RELIGION

The Pope’s Denial Problem

By reconciling with extremist bishops, Benedict embraces the far-right fringe.

By Christopher Hitchens | NEWSWEEK
Published Jan 31, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Feb 9, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: PhoneyBaloney @ 07/17/2009 1:03:07 PM

    Dead on, Mr. Hitchens. The condemnation of, not only Jews, but all nonbelievers is the single, essential trait of Christianity. I.e., believers go to heaven, nonbelievers are irrelevant. The Roman Catholic Church adds to this their highly organized condemnation of any Christians that do not take their orders from Rome, because this undercuts the Roman church's power. To deny this trait, this essential supremacism, is either (as the "traditionalists" say) a betrayal and repudiation of the essential nature of their religion, or else a subterfuge designed to fool people into believing that the Christians are nice, and that the Bible is not a dirty, bloodthirsty fairy tale. I believe that it is the latter.

  • Posted By: renovabis @ 05/06/2009 2:18:17 PM

    How on earth could a man who has such hatred for God and religion know anything about "mercy".

  • Posted By: RoseThistleArtworks @ 02/04/2009 11:58:13 AM

    Gensis 3:15 "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her Seed; It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise His heel." The "thou" that God said "shalt bruise His heel" is satan. satan's first son Cain was a murderer and Cain's sons also known as the kenites have been murderers. The kenites plotted, planned, pre-meditated and carried out the murder of Jesus. The kenites have mixed in with every race and nationalitiy, even Judah, but they are NOT of the geneology from the tribe of Judah. They are from the tribe of Cain. They call themselves Jews because they live in Judea. READ ALL OF GOD's WORD in its ENTIREITY WITH UNDERSTANDING. The entire reason we are here in this dispensation is to gather the third of God's children who followed satan in his deception. The "His heel" is Jesus' Heel that was bruised on the cross. Jesus is also known as Emmanuel which is translated, "God with us". Jesus rent the veil and opened up salvation to all races and nationalities to those who repent and believe in Him (John 3:16). Pre-meditative murderers, however, are not guaranteed forgiveness in the flesh. They must stand in front of God in the spirit with the spirit of the one they murdered to be judged. God bless those who truly search for truth, He will guide you. This is no time to be confused or researching what this man or that man said. Get into His FULL Word and study it.

    • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 12:18:47 PM

      The Biggest problem with this full word you wish to have all us study, you think is the word of God is THE WRITTEN WORD OF MAN WHICH IS UNFIT FOR THE SPOKEN WORD OF GOD. Man has alter these first written words to fit their agenda.

      • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 1:03:12 AM

        If you claim that man has altered some words in a text, you must know the original. And know that it was not written by men.

        Care to show HOW you know?

        • Posted By: Nosmanic @ 04/12/2009 1:00:22 AM

          How about the opposite if you know that the Bible was written by God they how do you know that it is and how do you know it hasn't been changed.

      • Posted By: RoseThistleArtworks @ 02/04/2009 12:27:53 PM

        God not only wrote His Word out in the stars, and documents Himself over and over again through the words of different men over thousands of years, He provided the massorah http://www.biblestudysite.com/massorah.htm in order to preserve the text. You are right to be skeptical. But, God proves His truth for those who search with open minds and study to discern the truth.

        • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 12:32:51 PM

          I believe the words The One speaks to my heart. Try to see other paths The One gives us, then you mind will be truly open.

          • Posted By: RoseThistleArtworks @ 02/04/2009 12:41:05 PM

            I've checked out many paths. I didn't find true peace of mind until I studied God's Word. Follow all the paths you would like. You have free will. Hopefully, checking out God's promises and plan is one of your paths. I trust God to guide you.

            • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 12:48:12 PM

              Then Jesus is your path, do not force it on others, allow them to follow their path. Do Not Tell Them they are going to Hell BECAUSE they do not follow your path. Your path is yours, not mine, not theirs.

