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…
Autoeroticism. He basically said that Buddhists are a bunch of wankers.
Actually when I look into his eyes he looks a bit scary. Look into his eyes and then tell me that he doesnt remind you of this dude…
I am feeling left out because he didnt say anything bad about Sikhism. What are we, chopped liver?
Jinx– I saw that same resemblance yesterday.
I love myself so I am re-posting my post here.
Punjabi ‘Sherlock Holmes’ Boy
Hindus got off lightly by Pope Ratzinger, they are only morally cruel living in a continuous circle of hell. Buddhists practice a religion of ‘autoerotic spirituality’
I was thinking, does that word mean what I think it means?
So I go to dictionary.com, and yeah, it means what I thought it means:
au·to·er·o·tism
1.Self-satisfaction of sexual desire, as by masturbation.
2.The arousal of sexual feeling without an external stimulus.
Can anyone make sense of that one? I reckon it makes him sound a little sex obsessed, but that would be a stereotype of Catholic clergy.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind his worry about Buddhist’s autoerotic spirituality I will be watching carefully to see if he shakes His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s hand the next time they meet.
Manish
It is scary isnt it? Imagine if you went to the Vatican and he said Latin Mass for you, with some fava beans and a nice chianti?
Punjabi ‘scared witless’ Boy
Well, Sir Hopkins is a fine actor and has had other roles 😉
Can’t we all just get along? 🙁
Quick! Buy these T-shirts while you still can. They’ll be collectors items soon. Be sure to read the front and back.
Manish the two pictures look so similar that I was
“Wait a minute. what is that picture there”
Applause
Vij-Ji: Looks like you and RSS agree on this one.
“RSS Chief KS Sudarshan on Wednesday made a scathing attack on the new Pope accusing him of “religious intolerance” and said such mindset leads to conflicts….Recalling the millennium peace summit of 2000 in New York where 1100 representatives from different faiths signed a document that there should be no bloodshed in the name of religions as they were different routes to one God, he said, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger held a press conference shortly thereafter at the Vatican and released a 36 page doctrine ‘Dominus Jesus'”
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1329385,0008.htm
Well I hope you do not throw up your papad. LOL
According to an op-ed article in the NY times, the pope had earned the nickname of “God’s Rottweiler” in his Cardinal heyday. Furthermore it appears that he was involved in denying Communion rights to John Kerry and other Catholic politicians in the 2004 election.
Apparently his comments first appeared in The Austrailian in 1997 (or were at least republished there, and subsequently quoted by others). The link to that article however is dead, as are links to several other websites where the text of his original comments might have been found.
Not surprising then that he was with the Nazi army as a youth. What a jerk.
This is probably a terrible thing to say, so I apologize in advance, but:
I could write novels about how little I care who the Pope is. Big, long, complicated Victorian/ George Eliot sized novels. Not only novels, but sonnets, dissertations, bad haiku (is there any other kind? Those who can’t poetry, haiku!)
Also, the first thing I thought when I read this post was – oy vey.
PS: Of course Buddhism is the next worst thing to Marxism. C’mon – get with the program, guys. (I mean guys in a completely non-gender specific way).
Let’s stick to the facts everyone. According to accounts he was forced into the Nazi youth under punishment of death and deserted when he could.
So the conclave prefers a return to pre-Vatican II theology, and fatous media coverage jsut blathers on about the pomp and ceremony of it all in hushed wispers. More reasons to not feel guilty about missing mass next Sunday.
To more important matters: I’m dying to read Sepia Mutiny’s take on the Amitabh Bachchan interview on Charlie Rose last night. IMO, it was worse that Aishwarya Rai on Letterman. Rose was so clearly uncomfortable and out of his depth…
vurdlife – the Nazi thing is a bit much. He was conscripted into the Army (like the Third Reich gave kids his age an option) and deserted at a time when it was quite dangerous to do so.
It’s more nuanced than that. He was coerced into Nazi service and deserted, yet Bavarians are saying it was possible to resist.
He may or may not be more diplomatic as Pope now that he’ll have his own dedicated whip.
The Jerusalem Post has basically defended him from the Nazi charge, btw….
Of course the saffronists dislike the Pope. ‘Tis a lover’s quarrel: same anna, different sides.
To the guy’s credit, here is what wikipedia has to say about his stint in Hitler Youth and the Nazi Army:
When Ratzinger turned 14 in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth; membership was compulsory under a 1936 German law. National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen writes that Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.
He eventually deserted the Nazi Army and ended up in a POW camp.
