As soon as I saw the white smoke -and well before the new pope was announced- I predicted it would take some moron 2 hours to whine about the choice of pope. I apologize to the Wizbang readers for underestimating the stupidity of some on the left.
I dont know much or anything about him BUT that he was a Nazi or a member of the Nazi party. How does he stand on issues and how far back will he turn the church.
From there the bashing continues. For the record it took about 120 seconds. I’ll still take 2 hours for the first organized group whine.
BTW Look out for words like “lost opportunity.” As in, “The Catholic church had a great opportunity to open itself up to a broader base. They could have supported premarital sex, adultery and abortion on demand but they lost that opportunity when they selected someone who actually believed in the teachings of their own religion.“
h/t/ ARC
Updates:
More
Sully is upset he didn’t endorse gay marriage.
Bill K, in the comments, got offended that I underestimated Catholic bashers and set out to prove 2 hours to be an optimistic prediction.
It’s a great day to be a Nazi!
The best thing we can hope for is that this will be the “worse” in “it’s gotta get worse before it gets better.”
If we’re lucky, Pope Ratfucker will be even more reactionary, orthodox, and fascist than he has been in the past.
And then they wonder why people say Democrats are hostile to people of faith.
Update OK OK It was 1 hour… I’m sorry.
“We need changes in the Catholic church and this guy is a Neanderthal,” Bono, 50, of Chicopee, said. “I honestly thought they’d grab somebody who would get away from the conservative, European thinking about what’s going on in the world. I was hoping they’d bring in a young guy with an open mind. This guy has some baggage.”
Of course Bono has no baggage of his own…
OK everybody quit picking on Bill…
We call it a TKO and stop the bleeding now.
Kudos Paul, you predicted that people on the internet would oppose/disagree/complain about something not long after it happened. What’s next, predicting that next election people will disagree with the outcome? That people will say the next version of windows to be released sucks? That the sun will rise in the morning? Enlighten us, oh seer of much that is unseen!
And btw, is this is so offensive to you, please tell us what topics people can complain about on the internet, and what length waiting period should be observed. 24 hours for religious matters, or longer? If I want to complain about the Mormon church, do I wait for less time or more than if I want to complain about the Catholic church? How bout druids?
One thing in this guys excuse regarding the Nazi party, German youth were required to join the Hitler Youth, and while some 14 year olds may have had the ability to stand against it, I think that is a huge responsibility to expect of most of them.
I would like to seem he address the issue of the Holocaust, Germany and the Catholic Church, something I think JPII did a good job on, but his anti Nazi history made that easier I think.
I think liberals can probably find other things to complain about (his staunch conservatism for one thing-I don’t see any women or gays or even married men being approved for ordination by this man or any changes in the churches pro life stances) than what the man did during WWII.
Okay Bill. You’ve shown again what a mental midget you are. Let’s recap:
First, you said:
And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.
Then, you said:
Regardless of reasoning, which I have made clear was not of his own choosing, he was a member of the Nazi Army.
Now, you whine that:
The rest just turned into stupidity as I tried to defend myself from a barrage of misinterpretations.
Where is the misinterpretation? You said he was a member of the Nazi Party, not the Nazi Army. Can you see the difference? Let me spell it out for you:
A member of the Nazi Party would be a supporter of the beliefs, practices, and goals of the Nazis and Hitler. A (conscripted) member of the Nazi Army who deserted his post would be the opposite of that, i.e. a person who did not support the beliefes, practices, or goals of the Nazis and Hitler.
You have been properly taken apart for your insistence that the vitriol quoted by Paul in his post is a fact. It is not. Hopefully you are no longer confused.
As for the question in the post, that you cannot see it for what it is – it is not a well meaning question regarding the direction of the Church – is more evidence that you need to leave this subject alone and quietly fade into the background before you embarrass your self any more.
Bill is dead:
Time of rhetorical death: 3:13 PM
[i]Your right Faith + 1 the Church has always only been okay with homosexual sex if it is between a priest and an underage boy. They obviously haven’t changed at all.[/i]
Oh please. What an immature response. Not even well thought out. You seemed better than that…apparently not.