              • Posted By: RoseThistleArtworks @ 02/04/2009 12:53:55 PM

                I did not say anyone is going to hell. God is judge. I said that studying God's Word gave me peace of mind after trying to follow many paths and I hoped that you would at least check it out. I also said everyone has free will. I am not judging you. I don't even know you.

                • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 1:13:18 PM

                  I'm sorry, I've been reading to many of this post that are so one sided and just jumbled everything up in my head. I hope your path is peaceful.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 2:38:14 PM

      "satan's first son Cain was a murderer"

      Cain was Adam's first son. Read the original HEBREW text from a legitmate Jewish source like Koren Publishers of Jerusalem whihc uses the Hebrew transliterations for names not he ) and you will see that iin Beresith (Genesis) 4:1 it says:
      And the man (Adam) knew the Havva (Eve) his wife; and she concieved, and bore Qayin (Cain) saying I have acquired a manchild from the Lord.

      Therefore Qayin (Cain) was Adam and Eve's son and was a gioft from God to them. What you call satan had nothing to do with him.

      "The kenites plotted, planned, pre-meditated and carried out the murder of Jesus."
      What a crock.

      "READ ALL OF GOD's WORD in its ENTIREITY WITH UNDERSTANDING. "

      I have read and taught all of the TaNaKH (what you guys call the OT) and a fair amount of Talmud and Mishnah. Now it is still man's word. And I personally do not buy into the religious mythology therein. But it says nothing about Jesus.

      Judaism gets the final interpretation rights on what the TaNaKH says and means since they wrote it (and defined how it was to be interpretted).

      Judaism also do not agree with you on what HaSatan is. It is HaSatan because it is a job title. It is effectively "the accuser". Jewish mystical tradition (and the Oral law that Christains reject) holds that HaSatan is God's number one adviser/proponent. He only does what God allows and tasks him with. His job is to assure that anyone God wants to raise up to be a spokeperson for God is up to the task. He is the original super vetting committee. He wants to make sure that no one who represents God to the world has major failings that would permit thoe who oppose God to point to the spokesperson and say "Hey look at the fool that the Abrahamic God has chosen. If that deity culd choose a clown like that he must be a fraud and weaka*s.". HaSatan wants to make sure that phe prospective spokeperson is pure of heart and intent. He sets up tests for them. He is completely neutral. If someone passes the tests then he is the first to declare that they are truly worthy to be God's spokesperson.

      Now if by some chance the serpent is HaSatan (which he is not, he more likley a worker bee for HaSatan) he is doing exactly what HaSatan is supposed to be doing (and therefore doing exactly God wants.) He is testing Adam and Eve to be sure that they are truly worthy to reside in "paradise". They fail, which is actually a good thing because paradise is a fraud. Without death humans take things and life for granted.

      The authors of the TaNaKH came up with that tale to teach their followers to follow the rules they wrote and to understadn why life is not always fair. But it never had a notion of Original Sin that passed down through the ages.

      • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:57:15 AM

        Er, why do you concede the TaNaKH as God's word? Last I checked, it was written by man or men claiming to quote God.

        What, God cannot speak for himself? Of course, not

  • Posted By: tired of the versus game @ 04/08/2009 9:27:45 AM

    As a Hispanic American who grew up in the Catholic Church (parochial school graduate and former altar boy) I find myself estranged from my religion and all faiths as practiced today. I feel as if I have fallen back to the times when communism and fascism dominated a considerable amount of our geography. Every self-righteous seeks to impose their beliefs on how others should live their lives. From my perspective, this is the source of all our problems to day. As it is extremely difficult to herd independtently minded people into a single stable, the political power brokers discovered they could use the single common thread that unifies mankind, RELIGION. But, inadvertently they created multiple stables which could not be equally fed. Now all those mentally trapped in these stables are at each others throat for the limited hay available instead of leaving to grow their own hay. If each of us are independently responsible before God then leave me alone to lead the life I choose. Yes, and grow my own hay.

