|
I have to disagree with someone I rarely disagree with. A few days ago, Max Sawicky cautioned people talking and writing about the new pope to "lay off the German/Nazi/Inquisition bullcrap" and then, the next day, to avoid "near-hysterical attacks that dwell on his youth in Nazi Germany.". From a practical political standpoint that may be wise. It doesn't pay to antagonize people unnecessarily. It's also a matter of simple honesty and fairness. The way some people use it, the "Nazi" epithet suggests anti-Semitism or fascist sympathies that the former Cardinal Ratzinger shows no indication of having, or ever having had. Throwing around that kind of insult is not just politically stupid, it's wrong, and if all Max means is stop the cheap shots, I'd agree. Ratzi's no Nazi.
Nevertheless, I think talking about the pope's past is -- from a moral, if not a political standpoint -- not only fair, but essential, because the way he interprets that experience says a lot about the direction the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is moving in, and why so many people, inside and outside the Church, are worried about it. Some conversation about this topic has been going on in the comments of two previous posts, and so I apologize if this is somewhat repetitive, but it's something I need to expand on.
| |
