new Pope

As an atheist feminist I have so many fundamental problems with organised religions per se and even more with catholicism. For all the reasons already mentioned - abuse of women and children, accumulation of immense wealth whilst turning a blind eye to poverty and AIDS, misogyny , blind, unquestioning following .

Hmm, best not get me started.

hairy - he's only Christ's vicar during his papacy, yes. I just feel it is increasingly difficult to explain how ordinary, fallible humans are granted so much power, and this is just one example to make us think. But thatis only my opinion.

grimble - as I understand it he belives condoms should be used to stop the spread of disease. That is a start, I suppose.

Going back to the new pope... I was listening to the World at One today and how it went on about Pope Francis caring about the poor and how he used to visit the poor districts and spend time with the people etc. and help them, I couldn't help thinking that his compassion for the poor would be far more useful and enrich many more lives if it led to the Catholic Church changing its stance on contraception......

I think the solution is to get rid of the theology surrounding the Pope. To adapt, and to give one person less power. To say, no, this person isn't Christ's vicar on earth.

That's just my view.

I do get where you're coming from, btw. I've just been trying to think about it a lot, and what I keep coming back to is that it is fundamentally unfair and irrational - both for the Pope and for the Catholic world - to keep trying to maintain this situation.

OK, but then what is the solution? To not have someone who has any sort of moral quandary in their past be pope? That's not going to happen. There's already stuff about the new pope, and there was stuff about John Paul II. There will always be moral quandaries in everyone's life.

I don't think the catholic church claims that the pope knows inherently the difference between good and evil.

I find it quite odd to be in the position of defending the catholic church, here, by the way! I can't stand religion! But at the end of the day, we have a pope. People believe in God. And since I don't see any of that going away any time soon, I think that whoever we do have should be judged as fairly as possible.

mech - but that's the point. The choice betwen good and evil isn't clear-cut. The theology of the papacy is that this is the one human being on earth who can make those differences clear cut. That is why it is so problematic.

I do know that mech. But it's not the point I'm trying to make.

My issue is that this theology behind the papacy just isn't something that makes sense of atrocities. Maybe it was once, when the world was a lot smaller and more violent and we knew less about what was happening elsewhere, but it doesn't make sense now.

I got taught about WWII by a really excellent teacher who was very keen to explain to us how it was not simple, there were many complications and many Germans who were in hugely difficult positions (as well as many people in the UK who were very anti-semitic). We were taken to listen to a woman who'd been in one of the death camps as a small child, and she told us how anti-semitic her experience of them, later, growing up in the UK had been. How people had told her (when they didn't realize she was Jewish) that Hitler had had the 'right idea' about the Jews.

I think it is all horribly sad, but I do think it really throws into relief how the theology doesn't work any more. How can someone know about what goes on in the world, and not speak out?

But he was a fourteen year old boy! And beyond that, I really don't think they had ANY choice. As far as I've read, their names were automatically stuck on a list.

Dictatorships are so far from black and white. If he resisted what would have happened? His family are persecuted, dragged off to a camp somewhere and exterminated? More catholics are prosecuted because one stood up and said "no"?

Do you really think that people would have said "thank you so much for your moral courage!" I doubt it. I think they'd have damned him. It is very easy to stand here today, with freedom of speech and freedom of choice and say "why didn't someone say something?" But the choice between good and evil is really not always clearcut.

I see what you mean, LRD, but Catholics were persecuted in Germany too. The Holocaust was not purely about Jews.

Nebulous, I haven't, but it sounds interesting. I know that when I was doing GCSE-equivalent German, we watched a video of a modern secondary school. There was some graffiti on a wall that said "Nazis Raus" (Nazis Out). When asked what we thought it meant, the majority said "Yay Nazis" or "Nazis are great" or whatever.

I do think people in Germany were victims - please don't think I don't. And I don't want to pick on it.

