nabeepchen

Given that Joseph Ratzinger’s ascent to the papacy was greeted with extremely mixed reactions (about half of those waiting to hear the news at the Vatican did not cheer or even clap, and some walked away when he started to speak), there is no doubt that some people are going to attack his past.

As much as I find this man’s views highly offensive ( even his name “Rat” says something), his interlude with Nazism was nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So let’s clear the air. Yes, he joined the Nazi Youth at age 14, but that was pretty much standard for every German child. If you didn’t join, then you fell under suspicion, and this might have meant dire consequences for him and his family.

Second, he was in the German army. He was drafted, like every German male who was able to stand and breathe on his own. He was an anti-aircraft gunner, defending the city of Munich. Defending civilians. Now, I just read that he deserted the German army towards the end of the war. That I hold against him, because he was defending civilians and trying to keep enemy planes from bombing homes, ie, killing children, the elderly, and so on.

So was he a coward? I don’t know. I guess he had his reasons for desertion. Maybe he was going to be sent to the Russian front, who knows.

But at any rate, Ratzinger’s life during those awful times was nothing to be ashamed of. And anyone who condemns him for joining the Hitler Youth or being drafted into the German army, please tell me what you would have done. Please tell me that at age 14, you would have been a member of the underground; you would have been putting together a plot to kill Hitler; you would have packed your bags and sailed to the U.S…yadda yadda yadda.

Now, if it comes to light that Ratzinger sleeps with a copy of Mein Kampf under his pillow every night, and is planning on reopening Auschwitz and Sachsenhausen for homosexuals, upitty women who use birth control, and liberal priests, then we have something to worry about. If he’s planning on organizing a holy army to march into the terrority of “heretics” and “cleanse” the land of nonbelievers, then we have a problem.

He did say that the church was full of “filth.” Was he referring to pedophile priests who have infiltrated the church like bands of cockroaches? Was he referring to corruption in the Vatican? Or was he referring to the modern and liberal views of an overwhelming number of clergy around the world, or those Catholics who are divorced, use contraceptives and gasp–may have even had an aborton?

It is important for him to define “filth,” if he doesn’t want to get tagged as being having Nazi-ish viewpoints.

But for now, he seems to be just a silly old man who’d prefer to be living in the year 1088, when the Church had real power over the population.

Out of every single Cardinal that could have been selected, what emerges is a reactionary who seems hell-bent on returning the Church to those glory days of the Crusades and Inquisition. Oh, and women. Breeders they shall be, forever more. I imagine that if men could become pregnant, then birth control would be a sacrament.

Here’s a very brief history of some of the “highlights” in Cardinal Ratzinger’s career, from the BBC:

Cardinal Ratzinger has been head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition - since 1981.

He has described homosexuality as a “tendency” towards an “intrinsic moral evil”. During the US election campaign, he called for pro-choice politicians to be denied Communion.

Great guy, huh. Just what the 21st century needs, a man entwined in narrow, outdated doctrine.

And speaking of “intrinsic moral evils,” I would love for the new Pope to go visit a Catholic family living in dire poverty, one preferably with several malnourished and sickly children (maybe even one or two dying of malnutrition); with a mom and dad who labor for pennies in a factory or as farmworkers; and tell this family to “keep on breeding.” That it is a sin for them to control the number of children that they have. No matter that mom is worn out from childbearing and malnourshed herself. No matter that they can’t feed, clothe or educate the ones they have.

Better yet, threaten them with ex-communication if they dare to visit that new clinic that opened up down the road. Tell them that God will love them better if they just keep producing kids, and that they will go to hell if they dare try to control their family size.

What does an old celibate man, living in the lap of luxury, know of such things?

Or, let’s send the good new Pope to Africa, and have him speak of the evil of condoms. Especially to the married women whose husbands are HIV positive. But holy father, one of the women might ask, what should I do? My husband will beat me if I refuse sex, or throw me out? A condom is a good compromise.”

Will the new pope tell her that it is better to submit to her husband, and it is “God’s will” for her to become infected? Or will he tell her that a little beating is better than committing a sin by using a condom? Or will he tell her that it is better to be cast aside–but in which case, she can’t actually divorce her husband because that’s a sin too.

Of course, I could be wrong about the new Pope. Maybe he will have a revelation and see that he is really the one who is sinful. Maybe he will be haunted by the ghosts of “good Catholics” who died because of church beliefs. You know, like the good wife getting beaten up by her drunk husband, but who stayed with him because the parish priest told her that divorce is a sin, and then the husband finally killed her.

Anyway, I see this as a very sad day for the church. I imagine that his reign will lead to more division in the church, more people leaving the church, the continued shortage of priests, and continuing negative views of the church by the world at large.

The church’s viewpoints of women have always been rather sickening. John Paul II, although he was still very conservative, began to embrace the idea that women were entitled to a life beyond the kitchen, and out from under their husband’s thumb. It was hoped that a new pope would take these ideas further, and begin to embrace a larger role for women in the church, and at least open to a dialog on subjects like birth control and divorce.

But I highly doubt that Cardinal Ratzinger is going to be the one to do that. Maybe he’ll even reinstitute witch burnings.

Isn’t it interesting how Bush is willing to meet with groups who support capping medical malpractice payouts, but has repeatedly refused to meet with patients who have been actual victims of malpractice? Surprised?

Anyway, just in case you happen to be in our fair capitol on April 20 (incidentally, that’s Adolph Hitler’s birthday–just thought you’d want to know, and how fitting for the occasion), you may want to come and listen to hear patients tell their side of the story.

Victims of Medical Negligence Will Be On Hand to Tell Their Stories at the Capitol at 1:30 pm on Wednesday, April 20

Patients Will Ask AGAIN for White House Meeting that has been Repeatedly Declined

On a day when doctors will travel to Washington, DC to lobby in support of President Bush’s medical malpractice proposal, patients who have been harmed by medical negligence will be on Capitol Hill at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 20 to demand a meeting with the White House and to tell their personal stories. The White House has repeatedly refused to meet with patients – but it has agreed to meet with groups who support limiting patients’ rights.

WHO: Patients injured by medical negligence

This is an email from my cousin, that was sent to me and about a million other people. She is very political, very motivated, very involved, and very very worried about the state of things in our nation.

Now I don’t want to start getting heavy into politics, and try to limit my foray into Bushism and other ananities only as they relate to health. But my cousin’s elegant worry monologue is about health–some of it obvious as she refers to reproductive rights and the holier than holy pharmacists who think that they have a right to deny care (I will write more about that one, never fear)–and some of it not. Basically, though, all of her concerns are about both our mental and physical health, and the overall health of our nation. If people continually fall into the cracks, if Social Security is no longer there for our elderly and infirm (Bush thinks that minimum wage employees are going to start keeping stock portfolios!), and our environment is increasingly degraded in the name of profit–then we all suffer.

So here are her worries. They are mine as well, I have to say.

I worry that:
*we’re giving up checks and balances with the so-called nuclear option being rammed through by Senator Frist. Right wing judges will hasten our worries.

Isn’t there something we can do?