Both (Jesus and the Holy Spirit) visibly reacted the very instant the word "pope" was mentioned

"The Last Judgment was painted by
Michelangelo between 1535-1541... The
work was constructed on a grand scale, and
spans the entire wall behind the altar of the
Sistine Chapel. The Last Judgment is a
depiction of the second coming of Christ and
the Apocalypse. The souls of humanity rise
and descend to their fates as judged by
Christ and his saintly entourage. The wall on
which The Last Judgment is painted looms
out slightly over the viewer as it rises, and is
meant to be somewhat fearful and to instill
piety and respect for God's power." Wikipedia "After exchanging greetings all of them sat down. Kash then asked the Spirit of the Living God again if he could ask Shri Jesus some questions. The Great Holy Spirit smiled and told him to go ahead. Kash first posed this question to Shri Christ, "Lord Jesus, who is your Father?" Shri Jesus immediately replied, "The Spirit is My Father."

Kash then asked Shri Jesus if it would be all right to convince the pope of these Revelations. For the first and only time Kash saw both the Great Adi Shakti and Shri Jesus being taken aback for some reason. Both visibly reacted the very instant the word "pope" was mentioned, as if it was a name that should not be uttered in the Sacred Sanctuary of His Kingdom. They actually moved backwards as the force of the name hit them like a curse. It was as if the word had defiled the immaculate purity, the utter holiness of Heaven itself. It was as if it had the essence of Evil."

Pope accused of failing to act on sex abuse case
BBC 25 March 2010

Pope Benedict XVI failed to act over complaints during the 1990s about a priest in the US who is thought to have abused some 200 deaf boys, victims say.

As head of the Vatican office dealing with sex abuses, the then Cardinal Ratzinger allegedly did not respond to letters from an archbishop on the case.

A Church trial of the priest was halted after he wrote to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger pleading ill health.

The Vatican newspaper said the claims were an "ignoble" smear attempt.

The Holy See has been plagued in recent months by abuse cover-up claims in Europe, echoing a similar scandal that hit the Church in the US eight years ago.

For more than 20 years before he was made pontiff, Cardinal Ratzinger led the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith - the Vatican office with responsibility, among other issues, for response to child abuse cases.

An archbishop wrote letters in 1996 to the Vatican watchdog led by Cardinal Ratzinger calling for disciplinary proceedings against Fr Lawrence Murphy, according to Church and Vatican documents.

Fr Murphy was a popular priest who is believed to have molested some 200 boys at St John's School for the Deaf in St Francis, Wisconsin, between 1950 and 1974.

A canonical trial authorised by Cardinal Ratzinger's deputy was halted after Fr Murphy wrote to the future pope asking that proceedings be stopped, despite objections from a second archbishop.

The accused priest said in the letter that he was ill and wanted to live out the remainder of his time in the "dignity of my priesthood".

Victims say Fr Murphy - who died in 1998 - assaulted boys while hearing their confessions, in his office, his car, at his mother's house and in their dormitory beds.

He was quietly moved to the Diocese of Superior in northern Wisconsin in 1974, where he spent his last 24 years working freely with children in parishes and schools, according to one lawsuit.

Lawsuits have been filed on behalf of five men alleging the Archdiocese of Milwaukee in Wisconsin did not take sufficient action against the priest.

'Fall on the sword'

At a news conference on Thursday in Milwaukee, one of the victims, Arthur Budzinski, said Fr Murphy had begun to assault him when he was 12.

Neither the clerical authorities, nor the police had intervened when he reported it, the 61-year-old said.

Mr Budzinski was asked through a sign language interpreter what he wanted to see happen now.

"Ratzinger can have all of the colonels and lieutenants they want fall on the sword for him, but eventually he has to 'fess up," the interpreter said.

Meanwhile, members of a group of clerical abuse victims who denounced Benedict's handling of the case in a news conference outside the Vatican were briefly detained by Italian police for not having a permit.

'Despicable intention'

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said there was no cover- up, denouncing the allegations as "clearly an ignoble attempt to strike at Pope Benedict and his closest aides at any cost".

The Pope's official spokesman, Federico Lombardi, called it a "tragic case", but said there was no provision in Church law for automatic punishment.