I can’t fault a guy for being in such a “join or you and your family go to Auschwitz” position. What worries me more than his Hitler Youth days is the fact that most of the Catholic Church is in the developing world, yet we end up with another Western Pope…
According to the article linked by Saurav, (yes from the New York Post..shudder….but this is a direct quote from one of his peers): “It was possible to resist, and those people set an example for others,” recalled Elizabeth Lohner, 84. “The Ratzingers were young — and they had made a different choice.”
The “I had no choice” argument didn’t work during the Nuremberg trials, or during the trial of Henry Wirz…why should it now? Have we learned nothing from history? Lets not be apologists for the guy just because he has a position of prestige and power. If anything, we should hold individuals in such positions to a higher, more exacting standard. The leader of hundreds of millions of Catholics, and the most holy man alive must have an unblemished past.
honestly, what is the big surprise here? it’s not as if any of the other popes were more tolerable towards other religions — the very nature of catholicism dictates that anyone who doesn’t accept jesus christ automatically goes to hell. to certain eastern religions this is shocking and closed-minded, but such is christianity in general. it is monotheistic and very strict with this respect. it’s probably factually wrong – jesus spread a message of love and acceptance, but it is amazing what organized religion and politics can do to twist the message of a great philospher.
It’s actually quite amusing to see millions of people getting worked up over a person who really is just the head-honcho in religious politics, someone whose office divides more people in the world than anything else, and someone who still believes that the world is in the 12th century where there is no place for women, gays and religious freedom.
I wish someone would understand that religion is just a private matter between you and god is not something that requires a corporation to dictate a set of rules for you to follow. But then that would be too democratic.
Why should it now? Because he was 14 years old, maybe? Because 99% of all German youth were FORCED to join or else they and their families would face imprisonment and loss of their homes, possessions, and possibly each other?
Are you willing to shout “Babykillers” in a Vietnam veterans face because they didn’t avoid the draft for fear of court-martial? And I’d imagine that punishment for desertion and avoidence of service is far worse in Nazi Germany than it was in America in the late sixties.
honestly, what is the big surprise here? it’s not as if any of the other popes were more tolerable towards other religions
Yup, I’m with you on that. The Catholic church has always accepted the fact that other beliefs exist, but they’ve never accepted any other religions as being valid. Nothing new about Benedict, if you look at the life of John Paul, he has a couple choice soundbites also.
just the head-honcho in religious politics, someone whose office divides more people in the world than anything else, and someone who still believes that the world is in the 12th century where there is no place for women, gays and religious freedom.
But, isn’t that a very good reason to get worked up? If ever there was a time when religious politics mattered in recent history, it seems like now. If not joining the fight, everyone’s weighing in on the debate…
Wow. I guess I’m not alone in not liking the new pope. Check out my past post . Btw, good work Punjabi Boy.
I believe the reason The Rat left the Hitler Youth was that he found it to be too liberal.
[quote] The “I had no choice” argument didn’t work during the Nuremberg trials, or during the trial of Henry Wirz…why should it now? [/quote]
He wasn’t accused of war crimes. He was only a youth member and deserted later. This isn’t really a valid comparison. I’m sure it’s much more easier to “force” a kid to do something.
Woah, not that I am defending the new Pope’s previous comments, but it seems like this sudden swell of calling the guy names and throwing down some kind of judgement upon him is the flavor of the day.
As a Cardinal he served a purpose of a very large organization at a very high level, and performed the “Bad Cop” role for the previous pope.
Give the man a chance, and if you are not Catholic, whats the big deal. Sure the position has enormous weight, but by calling the guy a multitude of names, it serves no purpose. These childish attacks of “I don’t like him”, “He is a bad man”, “Rat”, etc. sounds excatly like what people accuse him of doing. Throwing down some kind of judgement.
Plus this ain’t a general election. No one really has a say in this other than the Cardinals who are looking to further a certain theological doctrine and agenda.
I’d like to commend Punjabi Boy.. good work.
1) Muslim clerics (like the Saudi mullahs) who say nasty things about other religions are criticized by all right-thinking people — as they should be.
So, why should we apply a different standard to Ratzinger?
2) It’s true that Popes and other Christian leaders in the past have made similar comments about Hinduism and Buddhism.
However, that doesn’t absolve Ratzinger. No Pope today would come up with the the bile that Popes in the past mouthed about Jews. So, why should his utterings about Buddhism/ Hinduism be treated any differently?
I dont think anyone here was deluded into thinking Sepia Mutiny bloggers got to vote in the conclave, you clearly are missing the point.
The big deal is, as you admit, the position has enormous weight, which affects the world. As members of the world, we are entitled to an opinion.