BTW, I was raised Catholic–no longer am–in reality I’d best be described as “born again agnostic”. The Faith+1 is not a religious reference but one mocking established religions based on a South Park episode.
So, I wouldn’t describe myself as a fan of the Catholic Church. I have a lot of problems with it including the one you mentioned.
Even with all that I am not surprised by their choice at all. I understand the mindset completely. It is apparent you don’t. It isn’t a “lost opportunity” to reach out in their eyes because they don’t accept your premise they should be any different at all.
To even think the Church would bother one second over what the left side of the world thought about their selection just shows to what level you are ignorant of the Church and the way it operates. To be surprised by their choice is simply stemming from an ill-informed, ignornant understanind of their religion.
To offer a comparison…it would be like me claiming to be shocked the Democratic National Party wouldn’t select Jub Bush as their next candidate in order to reach out to the majority of Americans who voted for his brother.
Hey Mantis,
Maybe its stuff like: “Pope Ratfucker”.
Just a guess.
Well Paul that quote you put up is definitely out of line, but it was merely a comment. The main post on the site read:
Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.
Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.
The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn’t have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he’s likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.
Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don’t call him a Nazi.
If you think it is fair to criticize a party based on the absolute nuts, then fine, but I hardly think it is impressive.
ummm, make that “Jeb Bush”…fat fingers…
Sorry, the italics didn’t come out right. The whole post is from the first italic to the last use of the word Nazi. Or:
Today has seen the third papal election in my lifetime. There are many reasons to criticize the election of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, like his stances on women and gays in the church, social issues, his work in crushing liberation theology, his comments in regards to the priest sexual abuse scandals, and his generally conservative views.
Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.
The man is 78 years old. He was 18 when the war ended. He is of the right age group where you were required by law to join the Hilter Youth. Membership in the Hitler Youth by no means made you grow up to be a confirmed Nazi, although that was certainly the intent. Belonging to a Luftwaffe AA battery is also not a sign that he was a Nazi; had he been a fanatical Nazi, not only would he have volunteered for the Waffen SS, but he wouldn’t have deserted in 1944. That desertion in itself is not an unremarkable act. They still shot deserters at that time. Being in the German Army does not mean that you were a Nazi.
There are plenty of reasons to criticize this pope and the policies he’s likely to enact. Unfounded accusations are unfair, and will only serve to give the wingers more ammunition.
Call him conservative, call him reactionary, call him old, call him surly, call him the wrong choice. Just don’t call him a Nazi.
Now that the crew is finsihed humiliating Bill…
(not that he didn’t do most of the heavy lifting himself)
So: What do you guys think of him? Ratzinger, I mean.
For me, between the increasing politicization of the Western church and the Charismatic movement in the South American dioceses, a good dose of Germanic discipline may be just the thing. First step: Inform the Jesuits that the words “seminary”, and “gay bars” do NOT go together…
BTW, Paul, there have been many absolutely ridiculous comments that support radical right positions made on this website. I don’t think just because they were put on a major rightwing website that they stand for the views of you or the party.
Calling him a Nazi, however, is unfounded and unfair, and only serves to demean us.
Then why did you do it Bill?
If you think it is fair to criticize a party based on the absolute nuts, then fine, but I hardly think it is impressive.
Who was it that said they “own” the Democratic party now?
Couldn’t have been the nuts at MoveOn.org could it?
Thanks, clueless. I didn’t mean to call him a Nazi as in one who supported the Nazi beliefs. Only that he was drafted into the Nazi army – – sorry for the confusion. I used Nazi party and army as the same, and that was my mistake. It wasn’t breed from a misunderstanding though. And, as others have requoted me, I corrected the mistake in subsequent posts.
If Paul had a quote similar to that of the one he gleaned from Kos that was made by a MoveOn.org email he would have a legitimate post to write.
I would put the chances of a quote like that coming out though right at about the chances of the 49ers winning last year’s Super Bowl.
