The authors of this letter are pretty free with charges of "historical misrepresentation" and "slander" (of course they mean "libel").

They say "the truth is quite different" from what I wrote. What are the instances of such alleged misrepresentation? They say that the Pope faced a concentration camp if he had not participated in Nazi institutions. (What I wrote: "Others, some from young Ratzinger’s hometown, refused the draft and were sent to concentration camps. ... "hard though it might be to hear, one’s duty in such a situation is, in my view, to accept death over complicity " ... "No one from the comfort of a university office is in any position to predict what he or she would have done if faced with a choice between defending death camps and being sent to one.")

They say that his father opposed the Nazis. (What I wrote: "The Pope insists that he and his family never embraced Nazi ideology, and there is a good deal of evidence to confirm this.")

So in two of the three cases of alleged historical misrepresentation I said exactly what I'm claimed to have denied.

They then note that the Pope later deserted the army, after the time of the events I discuss. This at least has the advantage of being something I didn't explicitly note in the article, but I didn't discuss it because it had nothing to do with my argument. (In fact, he left after Hitler's suicide, when the war was essentially over, but that is utterly beside the point.) My argument concerned what later moral responsibility comes with having supported the Nazi war effort and this the Pope did, regardless of whether he stopped doing so. Perhaps one can argue that this was a relevant feature that should have been included, but to call failing to mention something in a 900 word article "historical misrepresentation" is absurd.

The disagreement, if there is an honest one here, is over how to interpret the moral status of coerced participation with systematic evil. We can have that debate, but this shameful misrepresentation of what I said does not rise to the level of debate. It is, in fact, a rather embarrassing effort to prevent such debate from taking place.
Mark Lance

Right on, Prof. Lance! You usually annoy me, mostly because of the subjects you choose to address rather than your opinion on them, but you did an admirable job of debunking this LTE.

One thing that has always interested me about the Hoya is how every semester their editorial standards change -- greatly. Sometimes they assiduously fact-check every assertion made in an LTE, column or Viewpoint before printing it, and other semesters they just allow whatever to go to print without checking back to see whether they're just printing inaccuracies, trusting that corrections and responsory LTEs will take care of it. In this case, it seems like the authors of the LTE would have benefited from having a friend or an editor point out that, as you say, you addressed exactly those things they claim you ignored.

It is quite clear that Prof. Lance has no intention of backing off from his ignorance of Germany in 1945. It was obligatory for German boys to be members of the Hitler Jugend. He had a family who would have been imprisoned had he not accepted that. Did he do anything immoral while a member of that group? Prof. Lance does not say, because he does not know.
His later work with a anti-aircraft emplacement was performed alongside inmates from Dachau. That should give a sense of how free he was to refuse.
Prof. Lance is quite generous with other people's lives to suggest that the young Ratzinger should have chosen imprisonment and death. He would also have had to choose it for his family.
The level of prof. Lance's scholarship is perhaps best exemplified by his reference to two reputable newspapers. "Reputable newspaper" is an oxymoron.

Carl Estabrook in COUNTERPUNCH is more accurate:
"Pope Benedict -- another Kurt Waldheim. Uh, well, not quite. The author of this slime waits until the 9th paragraph, when we are finally told that he didn't have much choice in the matter: 'He joined the Hitler Youth aged 14, shortly after membership was made compulsory in 1941. He quickly won a dispensation on account of his training at a seminary. "Ratzinger was only briefly a member of the Hitler Youth and not an enthusiastic one," concluded John Allen, his biographer. Two years later Ratzinger was enrolled in an anti-aircraft unit that protected a BMW factory making aircraft engines. The workforce included slaves from Dachau concentration camp.'

"In other words, the Holy Father, like millions throughout Europe, was enslaved by the Nazis. But he's a German, and therefore automatically suspect, at least in certain circles. The smears are already coming from all the usual suspects -- for example, Andrew Sullivan hates him for the same reason he hated John Paul II -- because he won't endorse the Sullivanian cult of War and Sodomy. Tough. Let Sullivan and his fellow whiners wail and rend their hair -- this Pope means trouble for the War Party. And to that I can only add: Amen!"

It seems the discussion has been moved to this new location. Alright here I am. I hope Professor Lance at least reads the last post I made there. He seems to be leaning on the "completely catholic" perspective of Mr. Quinn and laments that no one has refuted his ideas on the matter. It has been done.

I still await the proof of your claims that the young Joseph Ratzinger committed a crime. I think we are still wanting to see the post-war documents from his trial. Indeed I would like to know the place where he was tried and convicted. If you cannot or will not provide such proof it is only reasonable to conclude that the only trial and conviction is occurring in your head and exitting your computer keyboard into the realm of the court of opinion.

