Blunders and Blessings
Posted on May 14th, 2009
by Freddy Gray |
|
Judging from some of the reported reactions to Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to Israel this week, one might be forgiven for imagining that the pontiff had publicly denied the Holocaust and admitted to Nazi sympathies.
In truth, of course, he did the opposite. He cut a dignified and humble figure throughout the trip. And At Yad Vashem memorial, he said: “May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten! And may all people of goodwill remain vigilant in rooting out from the heart of man anything that could lead to tragedies such as this!” Hardly mincing his words.
But he did not jump through the various PR hoops that the media had set up for him. He did not apologize for Christian anti-Semitism, denounce the war-time Pius XII as a closet Nazi, discuss his own forced service in Hitler Youth, or repeat his regret for the damage to Christian-Jewish relations caused by his lifting of the excommunication on the holocaust-denying British Bishop Richard Williamson. Thus the headlines reported Jewish “disappointment” and “anger” at Benedict’s insensitivity.
No doubt plenty of Catholics are distressed, too, to see yet more PR bungling from the Holy See. (Fr Federico Lombardi, the Vatican press spokesman, unhelpfully decided to announce at a Jerusalem press conference that the Pope had “never, never, never” been in the Hitler Youth. This is false.)
But it is not altogether surprising that Pope Benedict neglected to play the media-spin game. In fact, he had reminded reporters before leaving Rome this month that he is not a politician. He does not regard papal pilgrimages as opportunities to polish the Catholic brand. As John Allen puts it, he “seems to believe that occasions for grappling with the deepest and most painful mysteries about God’s plan require something more from a pope than good image management”. Exactly.
PS. Here’s a good piece from my old colleague Simon Caldwell debunking some of the often-hurled calumnies against Pius XII.
Filed under: Uncategorized
People really need to grow up about the Hitler Youth thing. From 1936 to 1945, all German boys (at least, those considered “Aryan”) were required by law to be members of the Hitlerjugend starting at age 14. Joseph Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941 and was accordingly enrolled whether he or his parents liked it or not.
To be a German during the Third Reich must have been quite painful for many people. You might loathe the Nazis and have nothing against Jews, Gypsies, or other groups the Nazis were intent on exterminating, but that didn’t necessarily mean you wanted your country to lose the war. Yet it was impossible to support the war effort without in some sense supporting, or at least to some degree collaborating with, the whole Nazi program. It is a grotesque and infantile oversimplification of the situation to simply dismiss everyone who may have fought for Germany or been in the Hitler Youth as an evil monster. But in today’s world most people seem incapable of anything but infantile oversimplifications of everything.
Clarification so you can escape from the mass-media clap-trap: Bp. Williamson is not a “holocaust” denier. He does not deny the Nazis killed a lot of Jews on purpose and is disgusted by that, but what he does deny is the number that were exterminated as is commonly accepted. His “figure” is below a million. So for that, he’s a holocaust denier. Poor fellow for actually questioning a number that seems far-fetched from a layman’s perspective. One can be appalled at a mass murder but question the number killed (was it 100 at Columbine or 15?). I believe his intention on the whole matter was to provide perspective on the entire number of people (of all races and religions) killed during that grotesque periond.
I have a lot of problems with the office of Pope (I think it’s un-Christian to centralize spiritual power and authority in that way), but I do find myself liking this one.
His speech against Israel’s walling of settlements had a beauty and a moral clarity that I don’t think any other major world leader (temporal or spiritual) could have produced. He says the following:
He is acting as a prophet. It’s awesome to see. Telling the truth as he does, and telling it so well, it’s no surprise at all that he is a divisive figure.
I will close my computer repair shop at the end of this month, and take retirement, maybe a couple years earlier than I would have planned under a sensible economy (Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushs, except when the dems got ahold of 43’s economy, that last year and a half).
I lost a house under Carter, and now a business under Obama. (If you feel the need to say negative things to me, and your comment has the word “BUSH” in it, my reply is, OH YAWN).
But I will be comfortable, I think, on my retirement, the house and autos are pretty well paid for, etc.
But it is a time of life for reflection, about the country, and about religion.
In the late 70’s, maybe early 80’s, somebody that I didn’t know put a little pamphlet into my hands. It was a letter from a “Fr Pio”, asking that I join his group to pray. We were gonna “melt the bear”, which was described as Russia. Like most sensible people, my reaction was, “Yeah, right.”
But I had a feeling, and I prayed, and I told “Fr Pio” (in my thoughts) that I’d join up. He had explicitly said in the pamphlet not to try to join any other groups, and go to NO meetings. So I prayed for a few years for the “melting of the bear”, more or less daily, in the privacy of my own mind.
It was through tears, somewhere there in the early 80’s, that I heard, one day, on the news, that the Soviet Republic was indeed “melting”. Totally unexpected. I had not expected a dramatic result in my lifetime.
How does one explain to an angry lib-atheist about prayer? I know that when I pray, I will not violate the neighbor’s belief in the laws of probability. I know that prayer does not give me “magical control” over the laws of nature. If GOD is eternal and unmoveable, then my prayers do not alter “Him”. My prayers do NOT MAKE ME ANY BETTER than the neighbor.
By the same token, how dow we explain to a non-Catholic what a POPE is? He’s not the AMBASSADOR, in a political sense. He’s not the PRESIDENT, in a religious sense. (Technically, he has stepped into the shoes of PETER the apostle, as one aspect of the embodiment of the Christian Church on earth). He’s a guy who prays (FOR and WITH us), and sort of like the supreme court, he interprets the law for those of us who feel the need to have him do so. And, of course, historically he is the head of a state, the Vatican.
I am not speaking to/for Freddy Gray, nor claiming greater knowledge of this subject. Simply reflecting. And for those not sympathetic to what I have said, or who do not understand, I also could not explain why US morality is melting away, and why we are in for some hard times. And maybe these next few generations will find their way back, or maybe this a more-or-less permanent decline like the British Empire. Maybe we will shrink down into an angry, fussy, little country, “ever so tolerant”, and ripe for the picking by whatever strong and fresh marauder may come along.
I will be dead before the path becomes clear, but I have a sense that Obama will be more reviled by history than Nixon is.
I never cared for Benedict, and have tended to be a bit suspicious of his motives.
Just as I am of those who make their political progress by throwing crap at our country.
TomT, You comment is touching and much appreciated by this person at least. I hope that you are not retiring from commenting. If I had known that your previous comments came as a manifestation of devout Catholic feeling I would have understood them better.
The Pope’s message on this latest trip is being muted because a PR campaign is being run against him to squelch his message and manipulate US Catholics. When I realized that and got past my anger, I listened to him very closely indeed and was touched by his message.