Friday, September 17, 2010

A Portrait of the Ratzinger as a Young Man

Joe. My. God. says this is a picture of your pope from an earlier time.

You know, when he was one of those Nazi atheists bent on conquering the free world, so that he would not later have to go to England, to yell at people for being upset with The Church about the child-raping.

Young Ratzinger as an altar boy(?), giving what looks like a Heil Hitler salute.

Other people seem to agree that this picture is of the guy who would become Pope (Makes Gestures of) Benedict(ion?) XVI, although I can't find a definitive source, in nearly two minutes of looking. But anyway! We can be sure of one thing: Bill Donohue (The American Pope*) is still a goatse. And not just because he looks like Karl Rove.

(h/t: Evan Hurst/Truth Wins Out)

* On James Poulos's days off, anyway. (NSFW)


Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

To take a page from the Ground Zero Mosque defenders

Why do you hate Catholicism, Catholicophobe?
Do you object to the building of a Cardinal Bernard Francis Law Community Center/Youth ministry to promote dialog?

bjkeefe said...

To take a page from the Ground Zero Mosque defenders

Of course you cannot make an argument on your own two feet, can you, sirfith?

Welp, it looks like wingnuts still think the Just Like™!!!1! technique is a winner, so let's dispose of your misconceptions, not that you'll learn anything, but for the sake of others.

I don't "hate Catholicism" and I am not a "Catholicphobe." Though I was raised as a Catholic, I don't any longer share their beliefs, that's all.

Meanwhile, long before I decided the faith part wasn't worth anything, I had a real problem with the Church as an organization, due to its corruption, its sordid history, and its refusal to deal with the real world on such matters as birth control and women's rights. (This was long before the pedophilia scandal broke, if you're keeping score at home.)

Finally, I have no problem with the Church putting up a building and naming it after whomever they want, provided they do it on their own land, with their own money, and don't demand a tax break for it. Which is not to say I wouldn't criticize the poor taste in your example.

And now, sirfith, you may now return to masturbating to your YouTubes of Pam Geller.

Twin said...

So .... first of all, what is that a picture of? Is that Ratzinger doing the Nazi salute? It's been almost 30 years since I've been an altar boy, but that gesture seems vaguely familiar from one of the ceremonies during mass. Am I dreaming?

As you know, we agree on a lot, and I, too, was raised Irish Catholic. And, like you, I stopped being a Catholic a very long time ago.

But unlike you, I actually was always kind of proud of the Catholic Church for the good things it did. Obviously I recognize that it's far from perfect, but I appreciate(d) the fact that it was an organization that acted on behalf of the poor and improving life for poor people. I'm probably deeply deluded about all of this, but that's the impression of the Catholic Church that I had back when I used to think about it at all. That said, I can't disagree with you about their position on birth control, abortion, women's rights, etc. I guess this goes back to the broader theme about my tendency to always stick up for my side, defend my tribe, so to speak, even when I haven't been of that tribe in decades.

Just weird. Not arguing with you or disagreeing with anything you said; just thinking out loud about the different way we view the Church despite our overall agreement on all the issues related to the Church.

Twin said...

Oh -- the opposition to war and nukes. That made a big impression on me. I still remember the Church's opposition to Reagan and his nuke buildup and his warlike attitude/approach to governing. I vividly remember when the Vatican ordered all of its priests to deliver a sermon on the same Sunday condemning Reagan's nuclear arms escalation, and the controversy that ensued.

So, while the Church has a whole hell of a lot to answer for, there were things that like that at least partially redeemed it, in my eyes.

Twin said...

Sorry to go on at length: the other thing I recall about the Church was that in Central America it was a major force for organizing workers and helping foster the growth of unions and democratic institutions. In fact, this was the first context I ever understood the term "liberation theology;" it was a blend of Catholicism and Marxism. As you probably recall, the Church was a major obstacle to Ronald Reagan's encroachments in El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras, and probably elsewhere, in the 1980s.

Again, I feel a little odd defending the Church like this, but again, I'm just thinking out loud.

bjkeefe said...

No need to apologize for long comments or thinking out loud on this space, that's for sure. Thanks for sharing, matter of fact.

Yes, I quite agree that the Catholic Church isn't, and has not been, all bad. Generally, I think of it in terms of good priests, brothers, and nuns, not to mention a whole bunch of lay people, doing their good works in spite of the Church hierarchy, but I have to admit, even that's at times too simplistic, as well.

In particular, I did not know the Vatican had ordered that coordinated sermon thing. Shoutout to them for that.

bjkeefe said...

Oh, as to your question about the gesture: I don't remember doing it myself, back in my days on the altar, but raising both hands like that is certainly not an unfamiliar pose for Catholics, and Christians more generally.

It's possible that some skillful cropping took place in the picture I posted, I suppose. (This is because atheists are the spawn of the Devil, and never mind the pitchfork, Photoshop is His True Dark Tool.)

Twin said...

I don't know what your church was like, but in mine, there were a few points during the mass when you were supposed to ring that bell by the altar. And I have this image burned in my memory that you were supposed to ring the bell when the priest reached his arm out to the congregation in the way Ratz is doing in that picture. But I caution that I could be completely wrong about this. I was an altar boy through about sixth or seventh grade, so it has been literally decades since this happened.

I guess it's not very important anyway.

Here's a little something I googled up on the nuke thing:

US Catholic Bishops' Pastoral Letter on War and Peace

bjkeefe said...

When I was an altar boy, we had to (got to!, more like) ring the bells twice during the Mass: when the priest raised the host above his head, and when he raised the chalice above his head -- both times during the part of the mass where the bread and wine are said to be converted into the body and blood of Jesus.

I always figured that this was supposed to wake up the members of the congregation who were nodding off. Because I know I always was at that part. Or at least I was until they took away the pads and forced us altar boys to kneel directly on the marble stairs instead.

Also, during low-key weekday morning masses, where there was no choir or even an organist, we (the priest and the altar boy(s)) began the Mass by entering the altar from a side door, and there was another bell to ring there, upon entrance. (Again, I figured, to wake everyone up.)

But what does this have to do with Nazi salutes?



I did remember that the US Bishops were big on the anti-nuke front, but I never knew it went higher. Thanks again.