PDA

View Full Version : Communion Only for Good Politicians



BrooklynRider
October 7th, 2005, 10:51 PM
Communion only for good politicians
Cardinal says it should be withheld in certain cases

(ANSA) - Vatican City, October 7 - oliticians whose actions undermine the traditional family based on marriage should be refused Communion, a top Vatican cardinal said on Friday .

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Vatican department dealing with family affairs, denied that Catholics in politics had the option of believing one thing privately while acting in a way which implied another./b]

His comments at a Vatican synod came amid growing debate over the role of Catholics in politics, especially where questions such as divorce, abortion and the rights of unmarried couples are concerned .

They must know that by proposing and defending unjust laws, such as those that don't protect the family (they have) a serious responsibility and they must put right the evil done in order to have access to Communion," Cardinal Trujillo said.

"Can you allow Communion to those who deny human and Christian values?" he added, in a speech to the meeting of bishops from around the world.

The Colombian prelate said the issues he raised were of vital importance in many countries where "ambiguous" stances by legislators were putting family values at "serious risk" .

Trujillo paid particular attention to the issue of legal recognition for unmarried couples, including same-sex couples. He said these were a "juridical fiction" which should be condemned because they implied a valid alternative to marriage.

"This whole tendency is clearly contrary to divine law, God's commandments and is a negation of natural law." The cardinal's comments appeared to refer at least in part to recent events in two of Europe's biggest Catholic countries, Spain and Italy. Spain's leftwing government has introduced a form of 'gay marriage'. In Italy opposition leader Romano Prodi, a practising Catholic, has voiced support for French-style PACS contracts between stable heterosexual and same-sex couples .

A Vatican document issued in 2003 said Catholic politicians were free to follow a number of different paths but in key ethical areas they must obey the dictates of their faith .

Dismissing what it called "ethical relativism," the document said Catholics should put forward and defend the Church's "truth" on issues such as abortion, euthanasia, human embryos and the family founded on heterosexual marriage .

Since the release of the document there has been a rising debate in Catholic circles over how a politician's failure in this area should be treated by the Church .

In the US in particular there have been calls for politicians who support abortion and divorce to be refused Communion .



© Copyright ANSA

BrooklynRider
October 8th, 2005, 12:14 AM
Italian Abortion Pill Angers Vatican
Updated: Friday, Oct. 7, 2005 - 10:41 AM


By ALESSANDRA RIZZO
Associated Press Writer

ROME (AP) - Italy's first experiment with the abortion pill RU-486 is sparking controversy in this overwhelmingly Catholic country, with the Vatican paper condemning the experiment this week as an "act against life."

The denunciation by L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican paper, rekindled accusations of interference in a secular state's domestic affairs. With parliamentary elections due next spring, the Italian Catholic Church has been very aggressive in expressing its opinion on political issues.

"Yet another act against life," L'Osservatore Romano said in its Thursday edition. "Once again science is put at the service of death."

Last month Sant'Anna hospital in Turin, northern Italy, started giving out the abortion pill. On Sept. 21 _ after about two weeks and after 26 women took the pill _ Health Minister Francesco Storace halted the experiment, citing legal and health reasons.

Storace said the pill could only be administered if the patient was hospitalized, to comply with Italy's abortion law.

Critics said the decision by Storace _ whose right-wing National Alliance party is generally close to the Vatican _ was motivated by political rather than medical reasons. But the minister has dismissed the allegations, saying he just wanted to protect women's health.

This week the ethical committee for the Piedmont region, which includes Turin, said the experiment could resume, provided that women taking the pill were kept in hospital for at least two nights and were fully informed about the procedure.

"Our goal was to resume the experiment, so we decided to accept the ministry's requests," Mario Valpreda, Piedmont's top health official and the president of the committee, said in a telephone interview. He insisted that experience in other countries where the pill is used shows that hospitalization is not needed.

The hospital would resume administering the pill on Oct. 17, Valpreda said.

The Church, which is strongly opposed to abortion, has considerable sway in Italy. But in a blow to the late Pope John Paul II, a Vatican-backed referendum in 1981 failed to overturn the country's law permitting abortion.

L'Osservatore Romano said that Turin experiment "makes abortion become an increasingly easy (method of) contraception, the most tragically effective one."

"We have arrived to such an eclipsing of conscience that we see the act of killing the most defenseless of the innocent as an act of freedom," the paper said.

In recent months the Italian Catholic Church has spoken out on issues from assisted fertility to legal right for gay couples. It has dismissed accusations that it interferes with Italy's affairs, maintaining it has a duty to express an opinion on moral issues.

The Vatican's outspokenness has in turn drawn criticism.

"The only real act against life would be the return to clandestine abortion," Daniele Capezzone, whose Radical Party is a longtime Vatican foe, said in response to L'Osservatore.

The abortion pill, RU-486 or mifepristone, can be used to terminate pregnancy up to 49 days after the beginning of the last menstrual cycle. It was invented in France in the 1980s.

It differs from the "morning-after" pill, which is intended to prevent pregnancy by ensuring that an egg does not become fertilized.


(Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

Fabrizio
October 8th, 2005, 05:30 AM
It is impossible for Americans to understand the relationship between the Italian people and the Church. Get this: we love and respect the RCC. That is unmoving. This respect and revrence is seen through all levels of society from the right to the left, from rich to poor, from the simple to the intellectual. People expect the Church to do itīs thing. The Church is against the abortion pill? Bravo. It should be. We would never expect anything less. But does the populace want the choice of being able to have the abortion pill? Of course. Will woman be able to get it? Absolutely. This is a modern liberal European country. There will be a political struggle but secular law will hold. In the mean time, this being a Latin country, laws are very flexible and a blind eye is always turned... you can get what ever you want from your doctor. And a Priest will give you Communion. Itīs all very hypocritical, but this is Italy.... and itīs also kind of wonderful. Italians do not feel threatend by the Church as many Americans feel threatend by the Christian right.

As far as the Church deneying Communion to politicians who support abortion, gay marriage etc.: this is a Cardinal speaking and not a decree from the Vatican.

ablarc
October 8th, 2005, 09:59 AM
It is impossible for Americans to understand the relationship between the Italian people and the Church. Get this: we love and respect the RCC. That is unmoving. This respect and revrence is seen through all levels of society from the right to the left, from rich to poor, from the simple to the intellectual. People expect the Church to do it´s thing. The Church is against the abortion pill? Bravo. It should be. We would never expect anything less. But does the populace want the choice of being able to have the abortion pill? Of course. Will woman be able to get it? Absolutely. This is a modern liberal European country. There will be a political struggle but secular law will hold. In the mean time, this being a Latin country, laws are very flexible and a blind eye is always turned... you can get what ever you want from your doctor. And a Priest will give you Communion. It´s all very hypocritical, but this is Italy.... and it´s also kind of wonderful. Italians do not feel threatend by the Church as many Americans feel threatend by the Christian right.
Italy in a nutshell. Thank you, Fabrizio; both succinct and eloquent.

Reminds me again why I like Italy so much.

BrooklynRider
October 9th, 2005, 12:18 AM
Well, Fabrizio's argument is built an the premise that Italy was the issue as opposed to the Vatican. The article was posted as just another indication of the Vatican's desire to impose its worldview on the internal laws and politics of countries around, like Italy. It is no less threatening and extremist than Islam. One could argue that Iran is co-existing with Islam or that Saudi Arabia is coexisting with Islam. These pronoucements by the Vatican are no less intrusive, threatening and divisive that any fatwa. The issue is the Vatican trying to roll us back to the year 1305, not its relationship with Italy. And, its new leadership by a man who personally assisted in the electing George W Buish - from another family that supported and profitted from rise of Hitler and the Nazi Movement.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2005, 08:15 AM
"It is no less threatening and extremist than Islam. One could argue that Iran is co-existing with Islam or that Saudi Arabia is coexisting with Islam. These pronoucements by the Vatican are no less intrusive, threatening and divisive that any fatwa. The issue is the Vatican trying to roll us back to the year 1305......"

