Christopher Hitchens Spitting Venom At The Pope And Vatican

[NATO AIR]

And on a few points (vietnam, cardinal law, vatican interference in american democracy) he is correct to an extent.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2116085/

Papal Power
What no one else will say about John Paul II.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Friday, April 1, 2005, at 2:51 PM PT

The papacy is not, in theory, a man-made office at all. Its holder is chosen for life, by God himself, to hold the keys of Peter and to be the vicar of Christ on earth. This is yet another of the self-imposed tortures that faith inflicts upon itself. It means that you have to believe that the pope before last, who held on to the job for a matter of weeks before dying (or, according to some, before being murdered) was either unchosen by God in some fit of celestial pique, or left unprotected by heaven against his assassins. And it means that you have to believe that the public agony and humiliation endured by the pontiff was also part of some divine design. In the case of a presidency, or even a monarchy, provision can be made for abdication and succession when physical and mental deliquescence occur. But there could obviously not have been any graceful retirement in the case of John Paul II. The next vicar of Christ could hardly be expected to perform his sacred duties knowing that there was a still-living vicar of Christ, however decrepit, on the scene. Thus, and as with the Schiavo case, every last morsel of misery has been compulsorily extracted from the business of death. For the people who credit the idea, apparently, heaven can wait. Odd.

I leave it to the faith-based to wrestle with all this. Or rather, I would be happy to do so if they would stay out of my life. But there is one detail that sticks with me. A few years ago, it seemed quite probable that Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston would have to face trial for his appalling collusion in the child-rape racket that his diocese had been running. The man had knowingly reassigned dangerous and sadistic criminals to positions where they would be able to exploit the defenseless. He had withheld evidence and made himself an accomplice, before and after the fact, in the one offense that people of all faiths and of none have most united in condemning. (Since I have more than once criticized Maureen Dowd in this space, I should say now that I think she put it best of all. A church that has allowed no latitude in its teachings on masturbation, premarital sex, birth control, and divorce suddenly asks for understanding and "wiggle room" for the most revolting crime on the books.)

Anyway, Cardinal Law isn't going to face a court, now. He has fled the jurisdiction and lives in Rome, where a sinecure at the Vatican has been found for him. (Actually not that much of a sinecure: As archpriest of the Rome Basilica of St. Mary Major, he also sits on two boards supervising priestly discipline—yes!—and the appointment of diocesan bishops.) Even before this, he visited Rome on at least one occasion to discuss whether or not the church should obey American law. And it has been conclusively established that the Vatican itself—including his holiness—was a part of the coverup and obstruction of justice that allowed the child-rape scandal to continue for so long.

Continue Article

 

[Annie]

And on a few points (vietnam, cardinal law, vatican interference in american democracy) he is correct to an extent.

I disagree with the point about interference in American Democracy and do not understand the Vietnam reference. On Cardinal Law, I agree.

 

[freeandfun1]

He shouldn't lump all Christian faiths with Catholicism. There are many of faith that do not agree with Catholic doctrine. Notice how he insinuates that all people of faith follow the same guidelines.

 

[NATO AIR]

I disagree with the point about interference in American Democracy and do not understand the Vietnam reference. On Cardinal Law, I agree.

How much of this laxity on the death penalty has to do with Vatican interference and pressure?

And on Vietnam, I believe he is referring to the questionable US support of that country's tiny Catholic minority as the dominant party in South Vietnemese politics and national leadership.

I do not like how he lumps the faiths together, but this is Hitchens, and he manages to make a lot of people love and hate him at the same time by being both incredibly honest and shamefully dishonest on different points in the same essay.

 

[Annie]

How much of this laxity on the death penalty has to do with Vatican interference and pressure?

And on Vietnam, I believe he is referring to the questionable US support of that country's tiny Catholic minority as the dominant party in South Vietnemese politics and national leadership.

I do not like how he lumps the faiths together, but this is Hitchens, and he manages to make a lot of people love and hate him at the same time by being both incredibly honest and shamefully dishonest on different points in the same essay.

I do not mind Hitchens, though I don't always agree with him. Some got the mistaken notion that he is conservative, never has been.

The Church teaches what is teaches, life is important. At conception, birth, and death. They use all the trappings of the state they are, from diplomats to charasmatic leaders when they can get them. If that influences the death penalty, so be it. Would be pretty hard to fathom though, since the Republicans are in control and they are overwhelmingly for it.

On Vietnam, well again, the Church will back Catholic/Christian over atheists, Buddhists, or whatever. That's their job.

 

[Merlin1047]

And on a few points (vietnam, cardinal law, vatican interference in american democracy) he is correct to an extent.

He has a few point, but they're hard to pick out from amongst the BS.

This guy certainly is rather free with his interpretation of the facts. Wonder if he moonlights at the DNC?

 

[NATO AIR]

He has a few point, but they're hard to pick out from amongst the BS.

This guy certainly is rather free with his interpretation of the facts. Wonder if he moonlights at the DNC?

The DNC hates him because he was a "liberal" who attacked Clinton's dishonesty on Lewinski and other issues.

He does tend to be loose with the facts, but usually makes some good points.

 

[freeandfun1]

The DNC hates him because he was a "liberal" who attacked Clinton's dishonesty on Lewinski and other issues.

He does tend to be loose with the facts, but usually makes some good points.

I've seen him make some good points on the WoT, the WMD situation in Iraq, etc. that seem to get him in trouble with liberals. He just seems to have a real issue with people of faith. Much like Maureen Dowd seems to have issues with men. Who knows, maybe somebody he was close to was very religious but also did some bad things to him so now he hates anything even closely resembling religion.