Few would dwell on the pontiff’s days decked out in leather shorts and a nazi arm band if it wasn’t for the rather disagreeable persona that has dogged him ever since.

That’s the problem – his earlier adventures (taken in conjunction with his latter day pronouncements) are seen as symptomatic of there being something inherently wrong with the man?

I await the insults with interest.

Technically the catholic Church has no problem with someone simply being homosexual – it’s the having sex they object to, which is regarded as a sin (which actually makes a prohibition on homosexual priests completely illogical, but there you go).

Arguing that it’s innate doesn’t really hold much water logically – you might naturally have a terrible temper, but it doesn’t mean that the RC Church wouldn’t consider it a sin for you to stab someone in a rage.

The criticism of Ratzinger as ex-Hitler Youth is indeed problematic, given how hard it would have been to avoid. Criticism of him as Red Pope [1], on the other hand, is harder to dodge. He was the head of the Inquisition and the cardinals elected him to the White Pope’s throne. Is anyone really surprised that the leading advocate for fundamentalist, pre-Enlightenment dogma within the church is, well, acting like it?

[1] There are three; the Black Pope is the head of the Jesuit order, the Red Pope is the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition) and the White Pope is the Vicar of Christ, most commonly called the Pope.

Actually I think even you are asking a lot for someone growing up in a totalitarian state to even know that there was something compellingly morally objectionable about the Hitler Youth or even the Nazi regime.

The perceptions of a 14 year old would mostly have been formed by unremitting pro-Nazi propaganda and peer pressure. The fact of the holocaust and other crimes would not have een apparent (indeed, the holocaust was only getting started at the time).

Ratzinger’s father was fiercely anti-Nazi but who knows whether he voiced his opinions at home? He may have kept quiet for fear of endangering his family.

Great comment. Though given the immense costs of dissenting, I don’t think Ratzinger has much to be ashamed of in that regard. Dissenting would be superogatory perhaps, but not obligatory. I broadly agree with you though.

Yes, Ratzinger didn’t have sufficiently strong beliefs to effectively commit suicide by opposing the Nazis in 1941. It’s hardly a damning indictment of him, is it? If you hold that against him, I hope you hold the same feelings towards 99% of the residents of the Axis countries who were alive then, not just those who managed to become Pope.

No idea what you’re wittering on about with your second paragraph. Nowhere have I said I agree with the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality or the Equality Bill. It was you (and Dave Osler) who brought up his involvement with the Hitler Youth, even though it’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

We are clear, however that Ratzinger did not have sufficiently strong beliefs to decline membership – as a 14 year old boy one can perhaps forgive the old homophobe for his lack of political will back then.

But what cannot be attributed to the ‘victim’ role subsequently adopted by the pontiff after his brief flirtation with the fuhrer are the anachronistic and embarrassing papal pronouncements he has made in adulthood.

That’s pretty central to the liberal view of justice, isn’t it? A second chance?

The fact that Ratzo is a homophobe doesn’t mean he bears the weight of the Holocaust on his shoulders.

I don’t think the Nazi jibe is fair either. He was clearly not a fervent member, doing as little as possible and seems to have tried to avoid meetings etc. Worth noting that he deserted the German army too, although this was right at the end of the war when it was obvious the Germans were going to lose.

Nonetheless, Ratzinger could have refused to enroll – and he could’ve refused to serve under the Nazis, too. A small minority of people refused. He wouldn’t have been able to continue his tuition (being ineligible for financial support he needed), and may even have been sent to a concentration camp. It’s easy to understand a 14-year old not having sufficient mettle, or faith, to make that sacrifice. Nonetheless I hope, but can’t guarantee, it’s what I’d have done.

We can understand his actions as a teenager, but shouldn’t excuse them. I would personally like him to be more open, and transparently pentitent, about his past. I don’t think he has a duty to do that – I can see that why he might think it’s between him and God, and now forgiven – but I think it would be helpful.

“Well, the pontiff has already made one howler siding with the Nazis, but perhaps we can ascribe that error of judgement to his relative youth, now he’s having a go at the gays, is it because he is an old fart – or, does he think, like OH, that being gay is tantamount to being a paedo?”

- Erm, he was *conscripted* into the Hitler Youth, dimwit.

Like I say, the Nazi jibe is a cheap shot in a pretty piss poor post from Dave Osler.

You utter, contemptable twat.

I’m not so sure religious beliefs can be so easily traded for political benefits.

You’ve been watching too much West Wing mate.

Well, the pontiff has already made one howler siding with the Nazis, but perhaps we can ascribe that error of judgement to his relative youth, now he’s having a go at the gays, is it because he is an old fart – or, does he think, like OH, that being gay is tantamount to being a paedo?

- This is really cheap Dave. For shame.