This is so stupid and know-nothing, I donīt know where to begin. ALL major religions try to influence government. There are Jewish lobbys in the US. You donīt think they try to influence the government? There are Christian lobbys. ALL try to change government policy. The Vatican is against war, against the death penalty, against abortion etc. The litmus test for the RCC is Italy. The RCC has itīs home here. Nearly all of itīs Popes have been Italian, most of its structure is made up of Italians yet Italy has more human rights than the US and much more liberal social policies. There is no gay marriage yet ... some US states are ahead of us on that issue (there is cival unions) and Italy right now is having a huge debate about it. But the RCC is about tolerance and forgiveness not damnation and that infuses all levels of society here and that is because of the RCC. You will not see Catholic evangelist TV in the US anytime soon. You will not see a Catholic Pat Robertson. You will not see the Vatican buying up newspapers (see what religious organisation owns the Washington Times). You will not see Catholics standing on corners handing out flyers or creating front organizations with benign sounding names. Oh and BTW.... will you please show me a list of Catholic politians in Italy who have been excommunicated or denied Communion for supporting social issues that are contrary to the Church? Also: be very, very careful about info you get about the RCC within the US. The ultra-influential Christian right HATES the RCC. They donīt even consider Catholics to be Christian and they have a HUGE propaganda machine against the RCC.... so be informed.

I will tell you this: Iīve lived in the US and I live here. As far as social environment goes: Iīll take the RCC over Americas Christian right anyday. Any day. Believe me... donīt lose sleep over the Vatican.

BrooklynRider
October 9th, 2005, 10:38 AM
Again, you are relating it to Italy.

I've worked (paid managerial position) in a Catholic organization in New York. I have a pretty good understanding of the decision making process. The first things considered, regardless of the general welfare of people, are politics.

The church in the US has interfered in politics and is no better than the fundamentalists, although the Catholic leadership believes it alone has the scholarly right to interpret the Bible. They take great offense that many of these "born-again" churches are started by people who have no "scholarly" knowledge of what they are reading.

I'll defer to you on what is happening in Italy. The church in Italy vs. the Church's behavior and interference / influence in the world don't necessarily correlate.

ZippyTheChimp
October 9th, 2005, 10:39 AM
I agree with Fabrizio's description of the relationship between the Vatican and the Roman Catholics of Italy. When Americans read overwhelmingly Catholic, they think state religion. My own contact with Italian society is through relatives, so I can't speak to what is codified in law; but I can say that in practice, the separation of church and state in Italy is at least as distinct as in the U.S. I suspect that it is the same in other European overwhelmingly Catholic countries, such as Spain and France. Ireland may be an exception (I'll get to that in a moment).

This relationship between Italians and the RCC is not a modern phenomenon. I saw it in my grandparents who emigrated from Italy early in the 20th century. We lived in their house in Brooklyn until I was 10 years old. Neither they nor my parents regularly attended Sunday Mass, but me and my siblings were required to do so. I sang in the choir; my brother was an altar boy. I thought that, like school, this is what you did until you were an adult.

The attitude I experienced among the Catholic community (mostly Italian and Hispanic) was that the Church was local. The parish was significantly more important than the Vatican, or even the closer diocese. Somewhat an exception were Irish families, who seemed to have a more ecumenical view, probably due to the struggles with Protestants in Northern Ireland. In any case, Ireland today is rapidly moving toward a more secular society.

The relationship between my grandfather and his parish and the Vatican can be described by a task he performed once every year. He was a Brooklyn Democrat with liberal views and mostly ignored Vatican edicts. He was also a cabinetmaker, and every summer he would go to the rectory and ask what work needed to be done. No matter what was asked, he would do the work himself. When I was old enough, he took me along as a helper.

He could have just given money, or sent a couple of employees to do the work. Although we never spoke of it, I think he did this as an acknowledgement of the connection of the RCC to the God of his spirituality. It would be important for that institution to be immutable in its core doctrine, even though some of it was irrelevant in practice.

I don't think Catholics are going to make much of a fuss over this, certainly not to the level of Christian or Islamic fundamentalists.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2005, 11:41 AM
Zippy: wonderful post.

Brooklyn: Iīm really rushing and donīt have time right now but:

To say, "The church in the US has interfered in politics and is no better than the fundamentalists" is at least more even-minded than your ridiculous and intellectually void comment:

"it is no less threatening and extremist than Islam. One could argue that Iran is co-existing with Islam or that Saudi Arabia is coexisting with Islam. These pronoucements by the Vatican are no less intrusive, threatening and divisive that any fatwa".

Nice to see youīve toned down your offensive lies.

Again I will comment that ALL religions.... Protestant, Jew, Catholic etc try to interfere in politics. Do you want to deney that? The evidence shows however that the Catholic Church is up front and honest about it. And in my opinion much LESS intrusive than others.

And carfully read the opening line of the article you posted:

"Politicians whose actions undermine the traditional family based on marriage should be refused Communion, a top Vatican cardinal said on Friday ."

There has NOT been (and wonīt be) a decree from the Vatican on this.

The Church is also against the war in Iraq. Against the death penalty. It is against Communism but also against the excesses of Capitalism. That is why American Catholics have been traditionally Democrats. The Republican Right WILL NOT find a safe haven with the Vatican and they would be foolish to think so.

As far as: " the Catholic leadership believes it alone has the scholarly right to interpret the Bible. They take great offense that many of these "born-again" churches are started by people who have no "scholarly" knowledge of what they are reading."

Absolutley!! The RCC interprets the Bible for itīs believers. But where youīre wrong is here: " They take great offense that many of these "born-again" churches are started by people who have no "scholarly" knowledge of what they are reading."

Great offense? Actually Catholics care very little about "born-again" churches. You will not find the Catholic Church putting down other religions. The Catholic Church is way above and beyond that.

redhot00
October 9th, 2005, 11:55 AM
I wasn't going to chime in here, only because Fabrizio is doing such a wonderful job, and Zippy did add a great post. I lived in Italy till age 11, and I'm in my 30's now. I still feel just as much Italian as I do American.

It's always amazed me how liberal Americans feel so threatened by the Vatican, and Italians, even the most liberal ones, for the most part, respect the Vatican for standing firm on some of the very issues that they are against. Fabrizio's first post was right on the money and illustrated this perfectly.

Brooklyn Rider's post was a typical response from a liberal American to a statement from the Vatican. Not to get so political, but I often wonder why American Liberals are so damn defensive all the time.

With this being said however, I want to say the BR's post are always well written, and I respect him for his knowledge of NYC among other things. But to call the Pope a Nazi is nothing short of offensive. And when you think that the Pope is Pro-Life on all counts (Death Penalty, Abortion, Euthanasia) and Nazis used to burn people and gas them, the analogy is not only offensive, but innacurate.

lofter1
October 9th, 2005, 12:08 PM
...the Pope is Pro-Life on all counts (Death Penalty, Abortion, Euthanasia) ...
What is the Pope's stance on the War in Iraq?

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2005, 12:25 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm

ryan
October 9th, 2005, 12:28 PM
The consequences of extremist Vatican rhetoric are most deeply felt in developing countries where missionaries have created more influence on laws and mores than in either Europe or NA, where we have developed secular traditions. In poorer, less educated countries, missionaries enter an area and impose themselves as surrogate local governments, providing services government typically provides in an effort to establish the church as the most influential local institution - some communities rely entirely on propagandizing missionary schools. If they don't convert the adults in that community, they'll convert their children and grandchildren. After a few generations, the community comes to know the church as a paternalistic provider, that - good and bad - is central to moral and legal decision making.