One part of current culture will never be the same again with the revelation that some in the Papal staff have referring to the new Pope as:
PAPA RATZI
Ba-da-boom! Seriously, as for what the Church needs to be working on: I’m not Catholic, but here are my observations:
(1) Get to the bottom of the sex abuse scandal. Sorry to say, this is one area where the critics have been largely in the right. The Pope has got to initiate an investigation to pin down who was involved and what their roles are. And, issue an edict that the Vatican is absolutely not a hideout for lawbreakers.
(2) Figure out just what the Church’s position re the Iraq war really is. Of course, the Church is going to express regret whenever war occurs; to not do so would be inconsistent with its teachings. However, some of the things coming out of the Vatican over the last two years could have come right out of DU: America is the enemy, Saddam wasn’t a bad guy, Americans are intolerant, etc. Pope JPII never really laid out a position, and left the field wide open to loose cannons of all stripes to speak on this issue on behalf of the whole Church. Quite a few Catholics were deeply offended by some of the Vatican’s pronouncements concerning the USA’s role in the world last year.
(3) Related to the above point, Pope Benedict needs to work to purge all traces of “liberation theology” from the Chuch. So-called liberation theology is nothing more than Marxism in a Biblical guise. Some priests and cardinals in certain areas of the world, particularly South America, have pushed this philosophy and effectively put the Church in unholy alliance with some of the world’s worst dictators. Fortunately, most of them are gone now, but the philosophy remains. Note that this isn’t a matter of liberal-vs-conservative, of women priests or any of the other issues that we tend to argue about; it’s a matter of the Church getting in bed with out-and-out thugs. The Church could improve its credibility instantly by showing liberation theology, and its advocates, the door.
Bill K,
It figures you would assume my intentions when I asked the question of your religion. I just want to know where you are coming from because it gives a little perspective to your arguments. If you are not Catholic than your opinions really don’t matter. That’s all.
So how long are we going to hear about his being a former nazi from all the libbies? (when it was compulsory and in his youth).
How about your beloved Senator Byrd who was a klansman – (and a leader in the klan) in his adulthood and totally by choice.
Catholics picked a pope who will (gasp) uphold traditional Catholic teachings. Oh my god! Alert the media! (oh wait — they are the ones complaining)
Sigh.
To clarify, your opinions wouldn’t matter when it applies to Catholic Religious Doctrine, i.e. the choosing of the new Pope and that Pope’s beliefs.
BillK
“select someone that not only bleed Catholicism, and stood by the words of their God, but also reached out to others of the world in a respectful instead of totalitarion manner.”
Yeah, that’s why the ADL is praising him for just that very thing – idiot.
Am I the only one who noticed the uncanny resembelance to Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sidious?
http://www.thegreatsatan.com/palp.jpg
Sorry Dan, haven’t been able to read every news release about the guy. Almost everything else paints him as one who doesn’t like to be questioned.
I’m going to comment simply because it is fun to speculate on this topic and my words will have no lasting value anyway. The newly elected Pope is a much older gentleman and a conservative idealogue who is a long standing Vatican insider. I think he was elected because he is familiar, his ideology is clear, he will have a short term with little chance of a major impact. He is just the man to serve as Pope while the world still absorbs the impact of the charismatic John Paul II. My understanding is that JP II was a great evangelist with little talent for the day to day adminstrative duties of the Vatican. Maybe it is necessary to take a breather and see where the chips fall after John Paul II’s tenure before so quickly electing another rather young, energetic man to compete with a legacy the impact of which is still evolving.
Cousin Dave,
1. from the perspective of faith, I am quite well satisified that we are at the bottom of the scandal. time to focus on the unreported sexual abuse scandal in your own church.
2. the Catholic church’s position is quite clear – it opposed the Iraq war.
3. it depends on what you mean by “liberation theology.” if you are talking specifically about its application in central america, I suspect the church will continue to distance itself from Marxist ideology. if you are talking about the general idea that the church will work for social justice through reforming governments, that isn’t going to change. it is a core belief among catholics that works are required, and the moral justification for John Paul’s opposition to communism.
Pope JPII never really laid out a position, and left the field wide open to loose cannons of all stripes to speak on this issue on behalf of the whole Church.
