@slimboyfat
I know how much you hate me, but, but it's almost touching how aggressively you defend a tissue-paper story, but unfortunately sentimentality is no substitute for historical accuracy. You accuse me of lacking "common sense," but common sense actually demands skepticism when a story riddled with cultural, linguistic, and genealogical absurdities presents itself. Nicknames are indeed peculiar, but they are not random noise — they emerge from linguistic patterns, regional traditions, and family habits. In 1930s Bavaria, "Sepp" and "Sepperl" were standard diminutives for Joseph. "Pepi" is an Austrian variant, occasionally heard in Vienna, not in the rustic dialects of Traunstein or Tittmoning where Ratzinger grew up. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in wishful thinking, not common sense.
As for the surname issue, your sarcastic triumph about married names completely misses the point. Yes, she could have married into the name "Brzakovic" — and I explicitly acknowledged that possibility, if you had actually read the argument instead of reacting emotionally. The real problem is not the married name but the complete lack of any genealogical connection between Stefanie Blabst (her maiden name) and the Ratzinger/Peintner family trees, which are thoroughly documented. No amount of huffing and puffing about "relatives with Slavic names" changes the simple fact that the Blabst family is nowhere to be found among the Ratzinger maternal or paternal lines. So much for your supposed "common sense" defense.
And let’s not kid ourselves: the idea that Benedict XVI would seriously endorse Jehovah’s Witness missionary methods — in a private phone call to a long-lost cousin after fifty years of total silence — strains credibility to the breaking point. The man who spent his entire life defending Catholic orthodoxy against precisely the kind of sectarian errors JWs embody would not, in a moment of candor, suddenly congratulate them for leading people away from the Sacraments. He may have been polite (because he was a gentleman), but to interpret a passing kindness as some hidden theological endorsement is naive at best and deceitful at worst.
The real irony here is that you accuse me of wasting time with "logical nonsense" when you're desperately clinging to a feel-good anecdote whose entire purpose is to score an emotional point against the Catholic Church. Your protestations reveal more about your loyalty to this Stalinist-style (the five-year plan was fulfilled 200%!) Watchtower triumphalist success propaganda than about any real concern for historical truth. If you find this conversation a waste of time, feel free to step aside — truth has never depended on the approval of those unwilling to follow evidence wherever it leads.
Do you know how many Muslim polemicists I've heard boasting about similar anecdotes? "Many bishops secretly know that Islam is the truth, they're just afraid of their status!" - when I ask him to name a few, there's silence. It's all just wishful thinking propaganda, which reveals a desperate need for celebrity endorsers.