The pope and Hitler Youth (Benedict’s words)

I think that we should support the Pope. Christ is risen! Alleluia! Alleluia!

I regard the speech Pope Benedict gave yesterday regarding peace to be one of the most profound statements about the subject I have ever read. For those who have the ears to hear it, it addressed the primary requisite for peace in this troubled land -- or any land, for that matter.

As for the newspaper's response to his speech at the Holocaust Memorial? It seems that there is a loud and angry appetite on the part of some to see the Pope grovel. Should he? Could he possibly grovel enough to satisfy that spirit?

The evil that produced the holocaust is not unique -- it lurks in all our hearts and not just German Christians who lived during the Nazi era. It is that evil that the pope was addressing, and critics can dismiss it as banal, but it isn't.

It can safely be said that young Ratzinger was only following orders.

The pope always seems to be reading every public word he utters. Who writes his speeches and does he ever publicly speak extemporaneously?

I do believe that Joseph Ratzinger was never involved in any Nazi organization, and so we should let that rest. However, as a German who has great influence, I think it's imperative that he issue a heart-felt formal apology to all the families of all those who were in any way hurt or killed by Germany's regime during the war. It would be a wonderful sign of reconciliation. As a descendent of full German heritage, I sometimes wonder if any of my ancestors were members of the Nazi party. It grieves me to think that there is a possibility that members of my own family could have committed such atrocities. How many other Americans with German ancestry have thought the very same things over the years but, like me, have never wanted to check? What can any of us do to help people regain their integrity?

Because of the media circus that never seems to seek (or want?) clarity on the matters of his "personal past, his comments, his actions or his inactions" the great misfortune will be that what "Benedict the teacher" seeks to say will never be heard.
Is it simply 'random' static or is there maligancy at work?

John Allen equates ‘being a member’ of Hitler Youth with ‘being in’ the Hitler Youth. Membership in the HY was a matter of government policy: after 1941, every 14 year old boy's name was automatically enrolled, no questions asked, no consent requested. Being in the HY, what Lombardi is talking about, is a matter of attending meetings and participating in activities. As it is clearly pointed out in the article, the young Ratzinger refused to attend any meeting. Therefore, Lombardi’s comments were true. Ratzinger was never in the HY.
What I find deeply disappointing is that journalists look at this situation with concern and suspicion, ending up manufacturing a new conflict or controversy, which actually does not exist. Why not looking at this event as witness to virtue? Instead of pointing out (perceived) 'inconsistencies,' why not pointing out that a 14 year old boy had the courage to stand up against a totalitarian regime and say ‘NO’ to its demands? Anyone who ever lived under such regimes knows what it means to do such a thing. Most 14 years old of today cannot say ‘no’ to their peers, let alone standing up to an oppressive regime. Add to this that about the same time a cousin of Ratzinger (about the same age as he was) was killed by the Nazis because he was disabled. Why not reflecting on the moral fortitude of a 14 year old boy, who was facing psychological trauma and danger to his life for choosing right over wrong, as opposed to evaluate his past with suspicion?

Pope Benedict was a registered member of Hitler Youth. Many good and decent Catholics feel that his former position as the Vatican watchdog of dogma, prior to his becoming Pope, carries a history of right wing positions and narrow thinking which brought many theologian's careers to an end. His actions were shameful. He is a man who never should have been elected the
Bishop of Rome. This period of the Church's history will be remembered for its' witch hunts and therefore will be one of its' darkest and most un-Christ-like periods before the People of God take back the Church and reshape it as Christ intended.

I wish people who were not in WWII and have not been subjected to the Nazi regime would stop make stupid comments on being in Hilter Jugend or the like as Communist Party under Stalin. THERE WAS NO WAY OUT OF IT don't think you could escape it. Life was very difficult that time and not all german Youth was behind Hitler.

THE TELEPROMPTER READER - Bob Demers in the blog above writes: "The pope always seems to be reading every public word he utters. Who writes his speeches and does he ever publicly speak extemporaneously?" For a moment I thought Bob was referring to Barack Obama, the slickest teleprompter reader in the world. But Bob wold never criticize the Messiah. Criticize the Pope? Yes.

