Punjabi Boy has quite a find about the new Pope’s views on Hindus and Buddhists:
Hinduism, he said, offers ‘false hope’; it guarantees ‘purification’ based on a ‘morally cruel’ concept of reincarnation resembling ‘a continuous circle of hell’…In 1997 Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an ‘autoerotic spirituality’ that offers ‘transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations’… The Cardinal predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century.
Ratzinger had even more choice words for those who are not Catholic:
… Dominus Jesus, the major Vatican document released… by Cardinal Ratzinger… called other world religions “gravely deficient,” denied that other religions can offer salvation independent of Christianity, and said non-Catholic Christian churches have “defects” and are not “churches” at all in the proper sense.
‘Enforcer,’ in the hockey sense, sounds about right.
Update: Ratzinger was apparently more sparing with Judaism (thanks, MD):
… Ratzinger played an instrumental role in the Vatican’s revolutionary reconciliation with the Jews under John Paul II. He personally prepared… [the] document outlining the church’s historical “errors” in its treatment of Jews…
I dont think anyone here was deluded into thinking Sepia Mutiny bloggers got to vote in the conclave
Sorry to dissapoint you all but you are WRONG. We did. 🙂
So, its fine to take a shit on the Pope, call him Hannibal, etc., fine. But, this conversation, like so many others here about Christianity, is just flying loose at the mouth…
Call him “Nazi,” fine, but to not mention Pius XII in the same breath means you should stay out of the conversation. There is a context to Benedict’s Nazism, which doesn’t excuse it, but for all the moral indignation and high-roads taken, no one seems to be taking the time to introduce the full argument.
That said, has it crossed anyone’s mind that Benedict’s past was taken into consideration by the Conclave as a means of reform for the Church?
John Paul made a very public apology to Israel in 2000 (I think), about the sins of the Roman Catholic Church against Jews and in the same year, Benedict put out Dominus Iesus… Does anyone honestly think this didn’t cross minds in the Conclave? You may not like the Church, but that doesn’t mean you should assume they’re stupid…
I think Benedict’s past was one of the reasons he was chosen as Pope. He is a man of strong conviction & controversy who is now forced reevaluate that conviction & controversy logically, sensibly as a leader. The Conclave knew this would happen and I think they saw it as the best way to maintain the Church’s doctrine while forcing it to confront its problems from the top down.
sd
Criticising, or pointedly teasing, one individual person who makes crass and ignorant statements about billions of people who follow two faiths, in a manner that at best can be described as wilfull misunderstanding, at worst as a kind of bigotry, does not constitute ‘shitting’ on the Pope.
He is entitled to his views. But if he describes Buddhism as a religion by invoking metaphors of masturbation, and thinks Hinduism is a morally evil philosophy, people are entitled to pick him up on this.
Nobody has described Catholicism as in any way being evil or talked about it in the same way that the Pope has spoken about other religions here. If they have, they are depraved. Speaking of one man is in no way an attack on Catholicism.
Get it?
George – Shankarcharya has alleged to have committed a crime. He has not yet been convicted of the same. I would not be surprised if all this is a political game being played by that fat amma of TN. As another poster said, you should give credit to Indians/Hindus at large that they have not gone beserk even though one of their highest leaders has been put behind bars. I can’t see this happening in most nations of the world.
And except for the violence bit, I am glad that RSS exists. I wish they would peacefully protest against all these assorted preachers that show up to “civilize” the natives. These bastards have been doing it for centuries all across the globe. So they need to feel the “velocity.”
There is nothing wrong in preaching your religion but in context of poverty and helpness in India – the agrressive evangelization takes on a different form – a form of coercion. And the assorted p-secs that we have in India don’t do anything about it. So I guess the opposition to one kind of fundamentalism comes from another.
sd you are being extra nice to Mr. Benedict. But i guess we should give him benefit of doubt.
It was better late than never for the JPII to apologize to Jews. Having said that he refused to apologize for the Goan Inqusition when he was on a trip to India. Lets see if Benedict does that.
sd, So you were watching from the balcony or you turned one of the Cardinals to become an inside source (“Deep Hat”)? I appreciate your general take because it’s at least substantive, but don’t see how you have so much confidence in your interpretation. Here’s an alternative that I think is equally plausible:
The liberal parts of the Conclave wanted a temporary pope to accommodate the hardliners until more of them die and they have a better chance of nominating someone who can truly reform the Church. They also wanted to strike a balance between the more socially conservative parts of the church (generally speaking in the developing world) and the more liberal parts (in the White, wealthy world)–add to that that Europeans are vastly overrepresented in the conclave, and you get a White conservative.