He noted that police did investigate the allegations at the time but did not press charges.

Fr Lawrence Murphy died in 1998 with no
official blemish on his record The papal spokesman said the Murphy case had only reached the Vatican in 1996 - two decades after the Milwaukee diocese first learned of the allegations and two years before the priest died.

The diocese was asked to take action by "restricting Father Murphy's public ministry and requiring that Father Murphy accept full responsibility for the gravity of his acts", he added.

Last week the Pope issued an unprecedented letter to Ireland addressing the 16 years of clerical cover-up scandals.

He has yet to comment on his handling of a child sex abuse case involving a German priest, which developed while Benedict was overseeing the Munich archdiocese.

The Rev Peter Hullermann had been accused of abusing boys when the now Pope approved his 1980 transfer to Munich to receive psychological treatment for paedophilia.

The disgraced priest was convicted in 1986 of abusing a youth, but stayed within the Church for another two decades.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587082.stm

The then Cardinal Ratzinger was one of
the best-informed Vatican officials Pressure grows on Pope over handling of abuse cases
David Willey
BBC Vatican correspondent
25 March 2010

Allegations have surfaced in the US that Pope Benedict failed to take action before his election as pontiff in yet another serious case of clerical paedophilia which has just come to light, this time at a school for deaf children in the state of Wisconsin.

The case has been confirmed by the Vatican. The Pope's spokesman, however, defended the pontiff's silence on the grounds that the Vatican department responsible for disciplining errant priests, formerly headed by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had not been informed until 1996 - 20 years after the priest's victims first informed the police.

Hardly a day goes by without new cases of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests somewhere in the world being reported in the media.

A crisis has broken out for the Catholic Church which for decades swore bishops and Vatican officials who dealt with cases of priestly paedophilia to secrecy.

Fr Lombardi, the official Vatican spokesman who is also director of Vatican Radio and Vatican TV, has been working overtime on what has developed into a major damage-control mission organised by the secretariat of state - the small group of top Vatican officials who advise the Pope on policy matters.

In practically every country paedophilia is punished as a serious crime.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is also a particularly grave sin, in theory subject to extreme sanctions, but the evidence is that priests accused of molesting children were usually moved to another parish rather than being punished or removed from office.

Scandal silence

The Vatican department headed by Joseph Ratzinger consistently seemed to listen to the priests rather than to their victims and tried to sweep all details under the carpet.

The rather lame excuse for lack of any action by the Vatican given by Fr Lombardi in the case of Fr Lawrence Murphy is that canon law, as Church law is called, "does not envision automatic penalties".

The crisis is deepening, even though last week Pope Benedict asked forgiveness and apologised on behalf of his Church for acts committed by paedophile Catholic priests in Ireland.

He has apologised previously for similar acts committed in the US and Australia but has said nothing publicly about similar scandals which took place for many years in his own country, Germany, including at the school where his own brother was choirmaster.

The Pope, as a senior Vatican cardinal head of department, was responsible for dealing with these cases for more than 20 years before his election as pontiff in 2005 and is therefore one of the best informed in the Vatican about the extent, and even the detail, of every paedophile scandal reported to Rome.

So although he now appears to be instructing his 5,000 bishops scattered around the world to apply a new policy of "zero tolerance" of child sexual abuse by Catholic priests, similar to that devised by US bishops earlier this decade, the suspicion remains that for many years the best informed person in the Vatican about priestly paedophilia failed to react to the damning evidence which arrived on his desk.

Meanwhile in Rome, leaders of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (Snap) demonstrated in front of St Peter's Square, holding up pictures of Fr Murphy and some of his victims.

Pope Benedict only has to look down from his study window overlooking St Peter's square to see that the wave of international protest against his silence has arrived on his own doorstep.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8587492.stm

How much did the Pope know?
Benedict faces tough questions about the Church's sex abuse scandal
by Michael Friscolanti on Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Two Sundays before Easter, Pope Benedict XVI sent a 4,700-word "pastoral letter" to the Roman Catholic faithful of Ireland. Read in full from the pulpits of every church in the country, the note was the Vatican's official response to two Irish investigations, which revealed—yet again—that pedophile priests had preyed on helpless children, and that certain self-serving bishops had moved heaven and earth to cover up the truth.
The Pope apologized directly to victims and their families, saying he is "truly sorry" for "these sinful and criminal acts." He admitted that "grave errors of judgment were made and failures of leadership occurred," but assured his flock that "the Church has done an immense amount of work in many parts of the world in order to address and remedy" past mistakes. Benedict's letter also spoke directly to the guilty priests, known and unknown. "I urge you to examine your conscience, take responsibility for the sins you have committed, and humbly express your sorrow," he wrote. "God's justice summons us to give an account of our actions and to conceal nothing."