  • Posted By: dr doug @ 04/06/2009 3:56:28 AM

    Perhaps I should have read all the other comments before I offered my simple one. So now a short "comment" on the comments. WHAT A BUNCH OF GIBBERISH!. Mr. Hitchen's article gave all the religious not-jobs a chance to spout a bunch of their own home-grown nonsense! It's easy to see whay Mr. Hitchens is the professional writer - most of the comments were impossible to understand and spewed their own paeticular brand of thier "Religulous" on the rest of us!

  • Posted By: dr doug @ 04/06/2009 3:48:47 AM

    While as often as not I may disagree with Mr. Hitchens I am ALWAYS thought-provoked and entertained by reading his thoughs. I've got a graduate degree and think I am pretty sharp but I also always learn from Mr. Hitchens as well. And, while I love God but don't care much for religion, I certainly appreciated the insights.

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 02/01/2009 5:58:36 PM

    As a bisexual man, I can say I have no love for just about any church in existence.

    • Posted By: newtral @ 02/02/2009 7:44:07 AM

      Vigilance, keep it into yourself.

      • Posted By: not-fooled-by-slick-talking-charlatans @ 02/03/2009 12:34:04 PM

        I guess Newtral isn't very neutral, is he?

        • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 1:00:53 AM

          Since he is accurate, why care?

      • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/03/2009 3:47:24 PM

        What's wrong in being bisexual? and I am a woman.

        • Posted By: jimgreen @ 02/04/2009 5:06:15 PM

          Do you have nice ***?

          • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 5:10:21 PM

            Careful jim or her husband will introduce you to one of his axes.
            Gives a whole new meaning to the term splitting headache!

          • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 5:21:52 PM

            JIMGREEN, WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF, YOU STILL HAVE NOT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. HAVE YOU EVER WALKED WITH THE DEAD?

            And as far as having a nice f*ck! Try it w/ your own you may like it!

  • Posted By: jenntags @ 02/04/2009 1:42:15 PM

    Christopher Hitchens is obviously an extremely angry man with very little sense of fairness. His attack on the Catholic Church is unjust and poorly researched. The Church is currently investigating the Bishop who claims that the Holocaust never happened. They have also demanded that this Bishop recant the statement. Unfortunately, there are some not very nice people in this world who slip through the cracks, and this Bishop is one such person. This Bishop needs our forgiveness, as Christ forgave all.

    • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:59:02 AM

      Well let one of them fornicate with you, orally, if you prefer, and then you can forgive them (or not, if you like it). They must be itching to get some sexual gratification now that the young choir boys have been deemed off limits

  • Posted By: markaj4 @ 02/03/2009 12:23:33 PM

    First of all, the jews denied the christ; offered him up for death. They rejected the christ after seeing the wonderful things he did on behalf of the jewish people first. Yet in 2009, the jews claim to awaiting the great messiah. Guess what, he already came and gave his blessing the other nations. Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church is just as digusting and flithly as the so called holy people of god. Which so called religious pope blessed the nazi party and sanction the killing of more than 7 million people, because they were not german?? which religion just moves preist around when they are caught molesting little boys? All religion has a heavy price to pay soon.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/03/2009 2:20:28 PM

      "First of all, the jews denied the christ;"

      There is not such thing in Judaism as a "christ" figure. It is has never been aprt of Judaism (or th TaNKH) that someone can die for oother's sins or that salvation is through another.

      "offered him up for death."
      That is a lie. The Romans decided that he was a troublemaker (which was a capital crime in Roman law). The Judeans simply refused to choose him over someone else for execution. That was an old Roman trick. To make the locals choose between two criminals for execution, and if they refused not only did the Romans kill both criminals but then they also executed dozens of ther innocents. In Judea it was something the Romans did EVERY Passover. Of course sometimes they did not even bother to ask the locals and just chose themselves. So assuming that they even asked the Judeans which one to choose (and there is no real evidence that they that happened aside from the unsubstantiated claims in the NT, which is not a valid source of evidence) of course the would choose someone to save someone that they knew over a stranger. Big deal.

