You can say that for a lot of people. That doesn't exempt them from debate or scrutiny.

He was 18 when he served in the infantry. Other people his age fought in the resistance. He did not, because he was a coward.

How could you possibly know his reasons for choosing not to join the resistance?

we wasn't 18 he was born in 1927, in 1943 (when he was 16) he left in 1944 while he was still 16. the war ended in May 1945, he wasn't a coward, he and his family stood up against the Nazis and hid americans inside their own home. YES HIM TOO not just his family. by the end of the war he was 18 but had been a POW since mid-late 1944

Yeah it helps of you read up on Pope Benedict's early life before making assumptions about him.

*if you

Fair enough, Brewmachine, he might just have been pro-Nazi, and didn't join the resistance because he believed in the Nazi cause.

pill, you're wrong. Check the footnote again. He deserted his post in May 1945. That would make him 18. And they didn't "hide" Americans, the Americans were occupying. The Americans set up their outpost in May 1945. They marched him out and took him prisoner in May 1945. The Americans were in control of what happened there, so you can't infer his preferences from that. But again, so what if he was glad to see the Americans? The fact is he didn't desert until the end, and he never fought in the resistance. Other people his age did fight in the resistance. Therefore he was a coward (or pro-Nazi).

I suppose Oskar Schindler was pro-Nazi by your definition to. After all, he was a war profiteer and German businessman. Pope Francis was a scared boy forced into the Hitler Youth at 14 by law. He was scared for his life at 14. And even if he did become a regular German soldier, that doesn't make him a Nazi anymore than being a US soldier today makes one a democrat. The Nazi party was in power but soldiers are just soldiers. Unless he was an officer and carried out Hitler's wishes (which he clealry wasn't) you can't him him a Nazi any more than a Frenchman who didn't becmoe part of the French underground resistance could be called one. There is an in-between area where one can be anti-"RegimeOfTheMoment" but not in a position to do anything about the regime in power.

@gavrilop - He was drafted each and every time he served. He was an "enlisted draftee" making him a German soldier involuntarily, but not a Nazi soldier (they didn't have to draft the goosestepping Nazi believers as those morons who were pro-Nazi went willingly and were made officers). So he served because, yeah, a fear of summary execution after you have seen a handicapped family memeber taken away for treatment and then informed said person died leads one to realize the fucktards at the top would just as soon kill you. Call it cowardice if you like. I call it self preservation and will never degrade a man for choosing a path of life.

gavrilop - the flaw in your logic is that you believe every German soldier was a Nazi. The German army, for the most part, was not mostly made up of Nazis, at any point in time. The SS, the Gestapo, yes. But the regular armed forces? Not overwhelmingly. That's like assuming every American military service member is a Republican.

@GF - Democrats are in power so it would be assuming every member of the US Armed Forces was a Democrat. :-) And I thought I already said that.

I said he was a coward. I could be wrong, maybe he wasn't a coward, maybe he was pro-Nazi instead. But if he didn't like the Nazis and didn't fight against them, he was a coward.

Schindler is complicated, but maybe he did all he could. Benedict did not.

The objection that he was not a Nazi coward is noted. I amend it: he was just a fucking coward who served the Nazis and did not do what he could to oppose them. He could have joined the resistance. Lots of people did. He did not. Lots of people also did not, and none of them should ever be elevated to the station of Pope. I don't wish that he died. But he's a coward and it's disgusting that the church selects people like him to lead.

He was a teenage coward. So there is no redemption in your eyes? If you claim to be a Christian (and particularly a Catholic) then you are a fucking hypocrite and if you aren't a Catholic, then it is none of your fucking business who they elevate to what position.

"Schindler is complicated, but maybe he did all he could."

No, he did not. He could've armed his Jewish slaves with black market weapons and launched a heroic (pointless, and suicidal) attack on the nearest Wehrmacht command post. But he did not do this. Clearly, Oskar Schindler was a coward who could have and should have Done More. He should be condemned by all who have our sense of moral superiority, (perceived) perfect hindsight, and flippant disregard for circumstances.

Hey gavrilop, are you an American?

There can be some redemption. I wouldn't object to him being a professor or a producer or even a priest. But not the fucking Pope! And since the Catholic hierarchy does advocate for legislation which affects non-Catholics, everyone gets to make public comment about their despicable hierarchy.

Gandhi didn't fight against the British, but does that make him a coward? Its possible to oppose something without fighting against it, and even if you don't fight against it, you aren't necessarily a coward.