The question now is whether the Pope is prepared to do the same: give an account of his actions—and conceal nothing.

Twenty-five years after the Church's darkest secret was first exposed, the endless sex abuse scandal has finally reached the Pontiff himself. Faced with damning revelations about his own dealings with predatory priests, Benedict has come under unprecedented pressure to reveal what he knew, when he knew it, and what he did (or did not) do about it. No matter how hard the Holy See tries to blame "vile" journalists who "want to involve the Pope at all costs"—or how often Benedict insists he won't be "intimidated by petty gossip," as he told parishioners on Palm Sunday—his papacy is suddenly in serious doubt. Some have gone so far as to demand his resignation, and many more are convinced that the Holy Father is not telling the entire truth.

"Is this an all-time low? Absolutely," says John Swales, a London, Ont., man who, starting at the age of 10, was repeatedly assaulted by a local priest. "The leadership is horrific. I have lost total faith in their ability to do anything with decency. How can anyone be held accountable when the Pope is not held accountable?"

Two decisions in particular—now public after so many years—have come back to haunt His Eminence, threatening to shatter his image as a no-nonsense disciplinarian and raising fresh questions about his possible role in a Vatican-wide cover-up.

In 1980, when Benedict was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the archbishop of Munich, he reportedly approved treatment for a confessed child abuser, Peter Hullermann, only to be informed a few days later that the known "danger" was being returned to priestly duties. Hullermann went on to target more altar boys, and in 1986 was sent to prison. A decade later, while the would-be pontiff was in charge of the Vatican office that investigates allegations of sexual misconduct, he declined to defrock another notorious molester who assaulted more than 200 boys at a Wisconsin school for the deaf. The priest, Lawrence C. Murphy, sent a personal letter to Ratzinger, begging for mercy. "I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood," he wrote. "I ask your kind assistance in this matter." Murphy was allowed to die a priest, buried in his vestments.

Uncomfortable questions about the Pope's personal conduct come as the Church faces a flurry of new abuse allegations spreading across Europe. In recent weeks, as Catholics marked the holy season of Lent, hundreds of victims surfaced to tell their horrific stories, not only in Ireland, but in Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands and Benedict's home nation of Germany. Authorities there are now investigating the possibility that the Pontiff's older brother, Monsignor Georg Ratzinger, turned a blind eye to sexual abuse while in charge of the famed Regensburger Domspatzen boys choir (he denies such accusations).

But it's the Pope, Catholicism's ultimate authority, who is at the centre of the storm. His reputation is under such ferocious attack that even the National Catholic Reporter, a source of balanced perspective on the sex abuse scandal, has called on Benedict to "directly answer questions, in a credible forum," about his role in the saga. "We now face the largest institutional crisis in centuries, possibly in Church history," the paper said. "How this crisis is handled by Benedict, what he says and does, how he responds and what remedies he seeks, will likely determine the future health of our Church for decades, if not centuries, to come. It is time, past time really, for direct answers to difficult questions. It is time to tell the truth."

The truth, headlines aside, is that no other pope has done more to crack down on depraved clergy than Benedict XVI. Even his harshest critics would agree that he has been infinitely more honest about the scope of the problem than his beloved predecessor, John Paul II, who tended to view pedophilia as an American phenomenon driven more by societal degradation than systemic flaws in the priesthood. Benedict met with victims, lamented the "filth" in his Church, and, in the early days of his papacy, took the symbolic step of disciplining Rev. Marcial Maciel Degollado, the notorious Mexican priest (and close friend of John Paul) who assaulted multiple children—and fathered up to seven of his own.

