Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is the favourite to become the next pope. Bookmakers have him at 7-2. He is the strongest supporter of doctrinal orthodoxy and has been nicknamed “God’s rottweiler”.

There are others reasons why liberals are strongly opposed to Ratzinger becoming the next pope. He was a member of the Hitler Youth movement and later served in the German Army. He has since said although he was opposed to the Nazi regime, any open resistance would have been futile. It is true that resistance would have been difficult. However, this is clearly a political rather than a moral argument.

Ratzinger also has another problem. He has been ordered to appear in a court in Texas over a sex abuse scandal. Ratzinger is accused of obstruction of justice in relation to a Vatican document that emerged in 2003 instructing Catholic bishops to deal with cases of sexual abuse “in the most secretive way”. As one can see, Ratzinger’s moral judgement is a subject worth debating.

Apparently liberal cardinals favour Dionigi Tettamanzi (Italy) and Jose da Cruz Policarpo (Portugal).

Joseph Ratzinger has just been elected as the next pope. He is an outspoken opponent of birth control, abortion, divorce and homosexuality (he considers this to be evil). However, his actions shows he is not concerned about under age sex (he has been responsible for covering up cases of sexual abuse amongst the clergy).

So much for your powers of prediction
Personally I expected by definition that a "conservative" would become Pope, despite having my heart set on a condom distributing Marxist lesbian

What prediction are you talking about?

The fact that all but three of the cardinals were appointed by Pope John Paul made it certain that a conservative would be elected. However, Ratzinger has a very tarnished reputation.

For example, he was a member of the Hitler Youth. There are of course many examples of people who refused to join this organization. No doubt some of Ratzinger’s friends took that route. However, according to Ratzinger, the gesture would have been “futile”. That was his interpretation of the situation at the time but is that good enough?

Nor did Ratzinger have to join the German Army. He could have done what several of his friends did, he could have entered the local seminary.

It could be argued that he was only young at the time and that at that stage of life we are all allowed to make mistakes.

I am more interested in his recent moral judgements. His views that it is morally wrong to use condoms for health reasons has partly contributed to millions of people dying from Aids (this has been made worse by the propaganda campaign arguing that wearing condoms does not protect you from this disease).

Nor did I approve of his comments that homosexuals are “intrinsically evil”. Nor do I approve of his ruling that all parishes should reduce the use of “female altar servers and choristers”.

I am also angry about his attitude towards paedophile priests. He has been the most significant figure in the Vatican involved in covering up sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church.

It is of course no coincidence that so many paedophiles have turned out to be priests. The reason for this is that it is completely unnatural for a man to abstain from sex. The idea of enforced celibacy is attractive to those who feel ashamed of their sexual desires. This is why so many paedophiles are attracted to priesthood. It also explains why a recent survey in the United States discovered that around 50% of all priests in seminaries are gay.

The real problem that priests have the power to persuade the young people they come into contact with to keep quiet about sexual abuse. The temptation is too great and it is not long before they are acting out their sexual fantasies. The Roman Catholic Church is fully aware of this problem. However, they have attempted to use all its authority at its disposal to cover up this scandal.

Ratzinger has played a key role in this. A document has been discovered that shows in 2003 he sent out a ruling instructing Catholic bishops to deal with cases of sexual abuse “in the most secretive way”. Even so, currently there are 4,450 Catholic clergy in the US alone accused of molesting children.

The one that disappeared from the forum soon after the election of old Ratso


This is not uncommon amongst high ranking members of the RC Church - what did you expect?

You are mistaken. I did not remove any of my postings. What prediction did you think I made?

Ratzinger is a hard right reactionary, and this is to ensure solidarity in the face of any "liberal" reforms of the Church or political institutions worldwide.

Liberal in this discourse would be some one who:

Believes condoms should be freely available in Africa, Asia and South America.

Would attempt to limit the growth of Catholic families in the developed world.

Believes ministers serve their God, their flock and families better as married men.

Celibacy is a cruel hoax and led to rampant molestation and hypocritical same sex cliques in power in the United States Catholic Church.

The gross disjuncture between commonsense morality and social responsibility and these medieval strictures was bluntly stated by a student here at GSU Atlanta.

It isn't as visible as a carbomb or ethnic cleansing, but what the Catholic Church does in the third world and poverty zones globally is best termed:

"ATROCITIES"

The Roman Patriarch is a Head of State, his authority is comparable to that of an absolute monarch. I do not think Texas is generally well disposed to the law of nations or the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

Very few of the Hitler Youth openly rebelled against the Nazi regime. It is perhaps unreasonable to expect in youth what very few German adults were prepared to venture in the same circumstances.

The Catholic Church was adopting essentially the same public confidence strategy as the British authorities are happy to rely upon in the present circumstances.

If 50,000 Catholic priests in North America were involved in X over the last fifty years, then the innumerable British teachers over the same period must surely have done *something* amenable to arithmetic, is that not so?