A new Pope has been chosen
- Thread starter Missy "C"
- Start date
He was in the Hitler Youth.
Don't worry, he didn't join by choice. His family were anti-Nazi.
"When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth , but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until he deserted in April 1944 (an offence punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger
Don't worry, he didn't join by choice. His family were anti-Nazi.
"When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he was required by law to join the Hitler Youth , but according to his biographer John Allen he was not an enthusiastic member. In 1943, at the age of 16 he was, along with the rest of his class, drafted into the Flak or anti-aircraft corps, responsible for the guarding of a BMW plant outside Munich. He was then sent for basic infantry training and was posted to Hungary, where he worked setting up anti-tank defences until he deserted in April 1944 (an offence punishable by death). In 1945 he was briefly held in an Allied POW camp. By June he was released, and he and his brother (Georg) entered a Catholic seminary."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger
)Here's my thoughts...
I wondered why they chose someone at such an age to be pope. Like SicC says they'll be needing a new one soon.
I think a younger slightly more modern Pope may have been beneficial in making Church and religion more popular and more relevant. But I think they wanted to keep the Pope the same as before. Ratzinger is basically a clone of John Paul, he shares the same ideas and ideals. And I wasn't really a supporter of them. He, like John Paul II, has a strongly traditional interpretation of the Catholic faith, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, priestly marriage and women priests.
I believe with modern society and the way the world is these days that these "interpretations" of the religion are outdated and inpratical. He strongly opposes modernisation and reform of the Church.
This is one of the reasons I am not a supporter of religion, and nor do I follow a religion. I belive everyone has the right to live their life however makes them happy, as long as they don't hurt anyone. What is more wrong? A homosexual in a consenting stable relationship, or a Priest who has vowed celibacy and takes out his urges on his choir boys and upcoming priests against their best interests? I know which one I'm against. Not that I'm saying all Priests do this. But Priestly marriage would help and shouldn't be considered wrong.
I also believe in equal rights and wouldn't be against female priests. As for abortion, again it is a free world, it isn't murder by law and it should be down to your moral standards as to whether you feel what you're doing is right.
I wondered why they chose someone at such an age to be pope. Like SicC says they'll be needing a new one soon.
I think a younger slightly more modern Pope may have been beneficial in making Church and religion more popular and more relevant. But I think they wanted to keep the Pope the same as before. Ratzinger is basically a clone of John Paul, he shares the same ideas and ideals. And I wasn't really a supporter of them. He, like John Paul II, has a strongly traditional interpretation of the Catholic faith, including opposition to abortion, homosexuality, priestly marriage and women priests.
I believe with modern society and the way the world is these days that these "interpretations" of the religion are outdated and inpratical. He strongly opposes modernisation and reform of the Church.
This is one of the reasons I am not a supporter of religion, and nor do I follow a religion. I belive everyone has the right to live their life however makes them happy, as long as they don't hurt anyone. What is more wrong? A homosexual in a consenting stable relationship, or a Priest who has vowed celibacy and takes out his urges on his choir boys and upcoming priests against their best interests? I know which one I'm against. Not that I'm saying all Priests do this. But Priestly marriage would help and shouldn't be considered wrong.
I also believe in equal rights and wouldn't be against female priests. As for abortion, again it is a free world, it isn't murder by law and it should be down to your moral standards as to whether you feel what you're doing is right.
"He who enters a Pope, leaves a Cardinal" is what they say about favourites for the Papacy. That is, unless your predecessor packs the Vatican with like-minded reactionaries willing to elect a man who heads the successor to the Inquisition, and who would excommunicate all those holding pro-abortion views if he could. Still, at 78 years old, hopefully he'll last more like a John Paul I than a John Paul II.
btw I call me old fashioned but I am just a tad suspicious of a 78 year old German...
btw I call me old fashioned but I am just a tad suspicious of a 78 year old German...
Looks like it..but how many religions change a lot? I mean...Pittsey do you believe in God? And if you don't do a lot of ppl around you go to church? Im saying this cuz I think the people don't need church ne more..only when a tsunami or something hits..ya know when something bad happens..than everybody runs back to church..Church do you think it still something that is part of pplz lifes? I think not...
I think it doesn't matter that much ne more...The pope is just a symbol...Nothing really important I think...It's all about the traditions neway..so when you say they are happy with the way things are right now I agree...cuz it is all about tradition...
I think it doesn't matter that much ne more...The pope is just a symbol...Nothing really important I think...It's all about the traditions neway..so when you say they are happy with the way things are right now I agree...cuz it is all about tradition...
I agree that religion isn't considered necessary anymore. And I believe it is the fact that religion hasn't changed. It is still stuck back in times of old. It needs modernisation. If religion was more entertaining it would help, who wants to sing old hymms. Why isn't there new music? Who said you have to sing old music and read old stories? Gospel is great music. But that's a whole other story.
Also when I was young I was told Christianity was all about love, tolerance and forgiveness. Yet when I grew up I found it was more about control, hypocracy and bigotedness.(sp?)
Everyone that has posted in here who is Roman Catholic raise say, "Aye."
*silence*
I'm assuming that none of you are Catholic because of the apparent ignorance to the situation.
Electing the Pope is not the same as electing the President or ruler of a nation. Age is not, and should not, be a factor. Just look at the United States. We have two main parties (Democrats and Republicans) who have two different views on how to run the country. How many parties does the Catholic Religion have? The Conservative Catholics who oppose abortion with picket signs and the Lberal Catholics who just speak out against it?
Do you see my point? This is one religion with one set of views. You don't elect someone to make Catholic reform, you elect someone to enforce the beliefs of the religion. Thus, you elect the man who can do this the best, whether he's 78 or 28. The Catholics think about now, not 10 years from now.
And to one mc on dj, you need to start taking a bigger interest in world affairs. The Pope is more than just a figurehead - he plays a major role in international affairs, influencing the policies of the greatest nations. Even the United States, which didn't have a Catholic President in John Paul II's entire reign.
*silence*
I'm assuming that none of you are Catholic because of the apparent ignorance to the situation.
Electing the Pope is not the same as electing the President or ruler of a nation. Age is not, and should not, be a factor. Just look at the United States. We have two main parties (Democrats and Republicans) who have two different views on how to run the country. How many parties does the Catholic Religion have? The Conservative Catholics who oppose abortion with picket signs and the Lberal Catholics who just speak out against it?
Do you see my point? This is one religion with one set of views. You don't elect someone to make Catholic reform, you elect someone to enforce the beliefs of the religion. Thus, you elect the man who can do this the best, whether he's 78 or 28. The Catholics think about now, not 10 years from now.
And to one mc on dj, you need to start taking a bigger interest in world affairs. The Pope is more than just a figurehead - he plays a major role in international affairs, influencing the policies of the greatest nations. Even the United States, which didn't have a Catholic President in John Paul II's entire reign.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.