As for the argument that we shouldn’t inquire into Benedict’s past because Pius was complicit in the Holocaust–well that’s like saying we shouldn’t look at Bush’s imperialist policy on Iraq because the Spanish American War was far more egregious. This isn’t a contest of who has the better historical interpretation–it’s an evaluation of what the Church chose to do and how we feel about it.
But it is a side issue (if a fascinating ethical one). I’m more interested in how many more people are going to get AIDS because of his stand on birth control, how many more people are going to die from botched abortions, how many more children are going to be abused because of his secrecy policy, etc.
Blank, what your argument has in verbosity, it lacks in substance or an adequate understanding of my point. The quote above is a prime example. Later your tirade assumes I don’t know the difference between Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general…again incorrect.
So quit the whining and start issuing dialogue.
No, I’d rather issue opinions on him given his plentiful record as cardinal.
Another gross misinterpretation of my views. If you’re basing that on my statement that Hinduism is more devotional, it is so in a mechanical way in that there is no Bible in Hinduism to guide the relationship between worshipper and god, so it has more of a 1-to-1 focus….says nothing about the validity of sophistication of either religion. But since you so kindly asked, I’ll say whats really on my mind and I won’t sugar coat it : Ratzinger is a jerk.
It may. But it may not…you didn’t substantively address the prospect that he had a choice, as the article quoting one of his peers said.
As Saurav said, so what. The point is the pope should be better.
Sure…but from his plentiful record, he is not a a man who would be considered a champion of understanding and unity among the world’s religions (like JPII), let alone a divine leader with an impeccable ethical past. Ay there’s the rub.
Andrea, the Sinhalese government in Sri Lanka is basically Buddhist in relgion.
Talk about sugar-coating….
In my view, its not better to blithely sit by while non-JC religions are maligned..
sd, Hannibal was just a visual pun– he closely resembles Anthony Hopkins.
I’m missing your argument. You’re saying that if an organization is tarred in public for its views, it’s best to make the author of those views the head of the organization?
“sd, Hannibal was just a visual pun– he closely resembles Anthony Hopkins.”
Dude! WOAH! I just saw that! He really does look like Anthony Hopkins! I’m not joking! Hold on, let me pull out my list of Hopkins’ quotes and wait for Ratzinger to say them..
vl: I’m not sugarcoating, I’m being realistic. We’re too uninformed to dissect Ratzinger/Benedicts’s youthful choices in the shallow forum of Sepia Mutiny comments in any meaningful way. That would require a deep reading of both his biography and the history of the Nazi Youth at the time he joined them. I haven’t seen any meaningful counter to the argument that he only joined them when he was essentially forced to. The Nuremberg argument doesn’t apply nearly as well to teenagers; the fact that a few teenagers were brave enough to defy the Nazi’s even then makes them better people but doesn’t make him a Nazi; the wish of some of his contemporaries that more people did so is understandable but not suitable evidence for condemnation. Take a page from Gandhi or Mandela sometime—there’s a line at which you have to stop labelling all Germans sucked into a totalitarian war machine as Nazis, and accept the younger generations’ attempt at reparations, or else no progress is possible. I haven’t seen a good argument against putting Ratzinger on this side of that line. This is one matter where if it’s good enough for Israel, it’s good enough for me, unless you can bring some real evidence to the table. His distant past seems to have already been dealt with peopl with far better access to the relevant records. Let’s not distract the discussion from his troubling recent comments–they were made by a grown man not under the control of a totalitarian machine.