The Vatican is playing to these developing catholic communities - the future of catholic influence and populations - rather than to the west, where especially in Italy and Western Europe, it's influence is in the past.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM
Ryan: well made points and on these we can have an interesting discussion.

lofter1
October 9th, 2005, 12:49 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2654109.stm
thanks for the link for JP2's views...

I found this for Benedict (although the statements cited were made before he became Pope):

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/comments.php?id=2014_0_1_0_C

Pope Benedict XVI on the Iraq War

The position of the newly-elected Pope Benedict XVI on the Iraq war could not be clearer (http://www.comunione-liberazione.org/articoli/eng/1/nowar.html):

"Is the war that has been announced against Iraq a just war? 'All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism,' Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger replied with a mischievous grin, 'and the conclusion seems obvious to me…'

For the guardian of Catholic orthodoxy, the obvious conclusion is that the military intervention that is taking shape 'has no moral justification' (September 20, interview on the Italian national news program).

The Catechism, Ratzinger explained, does not embrace a pacifist position a priori; indeed, it admits the possibility of a 'just war' for reasons of defense.

But it sets a number of very strict and reasonable conditions: there must be a proper proportion between the evil to be rooted out and the means employed. In short, if in order to defend a value (in this case, national security) greater damage is caused (civilian victims, destabilization of the Middle East, with its accompanying risks of increased terrorism), then recourse to force is no longer justified.

In light of these criteria, Ratzinger refuses to grant the moral status of just war to the military operation against Saddam Hussein.

The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith added another consideration: 'Decisions like this should be made by the community of nations, by the UN, and not by an individual power.'"

+++

ablarc
October 9th, 2005, 02:43 PM
Test. I wrote a reply, but --unlike this test message-- I can't get it to post. I get an error message instead. What's going on? Is there some secret word that can't be included in a post. There's no filthy language, honest. ;)

lofter1
October 9th, 2005, 03:32 PM
Test ... What's going on?

Payback? :p

ablarc
October 9th, 2005, 04:00 PM
Payback? :p
For what?

ablarc
October 9th, 2005, 05:37 PM
redhot00, BrooklynRider’s writing skills don’t always lead him to the truth.

Here’s a bit of purest-grade nonsense:


It’s no less threatening and extremist than Islam. One could argue that Iran is co-existing with Islam or that Saudi Arabia is coexisting with Islam. These pronouncements by the Vatican are no less intrusive, threatening and divisive than any fatwa.

BrooklynRider, it’s harder to take you seriously when you spout such twaddle. I suspect you just want to get a rise out of folks (at least I hope that’s all it is; otherwise it just seems the knee-jerk, scatter-shot lashings-out of an embittered soul).

To be fair, you have some company on this forum and among fringe liberals, for whom all evil fomented anywhere in the world is at least matched by the wickedness of the good ol' USA.

To such folks, we're to blame for all disruptions to global good order. You might as well say it: we're the Great Satan. (continued next post.)

stache
October 9th, 2005, 06:12 PM
But to call the Pope a Nazi is nothing short of offensive.

The fact that a former Nazi Youth member has become Pope is unbelievably offensive. I don't care if he 'had to' do it or not. It sends a very bad signal to anyone who may identify with those murdered in the Holocaust.

Fabrizio
October 9th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Stache: you have nooooo idea of what you are talking about.

First of all, this Pope comes from a family that was so anti-Nazi that they suffered for it.

secondly: this Pope was a Hitler Youth member as were ALL young men in Germany at the time. It was REQUIRED by law until 1937.

Do you know anything about European history?

lofter1
October 9th, 2005, 06:57 PM
For what?

;)
http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67845&postcount=967
:D :D :D

ablarc
October 9th, 2005, 07:22 PM
The fact that a former Nazi Youth member has become Pope is unbelievably offensive. I don't care if he 'had to' do it or not. It sends a very bad signal to anyone who may identify with those murdered in the Holocaust.
Now we've got a fella in a cave somewhere who's hell-bent on matching Hitler's record for murdering civilians. We make excuses for him (even blame ourselves), while we "identify" with the other guy's victims.

Maybe World War II was just a disagreement between two evil countries: Hitler's and ours.

Villains? Pshaw, we're all villains.

ryan
October 10th, 2005, 12:25 AM
we're to blame for all disruptions to global good order.

Given the reality of our countries unique role as the only superpower waving around the dick of our bloated military spending (we spend about as much each year as the rest of the world combined (http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/Spending.asp), and about 6 times as much as the next closest, Russia.) this is a fairly accurate statement. Entirely irrelevant to the pope, however.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 01:01 AM
...The Vatican is playing to these developing catholic communities - the future of catholic influence and populations - rather than to the west, where especially in Italy and Western Europe, it's influence is in the past.

You made some observations I strongly agree with, but you gingerly avoided mentioning the Catholic Church and its role in the United States. It is influencing third world / developing countries. It's influence is diminished in Western Europe. Now, what about the US, where it operates like a PAC rather than a religious organization.


...I suspect you just want to get a rise out of folks (at least I hope that’s all it is; otherwise it just seems the knee-jerk, scatter-shot lashings-out of an embittered soul).

Let's assume for a moment that your "suspicion" is "wrong". In which case, your personal attack would still be entirely inappropriate.


Stache: you have nooooo idea of what you are talking about.

First of all, this Pope comes from a family that was so anti-Nazi that they suffered for it.

secondly: this Pope was a Hitler Youth member as were ALL young men in Germany at the time. It was REQUIRED by law until 1937.

Do you know anything about European history?

We aren't talking about "European" history or your interpretation of what might have motivated this POPE who was a NAZI. We are talking about an individual who holds a position which assumes a higher moral ethicism and "purity" to be a direct-line shepherd of the church from St. Peter. We are talking about this man. The "nazi" label applies to his Nazi Youth past. Your statement would seem to be as much an apologist statement as any made about any other individual liked or hated by folks in this forum.

This Pope was FACTUALLY a Nazi. There is nothing that can be said to erase or justify that history and the symbolism that it brings to the leader of the RCC. The RCC might be a harmless senile auntie in Italy, but in America we have the pedophile uncle. Oh wait, it was an isolated case. Right, 5,000 isolated cases. Yeah, harmless.


...To be fair, you have some company on this forum and among fringe liberals, for whom all evil fomented anywhere in the world is at least matched by the wickedness of the good ol' USA.

There's a variety of viewpoints in this forum, all of which have no problem expressing themselves. The "fringe" of the forum are those that can't refrain from trying to marginalize arguments because they disagree. I'm assuming that you have managed to boil down your ideas into such a simplistic monolithic way of thinking that YOU can neatly package yourself as "liberal" or "conservative." Some us don't fall for that Fox News / NY Post knee-jerk, scatter-shot lashings-out, wholly indicative of an lost soul trying to get a rise out of people. Does that make sense to you?



...To such folks, we're to blame for all disruptions to global good order. You might as well say it: we're the Great Satan.

Rather than trying to put words into other people's mouths, why don't you develop an original argument that is built upon response rather than dismissal.

In this century to-date, the U.S. is absolutely a MAJOR (albeit not the "only") force behind ALL the disruptions to global order. We have the ability and resources to do good and choose not to. Not doing anything would be bad enough. But, to have that power and exercise it in a way that serves no purpose other than to destroy, murder, and maim, while appropriating huge sums of money to be awarded via no bid contracts to political cronies is even worse.

The days of looking at the USA as a country unto itself are over. We are, whether we like it or not, a member of the global community. We have the "global" argument foisted upon us to justfy trade agreements that do little to benefit the citizens of this country. We have the "global" argument foisted upon us to justify identifying and destroying terrorisim where ever it lurks. But, when the majority of the "global" community believe our actions are illegal, wrong, unilateral, undermining peace, contrary to international law, then we become a "sovereign nation" emboldened to do what we must in our own national interest.