      "They rejected the christ after seeing the wonderful things he did on behalf of the jewish people first."

      He did nothing wonderful.

      "Yet in 2009, the jews claim to awaiting the great messiah."

      Not all do. Also a messiah was NEVER to be worshipped, and was NEVER to be considered a "son of god" and was NEVER to be sacrificed for the jewish people.

      "Guess what, he already came and gave his blessing the other nations."

      Not really.

      • Posted By: michaelpac @ 02/03/2009 3:14:10 PM

        ConstitutionLover: Your points are mostly valid but you come up hard against a logical fallacy in your response to the line "offered him up for death." You note that the NT is not a valid source of evidence, and I agree with that. However, you are arguing about the crucifixion of Jesus, of which the only evidence that exists is the NT. So, you need to argue there's no real evidence Jesus was crucified (so the remainder of your argument is superfluous and, worse, fallacious). If you assume the crucifixion of Christ, you have to concede the culpability of the Jews or you have to make the case that you know which parts of the NT are true and which are not. Good luck with that one!

        • Posted By: jimgreen @ 02/03/2009 3:52:40 PM

          NT is not the only evidence. Hundreds of mediavel and rennaissance paintings in European museums depict the crucifixion. Pictorial evidence.

          • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:55:11 AM

            Pictorial evidence?

            BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            All the same, the alleged crucifixion is hardly interesting. The alleged resurrection is another thing.

          • Posted By: nimodahooligan @ 02/03/2009 4:25:01 PM

            jesus was PRE-MIDEVIL... the "pictorial" evidence comes from the imaginations of artists. there wasnt a guy sitting by the cross while jesus bled to death asking him to hold still so he can "work his magic" while he got stuck in the chest with a spear.

            • Posted By: jimgreen @ 02/03/2009 4:56:33 PM

              Yes, I was being sarcastic. Stories like the NT change all the time in the telling.

        • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/03/2009 3:18:58 PM

          Actually you don't have to "admit" the culpability of Jews. He was tried and executed by the Romans.

      • Posted By: michaelpac @ 02/03/2009 3:13:30 PM

        ConstitutionLover: Your points are mostly valid but you come up hard against a logical fallacy in your response to the line "offered him up for death." You note that the NT is not a valid source of evidence, and I agree with that. However, you are arguing about the crucifixion of Jesus, of which the only evidence that exists is the NT. So, you need to argue there's no real evidence Jesus was crucified (so the remainder of your argument is superfluous and, worse, fallacious). If you assume the crucifixion of Christ, you have to concede the culpability of the Jews or you have to make the case that you know which parts of the NT are true and which are not. Good luck with that one!

        • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/03/2009 7:35:19 PM

          Personally I think that whole NT is false. But since the Romans did in fact crucify criminals. And there is independent evidence that they did try to force local populations where they ruled to make those types of choices under threat of largers quantities of executions as a form of terror inducement (to reaffirm that they were in charge). And there is independent evidence that they did do executions around the Jewish holiday of Passover most of the years that they ruled that area (apparently some of their own records confirm that although they do not mention most of the criminals names). Therefore if Jesus existed (I have no opinion on that one) and if Jesus was exectued by the Romans then he most likely was crucified and the local leadership mihgt have been told to choose which of several criminals was crucified.

      • Posted By: jimgreen @ 02/03/2009 3:50:15 PM

        Yep, any establishment power would consider a populist revolutionary hippie to be a threat. Rome behaved according to the book.

    • Posted By: jimgreen @ 02/03/2009 3:48:07 PM

      Re: Guess what, he already came...

      Wow, that was fast, I've been stroking myself for 10 min and haven't come yet

      • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 10:46:43 AM

        IRREVERANCE AND SARCASM WARNING - Do not read any further unless you are willing to read a bit of irreverance and sarcasm.

