the most embarrassing part is he’s from my mom’s hometown. but who knows how and why things play out the way they do. i like being catholic. i imagine your friends do, too if they are still catholic. don’t know if our religion will still be around in the future. maybe all the cathedrals will become homes to climbing walls and rave clubs when they close down. or maybe catholics will find some way to “be” in the world without leaving it all behind.

What a mean spirited, biased article.
Who are these “Catholic friends” that he always seems to find.

“For that reason precisely, it’s a sure bet that the Pope will dig his heels in and try to create some outrage – most likely condemning Gays (easiest target).”
Even as a liberal-minded Catholic, I find this to be a completely groundless cheap shot – as though Benedict wants to somehow “rally the troops” by baiting them with a gay bashing polemic.
Then again, I shouldn’t be all that surprised. When left without anything cogent to say about the Papacy or Church, why not roll out the old “child molester” canard while you’re at it. Oh… I’m too late.

Millions find happiness and are called to serve the poor through this church. i for one wish this church longevity.
What is the difference between you, gotham, and lets say my catholic grandmother, a decent woman who believes in church doctrine?-the answer: no difference. you sound like an elitist..

I saw Real Time with Bill Maher the other Night he said that the Pope before he was Pope wrote a letter to all the Bishops instructing them to wait until the statue of limitations ran out for the child molesting priests and to keep the knowledge of the molesting secret.
Bill also implied that if the Pope who was a Nazi by the way, was a CEO of a multi-national corporation that employed caretakers for preschools, Bill said, “I bet you money that an arrest warrant would be sworn for apprehending him immediately and bringing him to justice.”
I hope that by you forgiving the Pope for what he did is right. Because if you forgive him you need to forgive all the priests that molested all those kids. Wouldn’t that be a Christ thing to do.

“Catholic Priests disproportionally sexually mess with young boys”
And Hindus disproportionately strangled travelers and ate their dead in the name of Kali. Also, go Google “sexual abuse in India” and try not be horrified by what you find.
“Will he stick to the vague”
If I want “vague”, I go to Deepak Chopra, not the Pope.
Look, this is a blog about holistic spirituality, right? Then stick to that, and try to get your family to go more than two days without attacking my faith and maybe then we can all live and let live, which is my personal preference.
I’ll be praying for you.
Bob

I write as a non-Catholic Christian so it could be said that I have no dog in this fight. However, I found the article by G. Chopra intellectually empty and spiritually immature. Benedict (Big Ben!) may or may not be a saint, but I believe he is a man of deep spiritual and intellectual integrity. I encourage anyone who wants a more balanced view of the Pope to read his works. His “Introduction to Christianity” is superb, and Eerdmans has published “The Essential Benedict XVI” which is a wonderful collection of essays. It includes the Pope’s “God is Love” encyclical and other “out-dated views”.