These are no innocent errors. It is the cold calculated policy of a corporate-fascist ideology that slams people against the wall with a billy club to their necks and demands that you pronounce your love and allegiance to "freedom." The country was founded on noble and highly logical and enlightened priniples. In this century, those principles have been gutted, tossed aside and we are seeing a full-scale attack on the Bill of Rights. Our freedom does not lie in the Declaration of Independence or even the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is the core of what America stands for and that is under attack from the very forces that have sworn to protect it.

If you believe in Satan, that would be the picture of the "GREATEST SATAN of ALL."

Fabrizio
October 10th, 2005, 01:08 AM
Brooklyn:"The "nazi" label applies to his Nazi Youth past." "This Pope was FACTUALLY a Nazi".

*sigh* (rolling eyes at the idiocy of the above statements).

Well then every person in Italy over a certain age is a "fascist" following your logic. They were ALL members of the various Fascist youth organizations.


And BTW Brooklyn: will you please tell me of any Jewish organisations that recognize the Pope as a Nazi or give any weight to his alleged "Nazi youth" past? Looking forward to your answer.


And: Heading this thread by calling the Pope a Nazi is unworthy of this forum. It is the stuff of trolls... and I would hope the administrators here take note.

lofter1
October 10th, 2005, 01:20 AM
...this Pope was a Hitler Youth member as were ALL young men in Germany at the time. It was REQUIRED by law until 1937.

If my history lessons were correct there were a great number of young men in Germany in 1937 who didn't have the "benefit" of that -- or any other -- law.

Were there no Germans who chose not to follow that law?

Were not there Germans who left their home country rather than follow such a law?

By 1937 the writing was on the wall -- literally.

Of course hindsight is easy as this late date.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 01:28 AM
Brooklyn:"The "nazi" label applies to his Nazi Youth past." "This Pope was FACTUALLY a Nazi".

*sigh* (rolling eyes at the idiocy of the above statements).

Well then every person in Italy over a certain age is a "fascist" following your logic.

You inability to break out of the confines of your own limited perspective doesn't comproise my "logic." There are certainly people who "were" fascists in Italy (and for the record I am of 100% Italian heritage with family members serving in the Italian government, likely fascist at some point, and who were also nobility before the unification (so they were likely tyrants too). I didn't vote for them - you did. I don't "know" them - I know of them. My great grandparents had the good sense to leave early in the 20th Century.

The issue, once again, so you can try to absorb it, is the fact that THIS POPE has THIS past. Where this Pope has a nazi youth past, contrast it with the last pope who served in the underground resistance. THAT is the difference. This man, by virtue of his past, is unfit for the role and has no moral authority AT ALL to criticize anyone for "choices" they are making in their lives or in their governance. Who is he to talk about "abortion", when the party he subscribed to killed families. Who is he to talk about homsexuality, when his party perpetrated the greatest perversions in history. Who is he to talk about pro-life, while supporting and actively campaigning via cyclicals written BY HIM under the last pope advocated for George W. Bush - who sent more inmates to death in Texas than anyone before him in modern history. Who is he to talk about the "peace" of Christ, when he fails to take on this ongoing unjust "war" killing hundredds of thousands.

Nazi Pope - Nazi Pope - Nazi Pope. There are many Nazi's who disavow their past association with the party. Of course, that is because they lost the war and as the vanquished were trying to avoid facing the same fate they sent millions of innocents to meet. Of course, as an Italian you might be extra forgiving, considering your country's alliance with the German Nazi's and Imperialistic Japan. With that pedigree, it is understandable that you have been taught that it was all a big error in judgement and nobody had any choice. But hey, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Italians must miss that.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 02:00 AM
Brooklyn:"The "nazi" label applies to his Nazi Youth past." "This Pope was FACTUALLY a Nazi".

*sigh* (rolling eyes at the idiocy of the above statements).

Well then every person in Italy over a certain age is a "fascist" following your logic.

You inability to break out of the confines of your own limited perspective doesn't comproise my "logic." There are certainly people who "were" fascists in Italy (and for the record I am of 100% Italian heritage with family members serving in the Italian government, likely fascist at some point, and who were also nobility before the unification (so they were likely tyrants too). I didn't vote for them - you did.

The issue, once again, so you can try to absorb it, is the fact that THIS POPE has THIS past. Where this Pope has a nazi youth past, contrast it with the last pope who served in the underground resistance. THAT is the difference. This man, by virtue of his past, is unfit for the role and has no moral authority AT ALL to criticize anyone for "choices" they are making in their lives or in their governance. Who is he to talk about "abortion", when the party he subscribed to killed families. Who is he to talk about homsexuality, when his party perpetrated the greatest perversions in history. Who is he to talk about pro-life, while supporting and actively campaigning via cyclicals wriiten BY HIM under the last pope advocating for George W. Bush - who sent more inmates to death in Texas than anyone before him in modern history.

Nazi Pope - Nazi Pope - Nazi Pope. There are many Nazi's who disavow their past association with the party. Of course, that is because they lost the war and as the vanquished were trying to avoid facing the same fate they sent millions of innocents to meet. Of course, as an Italian you might be extra forgiving, considering your country's alliance with the German Nazi's and Imperialistic Japan. With that pedigree, it is understandable that you have been taught that it was all a big error in judgement and nobody had any choice. But hey, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Italians must miss that.


Tell me more about the liberal example Italy sets for the world. This seems to be, in my estimation, censorship. It must be a very liberal and free society - a bastion of open ideas and freedom of expression - that bans pictures of your very own Pope. So, offending the RCC in Italy is a crime? No wonder you have b een conditioned to accept them blindly and profess their benevolence.

So, are you for freedom of the press, freedom of speech and unfettered freedom on the Internet, or do you support censorship. Just trying to see whether threads of the fascist Italian past remain in the fabric of your household.

Italian website banned over 'Nazi' pope picture

AFP | May 5 2005

An Italian website that published a photo montage of Pope Benedict XVI dressed in a Nazi uniform was told to suspend its activities on Wednesday for offending the Roman Catholic religion, court officials said.

Rome prosecutors accuse the Indymedia Italia site, which is part of a network of alternative media websites, of causing offense to the Catholic religion by publishing the photo montage alongside the caption "Nazi pope".

Under Italian law, the offense is punishable by up to one year in jail.

The website, which is registered under the name of a Brazilian-based company, Indipendent Media Center, was still online Wednesday evening and showing the controversial image despite the court ruling.

Italy's largest press union, FNSI, slammed the decision as an "unacceptable attack on critical and satirical freedom".

"Indymedia publishes without any form of censorship any kind of electronic message -- that is the basis of its editorial policy," said the FNSI's secretary general, Paolo Serventi Longhi.

"I do not agree with the message's content, in fact I find it very serious, but press freedom cannot be called into question," he added.

Agriculture Minister Gianni Alemanno, a member of the conservative National Alliance, hailed the decision to ban the site, arguing that Indymedia Italia had "reached a pinnacle of offensiveness and vulgarity".

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2005, 02:09 AM
Were there no Germans who chose not to follow that law?

Were not there Germans who left their home country rather than follow such a law?

By 1937 the writing was on the wall -- literally.

Of course hindsight is easy as this late date.
The correct date was 1941 (when he was 14)

A child born and raised in an abnormal environment, no matter how twisted it is, accepts it as the normal state of the world. What would you expect him to do, up and leave? I can't know what was in the mind of a 14 year old boy when confronted with the requirement to join the Hitler Youth, but going from there to Nazi Pope is quite a leap.