        Jim,

        You might need better reading or video material.

        The bible probably does not work that well (wrong type of fantasy work unless you are into S&M).

        LOL!!!!

        • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 11:52:54 AM

          But done right, S&M con be fun. L:MAO

          • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 2:52:10 PM

            Ah yes...the fine line between pain and pleasure.

            One has to wonder if those fire and brimstone believers go home to their spouses and achieve mutual orgasm thinkiing about people burning in their fantasy land hell (maybe it is the only way they can achieve it.) They seem to so enjoy threatening people with that garbage.

            LOL!! };-)

            • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 3:32:33 PM

              LMOA, we must be more alike then different, our paths must criss cross an awful lot.

              • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 4:38:56 PM

                I have studied a wide range of religions. I was raised in the Jewish Religion but not a Kosher home (synangogue on Friday nigth or Saturday morning and Hebrew school until I was 15, but also raised by a father who stressed learning and self exploration and knowledge.) It was because of that background that I finally became an atheist.

                I have freinds and acquaintances who are from varying denominations of Christianty, Islam and Judiasm as well as Hindu, Sikh, Taoist, Buddhist, Deist, Native American/First Nation, and several Pagan/Polythiest and Pantheist including Strega, Wiccan, Alexandrian, and "Kitchen Witches".

                On the whole I respect them and they respect me and we never try to convert each other. We learn from each other (some of the herbology/herbal medicine stuff I learned from my Native American and Pagan friends is amazing.) I have helped set up Christmas Trees (I spend many hours to find a beautiful hand-blown glass ornament each year for one of my oldest frineds and her family) and have celebrated Eid ul-Fitr (I often sit and take turns playing the dumbek [goblet drum]). I have been a several handfastings, and weddings of a varieyt of religions as well as same-sex marriages/commitment ceremonies using both secular and varying religious perspectives (I even said some of the Jewish prayers years ago when two gay friends, a Jew and a Unitarian got married, [It was when I was still a practicing Jew]).

                Just because I do not believe in god or religion does not mean that I cannot respect the value that is can serve in those who do.

                • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 5:00:04 PM

                  It's wonderful, isn't it. To learn, to know and to share. Saying you do not believe in a Higher Power, does not mean you do not pactice your own religion within your heart.

                  To me, way I was raised I guess, religion is within the heart. What you feel there, values, respect, and when you need to find the strenght to continue. There in your heart. Sometimes just walking in nature will fill the heart with what is needed.

                  I guess right now in my path I'm a "Kitchen Witch", but expanding all the time, needing to learn more about herbal healing. Love is love, no matter who it is between. The souls know who they need to be with.

                  • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 5:27:32 PM

                    "Saying you do not believe in a Higher Power, does not mean you do not pactice your own religion within your heart. "

                    Not sure about that.

                    I just follow a code of ethics cobbled together after years of study. Seeing what works and what has not worked.

                    For me it is:

                    Start by giving all beings basic respect and depending on how they behave to others, determines whether they got more or less.

                    Treat the planet well and know that it is not ours to trash.

                    Unconditionally love my wife, dog, family and freinds and be willing to die to protect them.

                    Love and honor the US Constitution for it is the most sacred document to this country as an entity.

                    Give time, caring and money willingly to those less fortunate and not expect anything in return (I tend to like the pay it forward viewpoint).

                    Learn something new each and every day.

                    Laugh openly and often.

                    Love passioanately.

                    Do not fear death but do not seek it out either.

                    Know that the only immortality that exists is what you teach others who will pas it to those generations that follow. The immortality is not in your name but what you taught.

                    • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/04/2009 5:58:04 PM

                      We must have the same teachers.

                  • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/04/2009 5:42:59 PM

                    "I guess right now in my path I'm a "Kitchen Witch", but expanding all the time, needing to learn more about herbal healing."

