The road less travelled...

I am sad that people have been so quick to jump on the future Benedict XVI. The accusation that bothers me the most is that people automatically assume that, because he was a German, he must also be a Nazi. Does that mean, if he had been Italian, he must have been a supporter of Mussolini? Pope John Paul was a Pole and there was no proof he acted against the Nazis - so OMG he was a collaborator! Of course not - people would have been hugely offended at the mere suggestion. So why can you get away with it with Benedict?

He may have done things in his past (and I don't know if he has - I'm covering my bases) that aren't the best - but, gee, is he all alone in that area? If God is willing to allow him to become head of His Church, what right do you have to criticise Him?

And if he was that bad, would John Paul II have had him as a member of his team? In fact, as one of his closest advisors? Or will you suggest some underhanded and dirty dealings? Of course not, because JPII is only one step removed from sainthood and can do no wrong.

Does the fact that it took such an amazingly small number of elections not suggest that the cardinals have faith in him? So what right do you have to make such libellous accusations?

Do not judge that you may not be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged. Matthew 7:1

I am sad that people have been so quick to jump on the future Benedict XVI. The accusation that bothers me the most is that people automatically assume that, because he was a German, he must also be a Nazi. Does that mean, if he had been Italian, he must have been a supporter of Mussolini? Pope John Paul was a Pole and there was no proof he acted against the Nazis - so OMG he was a collaborator! Of course not - people would have been hugely offended at the mere suggestion. So why can you get away with it with Benedict?

He may have done things in his past (and I don't know if he has - I'm covering my bases) that aren't the best - but, gee, is he all alone in that area? If God is willing to allow him to become head of His Church, what right do you have to criticise Him?

And if he was that bad, would John Paul II have had him as a member of his team? In fact, as one of his closest advisors? Or will you suggest some underhanded and dirty dealings? Of course not, because JPII is only one step removed from sainthood and can do no wrong.

Does the fact that it took such an amazingly small number of elections not suggest that the cardinals have faith in him? So what right do you have to make such libellous accusations?

Do not judge that you may not be judged. For with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged. Matthew 7:1