I didn’t say anything about just standing by. But hurling insults back doesn’t help. (Look at it from a Karmic point of view. If you overrespond to a negative statement or action then you earn your own deserving overressponse, and the cycle never ends. The person who steps aside a bit and takes the high, if initially painful road, has the best chance of ending the cycle and and is the most admirable.) Therefore bringing up already dismissed Nazi accusations that have little to do with the comments at hand is unhelpful. Calling him a jerk may be accurate, but it’s preaching to the choir. Showing that he’s wrong by articulating and spreading more accurate understandings of non-Abrahamic theologies (and you know, we have some pretty rich schools of theology), and making sure that his words have just consequences in the real world of getting non-Catholics to get along with the Vatican—that might actually get us somewhere. And both of those actions require a little time and a little patience.
The person who steps aside a bit and takes the high, if initially painful road, has the best chance of ending the cycle and and is the most admirable.
This sounds a little like Jesus too 🙂
Saheli doth speak words of wisdom..as always 🙂
I am not sure why people are outraged if the new pope believes that Hinduism offers false hope. If this is a surprise, then I guess that people on here havnt read either the Quran or the Bible. Both the Quran and the Bible use vile language against pagans and pagan gods. The problem is not with the pope. The problem is in the Abrahamic faiths when pagans are demonized. The fire should be directed at the religions themselves and not its practitioners.
Sinner, can you tell the difference between simply calling the Pope a “Nazi” and likening him to Hannibal Lecter as opposed to coherently discussing his past vis-a-vis its legitimate context and relevance to the Church’s decision? A number of people here can, some can’t and the comment was directed at them. Get it.
Saurav, yes, I was watching from the balcony, but the smoke got in my eyes and therefore… I agree with what you’re saying and my point does go with your opinion.
Benedict’s in there for the hard-liners, of course, but he’s also in there as a lightning rod. The Church has to address its position on a number of issues, it has to maintain its doctrine and it has to find a way to make a transition. A more pleasing Pope wouldn’t allow for a transition, but rather, would get stuck in the same ambivalence of John Paul.
The Catholic Church wants reform, but it wants its agenda on the table first. Benedict was chosen to do that and then take to the grave some of the controversy that will go with that. Why is that so hard to believe, especially with someone who is destined to have a short run as Pope. It happens in government all the time… None of this means the Church is suddenly going to be a shining light for everyone to follow, it just means they’re looking for a way to shove some stuff in the ground when Benedict passes.
My remark about Pius XII was partly in support of your open-stance on Benedict’s Nazism. Of course, look into his past, that is a must, but if you’re going to make a decision on what that past means, then look at everything surrounding it, not just the Third Reich… Personally, I think he adopted the equivocal stance of the Church in regard to Nazism and the result of that position has led to his “hard-lining” now. I think he has to answer for that and again, I think that’s why he was chosen because once he does respond and die, the Church will try to close the door on the issue.
Manish… “just” a visual pun? So, does that mean all the text was just “tongue-in-cheek?”
In case it matters, I don’t support the Pope, I alluded to that in my firt comment. I wasn’t necessarily trying to be nice, but I was trying to look at the post seriously, as what you and Punjabi Boy pulled out warranted as much.
I’m still confused here. Can you please explain the how this works? Benedict restates his opposition to other religions, then when he dies it’s all recanted?
As I’m understanding it, it doesn’t make sense. Lightning rods are subordinates, whips, enforcers, Panzerkardinals, not the Pope. You demote those whom you disagree with.
Most of this post is Ratzinger quotes, so you’ll have to ask him.
Religion is the opium of the masses. The best religion is tolerance and the best temple is the temple of sex.
I called Ratzinger a jerk for his gross comments on Buddhism and Hinduism. To be honest, I’m not too worried about any resulting karmic baggage on my soul.
And to throw something out there…what about the dharmic point of view? As per the Gita, sometimes you must pursue unpalatable action in order to defend yourself or what you believe in. Arjun killed a lot of his cousins and gurus to protect his family and its property….certainly not “turning the other cheek” or even biting-ones-lip-and-taking-the-high-road. I guess he could have written a long cease-and-desist letter cogently explaining the Pandav’s concerns and qualms. Maybe even on a vakeel’s letterhead. But he decided against it. Point is, under Hindu thought, sometimes non-violence is clearly the best route. Other times, it is simply not effective. If i had written a long post about how inaccurate and unfair Ratzinger’s estimation of “morally corrupt” Hinduism and “autoerotic” Buddhism were…most people wouldn’t read it. Preaching to the choir, as you say. But calling him a jerk and then explaining why (unsullied past, irresponsible statements, their effect on religious unity, etc)? A bit more noticeable. Neither approach is going to change a whole hell of a lot, but maybe one reader will start to think that Hindus and Buddhists aren’t all pacificst, Gandhi-esque, pusillanimous pussyfooters that you can talk shit about. Some of them may “Mutiny”. People will disagree, but at the least I’m happy to have introduced a diversity of viewpoints.