Brooklyn Rider: You are free to post whatever you want, but your comments here and elsewhere have been spiralling toward absurdity; and they are laced with an undercurrent of bitterness. It has become difficult to carry on a conversation with you.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 02:12 AM
... will you please tell me of any Jewish organisations that recognize the Pope as a Nazi or give any weight to his alleged "Nazi youth" past? Looking forward to your answer.

First off, my opinions are my own. Whether "jewish groups" are ready to incite a church that only took 1,962 years to finally consider that jews weren't filthy Christ killers, is up to them. Why rock the boat? What Jewish group in their right mind would come out and criticize this pope and walk right into the Mel Gibson "jew trap." He'll get golf claps from them and a number of prayers stuck into the wailing wall that if he can't be a "lame duck" Pope, God could at least bless us by making him a "dead duck" Pope.

Also Fabrizio, don't ask others to research the support for YOUR arguments. You want to argue that Jews love him - you do the research. You pick the organization that represents all jews - one that every single jew subscribes to - and then that can be a definitive argument.

You offer nothing in this thread except excuses. You have offerend nothing beyond your Italian citizenship and presumed catholicism as a defense.

He was a nazi - he is the pope = Nazi Pope Nazi Pope Nazi Pope

ryan
October 10th, 2005, 02:25 AM
And: Heading this thread by calling the Pope a Nazi is unworthy of this forum. It is the stuff of trolls... and I would hope the administrators here take note.

Instead of insulting and attacking people you disagree with, why don't you explain why you are so uncomfortable with the pope's nazi connections? I believe that any connection to institutions of nazi power - no matter how much you qualify its nature - should have disqualified a candidate for leader of the catholic church. Regardless of the individual's merit, disregarding even a perceived connection seems to me to intentionally diminish the gravity of the holocaust. It seems like a specific and calculated message was communicated to Jewish communities... absolutely obliterating JP2's weak apology for the church's significant involvement in WWII atrocities.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 02:26 AM
Brooklyn Rider: You are free to post whatever you want, but your comments here and elsewhere have been spiralling toward absurdity; and they are laced with an undercurrent of bitterness. It has become difficult to carry on a conversation with you.

We are in an "Anything Goes" section of the forum. My opinions are my own and I make every attempt to support them. We live in an absurd world. The rationalization of actions and events in society I am reading seem as absurd to me as I might to you.

An undercurrent of bitterness? I'll take a look at it. We all have our moods and it is entirely possible.

In the meantime, people can converse with me or not. I don't take offense.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 02:32 AM
...It is the stuff of trolls...

For active members here, it is clear where you are pulling this phrase from and the implicit message in your words. Go f*ck yourself.

This is an issue for the moderators.

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2005, 02:56 AM
First of all, we are not in the "Anything Goes" forum, but since the issue of posting behavior in that forum had come up in another thread, I'll take the opportunity to clear up a misconception.

"Anything Goes" does not define what can be said in that forum. It defines topics that do not seem to fit anywhere else. The same rules of behavior apply.

Go f*ck yourself is a good example.

From this point on, objectionable posts will be deleted.

Fabrizio and Brooklyn Rider: Stop it.

lofter1
October 10th, 2005, 11:19 AM
An interesting overview on the early years of Ratzinger's life:

http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2005/04/the_german_shep.html

... I think talking about the pope's past is -- from a moral, if not a political standpoint -- not only fair, but essential, because the way he interprets that experience says a lot about the direction the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is moving in, and why so many people, inside and outside the Church, are worried about it. Some conversation about this topic has been going on in the comments of two previous (http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2005/04/new_pope.html) posts (http://bodyandsoul.typepad.com/blog/2005/04/death_camps.html), and so I apologize if this is somewhat repetitive, but it's something I need to expand on.

Joseph Ratzinger became a member of the Hitler Youth in 1941, at the age of 14, the year that joining became compulsory. Two years later -- at only 16, a child soldier -- he was drafted and served in an anti-aircraft unit which guarded a BMW factory that used slave labor from Dachau. (He was not, however, a slave laborer, a point I bring up only because Justin Raimondo (http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2013), in his spirited and well-intentioned defense of Ratzinger, seems a bit confused on this point.) He was later sent to Hungary, and returned to Bavaria in 1944, which is when he deserted.

That's hardly the worst way for a German man of his generation to have spent the war, but it's not a particularly brave one either. In his biography of Ratzinger (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0826413617/qid=1114111877/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/002-5295105-8280850?v=glance&s=books), John Allen, National Catholic Reporter's Vatican correspondent, notes that Ratzinger has said that resistance to Nazism was "impossible," a word echoed by his brother in the recent Times of London article (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1572667,00.html) that revived the issue of the then cardinal's wartime experiences.

Resistance was impossible. I'm sorry, but that's a blatant falsehood. The Times follows with the comments of a woman from Ratzinger's home town:

Some locals in Traunstein, like Elizabeth Lohner, 84, whose brother-in-law was sent to Dachau as a conscientious objector, dismiss such suggestions. “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” she said. “The Ratzingers were young and had made a different choice.”

John Allen adds that within Ratzinger's "immediate orbit" there were several models of resistance, including Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses and even some Catholics.

Clearly, when Ratzinger and his brother (who is also a priest) say that anti-Nazi resistance was "impossible," they're lying. And it's not an insignificant or harmless lie. Denying the option of resistance insults, indeed, denies the existence of, a lot of people who made far braver and more difficult decisions than the Ratzingers. Failing to exhibit extraordinary courage is human and understandable. Denying the extraordinarily courageous their due is shameful. Denying moral agency is surely unworthy of a man who would be pope.

The Ratzingers lie about this because if they admit that moral choices were involved, they'd have to explain their choice. In fact, I would suggest that anyone who cared about moral agency would recognize the need for self-reflection, for either admitting moral failure, or asserting moral principles. I can think of many possible explanations, but none of them fit well into black and white morality.

I failed. I cared too much about my own survival.

I'd certainly accept that excuse, and have great sympathy for the person who offered it, if only because, put in the same position, I'm fairly certain I'd offer the same excuse, and be asking for the same forgiveness. But the pope has never admitted that failure or asked for that forgiveness. His claim that lack of cooperation was "impossible," says very clearly that he doesn't recognize any failure.

I didn't realize how important resistance was.

Ratzinger has described his father as an anti-Nazi, and the evidence supports this, but according to John Allen, German Catholic anti-Nazism focused primarily on "the party's encroachment on the church." The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/international/worldspecial2/21germany.html?ex=1114747200&en=3f50a178e3eb15b1&ei=5070) piece on Ratzinger's youth, and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7751-2005Apr21.html?nav=hcmodule) piece on his home town make the same point more specifically: Catholic Bavaria, Ratzinger's home, was initially among the Nazi Party's more enthusiastic supporters. The relationship became strained over anticlerical oratory and Nazi insistence on removing crucifixes from classrooms. In other words, the only thing many Bavarian Catholics objected to about Nazism was its lack of deference to the Church.

While in the Luftwaffe, Ratzinger guarded slave laborers and saw Jews herded into death camps in Hungary. Obviously he knew what was going on. But if the Ratzinger family was anti-Nazi, was it because of mass murder or encroachments on the church? The latter might be something to be endured in anger rather than resisted. In a church that claims victimhood by calling Edith Stein a martyr to the Catholic faith, and still hasn't come to terms with its own responsibility, that would be disturbing.

Resistance wasn't impossible, but it was futile. There is no moral reason to commit suicide for a lost cause.

Now that would start a discussion worth having. I tend to think Elizabeth Lohner is right, that even a seemingly futile resistance is valuable because it inspires others to resist. I would have hoped that a pope, above all, would value a martyr's example. But maybe there are times when it's better to co-operate with evil in order to fight it when you're stronger. I don't know.

It's certainly not an issue that lends itself to moral certainty.

