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…
Paul, you are so right. Benedict will not get a honeymoon. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Benedict receives the same vitriol that President Bush got once he announced he was running for president. There won’t be a honeymoon.
C’mon Paul, you know you can always count on DU to be on the cutting edge of Leftwing Moonbattery.
What gets me is that one wonders why anybody would think that a non-orthodox guy would be chosen Pope. Even the most “liberal” of the cardinals would be too orthodox for most of these people. It’s like complaining why can’t the Catholics be like the Episcopalians… if we wanted to be Episcopalians, we would already have joined the ECUSA.
If it had been Cardinal Arinze who had been chosen, there would have been a “honeymoon” in that none of the MSM would dare be the first to attack a black African Pope. But they would have found out that Arinze is even harsher than our current Pope, and eventually their heads would explode.
In any case, this is going to be fun to watch to see which media person will be the most anti-Catholic.
Paul,
You are correct. I am predicting that Chris Matthews will be doing a peice on “Is this the end of the Catholic Church”. The MSM has had to cover religion for 3 straight weeks without a good negative story. It must be killing them.
After all remember that Cardinal Ratzinger Agreed with U.S. Bishops in Debating On Withholding Eucharist from Pro-Abort Politicians
C’mon Paul. You know that the only Pope that would make the inmates at DU happy would be an athiest, non-white transgendered transvestite anarcho-socialsit.
That, or Dworkin’s corpse. Assuming they haven’t turned her skull into a bong already.
The question that you put in your blockquote isn’t crazy. He will turn the church back – – as he is more a hardliner than John Paul II was. And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.
You can claim that is “bashing”, but there isn’t anything in the person’s statement that is not fact.
As for the “lost opportunity”… making a joke out of honest and sincere complaints from people within the Catholic faith doesn’t really make you sound better. None of the Cardinals would have opened up the “opportunities” you sarcastically enumerate, but there were that could have given the Church a more loving and less dictator like reach.
Here’s a news flash for you Bill…..
The Catholic church selected a pope that was (gasp) Catholic.
Why exactly should we be shocked???
But thanks for making sure your side was represented.
And Bill knows from personal experience that Pope Ratzinger is not a loving man, no doubt.
The Catholic Faith is not a political party. It is not run by politicians who care to “broaden its base” and thereby become a more formidable presence.
Pope John II was as loving and benevolent a leader as the Church has ever had, but he did not waiver in closely hewing to the orthodoxy. Neither should Ratzinger.
If American Catholics want something else, they’re free to go. The Church will be no less strong without them.
I am going to go out on a ledge and say all the Cardinals are Catholic. Call me crazy. So, I would have only been “shocked” had they elected somebody that wasn’t present in the Sistine Chapel.
You shouldn’t be shocked, you should be disappointed. There was an opportunity for the Church to 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.
You can act outraged and point fingers at me being left of center on social issues – – but attacking statements that aren’t infactual so you can feel better about yourself isn’t the way to go.
Benedict XVI isn’t a contiuation of John Paul II, he reversion back to an even far more stricter Church. Regardless of the complaints against John Paul, it was clear he was a humanitarian that opened his arms to everyone, even if he disagreed with them. Benedict’s resume makes one believe that to disagree is to be unworthy of his open arms.
For a church battling image problems lately, save the last three weeks, it is a bit strange that they selected the person they did.
You don’t always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says just because they don’t say exactly what you want Paul. I am hoping nobody has told you that before and that is the reason you leave rational thought at the door and only bring cult like support into everything you talk about.
As a Catholic I know to be true; if a Pope that a liberal or Andrew Sullivan would approve, who would back their agenda, where to somehow ger elected, it would the beggining of a third great schism. As the conservative churches in Africa and Latin America would never accept anything like gay marriage or abortion. This is something that I have not seen noted on by the press.
Paul, you’re right. I’ve always been amused by people who are amazed that the Pope would actually believe in Catholic doctrine, and beyond that, would insist on Catholic doctrine.
It’s churches that abandon their doctrine in order to be relevant (as opposed to timeless) that are really in trouble, i.e., the Episcopal Church.