Al Mujahid
You are a dude.
I’m just pissed off that he didnt say anything horrible about Sikhism so I could pick up my kirpan and scream at him too.
Its funny how the posts which attract most comments are related to religion – Pope, Mullahs, RSS, Modi etc. Vij-ji, is there any stat on that you can produce for SM. So its not only the poor souls of the east, for whom religion is some sort of a drug – Opium eh, but even in amarika that is what people most seem to be animated about.
Lets forget this popat for now. Dekho aage hota hai kya
Benedict restates his opposition to other religions, then when he dies it’s all recanted?
He restates his opposition but with awkward concilliatory gestures, he gets called on it, the Church falls into turmoil and stronger ideological divisions, awkward reconciliation and modification of his opposition occurs, every piece of nitty-gritty about the Church gets pulled out and none of it gets recanted, just put out in the open, from the Vatican-side.
Hard-liner? Yeah, maybe that’s where they’re heading, but if not, then when he dies, the Church gets to say “Pope’s like him are a thing of the past” by electing a true reformist. Either way, it’s a way to open a new door for the church.
(on a sidenote: the Church recanting a position is not unheard of and this “hard-liner”-thing that everyone’s talking about is really just the Pope restating the Church’s longstanding doctrine)
Lightning rods are subordinates, whips, enforcers, Panzerkardinals, not the Pope. You demote those whom you disagree with.
Who said the Church disagrees with him and who said that’s all lighting rods are? He’s there to draw fire and debate as much as he’s meant to maintain Church “policy” with an iron-hand. They want him in there to weather the storm, stop the Church from going completely-out-of-focus and say all the f*cked up things you say in crisis. In other words, they want him to be the one that answers all the questions that Saurav has posed.
Most of this post is Ratzinger quotes, so you’ll have to ask him
I’ll let that one stand for what it is.
Great, now that we have a nazi for pope, narendra modi can convert to catholic religion. Given his record he can work his way up and can expect to become a pope one day.
Are you inside the vatican right now sitting next to the pope? WTF?? Where is all this information coming from. As an insider, pray tell us, when the pope-mobile is going hybrid and if the holy father likes chicken biryani. Curious souls want to know…
vurdlife wrote
I think you are becoming too “extremist” for the sepia editorial. They might get “sick” of you trying “Mutiny”. Abhi will lecture you to keep it “civil” !!!! Next thing you know, you will start pointing to the hypocracies of the anti-Modi protestors (The ones who were saying Indian army get out!!) then what are the ‘civil’ people of the world to do ?? this is a BMW mutiny … or champagne mutiny ..
vl: dude, I don’t want to pick a fight with you. You want to call him a jerk, and you certainly can. I was arguing mainly with your liberal use of the Nazi label and stating my general stance on the subject–what I think is the best course for a community-wide non-Abrahamic response. I too said that jerk is accurate, but not helpful.
I guess he could have written a long cease-and-desist letter cogently explaining the Pandav’s concerns and qualms.
:-D! Actually , he did. Or rather, Yuddihstir did. The messenger was Krishna. I don’t know about the letterhead. Dvaraka Palm Leaves Inc. We send forth Dharma for you. 😉 He carried a letter cogently explaining all the issues and argued it forcefully before the court of Dhrtrastra. The Pandavs famously offered to drop all their rightful claims for five villages to be governed by five brothers–to which Duryodhan a replied, “not enough land to fit on the head of a pin.” When that didn’t work, I think Krishna even displayed a minor version of the Vishwarup. When that still didn’t work, then they went to war. You’ve got to be pretty determined to go to war if you’re willing to ignore the Vishwarup. This was the same trip on which a) Krishna refused Duryodhan’s invitation to a sumptuous lunch and b) Krishna accepted Vidura’s invitation to a lunch of rice, spinach, and bananas. Now let me tell you about those bananas. . . .;-) J/k. I will stop now. But don’t get me started. 🙂
If i had written a long post about how inaccurate and unfair Ratzinger’s estimation of “morally corrupt” Hinduism and “autoerotic” Buddhism were…most people wouldn’t read it.