I think it is always a good thing when people choose to think for themselves and search their own hearts and minds about their spirituality. That said, I know many who have done this search and have decided to be Catholic. And while the Pope claims to be infallible, most of the Catholics I know don’t believe the Pope is. They view him as a human being who has been called by God to lead the church…but that even the Pope is capable of doing the most human of all things…make mistakes. That said, they’re not afraid to question him or their church leaders. And that I think is a good thing. First because it challenges religious leaders to really think about what it is their saying, teaching, etc. It makes them think deeper and deeper (something they’re supposed to do). Secondly I think it causes the devotees to also think deeper and deeper (something they’re supposed to do). And in the end I think it is safe to say that the church will continue to evolve just as it always has, that it will continue to help give guidance to people’s spiritual lives. So long as the church seeks to guide and not rule I think that is always better spiritually for the devotees. And so far I think that’s what we see happening. Not an ending of the church, but the church constantly reflecting upon its own teachings, traditions, beliefs, etc while at the same time realizing that it is spiritually better to guide than to dictate and rule. In some religions this has long been the case and in others, not just Catholicism, it is slowing merging out from the deep spiritual contemplation. I, personally, do not dislike the Catholic Church. Despite it sometimes verbally attacking people or trying to dictate/control/rule rather than guide on certain areas…the people, especially the laity, are very active in their communities and do a lot of good works because of the spiritual guidance that leads them in their faith to do these works. And while he could go and attack gays since they are an easy target, chances are it seems his trip here is more about building bridges than it is about tearing people down. After all, part of his visit here he’ll be meeting with religious leaders from many different religions (except apparently the Sikhs unless they do not wear their kirpan with them…due to security concerns by the security teams that are protecting him on the visit, last I heard the Sikh leaders hadn’t said they were definitely going to wear them, so they may just meet with him afterall)….Buddhists, Hindus, Jains, Taoists, Shintos, Pagans, Jews, Muslims, Zoroastrians, and all the other rich diverse religious communities that exist here in the US will be represented (or have attempted to be represented) to have a special meeting with the Pope. Thus it seems to me that he is here on a spiritual diplomatic mission more than he is here to condemn. But I suppose we’ll see what the future holds.

Gotham Chopra took a very harsh stand towards the pope and his visit. He expresses an overall judgment and condemnation towards the pope far more strongly than where he hopes Benedict will discuss and face what he calls “good stuff”.

This was one very stinging commentary. I sure would like to see what he would have to say if someone acted in the same manner towards any leader of his faith or spiritual following.

…Pope claims to be infallible…[but] even the Pope is capable of doing the most human of all things…make mistakes.”
We believe, as Catholics, that a pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals. It’s an important distinction to make, and it’s one based on history.
Take a peek at the Middle Ages and you’ll discover that some monsterous men made their way into the papacy. But even though these particular men were in the perfect position to teach against church doctrine, and even though these particular men were so immoral that you would expect them to reverse doctrine and work to destroy the Church (which preached a lifestyle contrary to the ones they lived), in the end they never did. They never even tried.
We take that as proof that no Pope — regardless of whatever personal immorality he may guilty of — can teach against will of the Holy Spirit.
If they could, the Church would’ve fallen centuries ago.
So long as the church seeks to guide
And to provide guidance there must be boundaries, or else it wouldn’t be guidance. When the control tower guides a plane onto the runway, it’s with the idea that the guidance will provided with the boundaries of runways and other planes in sight.
Same with the Church. If it didn’t provide guidance within a time-tested framework and simply said “every man for himself”, we would have… well, just about every other religious tradition I can think of.

His excellency Mr. Bush and wife and daughter are helping to fulfill Bible prophecy (book of REVELATION) which says that the second beast, namely the country that was settled after much persecution in the “Old world” will eventually shake hands with the first beast, namely the ruling religion in Europe during the “Dark Ages” . Read the book, “The Great Controversy,” written by Ellen G. White, and then read other history books on western civilization and compare. Names like John Huss, Wycliff, Jerome, Martin Luther etc dared to oppose the ruling religion and were martyred for their beliefs.
How can an individual be fallible one moment, and the next infallible just because he has assended to the throne of POPE. By the way, he likes PRADA shoes and nice shining clothing. Lives in luxury, and dines in luxury unlike mother Theresa and unlike Jesus Christ. Come on,
give me a break.

Disproportionately mess with young boys? Really? Not according to the stats I’ve seen. By all accounts the number of priests since 1950 who’ve done such things, as a percentage of the overall priesthood, is about in line with non-Catholic ministers and far less than the rate experienced in America’s public schools from teachers for instance:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/clergy_sex8.htm
Where are you getting your information Mr. Chopra?

I find this a shockingly nasty post. Would Mr. Chopra like similar posts about Deepak? Before he posts such drivel, he needs to do a little research into what Catholics actually believe, what Pope Benedict has actually said and done, and who he is accusing of “blind faith.”