They call it slander, you call it libel, and I call it calumny. The definition I procurred from the Venerable Louis of Grenada is sufficient for me, so I will use his term for it.

Barb

Gabriel:
Like those who wrote this letter, you call me ignorant, and as evidence site facts that I noted and discussed in the article.
Then, you try to outdo the letter writers, by quoting someone else condemning a third party who made completely different claims about the Pope, indeed ones that I explicitly said don't apply.

Whats next: blame me for assassinating Kennedy?

Mark Lance

The only issue here is, as Professor Lance says, the "moral status of coerced participation with systematic evil". That is, what matters is whether Ratzinger was morally obligated to expose himself and his family to suffering and death rather than be complicit in the Nazis' crimes. Professor Lance thinks Ratzinger's duty was to "accept death over complicity". Perhaps he could sketch his argument for us here. Likewise, presumably the authors of the LTE have some argument as to why Ratzinger's participation was (is) morally justified. Let's hear it. To get them started, let's be clear: that his participation was surely reluctant makes no difference.

I am not Catholic, or a religious believer for that matter. But somewhere along the way I received the impression that it is a matter of Catholic doctrine that the Pope is in direct communication with God. Is this true? I do not ask that snidely. If yes, perhaps we could trouble him to reveal the content of his discussion with God on this matter. Of course, I do not believe such an indulgence would be forthcoming. The Pope already has plenty of pressing concerns on his plate, including explaining why he shelters Cardinal Bernard Law in the Vatican and allows him to serve on the Pontifical Council of the Family, no less. (Law tolerated the sexual abuse of children by his subordinates while Archbishop of Boston.) Another one of these moral issues.

Ian Hinsdale

THanks Ian:
I'll try to lay out the argument a bit more clearly as I appreciate this attempt to deal with actual arguments.

There is a notion in moral philosophy, called "moral residue". Suppose I promise to meet you to help with your exam preparation. It is important because you are in danger of failing. Just before the time comes, my daughter becomes seriously ill and I have to rush her to the emergency room. In this case, of course I should break our appointment, violate my promise, and take care of my daughter. But there is a "residue" from the obligation. A decent person will still recognize having violated a promise. This calls for explanation, apology, and some way of showing that though I did the overall right thing, I did a wrong as well.

OK. Now compare service in the German army. This was, in my view the most evil regime in the history of the world. SOme dispute this, but let's just say in the top 10. The regime was carrying out the systematic murder of 10-12 millions people deemed inferior by their ideology and launching wars of aggression throughout Europe, while forming alliances with the Japanese who were launching wars of aggression throughout the pacific and attacking the US. I doubt any war in the history of the 20th century was as just as the war to end this regime, and with it the holocaust. My Ratzinger says he knew all of this, the nature of the regime, the holocaust, that the war was evil. Yet he participated.

Now I think this case is in a much different category than the promise above. It was possible to resist. People did. They went underground and fought. They engaged in nonviolent resistance. They fled and supported the allies from abroad. Some died for this. Others went to camps. Some had their whole family executed. But I still claim that in the face of such massive organized evil the ultimately right thing to do is fight. We are familiar with the moral demand to give one's life in another context -- happens all the time in war, sometimes happens when one must defend one's loved ones in a civilian context. And here we have the question of whether to actively support the war effort of Naziism. Remember, every minute that allied tanks were delayed was another minute of the holocaust. So every tank mine laid was trading a bit of personal safety for a bit greater liklihood that another person would die in the holocaust. So I think that one's moral duty -- if we simply ignore normal human weakness, ignore how hard that duty is, and merely ask what it is -- was to resist even at risk of death.

But there is normal human weakness. The young man was coerced, threatened, perhaps his family as well, and he made what I see as the lesser choice. Given the situation, I would not condemn him -- which is notthe same as judging that he did wrong -- and would immediately forgive something that would be very hard not to do. I do not see him as a hero, like the White Rose, but I would not condemn. At the same time, if breaking a date to study carries moral residue, so does participating in the Nazi war effort. And it seems to me to carry a very serious moral residue indeed, one the respect for which involves no risk at all. Instead the mature man does not apologize, does not say he did anything wrong -- even that he did a wrong which was overall balanced by good (an important distinction in Catholic morality) -- does not honor the memory of those who did resist. And this is worthy of criticism from a public figure who holds himself up as moral leader.

It would be wonderful if the authors would step away from the name calling and embarrassing misrepresentation to address some step in that argument (which, btw is completely consistent with mainstream Catholic morality). To make it easier I'll boil down my points to 3 simple steps -- leaving some out of what I wrote, but this is the main point.