My problem with the newly minted pope on this issue is that by lying -- lying, I suspect, as much to himself as to the rest of us -- he cut himself off from understanding the difficult moral choices people face. By lying about it now, he shows that he's still unwilling to face the complexity of moral choice. Whatever understandable lack of physical courage he displayed as a teenager is trumped a thousand times over by moral cowardice today.

* * * * * * * * * *

Ninjahedge
October 10th, 2005, 12:26 PM
If my history lessons were correct there were a great number of young men in Germany in 1937 who didn't have the "benefit" of that -- or any other -- law.

Were there no Germans who chose not to follow that law?

Were not there Germans who left their home country rather than follow such a law?

By 1937 the writing was on the wall -- literally.

Of course hindsight is easy as this late date.


Exactly.

Hindsight.

We say "Oh, it is easy for a family to pick up and move because a group of people that they have little to do with is being slowly drawn out and put into camps that they know nothing about"

The Nazi youth league was not a bunch of skinheads going around preaching the destruction of all other races. It was, at the time, like the Boy Scouts of America. Hell, they even used the Good Luck symbol as their own! What was not to like!

Most of what Hitler did was not even known to the general public until AFTER the war was over. they were VERY careful about what their people saw and heard.

Although I do believe this is something that did warrant a looking into, i do not believe a person should be blamed because his PARENTS (just like 90% of the other parents in Germany) did not see this coming and move out of Germany, leaving a lot behind.


Brooklyn man, you have to relax! I know some of the things they have answered you with are inflamatory, but you come in swinging "The pope is a Nazi" froma flagpole in the middle of a rather middle-of-the-road people and you know what yo uare going to get.

Focus on what he is doing now and leave his OBLIGATORY childhood duties out of this.

lofter1
October 10th, 2005, 02:18 PM
IMO the most important point about the above article: If Ratzinger / Benedict cannot be honest about his own moral failings in the past -- really honest, not making excuses -- then that puts him in a very weak intellectual position regarding the moral judgments he is making now.



Most of what Hitler did was not even known to the general public until AFTER the war was over. they were VERY careful about what their people saw and heard.

But for those who served in the German services, a lot was known ...

From the article above:


Ratzinger has described his father as an anti-Nazi, and the evidence supports this, but according to John Allen, German Catholic anti-Nazism focused primarily on "the party's encroachment on the church." The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/international/worldspecial2/21germany.html?ex=1114747200&en=3f50a178e3eb15b1&ei=5070) piece on Ratzinger's youth, and Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7751-2005Apr21.html?nav=hcmodule) piece on his home town make the same point more specifically: Catholic Bavaria, Ratzinger's home, was initially among the Nazi Party's more enthusiastic supporters. The relationship became strained over anticlerical oratory and Nazi insistence on removing crucifixes from classrooms. In other words, the only thing many Bavarian Catholics objected to about Nazism was its lack of deference to the Church.

While in the Luftwaffe, Ratzinger guarded slave laborers and saw Jews herded into death camps in Hungary. Obviously he knew what was going on. But if the Ratzinger family was anti-Nazi, was it because of mass murder or encroachments on the church? The latter might be something to be endured in anger rather than resisted. In a church that claims victimhood by calling Edith Stein a martyr to the Catholic faith, and still hasn't come to terms with its own responsibility, that would be disturbing.



...leave his OBLIGATORY childhood duties out of this.

Yeah, come on, the guy was just following orders when he was guarding slave laborers.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 02:20 PM
...It was, at the time, like the Boy Scouts of America...Most of what Hitler did was not even known to the general public until AFTER the war was over. they were VERY careful about what their people saw and heard...because his PARENTS (just like 90% of the other parents in Germany) did not see this coming and move out of Germany, leaving a lot behind...

Then perhaps I am in the dark, who were those thousands of people we see on film at the rallies? With Krystal Nacht, anti-Jew rhetoric and rallies we can still watch on film, and the yellow stars of David being worn by people as their rights and humanity were methodically destroyed, the Nazi agenda was pretty clear and very much out there. Synagogues through the country were looted and burned. Jewish businesses were shut down and / or destroyed. The whole Jewish population disappeared. Didn't see it coming?


...Brooklyn man, you have to relax!

I'm getting the message - thank you. But, I believe that silence equals concurrence. This Pope might want to plead ignorance or helplessness because he didn't know. It was all right in front of their faces and they denied its existence.

All the jews who were looking for help, all the communists being rounded up, all the academics, the gay community of Berlin - all seeking sanctuary and looking for someone to help - I'm guessing some people posting on WiredNY would have dismissed their "rants" as conspiracy nonsense.


...Focus on what he is doing now and leave his OBLIGATORY childhood duties out of this.

This thread is posted to focus on what he is doing now. Since I was the initiator of the thread, I christened it with a name I thought appropriate given this wholly unique aspect to his papacy. There is no evidence to contradict that he has a Nazi past.

Ninjahedge
October 10th, 2005, 02:45 PM
IMO the most important point about the above article: If Ratzinger / Benedict cannot be honest about his own moral failings in the past -- really honest, not making excuses -- then that puts him in a very weak intellectual position regarding the moral judgments he is making now.

Don't get me started on the whole precepts of the Catholic church and the hypocritical nature of its core followers.

It does him no good whatsoever to address in any way anything that has the word "nazi" attached to it. We all know this. We seem to have a problem with someone who really has no desire to talk about something that they really did not have any hand in or place in other than what most people had at that time.



But for those who served in the German services, a lot was known ...

From the article above:



Yeah, come on, the guy was just following orders when he was guarding slave laborers.

So why are we even focusing on the damned boy scouts? Why was that even brought up if he served as a military man? Why are we picking on everything?

Was he a member of the death camp guard?
Was he a commanding officer?
Was he part of the SS?

We seem to like to group any evil into one large group and treat ever person that ever even smelled it into the same group of people we love to hate.

His unwillingness to talk about a lot of these things is understandable. If he has anything he is truly hiding, God will sort it out.

Until then, lets try to focus on the facts rather than hate messages?

Ninjahedge
October 10th, 2005, 02:48 PM
Brooklyn.

Is he a Nazi now?

Nazi is now a derogatory statement. You know you are pretty much calling him something that many take on par with eing a murderer or rapist.

Using it like you are is unfair and you know it. You are whipping up the froth again. You know that was used by Himmler to forment hate against "them" and make their acts more acceptable to the general public.

Do not use the same name calling and spite as they did and say that you are somehow allowed to because of the items that you are expousing.

Hate is hate. You should know that by now.

Ninjahedge
October 10th, 2005, 02:56 PM
PS.


NYAA!

:p

ZippyTheChimp
October 10th, 2005, 03:13 PM
Since I was the initiator of the thread, I christened it with a name I thought appropriate given this wholly unique aspect to his papacy. There is no evidence to contradict that he has a Nazi past.
You once sent me a PM complaining about the inflammatory threads opened by an occasional visitor to this forum. I agreed and it led to the innocuous directive I placed at the top of this forum. It seemed to work.

That directive applies to the entire political spectrum. Despite my own ambivalence toward the papacy, I immediately sensed that the title you chose for this thread would be inflammatory. I let it stand because the first threads addressed the first article posted, which has no relationship with the title. There are several posts in this thread that address the pope's involvement with Nazism, and they are relevant to a discussion of Vatican policy.

Threads are opened to provide information, and encourage discourse. The title Nazi Pope Edicts is not about discussion; it is about you screaming your views in the face of those you may disagree with you.

It seems that my initial reaction was correct; this thread is now about you and your title. You could have chosen better. The title of the article you posted would have been perfect.

The error was mine; I'll fix it now.

ryan
October 10th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Nazi is now a derogatory statement. You know you are pretty much calling him something that many take on par with eing a murderer or rapist. "Nazi" still refers to a historical reality - one that is tied to the current pope. It is not (only) being used as an arbitrary insult.

