It's not just what the Pope says when he travels, it's the baggage he carries with him...

I don't really get the "more difficult" thing here. Benedict seems to have been an unwilling conscript into the Hitler Youth and you say he deserted the army anyways. Is the problem just that he's a German of a certain age, then?

I don't really get the "more difficult" thing here. Benedict seems to have been an unwilling conscript into the Hitler Youth and you say he deserted the army anyways. Is the problem just that he's a German of a certain age, then?

Atleast the Pope says Holocaust. On multiple occasions he has not said genocide when referring to the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Turks.

Two brief excerpts from Pope Benedict’s Yad Vashem reflections. What else need be said?

“…May the names of these victims never perish! May their suffering never be denied, belittled or forgotten! And may all people of goodwill remain vigilant in rooting out from the heart of man anything that could lead to tragedies such as this!

The Catholic Church, committed to the teachings of Jesus and intent on imitating his love for all people, feels deep compassion for the victims remembered here. Similarly, she draws close to all those who today are subjected to persecution on account of race, color, condition of life or religion – their sufferings are hers, and hers is their hope for justice. As Bishop of Rome and Successor of the Apostle Peter, I reaffirm – like my predecessors – that the Church is committed to praying and working tirelessly to ensure that hatred will never reign in the hearts of men again. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the God of peace (cf. Ps 85:9)….

..As we stand here in silence, their cry still echoes in our hearts. It is a cry raised against every act of injustice and violence. It is a perpetual reproach against the spilling of innocent blood….”

For the full reflections: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/b16HLyadvashem.htm

At the end of your piece, after repeating and rehashing the flimsy criticisms of what the Pope said and did not say,and faced with the facts of what he did say as quoted briefly above, you state that "What troubled observers in Israel was not what the Pope said but who he was and that he was chosen."

WHO HE WAS (you mean as a forced conscript while a youth and given all the other facts of this issue?). This is as ridiculous as stating that Obama should not have been elected because his middle name is Hussein and he is seen in arab-like garb while he visited his family in Kenya a few years ago. He should not have been CHOSEN because this could offend some in America or in Israel?

Unfortunately, one is left with the impression that you endorse the criticism, presented by these so-called third persons, of the selection of a saintly, capable, intellectually powerful Pope for reasons as flimsy as guilt by association, when the examined facts do not hold such guilt, or for reasons of national origin, when this has nothing to do with sanctity and a true wish for peace and reconciliation?

Fortunately, I am sure that you would not truly endorse a position of failing to examine the facts and avoiding pre-conceived judgments.

Then again, the title of your article as seen in FP home page (Papal Bull Why Benedict was a mistake) leads me to believe that the bull may refer to the article, not to the Papal part.

Until Israel stops committing atrocities this is just a very dirty pot calling a not so shiny kettle black. Israel now has the burden of change. Then perhaps it will be worth listening to criticism such has this. Both institutions are and have been a plague on mankind. Both must change to warrant the respect expected.

Brad Hirschfield at the Washington Post has a more nuanced and perceptive take on the trip. Here's the kick-off:

Peace and Unity Elude Pope Benedict

JERUSALEM -- Despite his best efforts, Pope Benedict XVI found the peace and unity he seeks on his pilgrimage to Israel more than a little elusive on his first full day in the country. But in each case, the problem lay not so much with the Pope, as it did with his audiences, both Jewish and Muslim.

It's that he's a German of a certain age who wasn't Sophie Scholl.

But then the Conclave picked him for reasons that have nothing to do with the Church's relations with the Jews. This guy is JPII with a tin ear and without the charm, but he was the leader of those who would rather have a smaller Church that is true to doctrine than make any accomodation with secularism.

David - why be so stereotypical? You know all these nice gentiles reading your blog - they see Rothkopf, they see your take on the Pope, and ... I read this on the Mondoweiss site - you'd say what is a good Zionist like me reading his garbage - it's not garbage - he's a good P. Weiss is a good Jew, he doesn't have to agree with someone like me about Zionism - he is concerned - and that's ok. He may be dumb - he doesn't see the forest for the tree- but I have my faults.