1. Knowingly participating in, and supporting, evil actions is a wrong, even if there is a greater good served, and even if one is coerced.
2. The Pope,in his youth knowingly participated in and supported a war effort that he knew to be a great evil.
3. If one engages in such a wrong, one owes a proper expression of regret for having engaged in it, especially to those affected which, in this case, was most of the world. One owes as well a proper respect for those who did better in the same circumstances.

There you go. Three simple steps. Tell me which you disagree with.

As I've mentioned, the vast majority of folks following this debate seem to be those who want to call me names or say that I should be fired. I'll only respond from here on in to serious questions of comments that raise new issues that have not been answered in this or the original blog onthe subject.

Among other things, I have the next column to write. !!

Mark Lance

"1. Knowingly participating in, and supporting, evil actions is a wrong, even if there is a greater good served, and even if one is coerced.
2. The Pope,in his youth knowingly participated in and supported a war effort that he knew to be a great evil.
3. If one engages in such a wrong, one owes a proper expression of regret for having engaged in it, especially to those affected which, in this case, was most of the world. One owes as well a proper respect for those who did better in the same circumstances."

1. Knowingly participating in and supporting evil actions is wrong indeed, and the Church teaches us such. Yes, the end does not justify the means coerced or not.(But coercion does affect culpability) I have no problem with that one statement there.

2. You have no idea how much of the particulars of the nazi evil he knew or when he came to know it. Therefore you have no justifiable reason to question his honesty or honor when he says he believes he did nothing wrong in those circumstances. He was there. God is there. You were not.

3. As I have stated before, when one has wronged another, an apology is due that person or persons and proper restitution made to them. That is our duty to our fellow men. We also owe an apology and restitution (atonement, expiation) to God Himself. That is made in the confessional. I believe that you are attempting to force the pope into bowing down and worshipping the false secular god we catholics call "the world", and you call "the people of the world".

As for him owing a proper respect to those who actively fought the nazis, who are you to say he didn't? Who are you to say that he still doesn't? Any respect he has or shows will never meet your personal approval because you will not be satisfied until he bows down and worships the god you do.

During this whole discussion, I never called you a name. I pointed out that you are anti-catholic. That is a description of your manifest mindset on this matter. Did I mock you? Yes, a bit. When you refused quite petulantly to continue engaging me in this debate. As I said earlier, you are the one who opened this can of worms and it is cowardly and ludicrous for you to refuse to discuss what you brought up just because the discussion wasn't going the way you wanted it to go. This forum has rules. If you think the current rules are insufficient, take it up with this sites managers. In the meantime deal with those the site's managers leave to answer you.

You still have yet to bring us the rock solid proof of Joseph Ratzingers alleged crimes that you charge him with. You have this ludicrous notion that you and "the people of the world" can arbitrarily create new definitions of crime out of thin air and then impose them on everyone else. As you no doubtedly noticed, most of the posters here disagree with your new definition and agree with those of the post-war authorities and those of today as well.

Barb

Barb:
Since you have finally said something that is remotely responsive to what I said, I'll respond to it, namely your challenge to point 2 above. You ask how I know what the Pope knew? Because he has said so, repeatedly, as I have pointed out in this string repeatedly. As for the later parts of this post, they are no more worthy of comment than your earlier name-calling.

Mark Lance

You claim he acknowledges committing crimes and then you say that he denies that what he did was wrong. What a silly contradiction that is! I am fairly certain the authorities and those who knew him back then would have spoken up about such things as well. You refuse to live in reality. You are obviously twisting his words to mean what you wish them to mean.

It is truly sad and frightening to think that a professor of a university believes that people who are in a position like he was should risk not only their lives but the lives of all others around them, regardless of differing circumstances between individuals, places, and times. You prescribe a 'one-size-fits-all' definition of complicity that doesn't exist. It didn't exist then and it doesn't exist now.

I have no doubt that all liberals within the academic world wish he would just 'get with the program' and get all 'moderned up'. I know his recent speech most likely left a lot of liberals with a sour taste in their mouths and a fear of the impending return of the catholic faith to the hearts and minds of the faithful. He just made your job a lot harder, but trying a stunt like this to discredit him publicly is a truly vicious and shameful act.

God Bless Papa!
Barb

I posted thiks at Lance's original slanderfest of the Holy Father but as someone else observed, the conversation has moved over here so I am reposting this here:

OK, this may be totally off topic, I know, but I cannot help but pose this question. WHY on earth would a "Catholic" University hire, much less retain as a professor, someone who is so openly hostile to Catholic teaching?

By it's very NATURE Catholic learning institutions should be, above all else, CATHOLIC. They should employ instructors faithful to Church teaching, loyal to the Pontiff and the Magesterium.