Based on the possibility that religious posts get more attention than any other, not necessarily. I don’t think that would be preaching to the choir at all. For one thing, I think plenty of Hindus of various stripes have an overly narrow view of the shades and depths of their own religion. For another, I think reasonably talking about our sophisticated theologies is helpful. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen deeply fundamentalist, non-ecumenically minded Protestants and Catholics slowly, sincerely recognize the value and validity of other religions, specifically Hinduism, when presented with careful and determined theological discussion. Chip away at the flock and Benedict’s opinions lose their importance and weight. As I said above, there is plenty of precedent for Catholics opposing the Magisterium out of conscience, subtly shifting its direction over the course of centuries. I’d rather give them fuel and motivation to do that with determination than imprecisely strike out at him, provoking a natural defensiveness on their parts. Precision can be very powerful.
And merely talking shit about us definitely isn’t deserving of a violent response on its own. That’s ludicrous. If you can build a case that that talking of shit leads to violent action against “us”, well that might be different. But you’d have to build that case really carefully before I’d take it seriously. “pacificst, Gandhi-esque, pusillanimous pussyfooters that you can talk shit about.” Please don’t be hating on Gandhi, dude. There was nothing pussyfooting about him. There’s a big difference between being pussyfooted and being nonviolent. I’m not a devoted pacifist like he was, but you gotta respect that position, especially when it’s held to with integrity and determination and self-sacrifice. It’s incredibly powerful, and its power has barely been tapped.
I think you’re covered here, Punjabi Boy:
QUOTE: According to accounts he was forced into the Nazi youth under punishment of death and deserted when he could. END QUOTE
Oh yeah, heard about that. I was hanging out in Nuremberg with Goebbels, Goering, Hess, Himmler, and Speer and wouldn’t you know it if all of them had been similarly coerced into the Nazi Party. Poor kids.
I have a little issue with those who quickly accept his explanations to his past…truth is, no-one knows whether or not he was actually forced or not.
Are you inside the vatican right now sitting next to the pope? WTF?? Where is all this information coming from.
The power of simple observation is great, my child, use it and remember that with this particular Pope, asking about “egg biriyani” is funnier than asking about “chicken.”
Enough of this kabbadi, I’m off to make and weather abusive, content-free, commercial comments followed by long, obscure rants elsewhere.
pope nazi sounds better — rhymes with soup nazi
Well, no-one except for the entire world. Still, if you wish to differ with every single history book, every single eye-witness, every single newspaper article at that time, all of which states that attendence to Hitler Youth was mandatory or else serious repurcussions would have been meted upon entire families – i.e. eating lead – you have that right. You have the right to disagree with the Jerusalem Post, who wrote an editorial entitled “Ratzinger a Nazi? You have the right to disagree with all these Jewish groups that seem to understand the historical situation and the ramifications better than you. You also have the right to join the Flat Earth Society if you wish. But don’t think you’ll fool anyone into believing you have a clue.
Comparing “Goebbels, Goering, Hess, Himmler, and Speer” to a fourteen year old kid would be like comparing you to Einstein, Goethe, Da Vinci, Faraday and Mozart. But that wouldn’t be fair to Einstein, Goethe, Da Vinci, Faraday, Mozart, Goebbels, Goering, Hess, Himmler, Speer, or the fourteen year old kid.
SD
whatevs guruji, a simple observation … you are still not making any sense.
Not hating on Gandhi at all…he was clearly the man. What I meant by that is, American society tends to see Hindu political action primarily and solely as Gandhian. Its nice of them to recognize him, as did MLK, etc….I’m just saying it doesn’t begin/end with Gandhi. Theres the Gita perspective I alluded to, not to mention Kautilya, the Indian Machiavelli (millenia before Machiavelli), etc.
Whoa, what violent response? I wasn’t saying go out and smack up Ratzinger…certainly one’s response must be tempered by the circumstances. I was just saying that taking the high road by ignoring and quietly waxing philosophical/religious isn’t necessarily the best way. Violence isn’t the only other alternative, the Gita example was metaphorical.