But it's what Benedict did behind the scenes, before he was the public face of 1.1 billion Catholics, that is now being scrutinized and second-guessed. As an archbishop in Germany, was he part of the secretive Church culture that closed its eyes to the problem? And as a cardinal—and the Vatican pit bull—was he too soft on delinquent priests?

"The average rank-and-file Catholic is up to their eyeballs with these stories, but it's a story that's not going away," says Thomas Plante, a psychology professor at Santa Clara University who has published dozens of studies about sexually abusive clergy. "It's one thing to have some bishop somewhere make a decision that was a bad decision. It's quite another thing to have the future pope make some decisions that were bad decisions."

The Hullermann file first came to Ratzinger's attention in early 1980, when another diocese asked if the molester could receive psychiatric treatment in Munich. Archbishop Ratzinger approved the request on Jan. 15, and Hullermann was granted permission to live at a church in the northern part of the city. Then, just ﬁve days later, Ratzinger reportedly received a copy of a memo from his vicar-general, announcing Hullermann's return to full pastoral duties. The pedophile went on to target more victims at another parish, plying them with booze and forcing them to watch pornographic videos.

A subordinate has taken full responsibility, claiming Ratzinger was never told that Hullermann was allowed back into the company of children. But the memo suggests otherwise. "He did what the rest of them were doing," says Rev. Thomas Doyle, an American priest who first warned the Vatican in the mid-1980s that an epic scandal was brewing. "This was a blatant example. This guy should not have been around kids, and there is no way that assignment could have been done without the archbishop's signature."

Others have rushed to the Pope's defence, pointing out the flaws in applying 2010 standards to a decision that was made three decades earlier. At the time, even the best psychiatrists knew little about pedophilia, and many of them believed it was curable. "Of course it's scandalous to have men of the cloth sexually violate children," Plante says. "It's a terrible story. But to be fair to the bishops, when decisions were made back in 1960, 1970 and 1980, people didn't know what to do with sex offenders, not only inside the Church but outside the Church."

That is hardly comfort for victims—or absolution for Pope Benedict. Bishops may not have fully understood the science behind child molestation, but their response was inexcusable. In case after case, predators were given a stern talking-to, quietly shipped to a new parish, or sent for therapy sessions that did little but postpone the next round of abuse. Thousands of children lost their innocence because bishops were more concerned with saving face than saving them. "Their motto was, `Avoid scandal at all costs. We don't care who gets hurt in the process, just avoid scandal at all costs,' " says Rev. John Allan Loftus, former executive director of the Southdown Institute, a Toronto-area facility that treats priests for a wide range of psychological disorders. "It was handled very poorly, and there is loads of blame to go around."

Including, it seems, the man who would become pope. If Ratzinger knew Hullermann was a threat, and sat idly by as he was shuffled back into a church setting, forgiveness will not be swift. "He was the captain of the ship, and he's got to bear responsibility for what happened," Loftus says. "The whole thing is dreadful. I'm at a loss for words."

A year after Hullermann arrived in Munich, Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Holy See office in charge of promoting "morals throughout the Catholic world." When he arrived in Rome in 1981, the Vatican still had no official policy on how to deal with allegations of priestly pedophilia. Only cases involving "solicitation" in the confessional, an act specifically forbidden by canon law, were forwarded for "prosecution." The rest, tragically, were handled in-house by individual bishops.

What is clear, however, is that the Vatican hierarchy, including the new chief doctrinal officer, was beginning to understand the gravity of the problem. By 1984, Rev. Gilbert Gauthe, a Louisiana priest, had been charged with 34 counts of sexual crimes against minors, and Father Doyle, then stationed at the Vatican Embassy in Washington, was warning his superiors that pedophile priests were "arising with increased frequency" and could cost the Church "one billion dollars" in lawsuits. In 1989, the media was revealing rampant abuse at Newfoundland's Mount Cashel Orphanage, run by the Christian Brothers, triggering two public inquiries and millions of dollars in settlements. And by 1994, Rev. Brendan Smyth, an Irish priest who molested more than 100 children, was in handcuffs and on front pages. The secret was out.

Yet in 1996, when bishops in Wisconsin began pleading with Ratzinger to defrock Father Murphy (the priest who had preyed on deaf boys), he declined. The police never laid charges, his office said, and Murphy was too old and sick to be put on trial.

Again, Benedict has his defenders. While many victims want all abusive priests to be defrocked, others believe the best way to protect children from dangerous clergy is to ensure that those priests remain in the fold, where they can be monitored. "It's what we call a life of prayer and penance," says Rev. Frank Morrisey, a professor of canon law at St. Paul's University in Ottawa. "He can't technically function as a priest, but if we put him out on the street and he was still a predator, then he is under no supervision. People are blaming the Church for keeping these people and putting them in special living situations, but imagine if they just said: `Fine, out you go.' "

In May 2001—after decades of abuse and obfuscation—the Vatican finally cracked the doctrinal whip in a meaningful way. Appalled by the files that did cross his desk, Ratzinger sent a letter to all bishops, ordering them to forward every allegation, new or old, to his office. The memo specified that each accusation will be "subject to the pontifical secret," ensuring the internal discipline process remained confidential for both the accused priests and their victims. Some have since characterized the letter as a smoking gun, proof that Ratzinger and the Vatican were conspiring to hide embarrassing details from police and the press. In truth, the document was a monumental step for a Church that had failed to do the moral thing for so long. For the first time, the Holy See acknowledged just how deep the rot ran, and committed itself to punishing the guilty. Nowhere in that letter were bishops—or victims—forbidden from reporting crimes to authorities. In fact, Canadian bishops already had a decade-old policy that compelled the Church to phone police at the first whiff of wrongdoing.

Of the 3,000 cases forwarded to Rome over the past decade, 20 per cent resulted in full canonical trials. A further 10 per cent resulted in priests being defrocked immediately, while in another 10 per cent they resigned voluntarily. The remaining offenders faced "other administrative and disciplinary provisions," including a ban on celebrating mass.

"People think that anything short of defrocking is bad, is cover-up, and is not being hard enough," Plante says. "But the question is: what are you going to do to make sure these guys don't have contact with kids? There is not a whole lot the Church can do to make things right for something that happened decades ago. All they can really do is make sure it doesn't happen again."

And that may be the Pope's saving grace. If the Vatican is correct—if Benedict is the man who chose honesty over secrecy, who tried to tackled the sex abuse scandal when no one else would—his legacy may survive two regrettable decisions. All he needs to do is follow his own advice: search his conscience, take responsibility for any sins he may have committed, and conceal nothing.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/06/how-much-did-the-pope-know/

The great apostasy predicted in Scripture as harbinger of end times

"Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II all read the Secret in private, as has John Paul II's right hand man, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The suppression of the Third Secret has naturally led to speculation among Catholics that its contents must be nothing short of explosive. Yet the official Vatican line is that the Secret contains nothing that has not already been revealed in Scripture. If that is so, then why is it being suppressed? In November 1984 Ratzinger gave a tantalizing hint of what the Third Secret contains when he admitted that it refers to "dangers which threaten the Faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world." "

Prophecies and Warnings of Fatima

"Fatima is a village in the center of Portugal about 70 miles north of Lisbon. It was there in 1915 that three humble peasant children began having a series of apparitions of angels and, later, the "Virgin Mary." The children were: Lucia Santos and her two cousins, Francisco and Jacinta Marto...

Lúcia Santos (middle) with her cousins
Francisco and Jacinta Marto, 1917. Lucia would keep the Third Secret until 1941, when she received an inner "locution" from the Virgin giving her leave to publish all but the last of its three parts. As for the final part, which has come to be known as the Third Secret Sister Lucy's nearly fatal bout of pleurisy in 1943 moved the Bishop of Fatima to ask her to write it down and seal it up in an envelope, so that it might be read if she died. After much agonizing and another visitation by the Lady, she complied with the Bishop's request in January 1944, and forwarded the envelope to him with the instructions that it was to be opened by the Pope and read to the world in 1960, "because the Virgin wishes it so."

But the Vatican refused to disclose the Third Secret in 1960 and continues to suppress it to this day. All the popes since John XXIII, as well as a few Curia cardinals, have read the contents of Lucy's envelope, as John Paul II is reported to have done shortly after his inauguration in October 1978.

While conversing with a small group of pilgrims in the cathedral square of Fulda, West Germany, in November 1980, the Holy Father was asked to explain why the Third Secret had not been published in 1960, as the Lady of Fatima had directed...

