Vatican’s tall but hollow claims


Cardinal Robert Sarah is known as an orthodox leader of Christians. Cardinal Sarah was very popular among the staunch Christians. Moreover, he was seen as the ‘Future Pope’ after Pope Francis. Cardinal Sarah was also liked by Pope Benedict, the former Pope; however, Pope Francis abruptly dismissed him.

Though the Church claimed that Cardinal Sarah had shown that he had resigned and Pope had accepted his resignation, in reality Cardinal Sarah had been dismissed. Pastors who hold various positions in the Vatican Church can serve till they are 75-years-old. Priests have to resign by this age. Yet, the Pope had earlier rejected such resignations and permitted them to remain active. Thus, the resignation is a mere formality. However, this was not the case with Cardinal Sarah. He had resigned in June 2020 and the resignation was accepted by the Pope in February 2021, and the Cardinal was relieved. The matter of expulsion has resulted in an internal dispute between the Pope and the Cardinal at the Vatican Church coming out in the open.

Dressed in white robes, these ‘priests of love and peace’ preach to the world the philosophy of cordiality and peace. However, this is not the case. Though, it is the discretion of these Christians to sit in the Vatican and make a fuss, it is their internal issue. The Christians who cannot resolve their internal issues amicably and peacefully should not teach Hindus about love, peace and cordiality. Since the Christian sect is devoid of a spiritual foundation, it is living in a state of tall but hollow claims.

Cardinal versus the Pope

Pope Francis is plagued by a growing disillusionment among the Christians with the Church. Therefore, he has taken the initiative for the Vatican Church to embrace modern thought. The Bible does not allow same-sex marriages; but, Pope Francis believes that the Church should take a lenient stance on the issue. A similar policy also pertains to aspects such as abortion, women’s emancipation on which Pope Francis wants to take mild perspectives. In doing so, the Pope feels that Christians around the world (who have turned their backs on the Church) will be drawn back to it.

Cardinal Sarah, on the other hand, does not agree. He said, “Recognising same-sex marriage and abortion is tantamount to recognising Nazi ideology”. In recent times, the sins of lustful priests around the world have come to light. Pope Francis is saving such priests, while Cardinal Sarah is adamant that ‘priests must observe celibacy’.

The biggest dispute between the two was the case of Muslim refugees. Pope Francis was of the opinion that European countries should welcome refugees, while Cardinal Sarah was of the opinion that if European countries give shelter to Muslim refugees, the Islamic attacks will take place all over the world.

It would have been better for Cardinal Sarah to express his dissenting views within the four walls of the Church. However, he expressed his views in interviews with media representatives and in public. As a result, the ideological rift between the present supreme leader of Christians and the future supreme leader came to the fore. Pope Francis wants to save Christianity in the guise of progressivism, while Cardinal Sarah wants to revive Christianity by embracing conservative thinking.

We do not want to get involved in pondering over who is wrong or who is right, nor do we need Hindus to show sympathy for Cardinal Sarah. No matter who becomes the supreme religious leader of Christians, his objective will be to evangelise India. The important aspect here is that no one has taken the initiative to settle the dispute between the clergy. It also shows their ideological immaturity.

Christianity theology should be critically analysed

Like a seasoned politician, Pope Francis removed the ‘thorn’ (Cardinal Sarah). If such an incident was to take place with the Shankaracharya (who is the supreme leader of Hindus) or some Dharmaguru, the media would have caused a ruckus. They would have painted the dispute as – ‘How bad are these fighting Dharmagurus’ by projecting stories such as ‘Hindus’ quarrelsome Dharmagurus’, ‘What will such Dharmagurus teach the people’, etc. However, Pope Francis did not have to go through such criticism. Neither has the Church issued any clarification over the matter nor has the media or the progressives compelled the Church in this case.

At present, the ‘Critical analysis of religious philosophy’ is a very familiar term among the progressives. This gang demands that ‘Hindu Dharma be critically analysed’ in any discussion on Hindu customs and traditions. But, why does no one seem to  demand a ‘Critical analysis of Christianity’ in view of the increasing activities of lustful clergy around the world, conversions through lure, the growing immorality in the Church, etc. ? If this is done, the world will know from where did the Christians get the ‘inspiration’ to oppress women by treating them as commodities of lust or conduct ‘inquisitions’.

The Vatican wants to promote Christianity; however, the path adopted by it is leading it to the abyss of destruction.

If the objective is noble and sound, there is no need to rely on falsehoods or immorality.

The Vatican wants to promote Christianity; but, the path adopted by it is leading it to the abyss of destruction !