I wish his maledictions were limited to “childish attacks” against an individual. Rather, they were broad-brush excoriations of entire religious and philosophical doctrines. Which is worse, saying Ratzinger is stupid, or Catholicism is stupid? Obviously the latter. And unlike Ratzinger, nobody on this blog has made any such vile declarations.
Moreover, as a person of considerable prestige as a renowned cardinal, his comments had a far more deleterious effect on the West’s conception of Hinduism, Buddhism, birth control, and any other facet of a modern lifestyle.
Is that supposed to be some sort of justification for his actions?
Personally Im not Cathollic and therefore no the Pope has no influence on my lifer persay. However, what does worry me is his propensity to get involved in politics. The last pope was asked to deny John Kerry communion and denounce him, and he did not. However the same can not be said for the Cardinal. Now i dont know if now that he is a pope he will abstain from commenting or getting involved in politics. But lets face it, I believe his word and his ideas carry alot of weight around here, esp. in those red states.
vurdlife – seriously, STFU. When you denounce everyone in Russia, Cuba, and Eastern Europe for being complicit in the murders of 100 million people, maybe then your Nazi-baiting would have some consistency.
Other people have died too – including the millions of Hindus who perished at the hands of Yahya Khan – but neither the victims nor the victimizers are demonized/elevated with anything like the frequency of the Germans/Jews. Ask yourself whether you’re being played. But STFU in the meantime.
Say whatever you will Ratzinger is far far better than the jokers who lead Hinduism : the Shankaracharya – arrested for murder . The great VHP / Bajrang Dal and BJP are a bunch of thugs.
As far as the leaders of Islam are concerned , they are busy inciting terrorism. Ask any Tamil in Sri Lanka about the “tolerant” buddhist clergy.
And Ratzinger and Catholics in general are far more liberal towards other religions than fundamentalist protestants.But you are too busy kissing the asses of your WASP bosses to notice.
“The leader of hundreds of millions of Catholics, and the most holy man alive must have an unblemished past”
I disagree. We all learn from our mistakes. Augustine was far from perfect in his past, as was Saint Francis. Sometimes, the best people are the ones who are most imperfect. Imperfection is, after all, the benchmark of humanity.
As for this Pope, I worry about the reversal of Vatican II. I am not a Catholic, I am a Sikh. I can see, however, how important the pontiff’s seat is. The issue of abortion and gay marriage has galvanized our voting public. The vatican plays into that galvinization by offering opinions. We must think of how this appointment effects our politics here in the United States precisely because it does sway public opinion. A church that supports the appointment of such a man is headed in a direction that does not seem positive.
In other news, Benedict’s opinions are not different that the previous pope’s. I distinctly remember, in my Catholic high school, a priest opining that “according to God, each religion is illuminated with Divine light. Catholicism is wholly lighted and illuminated by divine will”. That idea is fully supported by the vatican today as it was before the Pope’s death. However his comments are extremely repulsive, intolerant and ignorant. Buddhism as an enemy? Who needs enemies? This world cannot be defined in black and white. We shall see where else globalism and modernity will conflict with Catholicism yet again. I did not listen then, I shall not now.
That is the point dumbass. Even the head cannot get away conducting illegal activities. Unlike the pope and the vatican, to give a single instance, who continue to help Cardinal Bernard Law get a sinecure in Vatican. Thus preventing Law’s extradition for his willing movement and suppresion of evidence of priests who were involved the mass rape of thousands of children.
Check out commentary on Ratzinger .. here The church’s stated policy is conquest !!! Fools have head in sand, though
Just one quick thought. If the Church has its views on Hinduism and Hindus, they have the right to have those views, what is pathetic and stupid that the country whose population is 80% Hindu observes 3 days of national mourning and sends elected officials to Vatican. That beats me.
Look- I understand how the views above can cause hurt and such and such. But, seriously- isn’t he completely entitled to those views? Let’s say that he completley believes that Hindus go to hell. Why should that affect a Hindu at all? You can either choose to believe him and convert- or choose not to believe and stay a Hindu. It doesn’t mean you or I have to throw a chair at the guy. He has different beliefs. No big deal- the truth will win out in the end. I am a protestant, by the way- and I think this dude will go to hell. He doesn’t have to believe me- I don’t have to believe him. I’m not offended in the least bit. It’s just his opinion. While the RSS leader says that this is what causes conflict- it only causes conflict when we chose to respond with violence rather than words to something that offends us. By the way, in case you are wondering, no- I have not forgotten years of history of bloodshed committed by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews (did they do it too?), and just about anyone else in the name of their God or gods. I’m just saying just because it happend before doesn’t mean we need to do it now. Let’s just accept that he believes Hinduism is false and respectfully disagree with him- that is, if you disagree with him. If not- go have an ice cream and congratulate yourself. Phew- that was too much to write- enjoy bickering!