What we have here, with this "professor" and his fellow instructors who likewise detest the Faith, is no different than if an Astrophysics College employed a member of the Flat Earth Society to teach. It makes no sense. And, for that matter, why else would someone WANT to teach in a Catholic institution, if they felt such animosity towards Catholicism, except that they want to "poison the well"?

Diabolical, indeed......

In response to Prof. Lance's assertion that the young Ratzinger had a moral obligation to resist the Nazi war effort at any cost to himself, I would humbly submit that he was constrained by consequences beyond his own person; specifically, to boldly defy the Nazi regime would certainly have put his family members and loved ones in immediate danger. I believe many an ethicist would consider those lives to be beyond what he would, in good conscience, be allowed to gamble. It is one thing to ask a man to lay down his life - it is another entirely to demand him to volunteer his mother's or his father's for his resistance.

If, as it seems, it would be morally impermissible for one to risk another's wellbeing (for a protest of undoubtedly minimal efficacy), then it seems just the same to retroactively demand that he have done it.

In response to your charge that an apology is still technically required, I would posit that where there was no immoral decision, there is no moral culpability, and to assign moral culpability would be to obscure the true evil of the situation - not to mention to trivialize the murder of the man's own relative.

Brian

Brian:
I do think there are cases in which one should risk not only one's own life, but one's family's. Remember what we are talking about here: a war that killed many tens of millions, and a genocidal extermination policy that killed 10 - 12 million. Any participation with this effort risked the lives of countless people.

But beyond that I did not "demand" that he take this risk. I said that I thought this was the right thing to do. That difference might seem subtle, but I think it is important. And I argued that even if it was on balance right not to resist, that support for the Nazi cause leaves a deeply significant moral trace. Your claim that if there is no immoral decision, then no apology is called for ignores the argument I gave for this. Recall the case of breaking a promise for a good reason. Don't you think one still owes an apology? If so, then surely helping to extend the Nazi regime calls for an apology even if doing so was the right thing to do. (And I don't accept that it was.)

Mark Lance

Professor, Confession to the priest takes away the guilt of our sins. Prayer and expiatory sacrifices take care of any residue (what you call moral traces)of the moral culpability. If a person doesn't fully expiate his sins here on earth before he dies but dies with the pardon of his sins, the residue is expiated in the fires of purgatory.

The only business we have with other people's guilt is to help them get rid of it and the residue through prayer and expiatory sacrifices.

Are there any exceptions to this rule? Of course, lawful authority upholding and defending the common good. The lawful authorities back then and even now saw no reason to charge Joseph Ratzinger with any crimes. You are the one who so charged him. Hence the calumny.

Barb

I see a problem with my post above there. Let me correct it. Mortal punishment and restitution are in reality due to our fellow men. The confession and expiatory acts are due to God. Lawful authorities are to take care of the former in cases of deep gravity.
Therefore, it was erroneous for me to call that an 'exception to the rule'. Sorry bout that.

Professor

If you happen to read this thread again, I seek a little clarification as to your call for an apology.

I understand your analogy in which someone who breaks a promise out of necessity would still apologize. This, however, seems to fail to constitute a true apology.

I understand that in common parlance an individual would say "I am sorry that I broke my promise but..." This show of congeniality does not imply, however, that the counterpart would have a right to say "I demand that you apologize for having..." Indeed, I do not think one can owe an apology for not having made an immoral decision (the ethical difference of his forced participation not withstanding).

If apology is defined from its Greek root as a formal explanation, I believe such an 'apologia' would be easily explained.

If, however, it is defined as an expression of regret, then I think it would, by necessity, be ethically nonsensical.

Brian:
I see nothing nonsensical in the idea that an act can be overall the best thing to do, and still involve doing a wrong. A promise is a commitment to someone. And you have violated that commitment even if you had very good reason. The suggestion is that one retains the responsibility to make amends. (This is a fairly common view in moral philosophy, btw, and one that is in keeping with the main interpretation of Catholic morality, but which does not depend on that.)

And of course in the case of collaboration with the Nazis, I think the issue is even clearer, because we have an act that was not the overall best thing to do. It was a very seriously wrong thing to do -- following orders the goal of which was to continue the Nazi regime, allowing the holocaust to continue -- but one that is easily excusable because of the threats, youth, etc. So in this case what we have is an apology for engaging in a very wrong act that is nonetheless easily excusable. I think it is quite clear that a requirement to make amends remains here.

If anyone else has comments or questions on this thread please send them to my email which is linked on the Hoya. I won't be checking this thread anymore. (That is anyone who has questions of the sort Brian has. Barb and your friends, I know what you think of me.)
Mark Lance