I love how it is all about abortion and gay marriage. Nobody is asking for the church to put at its head a person that would agree with those two things. That would do nothing but lead to two Catholic churches.
What was hoped for in some circles was a Pope that didn’t outwardly view people with questions about their religion to be dissenters that were only worthy of excommunication.
Bill
Are you being serious or is this satire???
“There was an opportunity…”
You can’t be saying this with a straight face.
Note to Liberals – This is not your day. Can you guys ever be happy about anything that has nothing to do with you? Stick to saving the earth and bush bashing cause that’s all your good at. Geez, Ratzinger is selected and you act like it’s the end of the world. Get a life or STFU.
Bill K,
I was raised as a Catholic and I think the problem most looking for a more “liberal” or “open” Church have is the assumption the Church has a fundamental problem and needs to reach out to a broader audience.
That isn’t the mindset of a large portion of the Church. If anything, their view is the liberal part of the world has a fundamental problem and they are missing an opportunity to “return to the fold”.
Vatican II was not universally accepted by the world’s Catholics.
The world has changed quite a bit in 2000 years. Governments, philosphies, liberalism, conservatism, left wing and right wing have all come and gone while the Church hasn’t changed much and is still functioning. They simply won’t change their beliefs because a fickle world wants them too. They’ve seen it all before….
BTW Bill- reread my reply and yours…. I’m not the angry one.
OMFG, they didn’t elect a Pope who would please the American liberal lefty non-Catholics!
Are these people really that stupid?
But, to quote Coumo,”the conservatives write their message in crayon while liberals use a fine quill”.
Anyone who still uses a quill can’t be that smart — it’s a pain in the ass.
Absinthe drinkin MF’s.
diclaimer — this post is a tribute to skynet, skymart, skybird or whatever that guys name is.
(the views remain my own)
Nice, don’t actually respond just make fun.
So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion? No questions. No debate. No discussion.
Because in no way have I said the Church was insane for doing this, just that I thought it was a bit strange. In no way did I say this would be the downfall of the Church.
That being said there WAS an opportunity to choose a leader who was more inviting than a former Nazi and current doctrinal watchdog.
It is incredible how any opinion different from yours, even if slight, is always met with outrage.
I think they had to make their decision today, because you know the shit would hit the fan if they picked a German pope on Hitlers birthday.
Paul, your whole post is about outrage that somebody dare question the selection.
When the white smoke came from the chimney, you knew a new pope was elected.
When the white smoke came from Sullivan’s ears, you knew it was Ratzinger.
Just as Rall has his Geralissimo Bush delusions, Sullivan will spend his declining years demonizing Ratzinger/Bennie the 16th.
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.
>So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion?
Do you really not understand the difference between a government and a church?
besides I’m speaking of beliefs not actions.
Your = you’re
Paul, your whole post is about outrage that somebody dare question the selection.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
My whole post was about the fact someone would be outraged NO MATTER the selection.
Which BTW your posts prove. thanks.
OOOOH now Bill just gets ugly.
Nice.
When did I say I would have been outraged about any selection? When did I say I was outraged by this selection?
I am frustrated that you can’t go five minutes without ripping on people that say something that differs from your opinion, regardless of how slight.
It is as if questions offend you.
Funny that you ask me if I understand the difference between a government and a church – – seeing as how I am the one that is trying to combine them, right?
I consider that to be unnecessarily sarcastic not ugly 🙂
>>When did I say I would have been outraged about any selection? When did I say I was outraged by this selection?
reread what I wrote.
>I am frustrated that you can’t go five minutes without ripping on people that say something that differs from your opinion, regardless of how slight.
Bill you are the ripping people, not me.
>>It is as if questions offend you.
No, but lack of common sense does.
>>Funny that you ask me if I understand the difference between a government and a church – – seeing as how I am the one that is trying to combine them, right?
Well, yes you did. “So anything your President or Church does should be met with absolute devotion?“
All I know about this guy so far is the homily quoted at Hugh Hewitt’s (http://www.hughhewitt.com/#postid1553). I’m not a Catholic, but that ain’t bad.
