - and the will of God at work, through the cardinals, in choosing him as Pope - and the admittance that we should not judge a man by what he did as a youth - and that even if it was wrong, the Christian mindset would turn the other cheek, and forgive him his trespasses, and optimistically accept his repentance.

I don't believe in God.

But, like I said, we should not use their crazy value system in evaluating their choice of him as Pope. We should use our own, a rational and pragmatic and skeptical frame of mind. I think you follow that path well, and are in a broad sense correct in saying that he is fascistic in his beliefs, even though I would have strived to put it more diplomatically.

As an anthropologist I don't like the us/them system distinction when it is based on rationality vs. irrationality. Evans-Pritchard in "Witchcraft, Oracle and Magic among the Azande," and old ethnography debunks the previously canonical views that "other" (non-Western, but can be extrapolated to radical alterity in any case, like the Catholics are for me) system of thought is pre-rational.

The Catholic System HAS its own international rational system, the theory of it may not always be the same as their praxis, but since their whole PR discourse about Papal Authority/Infallability etc. doesn't stem from "forgiveness of sinners" bit, but, rather, The Total Holiness of The Pope, you'd think they'd want someone with impeccable morals, at least on paper.

I think you follow that path well, and are in a broad sense correct in saying that he is fascistic in his beliefs, even though I would have strived to put it more diplomatically.

What's so undiplimatic about what I say? If I pushed his subtext into text that would have been one thing, but he openly advocates totalitarian ideas and endorses an organization that meets all the conditions for being categorized as a fascistic one.

[twistedcat.livejournal.com]

more on opus dei here

[chelvis.livejournal.com]

Good one with the links, twistedcat

I just realized that this whole thread is violating Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law) all over the place. You guys, the internet cops will be here any minute.

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

Well, it's a kind of meta-Godwin's law thing, since I started this entry by explaining my frustration with 99% of the debate about the whole thing being preemptively hijacked by Godwin's law. Seriously, over at Democratic Underground forums, every thread about the pope flames harder than Archangel Gabriel's Swort and it's all lit up with the Torch of Godwin. I think this thread is deconstructing that, or at least circumnavigating it.