I for one welcome the fire and brimstone. All Hail Satan!
When rational discourse or persuasive arguments fail, there’s always this….haha…I’m embarassed for you.
Nobody “leads” Hinduism, I’m surprised that a Sepia Mutiny reader would have such a piss poor knowledge of the religion. I won’t give you a primer but I will say the religion is very different from Catholicism, which has the pope, in that it is generally more devotional. Shankaracharya arrested for murder….VHP goons….Muslim inciters of terrorism….thousands of priests who molested and raped boys…ALL irrelevant. We aren’t talking about random fringe group leaders who have an unpalatable past…we are talking about the bona fide head of the Catholic church having one (arguably). (And no I’m not saying he’s on the same level as craziest of mullahs, Sang Parivar loons, sicko priests, etc.)
Yeah, I still don’t care who the Pope is. Not in this life, or the next, or the next, or the next…..
I for one welcome our new turbaned overlord.
I have not forgotten years of history of bloodshed committed by Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews (did they do it too?), and just about anyone else in the name of their God or gods
um… Old Testament is basically the story of the Jews slaughtering everyone in their path to take possession of the Promised Land… so yeah, everyone’s done it, even the atheists.
Everyone, it seems, except the Buddhists. No Buddhist genocides going on that I’m aware of. And they’re the enemy?
I hope that Ratzinger does, given how much power he has. If wikipedia is to be trusted on him: He has a reputation for orthodoxy (if i were being meaner, i would say, intolerance) and this isn’t a time that the world needs another polarizing orthodox figure–particularly in religion. His appointment made me really appreciate John Paul II for the first time.
Additionally, if he continues to reinforce his existing positions on birth control, sexual abuse by priests, abortion, demeaning other religions (including Judaism, in addition to the ones cited above), and calling homosexuality evil, he’s going to damage a lot of people’s lives.
The Nazi thing is really complicated, though, isn’t it? I won’t judge him as a person, because the choices he faced were unimaginable at a really young age; I doubt I would have done any better. I do think people can learn from their mistakes and move on to do useful things.
However, I question the wisdom (and public relations skills) of the Church, though, in appointing him the moral and spiritual leader of over a billion people. He wasn’t just a helpless 14 year old–he served for four years from 1941 to 1945 and didn’t desert until the last weeks of the war when it was clear that the Allies were going to win (although he still could have gotten killed). He set up anti-tank defenses.
Again, this is all if wikipedia is to be trusted 🙂
Ummm … don’t say that to MIA. She’s not very fond of the Sri Lankan government.
More seriously, Buddhist Sinhala nationalists in Lanka have alot to answer for in terms of aggression and human rights violations.
Also, Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese religious group that launched terrorist attacks with both chemical and biological weapons, “was a religious group which mixed Buddhist and Hindu beliefs” if Wikipedia is to believed (I don’t know enough about them).
Yes, he is “entitled” to his views. I do not care who the Pope is. We know this. What we should care about is that this man is going to lead a large body of believers in the future. In the United States, this position is quite fundamental in high lighting issues and swaying politics (gay marriage, anyone?) I wish it were as easy as having an opinion on the Pope or Catholicism. This whole hoopla around the Pope has started because a bigoted old man is going to be able to sway politics. As in the recent election in the state, the church can and will play into politics. It will be more than just “too bad” if they play the neoconservative and narrow minded view espoused and expelled in such hateful terms in the rhetoric of this man. That’s why this matters. We are most definitely NOT autoerotic heathens, ok? Hinduism is NOT a chimera of finding salvation. It is a matter of respect. The next time I discuss religion, it would be better if it weren’t in the face of a bigot who cannot begin to understand the many ways of thinking that this world abounds in. I most certainly do not want such a man leading one of the world’s major religions. Alright? Also: applause for Saurav.
Nor did I say Sepia Mutiny bloggers have a vote, simply stated that it is a closed loop. Complaining about the decision and the man himself will make no difference. Only dialogue and sticking to your personal beliefs would. Quite simply, the whining is unproductive.
It has enonromous weight. Thats why open and honest dialogue leading to solutions is needed. However, getting panties all bunched up in one whole day of his Papacy is definitely jumping the gun. Let the man act as a pope, and then judge him based upon facts that evolve through his papacy.