While I believe that Pope Benedict deplores the Nazi philosophy, I also think his upbringing must have shaped in his thinking in some ways. I remember watching a program on the Hitler Youth on the History Channel right after reading the "Instruction on the Ecclesial vocation of the Theologian" written by Card. Ratzinger. I was shocked by how similar in language the credo of the HY was to this instruction. Both of these instructions would instruct us to "suffer in silence" if we dare disagree!

When Ratzinger was elected pope, the issue of Hitler Youth surfaced.
A contemporary of his, in the same village, also went on to become a priest.
He claimed that one could refuse to join the HY as he did. There were consequences for not joining. But Josef Ratzinger didn't dissent & has become pope. The other priest, courageous, if the facts are true, did refuse and subsequently never ascended the hierarchy.
If this be true, Josef Ratzinger didn't exhibit any courageous in his youth. Unfortunately, Germans, in toto, have been models of docility to authority.

Why doesn't the pope get rid of that old fumbling trouble-maker and replace him with someone who is competent in the field of communication?

Are there any Cardinals who elected Benedict as Pope now wondering "What did we do here?" So many mistakes, so much foot in mouth.
The Pope and Father Lombardi fail to realize there is a 24 hour news cycle; news travels in microseconds around the world. The church needs a competent P.R. office, not the bumbling going on now. Father Lombardi tries to split hairs with the press about the Pope's Hitler Youth experience rather than getting it out once and for all. But this is only the tip of the Vatican ice-berg of incompetence and arrogance. What's next? What's the next embarrassment?

Father Lombardi does seem to have a difficulty with precision. But, that is the Vatican's way. A common theme in Rome regarding papal health in previous decades runs something like this: "The Pope is in perfect health, until just after his death".

In their defense, however, the Holy See has not been known for its ability, or desire, at public relations until the most recent papacy and the Holy See is trying to find its voice without its "Great Communicator". Under Pope John Paul the Great, we had a pontiff who had impeccable timing, profound public presence, and knew precisely what to say and how to say it. He had the "chops", if you will, of an actor, which he was in prior to his ordination. But, prior to John Paul the Great, the Church had a pope, Paul VI, who was shy and reserved, rarely speaking in public unless he had to. Blessed John XXIII was a cheerful, joyous man, attracting a great deal of attention, but a man who rarely gave the type of public addresses that we have come to associate with the Roman Pontiff. Pope Pius XII of happy memory was also shy and reserved. I can continue on...

The point is we are comparing Pope Benedict XVI with John Paul II and, on the issue of public relations and sheer stage presence, it is a comparison that will always find Benedict lacking. The Holy Father is a teacher, a theologian and a scholar. John Paul II was a pastor, an actor and a poet. They are different men, with profoundly different styles. The fact that Benedict XVI is even continuing John Paul's pilgrimages (albeit at a slower pace -- remember, he is almost 30 years older than John Paul was when he was elected!) is remarkable, given that, historically, popes rarely ventured further into Italy than Castel Gandolfo. Benedict understands that, in order for him to be the universal pastor of the Church, he, like John Paul, must be present to his flock. But, we should also remember that, unlike John Paul, this type of public presence is not a natural talent of Benedict's.

Having said that, I do believe that the Holy See needs to improve its PR machine. The gaffes do not do much for the Church's public presence. While I am not a conspiracy theorist, I would not be surprised to learn that some in the Curia take delight in the Holy Father's public foibles and act to exacerbate them. We would be foolish in the extreme to believe that everyone in Rome agrees with Pope Benedict's decisions and directions. I believe that there are some in the Curia who would be all too eager to see him fail, just as there are some who post right here on this website who are equally delighted when he stumbles.

As to the Hitler Youth, it is a documented fact that the Holy Father's family was profoundly anti-Hitler. Joseph Ratzinger, at the age of 14, was enrolled in the HY without his permission or that of his parents. He had no choice, yet he did not attend meetings and did not participate in the organization. This entire issue is a non-starter and the only reason it continues to be brought up is because the Holy Father is a German and he is orthodox. It is a form of stereotyping and it is offensive in the extreme.