"He could've armed his Jewish slaves with black market weapons and launched a heroic (pointless, and suicidal) attack on the nearest Wehrmacht command post. But he did not do this."

But did anyone else do this? If we're comparing Schindler to a standard which no one else achieved, then it's a moot point. German soldiers did join the resistance against the Nazis though, and that's what Benedict is being compared to. He did not do what others did.

That's why he's a coward. Not because he didn't meet an arbitrary standard made up by you, but because he failed to do what history unequivocally demonstrates was possible.

To skip to your other point, I shouldn't be the fucking Pope! There are more morally qualified Americans than myself.

I don't recall saying that fighting was the only kind of resistance possible. What Gandhi did required some bravery. What others did, under Gandhi's leadership, required even more.

Those people did as much as anyone did to oppose the British, and what they did was successful. Good for them, and that's commendable. Other Indians who did not join up with the resistance are not so commendable.

You keep speaking of 'the resistance' and the fact that lots of people of his age and situation joined this resistance. I assume you're talking about a German resistance? I'm not an expert on Nazi Germany but I seem to recall that there was no significant German 'resistance' in the sense you seem to be describing. The Nazis were frighteningly effective at destroying such elements during the 30s.

When you refer to German soldiers who resisted the Nazis I'm not sure who you mean as again I've never heard of any significant mutinies by soldiers. If you mean things like the assassination attempts by von Stauffenberg I wouldn't call those a resistance because those involved were largely high ranking officers who acted because they believed Germany would lose the war, not because of some anti-Nazi 'for the people' cause.

"And since the Catholic hierarchy does advocate for legislation which affects non-Catholics, everyone gets to make public comment about their despicable hierarchy."

Bzzzt! Wrong! That would be like saying that because the Republican party gets to put a person on the presidential ballet, everyone should get to vote int he Republican primaries. What the Catholics chooce to do and who they choose to guide them is *their choice*. It is not the Athiests' choise or the Protestants' choice or the Jews' choice or the Hindus' choise or the Muslims' choice... It is the Catholics' choice.

It was common enough that one of the Ratzingers' neighbors hid a resistance fighter, Hans Braxenthaler, in their house. People fought the Nazis. Benedict did not. He could have, but he did not. There are other things that would be commendable too. If he had helped hide Jews, we would not be having this conversation.

"That would be like saying that because the Republican party gets to put a person on the presidential ballet, everyone should get to vote int he Republican primaries."

Some states do have open primaries. But what I said would actually be like saying:

because the Republican party gets to put a person on the presidential ballet, everyone should get to comment about the Republican primaries.

And that's what I'm doing. Criticizing the Catholic hierarchy's shitty choices. Not Catholics at large, by the way, the laity gets no vote except with their feet. But everybody gets to comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Resistance_to_Nazism

Please read the section on Resistance in the army and note that it ended in 1942, when he was 15 years old. In 1944 and 1945, there was *no* resistance against the Nazis in the German armed forces as the SS had pretty much wiped out any insurrection.

"Schindler is complicated, but maybe he did all he could."

He definitely didn't do all he could. Didn't you see the movie? Remember the big moral climax at the end where he says, "I could have done so much more!"

I never said the resistance operated only within the army, or that the only form of acceptable resistance would be organized from within the army.

Hm... The Communist hordes are advancing from the East. They're going to rape your mother and sisters when they get to your town, execute the mayor in the public square, expropriate any property your family has, and conscript you into service in their army (where you may well die fighting your own countrymen). Every night, British and American bombers rain death upon nearby cities, killing thousands every day. They say they will not stop until your country surrenders unconditionally - many believe this means that the country will be broken up into bits and run by foreign overlords.

Faced with these circumstances, is it really so obvious that the only moral thing to do is to turn your back on your family, your friends, your country, take up arms against the only government you've ever known in your life, and make common cause with the invaders? Especially when the punishment for anti-government terrorism is well known to be summary execution?

And yet some did, Tolstoy. Those who did not shouldn't be the fucking Pope.

"There can be some redemption."

Okay, how much redemption can there be? Is there some method for figuring out if God has redeemed a person 30%, 60%, 98.2%, or what? Is there some standard for how much redeemed you have to be to attain certain positions? "We love your resume, but it seems you're only 67.3% redeemed from the sin cowardice and 84.8% redeemed from lust, so you can't be a bishop..."

Not a Catholic myself, but if we can't be redeemed from the sins we committed before we were 20 years old - sins we may have committed under the duress of one of the century's most oppressive regimes - what hope is there for anyone?