Actually, Catholic priests sexually offend at a far lower rate than, say, school teachers. You’re more likely to abused by a third-rate self-help guru than a Catholic priest.
As for the rest of your ignorant post … why both responding? It’s so devoid of actual thought and anything but the most grotesque anti-Catholic bigotry that it Fisks itself. It’s clear you have never read a single thing by Cardinal Ratzinger, so why both airing your ignorance in a public forum?

Big Ben? What a snide, sophomoric, embarassing bit of “commentary” this is.

Your writings on the Church and the pope could benefit from some research into what the pope has actually said and what the Church actually teaches and believes.
I’ve asked a few of my Catholic friends this week how pumped they are for the arrival of Pope Benedict the XVI, and I am not gonna lie to you – the response has been far from overwhelming.
Interesting. I and most of my Catholic friends are stoked. I guess we know different people.
That said, the Pope’s arrival on our shores will reveal a lot depending on what he’s here to say.
What exactly is hidden that needs revealing? There are no secrets in Catholic doctrine; if someone misunderstands it, then what’s needed is education, not revelation.
To that end, there’s interest amongst Catholics and Philistines alike as to what exactly the Pope is coming to say . Will he stick to the vague “Christ our hope” messaging
“Christ our hope” is the theme of his visit. Themes are necessarily vague. This theme is simply the basis for Benedict’s speeches and conferences. If you want clarification, listen to and read his statements. Benedict is very precise in his language, and if you pay attention to what he says (as opposed to what your local newspaper says he says) you will get all the clarity you desire.
or will he venture out to talk about the good stuff – Gays getting hitched, abortion, where God stands on this crazy Iraq War, and why Catholic Priests disproportionally sexually mess with young boys…?
I don’t think he’s likely to address most of these issues. The Church already teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, and will never sanction a gay “marriage” because it would be scandalous, in the sense of encouraging sinful behavior- mainly unmarried sex between the two “spouses”. This issue does not need to be revisited. Many non-Catholics (and a vocal minority of self-described Catholics) might like the Church to change its teachings, but this would require the Church to either (A)state that Church teaching up till now has been mistaken, thereby denying the fact that dogma is guided by the Holy Spirit, or (B)state that morality has changed, and what was once sinful is no longer sinful, thereby suggesting that God’s will is based less on objective truth than on prevailing social trends. I don’t think the pope will bother to address this “issue” for the simple reason that it has already been addressed and answered unequivocally.
The Church’s teaching on the non-issue of abortion has also already been made very, very clear. You can keep asking the Church to address it if you want, over and over, in the hopes of getting a new answer, but I’d not suggest holding your breath.
Benedict XVI gave his opinion on the war publicly before Iraq was invaded. He said that such an invasion would be unjust and condemnable. I have not heard him mention whether he felt the US should remove all troops from Iraq, but I doubt he’ll speak for God in this matter. His visit is a pastoral one, not an opportunity for political debate.
As for your question about priests abusing children, he has addressed it in his speech to the US bishops’ conference. You will not likely hear any more from him on the subject while he is here. (As a side note, I think you meant to use the word “disproportionately”.)
The truth is that while there is definitely some degree of backlash – Americans adopting conservative values of various faiths – the overwhelming and inevitable trend seems to point toward most ditching their blind faith.
I must respectfully disagree with your assumption that conservatism has anything more to do with blindness than does liberalism. It’s perfectly possible to be a thinking person and adhere to an orthodox faith. It’s also possible to adopt “liberal” values without really thinking them through.
I for one, think this is a good thing. No offense to Big Ben, but to me the fewer people who show up to his various events, the better off we all are.
If you think paying attention to the pope is bad for all of us, why are you writing about him?
For that reason precisely, it’s a sure bet that the Pope will dig his heels in and try to create some outrage – most likely condemning Gays (easiest target).
You’re not very familiar with the speeches and writings of our pope, are you? Trying to create outrage is not his style; he is a very charitable man, and if he thinks someone needs correcting, he will do it in a charitable (and unequivocal) fashion. He has written and said very little about gay people, but again the Church’s teaching on unmarried sex (as all gay sex necessarily is) is already clear. Calling “Gays [the] easiest target” in this time and place is a little strange. It shows, for one thing, that you think the pope is looking for targets to shoot at. He isn’t. As he said in his initial message to the American people, the purpose of his visit is pastoral- not military, or even political. Also, it seems to me that in 21st century America, the Catholic Church is an easier target than the gay lifestyle.
Likewise, his excellency George Bush will also certainly make much ado about the Pope’s visit if only to remind Americans that he exists. To me though, they are both lame ducks, both with out-dated views, both men whose flocks are in obvious and overt retreat. The fact that they will find resonance in one another is no real surprise.
While the number of faithful Catholics is declining (at least in the US) as is the number of Bush-supporters, I think “retreat” may be a bad choice of words. A shrinking flock is not a retreating flock, and as far as I can tell, Catholics are not abandoning their posts. To continue the military metaphor, just because some soldiers are defecting does not mean that the army as a whole is retreating. Those who remain faithful are not giving up their positions.
The biggest issue the Pope will find on this visit to America, a nation where Catholics still make up the single largest religious group, is that he and the Church are just not as relevant as they once were. Am I alone in thinking that’s not such a bad thing?
Members of secular society may not acknowledge the value of the Church’s teaching, being more concerned with contemporary popular culture. So be it. The Church does not generally acknowledge the value of social trends, being more concerned with unchanging truths. The Church was not “relevant” in ancient Rome either, and opposed many popular practices of the time, including arena combat, abortion, and infanticide. I do, however, agree with you that the biggest issue the pope will find is the moral apathy of many Americans, including many members of the Church. As a side note, your statement about Catholics being the largest religious group in the country depends on how you group people. I believe American Protestants still outnumber American Catholics.
If you’d like to do some research for any future writing about the Catholic Church or Benedict XVI, please feel free to email me. I’d be happy to send you some links.
Pax,
Sleeping Beastly