But you see, he has this post on his blog - in which he gets some general or military green head, telling us that support for Israel in America is a "mile wide and inch deep".

Unused to southern expressions, I was puzzled. But then I read some of his other posts - and I read other blogs, and you know it struck me. We come after the Pope, and people like Taki Theodoracopolous spin in our direction.

You ever wonder why? Taki has got the balls to speak his mind - good little Greek boy what not - but others, they are like 1.4 inches here.

You get me?

You talk about Ratzinger being in the Hitler youth ,and mention ultimate evil. I am sure you lose half the audience. What are these people going to think - that if you don't genuflect in Yad Vashem, it's over for ya?

The Pope is a Catholic David - he's got Peter's Palace in Rome - Vatican - he doesn't do proskunesis in a Monument and a Word! He's speaking on behalf of 1/3 of humanity, and all you can talk about is the Vatican and Holocaust.

David, the Vatican saved more lives per capita than most countries. They had Jews hiding in the corridors. Catholic countries as such, were the last to persecute Jews, unless you count the Poles - but Italians did a great job.

Anyone who knows history,and reads you, will be left with the impression that you've got a Jewish hack perception of history. Ultimate Evil, Vatican murderers, and what could be more obvious than genuflecting! It's almost silly. Of the billions who flock to the German's message, the vast majority have nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Good thing he used the word Shoa - anyway.

I would agree with you on something though - Catholicism sucks. Ridiculous religion - but that's not the pope's fault.

Cardinal Ratzinger (yes, that dubiously named Benedict XVI) and the Vatican/Catholic Church are a bunch of hypocrital child-molesting neaderthals. But the arrogance (and manufactured outrage) of Israeli leaders is equally amazing. I mean, it was sickening to watch the theatricality of Israeli leaders foaming in the mouth that the Hitlerite pope did not condemn a terrible deed (Nazism) of 60 years ago while, even at that very moment, Israel is engaged in a Nazi-like subjugation of the Palestinian people. Perhaps Israel and the Vatican deserve each other. Both are narcissistic reality deniers that impede the progress of the modern world.

Ratzinger was five years old when Hitler came to power, and fourteen when he was compulsorily enrolled in the Hitler Youth.

I do not wish or expect to be held responsible for the evil deeds of my nation 65 or 70 years after my childhood, or to having them characterised as a personal failure, a "dark chapter" in my life, as "baggage" more important than myself. Neither, I expect, do you; no-one does. Who would receive a guest by railing at his "baggage"? It is your words rather than his that sound close to ungracious rudeness, to hate speech, to racism, to personal vilification, to prejudiced closed-mindedness, to stubborn unwillingness to be constructive, to a predetermined refusal to be satisfied.

You invite us to judge the Pope on what he did not say. I hope you will not be judged by what you have said here. The Pope is, no doubt, as flawed as anyone, and perhaps his words were incomplete, but at least he expressed some empathy, some spiritual feeling, some striving for wisdom, some respect for the sacred texts of another faith, some hope for a better future. Could you not try something of the same?

I found Mr. Rothkopf's article offensive and bigoted. His argument is anti-Catholicism disguised as indignation.

It is ironic that Mr. Rothkopf and many Israeli leaders are practicing the repugnant practice of "collective guilt" which was used for centuries against the Jewish people to blame them for the killing of Jesus, and therefore justify pogroms and other anti-Semitic practices.

The Pope is not responsible for the Shoah. The Catholic Church is not responsible for the Shoah. Nazism was fundamentally a pagan belief, not a Christian belief.

The critics of the Church fault it for not speaking out against the outrages of WW II, but they conveniently forget to mention the clandestine support ordered and authorized by Pope Pius to save as many Jews as possible. Instead they reflectively attack the Pope and the Catholic Church with lies and distortions.

Enough is enough. Just like antisemitism has no place in the world, anti-Catholicism should not be tolerated.

Anodos, I think you're missing two points.