But, what I think is important is, this man was a figurehead. He is not an ordinary citizen, and he is the head of a Church which has a really specific theology of sacrifice and witness to the truth. As a person, no, he's not to blame for being part of Hilter Youth. As God's vicar on earth, theologically, I do think the question has to be, was he strong enough to represent all of that? He himself didn't think so. He didn't refuse to be part of Hitler Youth. No normal person would. But, he was the Pope. It's a higher calling. If you are going to subscribe to a theology where someone is given such a huge weight of authority - enough to ban condoms in countries where AIDs is rife, for example - I think you must expect to take the flack with the positives. If he is God's representative on earth, do we really believe that God would not have object to the Hitler Youth? And if we judge him on human grounds as a victim who didn't have the super-human strength to fight that such a small number of people exhibited - are we not then saying something very problematic about the theology of the Papacy?

My issue is not primarily with demonizing members of Hitler Youth and I hope to God that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying, there is a theological problem here, and it is very likely (to me, as a non-Catholic) that the issue is to do with according far too much to an ordinary human being. But it is an issue.

It is appalling (IMO) that we are expected both to treat the Pope as an ordinary human, not an extraordinary saint like those who spoke out against Nazism, and we are expected to accept him as God's vicar on earth.

I think the Catholic church's long history of persecuting any individual or body that opposed them in any way is well worth investigating and challenging both over historical events and contemporary ones.

I don't think it was near-compulsory. I think it was compulsory. As far as I can make out, your name was automatically added to lists. I know this isn't the point of the thread, it's just a bone of contention with me that the people who lived in Germany are not viewed as victims too. People do not blame the women of Afghanistan for going along with the taliban rule, but they are happy to blame the Germans for not standing up to Hitler - and I think that that is damaging and unfair to both countries.

No, that's not why I think it's different.

As I understand it, Pope Benedict did not kill anyone. I am sure that being in Hitler Youth was a horrible and traumatic experience for him, and I am aware he lost family members. It is terrible. I do not think it is the same as being forced to kill your own loved ones, and then many, many, many other people. I just don't.

I don't think it is a matter of judging. I think Benedict was quite a humble man, because it seems he didn't want to be pope right from the start, and I am glad he's got some time to rest now. So I am not judging him as a person. But, I cannot help feeling uneasy about the fact that the Catholic Church - which has a long history of anti-semitism going back way before WWII - elected someone who was in the Hitler Youth. Maybe that is wrong of me. But it's not as if he even wanted to be Pope. So I cannot help feeling they might have chosen someone else. Not as an indication of guilt at all, but just because it would send a better message.

I know I may well be wrong about this. It is quite knee-jerk for me, so probably wrong.

Have you read 'The Book Thief' MT? It altered the opinions of several readers in my class from the simplistic stance of 'All Germans in WW2 were Nazis or victims'

I'd be far less bothered by his membership of a near-compulsory organisation in his teens and more on the choices he's made as an adult.
What has he done in a practical, active sense to improve the lives of the poor in his country which is largely Catholic.

Really? I would like to know how you see the difference, because I honestly can't see one, except in people's perception of Hitler's Germany and everyone in it as somehow inherently evil.

Wow. Is she the queen?!

I do take your point, but I don't think this is about judging, and I don't think it is the same as child soldiers. At all, actually.

Actually, she is LRD. Weird.

My point is that he didn't have a choice. It was the law. Not joining could have meant his entire family being prosecuted. He was a 14 year old boy. People made difficult choices and I think it is very wrong to judge people on things like that. It is like blaming child soldiers for being conscripted, and we don't do that. I hope.

Yeeessss, but your aunt isn't the main representative of a very powerful religious organization (I am guessing).

Mind you, if the account of Pope Benedict's election is true (in the Guardian), he initially said 'no', so I don't think he was an arrogant man. It was just a rather arrogant choice, IMHO.

Mandytm, you know that people didn't have any choice but be in the Hitler youth, right? It was forced on them. An aunt of mine is German and she was in them. No choice.

sorry Annie, seemed like a plus - considering the other candidates

Sadly not, mitchy, would have loved to.

I think I agree with annie. I do hope he will bring some big changes to the role. There need to be some.