I pray that you find Christ and leave this New Age nonsense. If you think “Christ Our Hope” is “vague” then you (nor your father) really understand Christ. No other phrase could cut more to the truth than that. Its is beautiful in its simpllicity and succinctness.
Oh and if you think i have “blind faith”…well, its better than being blind, deaf and dumb when it comes to the Truth.
Miserere nobis, Deus

I take no offense in this view.i feel that there has to be a moral code are there not the ten commandments.However I will not judge another.
the world is full of hate and judgement .Going back to forgiveness is essential to the healing of our world.Jesus drew a circle in the sand who here is not without sin shame? Catholic or any religion is of ones personal choice such is your day Before God! to take ones opinion to heart is frivilous and an extreme waste of energy.why not put ones beliefs in action rather then through condemnation?
God Bless everyone

I was disappointed in this rather “misguided” post by Gotham Chopra, but I truly enjoyed and appreciated the subsequent comments about Pope Benedict and Catholicism. Thanks for the comments! PMMRC

Instead of calling this bygotham_chopra.html we should call it bigotham_chopra.html
The nerve of writing about something he doesn’t understand!
And with the “spiritual authority” the Chopra name evokes in some misguided people!
Unbelievable!

I have quite a lot of admiration for your father.I’ve read two of is books – The Seven Laws of Succcess and How to Know God .I’ve learned so much from this amazing man Deepak. In the two books I’ve read of the senior Chopra I’ve found him to be very gracious towards people of Christian faith and I can’t even imagine him writing the disrespectful and caustic words which you have wrote of the Holy Father.Even as a nominal,perhaps even dissident Catholic I found your remarks hurtful. Gotham you have a beautiful familial heritage I can only pray you grow into the charitable ,wise and gracious man that is your father.