As for being a Nazi youth — isn’t the Church all about redemption? Saul of Tarsus was one mean SOB, and look how Paul turned out!
Research is called for *before* offering opinions, so I’m still reserving mine.
Bill maybe you don’t get the point everyone else manages to get….
NO MATTER who they selected (short of Al Franken) they were going to be bashed by people like you.
You couldn’t make 6 posts before the obligatory pedophile priest remark.
Despite your best efforts you proved I was right all along.
Calm down, Ranten. I’m about to nail Bill K’s balls to the wall. Bill, in your very first post, you told this whopper:
And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.
Bill, he was 18 when WWII ended. Want to explain how he could have been a Nazi party member in grade school? True, he was enrolled in the Hitler Youth as a teenager — just like every other teenage boy in Nazi Germany. It wasn’t optional. That is a far, far cry from being “a member of the Nazi party.”
Now go blow, you disgusting pig. We don’t need liars like you here.
Saying you never disagree with two people does mean I think the two people are the same entities. I make it a point to not disagree with my girlfriend or mom – – I would NEVER confuse those relationships.
My point was that you have an inability to disagree with leaders of your party regardless of their positions. Even if those opinions are not stagnate.
As for ripping people, besides you, who am I ripping on? All I said was that there was an opportunity for a different selection.
As for common sense, where am I lacking it? Oh, yeah, I forgot, I am SHOCKED that a Catholic was elected Pope. Hmm, actually, perhaps suggesting people are shocked because a Catholic Pope was elected is, in and of itself, a demonstration of lack of common sense.
Here’s the question, Bill K, are you Catholic? And by that, I mean do you go to church every Sunday?
And if you are a Catholic, then why haven’t you moved on already? No one is holding you to that faith.
Oh, whatever, Dave, I purposely didn’t mention his Nazi Youth term, because I personally don’t think it matters. You are right, it was mandatory.
My point when I stated what you quoted, is that it was a fact that he was in the Nazi Youth, so for Paul to use that as an example of “bashing” the newly elected Pope was off base. Because, ya know, it is true.
This isn’t like a random protester saying Bush is a Nazi, or the right saying everybody who disagrees with them is a Communist or Anti-American. The guy, for whatever the reason, was a member of the German Nazi army. It is a fact, not bashing.
Save your keystrokes, Bill. I’m not interested in anything you have to say.
Bill… Bill… Bill….
From your VERY FIRST post: “And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth”
Now you say: “I purposely didn’t mention his Nazi Youth term, because I personally don’t think it matters.”
What drugs are you smoking?
Cousin Dave: Calm down? I am the soul of serenity!
Bill K.: Watch thy words carefully. Did you just accuse the new Pope of having been in the Nazi army? Was he? If so, was it by choice, or was he conscripted? Does being conscripted by your evil government preclude you from becoming a Pope 50+ years later? Are those who were conscripted to go to Viet Nam now off the list of possible future Popes? See — This kind of thing can get out of hand.
Let us all choose our words calmly (and for believeres, with Christian love, in honor of the Catholics having chosen a new Pope).
PAX be upon you.
Bill, your hand-wringing is just as convincing as girls who want into the boy scouts. There is a CHOICE for those who don’t agree with Catholic doctrine. Just as girls can join the girl scouts, anyone can join a different church more in tune with their personal philosophy. That is easy, and they don’t even go to hell for doing it. What do you care what this private group chooses as matters of faith and tradition?
Oh…my…god, Paul. I didn’t mention anything about it, or rip on him for it, or say anything about it except mention that it was a fact. The only reason I even did that much is because you used it in your original post making it out to be some form of bashing. All I was saying is that the truth isn’t bashing. Did you not just read my post?
As for my religion. So, I am not allowed to be Catholic if I disagree, in any way, with the selection of Pope? Is that what you are saying Mike?
Thanks Bill I’m done.
You’ve made my original point in Technicolor with surround sound.
Anything I would say now would dilute my own point.