                    Two great books on herbology/herbalism

                    Culpeper's Complete Herbal - A great book that has not only basic info on almost all herbs but also theri medicinal properties, instruction on making herbal remedies and even "majick" aspects. One that all the truly skilled herbalists recommended.

                    Mastering Herbalism - by Paul Huson - A lot of history, use (medicinal, incenses, food etc.), how to grow or where to find in nature, etc.

                    Hope they help.

  • Posted By: Fajalou @ 02/05/2009 2:05:45 AM

    http://deacbench.blogspot.com/2009/02/vatican-to-sspx-bishop-recant.html
    Do people not realize that the pope did not RECONCILE anyone?
    The lifting of the excommunication has freed the four bishops from a most grave canonical penalty, but it has not changed in any way the juridical situation of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, which for the moment does not enjoy any canonical recognition in the Catholic Church. Neither do the four bishops, though liberated from the excommunication, have a canonical function in the Church and they do not licitly exercise a ministry in it.
    All Pope Benedict XVI did was say; 'Hey you can come back,' but if you read the top post he also said, 'Hey you can't have teachings which contradict with the Church, the Holocaust being one of them.'
    Finally:
    3. Declaration on the Shoah.

    The viewpoints of Bishop Williamson on the Shoah are absolutely unacceptable and firmly rejected by the Holy Father, as he himself noted last Jan. 28, when, referring to that savage genocide, he reaffirmed his full and indisputable solidarity with our brother recipients of the First Covenant, and affirmed that the memory of that terrible genocide should induce "humanity to reflect on the unpredictable power of evil when it conquers the human heart," adding that the Shoah remains "for everyone a warning against forgetting, against negating or reductionism, because violence committed against even one human being is violence against all."

    Bishop Williamson, to be admitted to episcopal functions in the Church, must also distance himself in an absolutely unmistakable and public way from his position on the Shoah, which was unknown to the Holy Father in the moment of the lifting of the excommunication.


    So thanks, Mr. Hitchens, and thanks Newsweek for vilifying the One True Church, once again. Hopefully in your next issue, you can clear up these horrific errors by stating what I wrote above, that way, the Truth will actually be known, not just the rantings of a secular atheist. Let the Church talk for itself, don't let an atheist talk for it.

    Veritas vos liberabit.

    Pax.

    • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:53:16 AM

      What's the big deal? Herr Ratzinger, a youth Nazi welcomes a Holocaust denier. BFD, considering Hitler was a Catholic himself and the Church signed the concordat with him

  • Posted By: Canuckistani_PeaceLord @ 02/07/2009 11:43:16 PM

    People who are willing to fight and kill each other over who God is, or what name appears on His driver's license, are probably not on a first name basis with God anyhow. As groups, tribes, religious sects, or gang members on the street, people will always be a disappointment to someone. Some of us shout our dismay louder than others but all that shouting comes from our own shortcomings. If all of us would fight the evil within ourselves, then others would not feel that they are fighting evil without us. When others do fight evil without us, they often include us in the evil they are fighting.
    Unfortunately, once we have defeated evil, it is all too easy to embrace it again, in the name of our own good cause. The circles just keep on turning. So, who really can! chuck the first stone?
    Canuckistani_PeaceLord
    http://freedinasart.wordpress.com

    • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:51:08 AM

      Tell me where and I will.

      Didn't Yahweh (Jesus's daddy) instruct the great Moses to destroy a tribe by chucking stones? Or was it chucking the infants heads against stones?

  • Posted By: bcg826 @ 02/05/2009 11:16:18 PM

    I am Catholic, and I feel the need to defend my faith. First of all, I would like to ask Mr. Hitchens and any other non-believer, "Who ever told you the Catholic Church is perfect?" We are made up of humans, therefore no matter how hard we strive to live by Jesus' teachings. We do strive to do so, but since we are imperfect, we often fall short of that. With that in mind, Jesus did call us to forgive one another. By welcoming these people back into the Church the Pope is acknowledging that. Someone else posted on here that Jesus hung out with the people no one else wanted to be around. And that's true. Because those people have parts of themselves that need to be purified and redeemed and aligned with God. The "good people" in this world already are getting there (since we all are flawed and can never be fully aligned with God). Obviously there's problems with the Church, but there's also God's grace which offers us another chance to reconcile with Him. And that is what the Pope is modeling. He is doing what he can to act as Christ and doesn't deserve to be looked down upon for that.