Anyone who knows anything about the Catholic Church (should) know that just because someone is “stationed” at the Vatican, it does not mean they speak “on behalf of the whole Church” about anything.
From what I understand, Pope Benedict XV worked to unify the different factions within the church into one cohesive unit. His choice of Benedict XVI is an interesting one. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI was a close friend and confidant of JPII will definitely help him if he wishes to also help to unify the church factions who want the church to split one way or the other, especially attempting to unify all the western non-attending Catholics from the eastern/latin Catholics who have more conservative and staunch views.
All “bashing” aside, I think he is a good choice for the next Pope.
here’s a short biography of Benedict XV (1914-1922)
Not only that, Pius X, the Pope who predecessed Benedict XV, was a staunch anti-modernist. Benedict XV was more of a modernist. It makes me wonder why Ratzinger chose that name…anyway…
Oh and by the way, when you say “Pope” and call him by name, please use the name he chose as Pope, not his given or family name, please
It’s Pope Benedict XVI, not Pope Ratzinger (wavemaker)
Thank you, Henry, for calling that oversight specifically to my attention.
All this liberal shaking with anger about the Pope, and I never wrote a thing here. Amazing.
And, (while) Cardinal Ratzinger has always been my hope and prayerful preference for Pope to follow Pope John Paul. It now is clear that he’s been the favorite to many others, also. I am exceedingly pleased and grateful for Pope Benedict XVI. Right man for the right reasons at the right time. Wonderfully academic, among other great qualities. I’m exceedingly grateful this day.
The core of this entire issue is being missed, danced around, ignored, whatever:
Catholics believe that within the conclave, during all that prayer and reflection, the Holy Spirit leads the cardinals to elect the man whom the Lord has already chosen to lead the Church.
For crying out loud, give the man a chance! A very short conclave like this is exceedingly rare…a fact that suggests to me that the Lord wasn’t going to take no for an answer. I don’t particularly care what the liberals, left, MSM, American “cafeteria Catholics,” etc think about Benedict’s election…Josef Cardinal Ratzinger IS the Pope now, and God willing, he will be for years to come. If you’re a Catholic, you believe with all your being that God has a plan, that He IS in charge. If you’re not, that’s your loss and frankly what you think about Benedict doesn’t matter.
So there.
Well put. The choice is a divinely inspired choice. Our very human feelings about the man, whether con or even pro, are quite secondary to the fact. He is the Pope and that is therefore good.
Ratzinger looks like a man in good health, despite his advancing years. god willing, he can continue to shepherd his flock for many more.
wavemaker, I’m not sure if you are mocking me or are sincere…I’ll err on the side of sincerity…you’re welcome.
I’m sure your probably not the only person to call him Pope Ratzinger, you were just the first I saw.
McCain: I’m not a Catholic basher, and if my last post came out sounding that way, I apologize. I’ll admit I’m not up on the latest on the sex abuse scandal. My comment was based on seeing a report (you tell me if it’s correct or not) that there is a priest, wanted for questioning in the U.S., who is evading subpoena by remaining in the Vatican.
My comment on the church’s stance on the Iraq war was not based on the fact that they opposed it; it was based on the reasons behind that opposition. As I said before, I can understand the Church’s opposition to war in general. My concern is based on some statements that came from a certain cardinal saying words to the effect that Saddam should have been left alone and America was an evil, bigoted nation that was attacking Iraq solely due to religious differences. My overall perception was that the Church was responding reflexively: they opposed it, but they couldn’t explain why.
As for my church: As far as I know, there is no sex abuse scandal, ongoing or otherwise, in the United Methodist Church. (Scandals involving the UMC’s support for every leftist group under the sun are another matter.)
Cousin Dave, the Catholic Church in America for sure ISN’T the only church to have had priests who sexually abused their flock. I bet it happens in other churchs too, but for some reason, in sue-happy America, it’s the only one to get caught, and then the only one to get WIDESPREAD MEDIA COVERAGE.
Dave, I’m not disrespecting your church, but there may be a few ministers who have done it, it’s just not public info.
Not that I’m condoning it in any way, nor am I condoning some of the shuffling around that happened to hide it…