Ranten: There was a post on Fox News this morning about it. According to the article, he was drafted in 1941; as I figure it he would have been 14 or 15 at the time. He served for a while in an anti-aircraft battery, but he deserted before the end of the war and escaped to Switzerland. (It didn’t say when this took place.) By the end of the war, the Nazis had conscripted boys as young as 12 for front-line duty
Bill K says:
“You don’t always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says just because they don’t say exactly what you want Paul.”
Bill, I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this to you , but “you don’t always have to vehemently and angrily disagree with everything somebody says” just because that somebody happens to be Paul either.
How do you get through airport security carrying all of that baggage? Let it go, you’ll feel better.
Just to clear something up, Ratzinger was never a supporter of the NAZIs nor a member of the NAZI party. However by 1939 membership in the Hitler Youth became compulsory for all boys over the age of 13. In 1941, at the age of 14, then Cardinal Ratzinger was forced to join the Hitlerjugend. In 1943 he was 16 and like many of his fellows he found himself drafted into the Wehrmacht as a member of the Flak corps. His career in the Wehrmacht didn’t last as by 1944 he’d deserted from the Heer (German Army) while stationed in Hungary.
He was never a NAZI. He was a 16 year old boy who was forced to take up arms and deserted the first chance he got. I’m sorry if that ruins the fun of a few self righteous anti-Catholic bigots, but it’s true. To call this man a former NAZI is not only wrong, it is to display a callous disregard for the truth, and shows a total lack of understanding and compassion for someone placed in circumstances we cannot begin to imagine.
OT — McCain: The Boy Scouts now have a co-ed program called Venturing. Cool stuff!
Bill K:
You can act outraged and point fingers at me being left of center on social issues – – but attacking statements that aren’t infactual so you can feel better about yourself isn’t the way to go.
How about attacking stupid statements that are, actually, infactual? Like this statement some dumbass made earlier:
And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.
Oh wait – you made that statement. Maybe put the Kool-Aid down long enough to digest this.
Joseph Ratzinger was never a member of the Nazi party. Let me repeat that for the slow people: Joseph Ratzinger was NEVER a member of the Nazi party.
Was he a member of the Hitler Youth? Unfortunately, yes. Kind of makes you wonder why, doesn’t it? The answer is: he became a member at age 14 when membership was mandatory. Duh.
So yes, Bill K., when you repeat lies like some kind of mental midget, you will be ridiculed. And deservedly so.
Jeez Bill, I wanna know now too —- are you Catholic?
No. That was ugly. Sarcastic would be something like, “We should all listen to Bill K’s thoughts, he has so much insight to share.”
And for the record, Paul is ridiculing vitriol and lies being spewed about the new Pope, not people with simple “disagreements” as to practices and beliefs. If you equate calling the Pope a Nazi with questioning whether priests should be allowed to marry, you are one gigantic idiot.
This was the comment Paul put in his post:
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.
Now, this was used to demonstrate the “stupidity of some on the left” and the “bashing” of the new Pope. My statement in regard to that was:
The question that you put in your blockquote isn’t crazy. He will turn the church back – – as he is more a hardliner than John Paul II was. And, he was a member of the Nazi party in his youth.
Can people disagree with that? Regardless of reasoning, which I have made clear was not of his own choosing, he was a member of the Nazi Army. Also, are there people here that believe he is not a more hard lining pope that John Paul II? If not, then are you disagreeing that the Church was more strict in the past?
All my original post was trying to point out was that Paul was trying to create anger towards the left by trying to demonize a quote that was nothing but factual.
The rest just turned into stupidity as I tried to defend myself from a barrage of misinterpretations.
That being said, I am still interested to knowing if I am welcome in the Catholic Faith if I live by their teachings but have some question about the selection of Pope. Because, based on some statements, I would have to believe I am not.
I am not getting this desire for a Pope that is liberal in areas like who gets ordained and their pro life position.
Yeah, I am not Catholic, but I like the fact that JPII stood firm on matters of the church, and didn’t choose to wittle away at those things. He didn’t consider the political correctness something for the church to aspire to.
There are a lot of people who aren’t going to like this new Pope, I have already seen nasty comments about him, but I think at least in regards to the churches central beliefs, this man will stand firm.