Friday, April 16, 2010

Should the pope not be serving a few consecutive life sentences?

apr 16th, 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravi

Hello R,
Very happy to see that you are really covering a large base when it comes to religions and worldviews.
In case you did not know.  Cardinal Ratzinger (our current pope) before he became pope, labeled Hinduism as offering "false hope", and Buddhism as a "religion of auto-erotic spirituality".
Mother Theresa took money from dictators like Duvalier and robbers like Michael Milken.  Christianity is adept at making idiots out of thinking and rational minds, and in particular creates people who are clueless about dharma.  For them the end justifies the means.  For us, the MEANS is Dharma which itself is Iswara.
Frustrating, is it not?
Let us start a Hindu Anti Defamation League, Hindu United Nations and Young Mens Hindu Association.

From: R  
Subject: Should the pope not be serving a few consecutive life sentences?

Truth is God.
We believe in it.
Telling a lie is bad. You cannot get away with it. It will have its own karmic reaction. 
Gandhiji, as a kid in elementary school, refused to cheat in a spelling test. The word was Kettle.
The test was being conducted in the presence of a school inspector. He was grading the teacher. The teacher seeing the wrong spelling on Gandhi's slate, pinched him to correct. She wanted to have a good report. But Gandhi refused to cheat. For him Truth was GOD. He maintained that "truthfulness" all his life.
Compare that to the stance taken by the popes.
Now let us look at what Ratzinger, the present pope did.
The following is from NYT today.

And the sins of the fathers just keep coming. On Friday, The Associated Press broke the latest story pointing the finger of blame directly at Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, quoting from a letter written in Latin in which he resisted pleas to defrock a California priest who had sexually molested children.

As the longtime Vatican enforcer, the archconservative Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI — moved avidly to persecute dissenters. But with molesters, he was plodding and even merciful.

As the A.P. reported, the Oakland diocese recommended defrocking Father Stephen Kiesle in 1981. The priest had pleaded no contest and was sentenced to three years' probation in 1978 in a case in which he was accused of tying up and molesting two boys in a church rectory.

In 1982, the Oakland diocese got what it termed a "rather curt" response from the Vatican. It wasn't until 1985 that "God's Rottweiler" finally got around to addressing the California bishop's concern. He sent his letter urging the diocese to give the 38-year-old pedophile "as much paternal care as possible" and to consider "his young age." Ratzinger should have been more alarmed by the young age of the priest's victims; that's what maternal care would have entailed.

As in so many other cases, the primary concern seemed to be shielding the church from scandal. Chillingly, outrageously, the future pope told the Oakland bishop to consider the "good of the universal church" before granting the priest's own request to give up the collar — even though the bishop had advised Rome that the scandal would likely be greater if the priest were not punished.

In 1985 when the present pope talked with the the then pope John Paul, John agreed with Ratzinger that since the Church cannot afford to loose young priests, keep the criminals going.
This, in the legal books of any democratic country, is partnership in crime.
Molesting children is no small crime. Also a church which detests Homosexuality, male priests molesting male children is not only pedophylic  but also a homosexual act.
Now, these two guys, revered by the catholics as God himself,  have been caught with their hands smeared in blood from the crimes. The dead pope is going to become a saint. The present pope is sitting on the throne, leading 1.3 billion people.
Should the pope not be serving a few consecutive life sentences?


No comments: