A friend of mine sent me this article:
http://www.newint.org/issue327/worldbeaters.htm

Its more of the same stuff, except maybe a little more explicit:

"In 1997 Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an ‘
autoerotic spirituality’ that offers ‘transcendence without imposing 
concrete religious obligations’."

Autoerotic? A little confused (maybe there's an interpretation of the word I'm 
unaware of), I consulted the dictionary:
au·to·er·o·tism  (ôt-r-tzm) or au·to·e·rot·i·cism (--rt-szm)
n.
   1. Self-satisfaction of sexual desire, as by masturbation.
   2. The arousal of sexual feeling without an external stimulus.
(source: www.dictionary.com)

Funny guy, this new pope. 

-V


On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 11:59:34PM -0400, Daniel Reeves wrote:

> wow, sent my last email before I saw this.  This is an absolutely
> delightful response.
> 
> and yes, I retract that "must be crushed" part.  (it was a Voltaire
> reference)
> 
> --- \/   FROM Andrew Reeves AT 05.04.20 23:44 (Today)   \/ ---
> 
> > Danny:
> >    I think your animosity is ill-advised; I certainly oppose very
> > strongly any attempt at "crushing" (whatever that means) because it
> > would only cause the "circling of the wagons" by the faithful.
> > Catholicism must be allowed to die peacefully, and it is my serious
> > opinion that you and your generation will live to see that happening if
> > you only leave it alone and let it expire by the weight of its own
> > internal absurdities and prevarications. The election of Ratzinger was
> > in my opinion an excellent step because it will only accelerate this
> > process. I was actually trembling that they might elect a "moderate"
> > Pope who would make concessions with the superficial problems such as
> > celibacy (closely associated with priestly pedophilia) exclusion of
> > females, and so forth which would keep the simpletons happy and thereby
> > add a few decades to the moribund agonies of the church. In the
> > meantime, of course, the core problems (tri-une God, Virgin Birth,
> > transubstantiation) would remain untouched. Seeing that this is not what
> > happened (and how promptly!) almost makes me believe in the Holy Spirit!
> >    To answer your questions: All militant religions are equally evil;
> > Islam has in our time a slight edge because it blows up buildings which
> > Catholicism has outgrown. I don't begrudge any cleric to think that his
> > religion is the only true one and all the others are false; history
> > shows that the smaller the difference the hotter the fury. Remember the
> > "one iota" difference (homousion vs. homoiusion) between the Anathasians
> > and Arians at the Council of Nicea? 50,000 people were massacred in one
> > night which was quite a feat in the 4th century. Given the advances in
> > weaponry even Osama has a lot to learn. --Grandpa Andrew
> >
> >
> >
> > Daniel Reeves wrote:
> > >
> > >  Seriously, is there a greater force of evil in the world than the
> > > catholic church?
> > >
> > > Couple blurbs from CNN about the new anti-gay, anti-feminist,
> > > anti-contraception, anti-catholicity pope:
> > >
> > >	Ratzinger has said modernity led to a blurring of sexual identity,
> > >	causing some feminists to become adversaries of men. He labeled
> > >	homosexuality "an intrinsic moral evil."
> > >
> > >	He argued that Muslim Turkey did not belong in Christian Europe and
> > >	issued a document saying that Catholicism was the only true religion,
> > >	questioning the validity of other religions, even Christian ones, even
> > >	as his Pope John Paul II was trying to reach out to other faiths.
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"
> >
> 
> -- 
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -	google://"Daniel Reeves"
> 
> "There was a time when religion ruled the world.  It is known as the
> Dark Ages." -- Ruth Hermence Green (Women Without Superstition)
> 
> 
>