    • Posted By: Poster1039 @ 02/07/2009 1:27:42 PM

      Sins are forgiven if and when they are repented. Is this fringe group repenting their anti-Semitism? If not, then it does not make sense to call this despicable reunion forgiveness. It is a shameful, unconscionable capitulation to evil, and, as a Catholic, I am against it.

      • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:49:40 AM

        Why are you still a Catholic, if you are against this? Catholicism without complete acceptance of the inerrant Pope being unCatholic and all ...

    • Posted By: bcg826 @ 02/05/2009 11:23:52 PM

      * therefore no matter how hard we strive to live by Jesus' teachings, we fall short.

      • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:48:10 AM

        According to whom?

    • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/06/2009 6:53:49 AM

      Your Church has decided that on matters of faith the Pope cannot be mistaken. Dkoesn't that pretty much mean you think he's perfect--at least in any matter that should be of concern to you. I've always wondered how the Popes' ,mothers would react to their sons "perfection."

      • Posted By: bcg826 @ 02/07/2009 10:20:28 PM

        There is a difference between being perfect and being infallible. They're different. If he was a perfect man, then he would be unable to make a mistake or err in every aspect of his life. You can't ask that of any human being. Church doctrine states that the Pope is infallible when he speaks "ex-cathedra" that is, from the Chair of Peter when speaking on matters of faith and morals. Throughout the history of the Church that has only happened twice. So basically infallibilty is just a matter of his authority in the Church, and that's it.

        • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/08/2009 10:04:20 AM

          I dare say that the rank and file do not appreciate the finer distinctions.

  • Posted By: martialguy @ 02/05/2009 11:13:21 PM

    Scientologists beliveve that:

    * Psychiatry and psychology are destructive fields which must be abolished.
    * Spiritual beings ( thetans) live many lifetimes. Thetans lived among extraterrestrial cultures before becoming trapped in bodies on Earth. Thetans were brainwashed by these extraterrestrial cultures as a means of population control
    * Thetans have existed for ???tens of trillions??? of years. During that time, thetans have been exposed to a vast number of traumatic incidents and have made a great many decisions that influence their present state. Thetans were conditioned by extraterrestrial dictatorships such as Helatrobus in an attempt to brainwash and control the population. These early events collectively are called "space opera."
    * Xenu (sometimes Xemu) was the ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Isolating thetans and neutralizing their ill effects are neccesary.

    Christians believe that night and day existed before the sun, the earth was flat; and the earth is just a few...thousand years old and.... dinosaurs therefore roamed in peoples' backyards.


    If you have average IQ and you research more into religions; probably you want to convert to...alcoholism

    • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/06/2009 10:11:28 AM

      Don't put all Christians in the same bucket.

      • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/06/2009 12:47:40 AM

        There are MANY buckets of Christian delusions? How can you tell them apart?

      • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/06/2009 6:53:17 PM

        Sorry, catspaw. I thought you were speaking to me.

  • Posted By: Nosmanic @ 03/06/2009 1:54:19 AM

    I believe that accepting a member back that denied the Holocaust calls into question his believe of the Holocaust and/or feeling on future genocide.

  • Posted By: kbwilliams57 @ 02/19/2009 1:19:47 PM

    Why have Hitchens do an expose on the Pope or Catholocism? Why don't you get David Duke to do a feature article about President Obama? Kelli Williams

    • Posted By: Simpleton @ 04/05/2009 11:55:04 PM

      David Duke is illiterate

  • Posted By: cthulhu.ftw @ 03/16/2009 11:38:55 AM

    hm the catholic church finaly has a leader that fits ther ideals.... an old white nazi.
    "jesus died for his own sins not for mine"

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 03/02/2009 1:05:43 PM

    The difference between Christopher Hitchens and David Duke is that Hitchens's observations are reality-based.