First, questions of compulsion are only a little interesting here. Other 'Germans of a certain age' refused military service or participation with Hitler Youth; such refusal wasn't exactly a death sentence, but it took a certain amount of heroism that Ratzinger, like most people, lacked. It's worth noting that Ratzinger deserted when desertions had become common, too common for the deserters to be punished in any meaningful way. But I think one of Rothkopf's points was that compulsion or lack thereof notwithstanding, Ratzinger had a golden opportunity to apologize for the normal, banal lack of heroism in his background to the people who most needed to hear such an apology, and he chose not to take it.

The second is that, as Rothkopf pointed out, the cardinals of the Catholic church decided that this detail of Ratzinger's life was not enough to disqualify him from being the head of the Catholic church. This is problematic in a Catholic context. 52% of the planet's population could be the holiest Catholics in existence, and still be disqualified from having such a position in the Catholic church by virtue of being female - rather more compulsive than belonging to Hitler Youth and the Nazi-era German military - and now 'deep-rooted' homosexuals, even if they maintain perfect chastity along the dictates of the Catholic church, are disqualified for priesthood.

Simply put, the Catholic church is an organization that zealously defends its right to discriminate - which is fair enough. But it also means that when it chooses NOT to discriminate against a man who, like most of his contemporaries, lacked the heroism to resist participating in Nazi organizations, we're allowed to be disappointed, and we're allowed to question the morality of their discriminatory priorities.

Rothkopf: nonsense. This Pope is fine. He has done well and the cardinals chose well. His past as a child is over and he has proven himself a friend to Israel and the world. How many times does he need to apologize as a person and as head of the Church. Menachem Begin was a terrorist before he was a revered Israeli leader. Israel and the Jews owe much thanks to the Catholic Church for its part in protecting Jews during WWII. Start showing the appreciation.

And however Rothkopf sees it - whether or not he's the biggest Zionist on the planet - he's made a coherent argument for his position, and hasn't just blathered ad hominems and emotional propaganda. Rather more than you've managed.

OK, I'll do it.

You are suffering from a lack of historical understanding.

Germans in that time had a distinct moral problem. They were faced with a threat from national socialists and a threat from communists. Both seemed just about as bad. Like, it was pretty widely understood that the nazis had concentration camps where inmates were slowly worked to death. Russia did too. If the communists managed to take over, would things be any better? To many germans, the nazis seemed almost as bad as communists. So what was the solution? People knew the concentration camps were wrong. They didn't know about the death camps. They didn't want to know.

Describing this as a simple lack of courage might be confusion, or it might be propaganda for some other ideology.

Here, look at today. A few years ago it became apparent that the USA had started a program of torture against suspected US enemies. I opposed that by posting on blogs and campaigning for Democrats. I wrote letters to my congressman and senators, who disagreed with me.

It could be argued that I did nothing effective. I did nothing to go to jail for, neither attempting to break into facilities that held political prisoners, nor kidnapping US officials and torturing them into admitting secrets of the program, nor killing any policeman or soldier or politician or even bureaucrat. All I did was talk.

Many americans insisted that we did not torture, that the torture was only done against orders by a few individual perverts. Many americans insisted that it wasn't torture, that it was no worse than consensual fraternity hazings, that there was really nothing wrong. And anyway, it was only done against enemies of the USA, and they deserve whatever they get. It was no big deal. And certainly I agree that torturing a few suspected enemies (killing probably less than 300 of them) is not nearly as bad as murdering millions of suspected enemies.

I argued against those people. I talked. I never hit anybody in the jaw over it. I never went to jail for the cause. And maybe if I'd just done something to get jailed for, it might have made a difference.

I expect it was about the same with David Rothkopf. Probably more people read his blog when he argued against torture than read my comments. But I'm willing to bet that he did nothing but talk. Nothing that was the least bit effective.

Do David Rothkopf and I owe somebody an apology for our cowardice? Will we owe somebody an apology in 40-60 years?

If so, who?

This article is garbage, another reason to skip past rothkop's section while visiting FP, and anybody here who has issues with ratzinger having been hitler jugend is an idiot, and needs to brush up on his/her history. Any german male you meet today his age will have been hitler jugend..