BTW, way to drop knowledge from the Mahabharat! That was entertaining.
“Still, if you wish to differ with every single history book, every single eye-witness, every single newspaper article at that time, all of which states that attendence to Hitler Youth was mandatory or else serious repurcussions would have been meted upon entire families – i.e. eating lead – you have that right”
What an ingenious explanation, especially from “anonymous coward”
Because attendance to the Hitler Youth was mandatory, therefore one logically concludes that Ratzinger was FORCED into it. So there is absolutely, positively, no way that Ratzinger could have joined willingly…he absolutely positively MUST have been put at gun point and all other sorts of torture before he very very reluctantly accepted…
That kind of facetious logic is EXACTLY what I was talking about in my original post:
Just because it WAS mandatory, does NOT mean that Ratzinger was forced into it.
It’s sheer ignorance to simply swallow the explanation that he MUST have been forced, simply because he says so.
You ever think the little 14 year old might have been excited to join this group of his peers, where they play dress up, sing songs and march like the soldiers he sees in the streets and in the news every day? You ever think that maybe little Joseph felt a little pride as he donned his swastika, feeling like he was part of an elite club? That his heart swelled when Deutschland Uber Alles blared over the speakerphone? 14 year olds are highly impressionable.
I’ll refrain from the numerous personal insults that you find so amusing to put in your posts. Idiot.
Check Professor Eric Muller’s posts on the nazi pope from the link below:
http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/04/the_new_pope_an_1.html
great link. In particular check out this post, which succintly and eloquently states valid concerns about the Pope’s role in the Nazi machine…not so much relating to what he actually did as a 14 year old boy, but rather to how he has described that time period more recently.
HA HA HA!!
How much of a coward is an “anonymous coward” when he goes out of his way to respond to the accuser? Well, even though it’s pointless to speak reason to earthworm mentality, here goes.
“Just because it WAS mandatory, does NOT mean that Ratzinger was forced into it.”
Um… yeah, it does.
And I believe I have the dictionary to side with me on this one. You know, the dictionary? That book with all the hard words with more than three syllables? (I said syllables, not letters. “Duh”, your motto, is three letters, not three syllables.) When something is “mandatory”, that means – by definition – that forcible measures are taken into effect. It means the person has no choice. Check out one of those little dictionary thingies I mentioned, and you’ll see that the definition bears me out.
“It’s sheer ignorance to simply swallow the explanation that he MUST have been forced, simply because he says so.”
Ahem! cough cough, snort, hides giggle
I said “every single history book, every single eyewitness, every single newspaper article”. You fall back on “simply because HE says so.” When in doubt, ignore the bulk of the message.
So, the determination of whether a law existed or not can only be based established upon the word of Ratzinger. If he is untrustworthy, then such a law must not have existed. Woo! Talk about your Holocaust denying. How surreal. With a few utterances by the brand new Pope, Hannah Arendt’s body of work disappears.
“You ever think the little 14 year old might have been excited to join this group of his peers, where they play dress up, sing songs and march like the soldiers he sees in the streets and in the news every day? You ever think that maybe little Joseph felt a little pride as he donned his swastika, feeling like he was part of an elite club? That his heart swelled when Deutschland Uber Alles blared over the speakerphone’?”
Irrelevant. He was FOURTEEN. I know you’d like to think that when you turn fourteen, you’ll have reached the full apex of wisdom, maturity and sophistication. I say you have a long way to go even now, but put that aside. Even if what you are saying is true, everyone knows that the Third Reich was the model of effective mass propaganda. You’re going to hold it against a fourteen year old kid for getting swept up in the atmosphere, assuming he did? Among the many things you don’t know: child psychology. But why would you, when you compare a fourteen year old to adults like Himmler and Geobels? Hi-ho!
What you seem to be suggesting now is that is that he was proud to be a member. Okay. You’re the one who posited this theory, so you’re the one who now has to prove it. Don’t turn it around and say “why don’t you disprove it” like a weasel or George Bush. The onus is on you.
Gunter Grass also joined Hitler Youth at a very young age. Now say he’s as bad as the new pope.
Thank you for refraining from personal insults (sort of). I hope you don’t mind, after calling me an idiot, that I don’t refrain. Toodles!