Comments

1. Bill Mazzella 05/31/2006 - 8:13 am  subscriber

   From the Independent:

   “For anyone seeking proof that Benedict is a man wedded to the abstruse conceits of theology at the expense of this flesh-and-blood world, his speech at Auschwitz offered confirmation. The occasion was a grand one, but he failed to rise to it.”

   Another anomaly of Ratzinger, which the Independent mentions, was his criticism of Karol W’s prayer at Assissi with different faiths.

   “Abstruse conceits of theology?” Priceless and applicable to many.

   Perhaps in the final analysis Ratzinger’s stance is a reflection of “My country right or wrong.” Nationalism is never advisable. Especially, from a spiritual viewpoint. For the first German Pope this was quite unwise. Shows how powerful emotions are.

2. james englert 05/31/2006 - 10:09 am

   One may regret the formulation about the band of criminals, and perhaps the lack of a direct attack on anti-semitism. But surely John Allen’s take on the speech is right in that Benedict is trying to move past a too easily assumed guilt and showy attacks on anti-semitism to an awareness that there is still a stark present choice to be made between God and the abyss. On its own terms, the speech was very sensitive and full of the language of personal responsibility. There are many ways to say Never again.

   It was for example deeply respectful that when the Pope spoke of the Shoah he twice used the words of the Psalms, of the Hebrew people, to convey the situation of the sufferers. It was surely purposeful also that the word Jesus nowhere appears in this address or that the conventional Christian trope of comparing human suffering to the suffering of Jesus is not present – I think he avoided it so as to use a shared vocabulary, and out of understanding. Similarly the allusion to Antigone is an appeal to a shared heritage.

   And on the point of the German people, I think that the entire speech was spoken (in Italian) as “a son of the German people.” His actions – the walking under the entrance gate, the silent prayer at the execution wall, the greeting of survivors by this son of Germany – spoke eloquently. The only German words he spoke – “lebensunwertes Leben” (life unworthy of Life) and “Abschaum der Nation” (refuse of the nation) – must be deeply shameful to this erudite, cultured German speaker. And even when he speaks of the righteous Germans he says: “Today we gratefully hail them as witnesses to the truth and goodness which even among our own people were not eclipsed.” That “..even among our own people” stings! These who “did not submit to the power of evil” are implicitly contrasted with all those who did submit to evil. A shameful thing to have to say about one’s own people.

   Where the speech went wrong it was because it was facile sociology – the band of criminals stuff. But it was mainly a theological speech, and quite challenging in those terms.

3. Scott 05/31/2006 - 11:46 am

   The Independent’s critique of the Pope’s speech is quite predictable. Benedict certainly did not endorse anti-Semitism nor did he condone or apologize in any way for the evils perpetrated by the National Socialist Party in collaboration with many Germans.

   In acknowleding the great example provided by those witnesses of truth and love, the Pope calls beyond endless recrimination to reconciliation and forward. This seems the point of the Pope’s remarks at Auschwitz-Birkenau. Further, he calls upon all resist evil, even at the sacrifice of our lives. This in no way attenuates the evils perpetrated by the Nazis.

   Mr. Popham’s editorial, in short, is a lazy reponse to a serious issue and an even more serious call by the Holy Father, made to all men and women, to resist evil on the basis of reason. I, for one, am glad that Pope Benedict’s speech did not conform to the predictable outline, so helpfully provided by Peter Popham.

4. Bill Mazzella 06/01/2006 - 10:59 am  subscriber

   What does one say about the predictability of the words “endless recrimination?” In the Catholic world where sotto voce there remains an endless antisemitism, (better than it was,though) Benedict’s remarks may be regrettable if not irresponsible. Leafing cursorily through history one is struck by the perennial antisemitic remarks (many in condemnatory form) coming from the bishop of Rome.

   John XXIII taught us that we need not say “our church right or wrong.” Benedict has been encouraging with his first encyclical, his move toward the Orthodox, his actions on Maciel…

   Today, he had to state how he condemns antisemitism because of his actions at Auschwitz. A wiser person would have known better. We recuse ourselves when it comes to our family and associates because we realize how difficult it is to be objective among other things.

5. Susan Gannon 06/01/2006 - 12:13 pm  subscriber

   It seems that the Pope himself has understood the pained reaction to some of his message at Auschwitz. Here is the Catholic News Service’s report on the statements Benedict made after he had reviewed and reflected on his trip to Poland.

   http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0603131.htm

   And, since it is always better to read the whole message for oneself and not rely on key bits and pieces, here is a link to Chiesa.com’s reprint of his message and other contextual documents.

   http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=61221&eng=y

6. Scott 06/01/2006 - 1:09 pm

   Bill makes a very good point. As a Catholic in the U.S. the kind of deeply rooted anti-Semitism found in Europe, which seems to be undergoing a resurgence, is easy to overlook. Certainly denouncing the kind of dangerous nonsense being broadcast in Poland on Radio Maryja is important. However, the Polish bishops seem to be handling tackling the Congregation of the Holy Redeemer head-on for fomenting hate.

   I would certainly never criticize the Pope for denouncing anti-Semitism in all its forms, both subtle and overt. But neither do I think it wrong that he did not say what ‘The Independen,’ among others, thought he should say. I do not read his remarks as being in any way irresponsible. If, after the fact, he felt the need to strongly denounce anti-Semitism, that is fine as such hatred is always in need of being combatted.

   My point, put a bit more clearly, is that if any address given at Auschwitz-Birkenau by any Pope has become merely a matter of pro-forma “filling-in-the-blanks”, then why go at all? One cannot read the Holy Father’s remarks and not know that he is denouncing any and all pogroms, genocides, and murder. By invoking those who resisted evil at the cost of their lives and holding them up as examples to be followed, he recognizes that, sadly, such evil is not relegated to the past, but exists very much in the present. To that end, he alludes to those situations that exist today in places like Sudan, Iraq, etc. where evil persists.

   Further, his remarks about Judaism being “the tap-root of Christianity” should be most welcome.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment