I do not believe that Pope Bennedict’s comments on Islam were a mistake that he has to apologise for ..
I think his remarks were deliberate, and with full understanding of the implications of those remarks in the Muslim world. It was not am impromptu speach. He was reading from a text, and I am sure that when the Pope, as with any head of state, reads from a text, the matter has been carefully whetted by his advisors and the full understanding of how the words will be interpreted in a world on the brink of communal war.
So why did he make those remarks ? Or more to the point, why did the Vatican believe that these remarks needed to be stated today, unless they represented a statement of the Vatican’s position on Islam ?
More to the point, is this the first call to Christians to rally aorund the church ? Is this the begining of a call for fundamentalism from the Vatican ?
Shekhar
Shekhar, I have to disagree with you. The Popes comments may have been deliberate but they are true.
It is as true as Christian crusades, Casteism in Hindus and wrong doings of many civilizations, cultures.
Hey Shekhar, I completely agree you. In times like this why would a pope make a comment in this time and age and he did not apologize he said he is sorry for the outcry, So me think the Vatican is cooking up some thing.
Dear Shekhar
The Pope was deliberate in his choice of text, certainly. But his understanding of politics, history and emotions, outside the realm of the Vatican, may be limited, and may have led him to make a misstep with that choice.
The Pope is a priest first and foremost, is celibate, and has, moreover, climbed to the top of one of the most rigid political hierarchical structures in Christianity. He is not an ordinary man by any means. He is more gifted than many people, and more focused on his own goals. He does not have a wife or children. He listens to himself, and probably trusts his own judgment more than he trusts anyone else’s. What is his emotional life like? Is he emotionally free, or is he contained? His conservativism leads me to believe he is essentially contained. He turns inward to the old church, not outward to an unknown future church, by preference. He was known for his conservatism, bureaucratic skills, and legalism, before he was elected Pope. These values and skills are all inward-turning, tending to ignore the outside world’s requirements, in favor of winning at whatever game is being played. He’s very skilled at playing within the walls of the Vatican itself, which means playing on a field where he has control. He does not have such deep experience and skills as a diplomat or statesman in the outside world. During the Conclave that elected him, a number of experts expressed some doubts about his lack of diplomatic experience, and his somewhat limited pastoral experience, especially in his later years.
He is not the openhearted, forward-thinking man his predecessor was. He is not perfect and all-seeing. He is fiercely stubborn, reputedly. I see no evidence, in his character, or his history as a Cardinal, to tell me he chose this text knowing full well what the reaction would be, and risked it anyway because of some bigger purpose. I see nothing in his past or present behavior that says he would tend to listen to his advisors, with an open heart and mind, and with full respect for their wisdom and experience, and so I seriously doubt that his advisors fully supported his choice of text.
He reads, to me, like an older, more religious Bush in this — going out on a limb according to his inner desires (or demons), while ignoring those close to him who have a more subtle and deep (and experienced) view of the world.
This is just my current opinion of the man. It’s based on reading about his behavior. I’d like to see some clips of him on TV, especially reading the text, and the full quasi-apology. His body language and tone of voice would tell me better if my sense of this is right or wrong.
(For anyone wondering, I’m an Episcopalian Christian, which is part of the Anglican Communion, derived from the Church of England, that split off from Roman Catholicism in England in King Henry VIII’s time; my church has priests, but not celibacy; woman priests are allowed; it has many similarities to Roman Catholicism, but does not recognize the Pope as its head priest.)
love, Heather
dear shekhar
you r right.a pope is a responsible authority.He was reading from a text which must have been carefullly edited by his spoke people.but i do not think the pope was wrong i n whatever he said.he should have certainly not apologised.
hi dude…
ABOUT PAIGAMBAR-
Pope Benedict is still a wanderer. Muhammad Paigambar reached. The only problem with Paigambar is that he was a mystic and it is difficult to interpret and understand a mystic with mind. Some people claim that Vyasa had written that Muhamaad is a rebirth of a deadly demon. Muhammad was a rebirth of a COMPLETE demon. And Maharshi Vyasa was a miracle in himself. He was Maharshi, one step lower to saint but it is always a conscious decision. He wrote so much that no one has ever written before him and will write after him. he said ‘A complete Demon will rise and his followers will be fundamentalists’. And there has not been a COMPLETE DEMON ever born on this earth. Muhammad Paigambar was the first and the last one. He was a mystic of his own kind. Those who can understand Krishna can understand Paigambar. Those who did not understand Christ properly they are saying something about Paigambar.
Except few sufis, no muslim understood Muhammad in true
sense.
ABOUT FUNDAMENTALISM-
One God, One Prophet and One book… Fundamentalism is the result.
But is spreading a religion forcefully a fundamentalism? No. That’s not all to it. It has subtle layers.
And this is not a first call for fundamentalism from Vatican. Christians are already fundamentalist. Christ was a mystic himself. And few Christian mystics after Christ truly understood him. Rest are fundamentalists in some or the other way.
They have to be! It is a question of survival. Not intellect, not hunger, not sex but EGO (gravity) drives the world.
Same is the case with Hindus. There are Hindu fundamentalists. And they are afraid that other fundamentalist religions will diminish their religion.
Ideologies are bound to fail. Fundamentals never fail.
And people who are ideological are fundamentalists in some or the other way. True religion is always based on Fundamentals. Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Sikh, Judaism, Buddhist all are based on Fundamentals of Nature. Ideologies are created by Mind and they create Fundamentalism.
Even today there are TRUE masters in all these religions and they don’t spread their religion but they spread the message!
take care…lots of love…tata…kedar.
Hey Shekhar,
I think whatever happened was a publicity stunt, it had been a long time after the election of Pope that vatican was in news, and Vatican being the headquaters of christianity , and not being in news, not a good thing for the spread of that religion.
Religion itself has been a huge busines since centuries, a busines whoes credibility lies on the no. of followers it hold. Christiany and islam are the big players, ever since their birth, they have adopted themselves to the changing society with their changing stratgies , well changing with time is a good thing, but incase of religion, where spituality should be at its base, where reaching the higher levels of satisfaction should be the goal, where there should be no trace of politics………the reason for the reducing no. of followers in hinduism is, the only entry gate it created to follow it was by birth. Hinduism needs a good manager who can bring about new reforms for its growth , may be IIMs can help,heheh.
Well i think religion and spituality are two different things, sometimes spiriuality uses the road of relgion , i wish if religion could use the road of spirituality in that case things would have been so simple and clear. As far as fundamentalism is concerned i agree with kedar ,fundamentaslism is necesarry for the survival of religion, u need to have blind followers, followers whom you can twist and turn according to your will. Funda. is part of every religion or what would sound much better is, it is there in every individual, it is difficult to find a normal human being practising the preaching of chritianity and islam, well I personally don’t see a problem with it, If we can use a German car with the fuel comming from arab world to reach our destinations, why cant we follow philosophies of two religion if it can get us closer to ourself. Monopoly excists in our minds….
Hope so a day will come when human being start using religion for their own good instead religion using huaman beings for their growth..
Takecare
Dear All,
It all appears to be that Islam is the fastest spreading Religion in the West. The pope speaks so, because of the fear that his grip over Christianity is weakening. Those who dare call bad names to the religion and its founder need to study Islam from the knowers of Islam to understand the reality. I challenge any person studying Islam, will ever dare criticise it in the true sense. The History of Spain under the rule of Islam for 5 centuries is the proof of the peaceful nature of Islam. The pope rallied the christians to carry out crusades against Islam so that they regain the grip over the people under the name of religion, and rule over them.
Jihads and Crusades are the outcome of exclusivistic thought processes – a malnourishment of the soul . Christianity , the story of the Christ has many flaws. Mohammed and his brutal barrack like lifestyle and inspired killings still reverbrate in this world. Where will all that blood go ? Something gotta pay. The karmic cycle is nearing its full circle movement – we are close to a review of these inhuman forces that have drenched Earth in Blood and Gore.
Krishna of the ‘Yadu’ or Yadava clan and his stories spread far west of indian borders of Gandhar( Modern Persia) , and created this myth of ‘Judaist’ Krist ( or Christ with a ‘C’). Chitpavan brahmin missionaries of Asoka Empire are testimony to this – Something that resonable historians should look into.
As our sages have said , rooted in truth , ‘ Stayameva Jayate’. Truth alone triumphs’. All the noise and warfare and killing and burning libraries , and destroying temples and desecrating sacred idols of gods , and raping Hindu women and Pillaging untouched common folk in the name of spreading ‘ religion’ is a travesty in the name of god.
They will all pay.
Truth will prevail.
Rudra.
POPE should not have said what he said against PROPHET Muhammab. THE christian leaders and muslim leader shoud be very careful in their remaks on other religions.PEOPLE SHOUD COME FORWARD TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRE OF HATERED ,MALICE AND ENEMITY. Muhammad was a prophet of God and so was Christ.One should choose one’s words while saying some thing about prophets.
yes u are right it was delliberate.
Priests are hypocrats.They have lot of luxuries to lose. They have to protect their castles.Pity on them.
Islam is incomparabily glorious to be prevented by the head of hypocrats.No wonder, Islam is the religion of God.
God knows whether the Pope Benedict’s comments on Islam were a mistake or deliberate attempt to offend Islam but If The Man Apologized In front Of Every One and Regrets What He Said, He Is Forgiven In My Book.
dear brother and sister
read this
before raising fingers on other just checkout u r own books ,bible says earth is flat like a coin bible is incompatable with science,it has innumerable scientific errors, innumerable mathematic errors , absurdity, and infact the word christinaty is not there in whole bible the name jesus is not there in whole bibile
what actually he deliverates is more sensitive to muslim world as it hits the feelings of religion in muslim heart. Islam is the religion of peace so it also preaches the statement of peace and prisperity.so pope’s statement is crime and no issue of forgiveness for her. so in the court of me i can’t forgive him.Besides in the early time the other scholar of them also press this sorts of statement.