Ninjahedge
October 10th, 2005, 03:54 PM
"Nazi" still refers to a historical reality - one that is tied to the current pope. It is not (only) being used as an abitrary insult.

Why do you insist on namecalling ryan?

You have done this elsewhere too. Please show what you feel is good or bad about the curent papacy and leave the "Nazi" talk to the Republicans.

BrooklynRider
October 10th, 2005, 04:17 PM
You once sent me a PM complaining about the inflammatory threads opened by an occasional visitor to this forum. I agreed and it led to the innocuous directive I placed at the top of this forum. It seemed to work....The error was mine; I'll fix it now.

I can't deny that. Thank you.

Jasonik
October 10th, 2005, 04:33 PM
Perhaps an inspection of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) is in order.

Fabrizio
October 10th, 2005, 05:01 PM
Brooklyn:

"Tell me more about the liberal example Italy sets for the world. This seems to be, in my estimation, censorship. It must be a very liberal and free society - a bastion of open ideas and freedom of expression - that bans pictures of your very own Pope. So, offending the RCC in Italy is a crime? No wonder you have b een conditioned to accept them blindly and profess their benevolence."

I try not to suffer fools but....


Again you have no idea of what you are talking about. Are you able to read and interpret? To reason? The article you posted says one of Itay's right wing partys (AN) calls for the shutting down of Indymedia.org and the banning of a photo of the Pope with nazi images.

What else is new?

It does NOT say that the site or photo was banned. Re-read it. ( just as your first article DOES NOT say that politicians can be denied Communion).

http://italy.indymedia.org/news/2005/04/782557.php

There probably are obscure laws on the books with jail sentence and fines for offending the Catholic Church. Are they put into effect? Nope.

Brooklyn: I'm also pleased to see that your trollish thread title has been corrected. While it might be fine for the type of websites you consult for info and reseach, it really taints the NYWired forum.

lofter1
October 11th, 2005, 12:26 AM
Perhaps an inspection of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) is in order.
From now on I will just pretend the man in question never served in the German military in WW2.

I will also pretend that he is infallible.

BrooklynRider
October 11th, 2005, 01:08 AM
UN prosecutor says Vatican aiding war criminal

ISN SECURITY WATCH (21/09/05) - The UN’s chief war crimes prosecutor for the former Yugoslavia, Carla del Ponte, suggested on Monday that Croat war crimes suspect General Ante Gotovina was hiding out in one of the country’s Catholic monasteries and blamed the Vatican for aiding and abetting a fugitive.

“I have information he [Gotovina] is hiding in a Franciscan monastery and so the Catholic Church is protecting him. I have taken this up with the Vatican and the Vatican refuses totally to cooperate with us,” Del Ponte told the British Daily Telegraph.

She said the Vatican could determine Gotovina’s exact location within a few days, but had failed to cooperate with the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Del Ponte had apparently decided to publicly chastise the Vatican after her growing disappointment over the Roman Catholic Church’s reluctant to cooperate.

On Tuesday, Croatia's Catholic Church denied it was sheltering Gotovina and said it had no knowledge as to his whereabouts.

“We reject the accusations of Carla Del Ponte against the Holy See and the Catholic Church in Croatia,” Church spokesman Anton Suljic told reporters.

Suljic took his statement further, publicly attacking the ICTY chief prosecutor.

“We believe that they [accusations] bring a whole series of unacceptable theses, which are unusual even for colloquial conversations, not to mention such a high institution that she represents,” he said.

The Catholic Church in Croatia has made no secret about its sentiments towards the retired general who is wanted for war crimes against Serb civilians in Croatia in the 1990s. In a recent public statement, Croatian Bishop Mile Bogovic referred to Gotovina as a “hero” and said his prosecution was politically motivated.

“This is not about Gotovina himself, but as a symbol of resistance against Serbian aggression […] the Hague tribunal wants to humiliate Croats, its victims, and its fight,” Bogovic told local media.

General Gotovina, a former French foreign legion officer, is accused of being responsible for the murder of at least 150 Serb civilians and of being in charge of the forced deportations of between 150,000 and 200,000 people in 1995. The majority of Croats view him as a national hero.

In July, del Ponte traveled to Rome to share her intelligence with the Vatican’s “foreign minister”, Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo.

According to del Ponte, he refused to help, reportedly telling her the Vatican was not a state, and thus had “no international obligations” to help the UN hunt war criminals.

Croatian Prime Minister Ivo Sanader said he was at a loss to determine the source of del Ponte’s information that Gotovina was hiding out in a monastery, and said the government had no such intelligence.

“Each prosecutor would like to see the indicted one captured, and we can understand that. But I am not sure if what she is saying is true, or if it just reflects her desires,” Sanader told a press conference in the Croatian capital, Zagreb.

More than a year ago, Croatian police received information that Gotovina was hiding in a certain monastery, but the government later said the tip-off appeared to be false.

Del Ponte has also repeatedly accused the Serbian Orthodox Church of sheltering Europe’s most-wanted war crimes suspect, Bosnian Serb wartime leader Radovan Karadzic.

Del Ponte and Bosnian media have claimed that Karadzic has sought shelter in Orthodox churches in Montenegro and eastern Bosnia, which is dominated by Bosnian Serbs and borders Serbia proper. Church officials denied the accusations, but conceded that Karadzic would be a welcome guest.

As far as Gotovina is concerned, Del Ponte has been pressing Zagreb for months on information on his whereabouts.

Cooperation with the ICTY is one of the conditions for Croatia to begin EU membership talks, which were originally supposed to begin in March, but were postponed after member states decided that Zagreb had not been fully cooperative.

Since then, Zagreb has pledged to raid any monastery sheltering the general, but the Vatican is refusing to assist in determining which of Croatia’s 80 monasteries is allegedly offering him refuge.

(By Anes Alic in Sarajevo)

Fabrizio
October 11th, 2005, 03:51 AM
zzzzzz.....

yawn.

Carla del Ponte is well known here ( she is BTW a Catholic and I doubt that sheīll be leaving the Church anytime soon...). Could this General be hiding in a monestary somewhere in Croatia where he is considered to be a national hero? Yes. Itīs entirely plausable. Forgiveness...redemption...conversion. I can imagine how content the Monks would be... doing their job. Wrong, yes... of course but the Church is about confession and forgiveness. Does the Vatican know about this? Of where he is? I honestly doubt it. The Vatican says that they donīt and theyīve asked del Ponte to work with the police.

For a more even-handed article.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4265694.stm

Fabrizio
October 11th, 2005, 06:53 AM
Ryan: " Instead of insulting and attacking people you disagree with, why don't you explain why you are so uncomfortable with the pope's nazi connections?"

Uh...what are you talking about? Iīm one of the people here who is completely comfortable with the Popes past.

As far as "attacking people" goes: please reread the thread to see who is doing the attacking.

BrooklynRider
October 11th, 2005, 08:14 AM
Yes, Ryan, you will see the progression here:


...This is so stupid and know-nothing, I don´t know where to begin...


redhot00, BrooklynRider’s writing skills don’t always lead him to the truth...Here’s a bit of purest-grade nonsense...BrooklynRider, it’s harder to take you seriously... it just seems the knee-jerk, scatter-shot lashings-out of an embittered soul)...To be fair, you have some company on this forum and among fringe liberals


Brooklyn:...*sigh* (rolling eyes at the idiocy of the above statements)...Heading this thread by calling the Pope a Nazi is unworthy of this forum. It is the stuff of trolls.


...Brooklyn Rider: You are free to post whatever you want, but your comments here and elsewhere have been spiralling toward absurdity; and they are laced with an undercurrent of bitterness....



...It is the stuff of trolls...

For active members here, it is clear where you are pulling this phrase from and the implicit message in your words. Go f*ck yourself.

This is an issue for the moderators....



...The title Nazi Pope Edicts is not about discussion; it is about you screaming your views in the face of those you may disagree with you.

(The post above was made 45 posts in with eleven members engaged in the thread. I had made ten posts up until that time. Two were article postings. Meaning 8 of my posts were opinions and responses. The other 35 posts were by other posters.)


Brooklyn:...I try not to suffer fools but....Again you have no idea of what you are talking about. Are you able to read and interpret? To reason?... Brooklyn: I'm also pleased to see that your trollish thread title has been corrected. While it might be fine for the type of websites you consult for info and reseach, it really taints the NYWired forum.

Please feel free to add any attacks I missed, so we can clarify where the problem is in this thread. I'm pretty sure these are all of the statements in this thread that can be construed as personal attacks on forum members.

I'd support locking this thread.

Ninjahedge
October 11th, 2005, 09:05 AM
Stepping in for a bit here.

Brook, the reason why a thing escalates is because it starts off small, and people start turning it personal.

Fab is always moderately insulting about things he disagrees with, but he tries not to go any further. So it is sort of a moderate evil he is practicing.

But you also have to realize that you are far from innocent in this as well. You know you are stoking the fires and posting articles about a subject that is not in disagreeance with your position, they outright piss you off.

And that os what they were written to do. To create controversy and make you read them, come back for more, and wait for anything new on it.

So, realize that sparks were coming off you before you even came into the barn and just calm down a bit. Only a few people really care who started any of this, but most of us would like it to stop.

Which came first? The chicken or the dog crap. I really don't care. Now don't be a c**k and get that damn crap out of here... ;)

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2005, 09:22 AM
I am not being paid to sit here as an arbitrator; review entire threads; and issue timely, scholarly judgements. Maybe I should ask Edward for a legal assistant.

Your attacks have been more veiled:

Of course, as an Italian you might be extra forgiving, considering your country's alliance with the German Nazi's and Imperialistic Japan. With that pedigree, it is understandable that you have been taught that it was all a big error in judgement and nobody had any choice. But hey, Mussolini made the trains run on time. Italians must miss that.
Forgive me for only the one; I have a 10 AM appointment.

I stand by my statements you have cited, but wonder why you omitted the one where I said:

Fabrizio and Brooklyn Rider: Stop it.
Maybe I should recuse myself as an Italian-American. Oh wait, so are you.

I am tired of re-reading this entire thread, and tired of all the PM's. If I had to make a recommendation to Edward, it would be that both you and Fabrizio be suspended for a few weeks, giving you both time to cool off.

And give me a little more personal time.

I will delete, without explanation, any posts here that relate to this feud, or are personal attacks.

In case anyone is not sure what a personal attack is:

Your comment shows ignorance of the subject. OK

Do you know how to read. Not OK

ablarc
October 11th, 2005, 12:59 PM
A fundamental tenet of Christianity is that the leopard can change his spots. That’s what Paul did. He was once a killer, and he became a saint.

There’s hope for all of us; we don’t have to drag the past around with us. It’s called redemption.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2005, 02:47 PM
Re quoting from the original article:

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, head of the Vatican department dealing with family affairs, denied that Catholics in politics had the option of believing one thing privately while acting in a way which implied another./b]

His comments at a Vatican synod came amid growing debate over the role of Catholics in politics, especially where questions such as divorce, abortion and the rights of unmarried couples are concerned .

They must know that by proposing and defending unjust laws, such as those that don't protect the family (they have) a serious responsibility and they must put right the evil done in order to have access to Communion," Cardinal Trujillo said.

"Can you allow Communion to those who deny human and Christian values?" he added, in a speech to the meeting of bishops from around the world.

The Colombian prelate said the issues he raised were of vital importance in many countries where "ambiguous" stances by legislators were putting family values at "serious risk" .

I think an important question here is whether this statement is indicative of a change in Vatican policy, and whether the Vatican will exert more influence on world affairs.

Unlike Joseph Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) led an exemplary life, marked by courage. The N word can only add to his character.

His papacy was noted for his unwavering stand against Communism, and his regard for the forgotten poor of the world. In matters of Catholic dogma, he was a traditional conservative, and resisted change in doctrine that would more reflect the secular world. I believe that the above quote by a Cardinal would have been equally consistent in the reign of John Paul II as that of Gregory XVI.


The Vatican is playing to these developing catholic communities - the future of catholic influence and populations - rather than to the west, where especially in Italy and Western Europe, it's influence is in the past.
This may or may not be true in Africa, but in Latin America, historically a bastion of Catholicism, it is refuted by the data.

Catholicism has been declining in Latin America for decades. You can Google the info, but the range for most countries is 90% to 70%. Demographers project that if the current trend continues, Latin America will no longer be predominately Catholic by the end of this century.

My opinion as to why this has occurred relates to what I said about the RCC being local, especially to its poor. In developing countries, the church is viewed as the ultimate safety net, a place of sanctuary that would stand against oppression. The church has been tied up with issues of doctrine, while neglecting the needs, spiritual and temporal, of its people. Ironic that this erosion had been taking place under the watch of John Paul II, the most travelled of popes.

What has filled the vacuum in Latin America is evangelical Christianity, because it offers a personal connection to the structure of the faith.

If the article describes the current direction of Vatican policy, it is so far, not much different than the last 30 years, and the influence of the Vatican on world affairs will continue to diminish.

The controversy sparked by the cardinal is an internal Italian affair, no different than the controversy here over the display of religious articles on government property. Any threat to the secular world by the RCC expressed here is overblown. You would do better keeping an eye on those evangelicals running around Latin America.

Fabrizio
October 11th, 2005, 03:48 PM
"Unlike Joseph Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) led an exemplary life, marked by courage"

(An aside: Consider that Ratzinger was the favorite of Pope John Paul.... perhaps there is a reason that a man who led such an exemplary life, held him in such esteem. Becoming a Pope isnīt a beauty contest... certainly he was chosen for some very good reasons.)

"....and the influence of the Vatican on world affairs will continue to diminish."

Many will argue that the Vaticanīs influence on world affairs has grown over the last 25 years.... citing the fall of Communism.

TLOZ Link5
October 11th, 2005, 05:16 PM
In any case, John Paul II was from Poland, a country that was utterly devastated as a result of World War II. So why would he be on close terms with Ratzinger, a German, if he truly were a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi who was directly responsible for some of the carnage of the Holocaust?

For that matter, Ratzinger is actually more popular in Poland than he is in his native Germany. If he had been a Nazi, then his popularity in Poland would make as much sense as his friendship with JP2.

My two cents.

ryan
October 11th, 2005, 05:40 PM
This may or may not be true in Africa, but in Latin America, historically a bastion of Catholicism, it is refuted by the data.

I think that's why we don't have a Latin American Pope - lots of focus, and comfounding growth in India and China.

ZippyTheChimp
October 11th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Quoting myself...

Unlike Joseph Ratzinger, Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) led an exemplary life, marked by courage.
To better explain my point in context:

There seems to be, among some, the belief that the Vatican will embark on a march backward to more restrictive doctrine. Even if particulars about the current pope's youth indicate present day character flaws, the cardinal's statements are consistent with papal doctrine during the reign of his predecessor, whose character had not been suspect.

I doubt much will change within the RCC over the next few years. At that may have been the point of the election of Benedict XVI. A man at the head of a 2000 year old worldwide organization for more than a quarter century dies, and a successor must immediately be picked.

Maybe this is just a breather. The pope is 78, the oldest elected in 300 years.

ablarc
October 12th, 2005, 12:01 PM
Interim pope. Then what?

It'll be intersting to see.

lofter1
October 12th, 2005, 12:05 PM
Ask Pat Robertson: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7517

ryan
October 12th, 2005, 05:26 PM
In all seriousness...

http://liberalserving.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/palp.jpg