A question was then posed concerning the fate of the Church in Fatima's apocalyptic scenario.

John Paul: "We have to be prepared to suffer, before long, great trials which will require of us the disposition to sacrifice even our life for Christ. Through your prayers and mine, it is still possible to diminish this trial, but it is no longer possible to avert it, because only in this manner can the Church be effectively renewed. How many times has the renewal of the Church been brought about in blood! It will not be different this time."

Evidently, from John Paul's remarks at Fulda quoted above, the Third Secret of Fatima addresses this unprecedented crisis of faith and in fact predicts its onset in the latter decades of this century. This would explain the Lady's desire to have the message revealed in 1960, when a veritable epidemic of universal apostasy began to sweep across the globe. Another strong inference here is that the Church "renewal" which will resolve this great crisis may involve the martyrdom of one or more popes.

A tangible "marker" was left behind by Jacinta Marto, the younger seeress of Fatima. Shortly after the children received Our Lady's Secret in July 1917, Jacinta had two visions which she recounted to Lucia, who recorded them in her memoirs with the remark that they comprise "part of the [third] secret." Both visions concern the Holy Pope or Angelic Pastor:

"I don't know how it was, but I saw the Holy Pope in a very large house. He was kneeling by a table with his face in his hands and he was crying. Outside the house were many people. Some of them were throwing stones at him, others were cursing him and using bad language." ...

The mysterious Third Secret of Fatima remains under lock and key in a Vatican archive, while Vatican bureaucrats attempt to silence a Canadian priest leading a movement for its disclosure. On February 8, 1960 Catholics around the world were stunned when the Vatican announced in an unsigned press release that the famous Third Secret would not be disclosed that year, as expected, and would probably remain a secret forever. Thus began a controversy in the Catholic Church which shows no signs of dying out, more than 35 years later.

What is the Third Secret, and why is a Canadian priest, Father Nicholas Gruner, under fire by the Vatican bureaucracy for probing into it?

Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II all read the Secret in private, as has John Paul II's right hand man, Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The suppression of the Third Secret has naturally led to speculation among Catholics that its contents must be nothing short of explosive. Yet the official Vatican line is that the Secret contains nothing that has not already been revealed in Scripture. If that is so, then why is it being suppressed? In November 1984 Ratzinger gave a tantalizing hint of what the Third Secret contains when he admitted that it refers to "dangers which threaten the Faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world."

Father Nicholas Gruner has widely publicized the work of several Fatima experts who believe they have deduced what the Third Secret contains: a warning that the Catholic Church will undergo a catastrophic loss of faith and discipline ... the great apostasy predicted in Scripture as a harbinger of the end times."

Morgana's Observatory http://www.dreamscape.com/

The great apostasy predicted in Scripture as a harbinger of end times:

http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_first_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_second_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_third_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_fourth_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_fifth_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_sixth_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_seventh_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_eight_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_ninth_commandment.htm
http://adishakti.org/his_human_adversary/the_tenth_commandment.htm

NOTE: If this page was accessed during a web search you may wish to browse the sites listed below where this topic or related issues are discussed in detail to promote global peace, religious harmony, and spiritual development of humanity:

www.adishakti.org/
www.al-qiyamah.org/
www.adi-shakti.org/  — Divine Feminine (Hinduism)
www.holyspirit-shekinah.org/  — Divine Feminine (Christianity)
www.ruach-elohim.org/  — Divine Feminine (Judaism)
www.ruh-allah.org/  — Divine Feminine (Islam)
www.tao-mother.org/  — Divine Feminine (Taoism)
www.prajnaaparamita.org/  — Divine Feminine (Buddhism)
www.aykaa-mayee.org/  — Divine Feminine (Sikhism)
www.great-spirit-mother.org/  — Divine Feminine (Native Traditions)

"Now, the principle of Mother is in every, every scripture - has to be there." Shri Mataji, Radio Interview 1983 Oct 01, Santa Cruz, USA

Disclaimer: Our material may be copied, printed and distributed by referring to this site. This site also contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the education and research provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance freedom of inquiry for a better understanding of religious, spiritual and inter-faith issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.