So wait, just because saying “Catholicism is stupid” is worse, you choose to attack Ratzinger because it may not look as bad? Say what is truly on your mind, don’t try to sugar coat it under the cloak of attacking one guy when you have disagreements with the Catholicism itself. Atleast this is how I interpret your comments. I may be wrong, and if thats not the case, then I digress.
You also said…
By claiming he was a true Nazi in many places is considered to be a “vile declaration”. Perhaps you may like to read more factual material. I don’t think John Paul II was keen on Nazis, and it was apparent that Benedict was considered in high regards by the previous pope. Oh yea, it also may have something to do with being shit scare of a certian Adolf Hitler and his goons.
.
Overall, I think Catholics have not done that bad of a job integrating modern lifestyles with centuries old doctrines that demand otherwise. Plenty of sticking points with every religion. We could pick them apart all day. Change is relatively incremental.
He could also be simply old and misguided as plenty humans are, learn from his mistakes, and move on bettering himself. I am willing to give him the benefit of doubt. Claiming a leader must be infalliable is not only naive, but impossible too. What you can expect from a leader is that when the time comes to make critical decisions, he leads his people to a better day. John Paul II did so, while sticking to current doctrine. Sure, plenty of failures too, overall though his reign was considered to be quite successful and good for Catholics, who he was ultimately responsible to.
Not a justification, an analysis as to why a man considered good enough by a more diverse group of Cardinals in power than ever, mostly appointed by John Paul II, would vote him into the role of Pope with such speed.
Catholicism has always been very active in attracting new members to the Church. So have some other religions with singular theological doctrines. As a Cardinal his role demanded different duties and strategies, as the Chief now his role will demand different strategies. Each role will be analyzed separately since the parameters have changed.
From other comments you seem to have more of a problem with Catholicism itself, which is ok.
You ARE entitled to an opinion as everyone else. As are others voicing their opinions in this forum, I have stated mine (FYI, I am not Christian nor very religious).
You seem to have taken ownership of knowing what is right, wrong, and what a “SepiaMutiny” reader should be like. By the way, that comment was correct only partially. You are correct in stating that Hinduism and Catholicism are NOT the same with very different mechanisims.
However Catholicism is not Chritianity, it is a VERY large sect of it. I believe the poster was trying to get to the point that as a leader of a religous group (You are right, Shankaracharya does not represent all of Hinduism, though he has a very populous following among people considered Hindus), far worse men exist.
What does that make Ratzinger? Just another human leader who conservative (for some reason, thats just not cool today) and from previous comments as a Cardinal, stubborn in views at times that are considered to be misplaced. From facts laid out of his 78 years of existence, he is not a man who would be considered a liar, cheat, active professor/supporter of violence, etc. He is a Pope who has several challenges on the horizon and how he deals with them will be an argument for another day.
Goodnight.
I dont think anyone here was deluded into thinking Sepia Mutiny bloggers got to vote in the conclave
Damn. So if I haven’t gotten my freshly baked crispy lentil appetizers in the mail, what were they doing locked up in North Dakota?
Uh, seriously, most the Catholics I know are mildly disappointed, at the very least. In some random blog trawling today I was bemused to discover this comment in response to this blog post praying for John Paul II’s easy passing.
Benedict’s the Pope so my take is that we might as well give him time. Maybe he’ll come around and say better things. There’s a whole range of actions that more liberal Catholics can take to make their opinion on the matter felt throughout the church. (Conservative article on the importance of Magisterium here, with the important kicker that it is in principle (Catholic)-theologically possible to have a difference of opinion with the Church and still be in good standing with God.)
Without hurling mud or insults or speculating on the wrongness of choices made by a young boy during a horrible war, it’s quite possible for those of us with an interest in non-Jewish, non-Catholic religions*, and even non-JC or non-Abrahamic religions, to defend our beliefs without making things worse. His statements are sort of wrong on the face of them for one thing.
(What’s so morally cruel about a cosmology that allows a finite soul to escape from the weight of actions explicitly self-generated over a + infinity set of lifetimes into an eternally non-unhappy state, either liberation or Nirvana as you like it? Anyone who thinks Eastern religions don’t have concrete moral obligations built in hasn’t read all the intensely LONG LISTS OF DUTIES we’re so crazy about. )
We’re better off simply making our religious beliefs correctly understood and staying above the fray, making it clear we will not be lovey dovey for any show business ecumentical dove releases this new Vatican wants to engage in unless it walks the walk. Let Ratzinger’s opinions out in the open, and let him stand by them or repudiate them, and let others stand by their consciences as well.
(*I’m pretty sure that there is a specific and ancient technical theological reason why the RC church does not try to convert Jews.)