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/11/2009 6:28:01 PM

    I read BOTH your posts.

    • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/12/2009 10:25:21 AM

      What do you mean by BOTH post, look through this, you will see me very clearly.

      I think I scared "jimgreen" he never answered my question.

      • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/12/2009 4:51:04 PM

        I meant every post you write, catspaw, and you as well, constitutionlover

        • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/13/2009 9:16:37 AM

          Thank you. And I always read yours as well.

          • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/13/2009 11:04:33 AM

            I enjoy reading both you guys, too.

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/09/2009 8:04:20 PM

    I think we can both live with that. This forum, after all, is not conducive to posts the lengths of some chapters. It appears to me that the Scientologist pretty well brought to a halt the other topic we were enjoying. Do you actually read through all some of the more egregious posters write?

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/10/2009 8:22:27 AM

      "I think we can both live with that."
      Agreed.

      "This forum, after all, is not conducive to posts the lengths of some chapters."
      Especially Faulkner chapters (not one of my favorite authors.)

      "It appears to me that the Scientologist pretty well brought to a halt the other topic we were enjoying."
      Don't they always.

      "Do you actually read through all some of the more egregious posters write?""
      Nope. There are posters who I have learned are not worth the time and effort. There are others who because ALL that they do is quote man-made religious texts on all topics (literally everyting is bible quotes, no intelligent commentary whatsoever) for their arguments are not deserving of consideration.

      • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/10/2009 1:49:46 PM

        Unlike some freestyling kitchen witch like me!

        • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/10/2009 9:26:14 PM

          Your posts I always read.

          I had this really bizarre vision of your having a cloak covered with stars but they were all throwing stars. Gives a whole new meaning to the term star struck. LOL!!!

          • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/12/2009 10:23:40 AM

            I love reading your post, too. There so insightful and enjoyable its amazing.

            I going to let Dawg, my husband, know about the cloak. LMOA!!!!

            • Posted By: catspaw @ 02/12/2009 10:29:12 AM

              "There so" I meant to say, "They're so"

  • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/08/2009 1:01:17 PM

    I don't mean to be rude, but if it takes more than five or six lines to make a point, it's babble. Throwing words at it doesn't make it intellectual, folks.

    • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/09/2009 8:53:50 AM

      sms29s66,

      That is not a valid assertion. There are times that five or six lines is not suffiicient to adequately explain a point. nd on issues as complex as some of the ones on this board, that is even more the case. I am not saying that the post you were specifically referring to was not too long, but you and I have had back and forths on other issues that could not have been addressed with your 5-6 line limit. Intellectual conversations cannot be limited to a set number.

      • Posted By: sms29s66 @ 02/09/2009 12:08:23 PM

        I write detailed reports for a living. I train people to write detailed reports. I usually begin training them by slashing two-thirds of their verbiage to get to the actual content. I think we all remember the days of filling the blue book and hoping our professors would be dazzled by our footwork rather than zeroing in on the fact that we knew not of what we wrote. Sorry, I'm of the Hemmingway school of writing--not Faulkner. You won't convince me otherwise.

        • Posted By: Constitution Lover @ 02/09/2009 5:15:17 PM

          There are times when you viewpoint is valid. Not always.

          I am a professor, and there are times when less is better, but there are also times when less leaves out the detais that mare needed to support an assertion. I have seen several short and semmingly well written answers that did not address the greater issues or lost the grade due to missing out on a salient point.

          We will have to agree to disagree.

    • Posted By: infideluxe @ 02/08/2009 4:02:28 PM

      I'm sorry, sms29s66, but have you a retort, or just an ad hominem?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse