Dear Bhandare, I appreciate your response. I mean it.
You are dead correct from 1-5. No question about it. In 3, you point out that the main issue is not pedophilia. It did come across as a significant topic of contention, and again you right to bring it up. My point was where the issue of the Church' imbroglio and ones contribution to mean came up.
The two Cardinals should have been fried. It is egregious, I mean despicable that has not been the case. By fried, I mean. The Pope could have done much better. Better is such a weak word, but he SHOULD have addressed the world on this issue. But the practice of Christianity does not always seek Christ-ness though a lot of noise is made in the mans name. It is also very convenient to forgive people who have screwed peoples happiness. So I am with you on this. Christianity thrives on this to some degree, that we can be forgiving. There has to be skeletons, and one does not have to provide any further proof on it. Lets just have FAITH on this.
When I mentioned Sati, it was strictly strictly done as a comparison to highlight again the central theme of condoning; to state that it is hard to make such relationships. I believe that I did explain that just because things have happened in the past (however rarely the occurrences) that I do not hold the larger Hindu body including cultural or secular Hindus responsible. Truly, I would not poke you in that manner. It will never happen. I took time on that sentence to make sure it did not come across as though I was holding Hindus accountable as well as making sure that those practices were mentioned strictly to make an analogous comparison. Again as I said, the point was made to say/ask/state that if such and such things happened then would it mean that the Hindus were responsible, in extension to mean whether they condoned. I did add-Of course not.
I think we have resolved this and applaud your desire in expressing yourself further. One think we all encounter on any net, and perhaps a little more on Goanet (although I do not speak much) is unarmed combat. But we can weather it better. I do it by occasionally reminding myself of: Lokas shikve Bramadnyan, Aapand (aapnas) korde paashand.
You question is a classic. On the top level one cannot support such an organization, including the Church, since in the silence you are also asking about the Church, but camparing it with thsoe other organizations which is resaonable though not totally apt. The progressives and liberals would have to know this. The question is in the nature ofthe support. Getting closer, my mother goes to church and drops her mite in the till. She goes for confession and still wears the veil if I am not mistaken. What she takes away is not what she would allow the Church to get away with. She would say, exactly what you said earlier in #2 that, "Overwhelming majority of priests are good people,a large number of then have even been falsely accused in the past and hence are victims themselves." So what I am saying is that we should attack the right and left who condone in terms of their thoughts, words and actions. The Shiv Sena is not all retarded. There are some amazing Shaka Pramukhs. You see what I am getting at. But just because one goes to a Ganesh visarjan organized by a shaka does not mean that one colludes in everything. Look at what happened to Cambodia, those guys were educated at the Sorbonne. They happily did away with 1/3 of the poulation to benefit the other 2/3. These are extremely hard things to tease out. But we have to allow people to say their bit, and not get stung. On the other hand groups find power in numbers and do wrong when opportunities present themselves. Just look at our Partition. When someone hammers Christianity, people surface to defend it and likewise others do when they do the Dharma. Watch their language. And look into oneslf or the activity (lets call it bukamp) in ones mind when such things occur. That is all I can say.
Take care. In appreciation. Venantius